applied

sciences
Article
Aerodynamic Study of the NASA’s X-43A
Hypersonic Aircraft
Àlex Navó and Josep M. Bergada *
Department of Fluid Mechanics, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08034 Barcelona, Spain;
alexnavopinyol@gmail.com
* Correspondence: josep.m.bergada@upc.edu




Received: 23 September 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 19 November 2020


Abstract: A 2D aerodynamic study of the NASA’s X-43A hypersonic aircraft is developed using
two different approaches. The first one is analytical and based on the resolution of the oblique
shock wave and Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave theories supported by an in-house program and
considering a simplified aircraft’s design. The second approach involves the use of a Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) package, OpenFOAM and the real shape of the aircraft. The aerodynamic
characteristics defined as the lift and drag coefficients, the aerodynamic efficiency and the pitching
moment coefficient are calculated for different angles of attack. Evaluations are made for an incident
Mach number of 7 and an altitude of 30 km. For both methodologies, the required angles of attack
to achieve a Vertical Force Balance (VFB) and a completely zero pitching moment conditions are
considered. In addition, an analysis to optimise the nose configuration of the aircraft is performed.
The mass flow rate throughout the scramjet as a function of the angle of attack is also presented in the
CFD model in addition to the pressure, density, temperature and Mach fields. Before presenting the
corresponding results, a comparison between the aerodynamic coefficients in terms of the angle of
attack of both models is carried out in order to properly validate the CFD model. The paper clarifies
the requirements needed to make sure that both oblique shock waves originating from the leading
edge meet just at the scramjet inlet clarifying the advantages of fulfilling such condition.

Keywords: X-43A; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); aerodynamics; compressible flow;

hypersonic flow

1. Introduction
NASA X-43A, also known as a Hyper-X Research Vehicle (HXRV), was one of the different NASA’s
uncrewed hypersonic aircraft designed with the innovative scramjet propulsion technology to fly at
high speeds and high altitudes. Hyper-X was also the experimental hypersonic flight research program
of X-43A managed by NASA whose main objective was to demonstrate, validate and implement the
technology, the experimental techniques and the computational methods and tools for design and
performance predictions of a hypersonic aircraft with an airframe-integrated, scramjet propulsion
system. In order to obtain the required data, NASA designed and fabricated three similar X-43A
vehicles; two of them were designed to fly at Mach 7 and the other one at Mach 10. All of them
measured around 3.66 m in length and weighted roughly 1361 kg.
Since the aerospace industry that is focused on hypersonic flight vehicles such as X-43A is very
demanding in terms of high performance, a large amount of profound studies based on experimental
techniques or computational algorithms on each technological part of those aircraft are extremely
necessary. Among the first studies undertaken on such hypersonic flight vehicles, it is interesting to
highlight the one carried out by Frendi [1], where three-dimensional inviscid CFD results in support
of the Hyper-X vehicle aerodynamic database were presented. Frendi considered two geometric

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211; doi:10.3390/app10228211 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 2 of 23

configurations of the aircraft and focused on the effects of Mach number, sideslip and angle of attack
disturbances on the vehicle stability and control. A prediction of integrated vehicle aero-propulsive
performance including an integration of aerodynamic and propulsion flow fields was introduced
by Cockrell et al. [2]. They used CFD simulations supported by ground test data. Buning et al. [3]
described the use of several computational methods for investigating the aerodynamics of the research
and launch vehicles in close proximity under the hypothesis of unsteady effects. Aerodynamic database
extrapolation and differences between wind-tunnel and flight environments were evaluated.
Ahuja and Hartfield [4] developed a study focusing on the optimisation of the internal engine
flow channel using genetic algorithms based on the decoupling and addition via explicit formulations,
the viscous, thermal, species-transport and combustion physics into the implicitly solved Euler
formulations of fluid flow. A CFD-based steady state and an unsteady solution initiations approach
were implemented by Gupta and Voelker [5] in order to analyse the aeroelasticity of X-43A. Gupta et al.
also presented an aerothermoelastic-acoustics simulation process of a cantilever wing with a NACA
002 airfoil and the X-43A aircraft in [6].
The pressure distribution over this particular aircraft was numerically determined by Elizarova
and Shirokov [7], where they created an algorithm based on the quasi-gas dynamic system of equations
with the objective of introducing artificial dissipation coefficients. They also illustrated the level lines
of density and streamlines in the computational domain in which a vortex at the trailing edge of the
aircraft was identified. Zheleznyakova and Surzhikov [8,9] obtained the lift and drag coefficients
and the lift–drag ratio for several angles of attack by solving the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes
equations. The comparison between these parameters and different experimental measurements gave
a relatively good agreement. Furthermore, the Mach, temperature and pressure fields in the central
axial section of X-43A for different Mach numbers and a zero angle of attack and the variation of the
flow structure around the aircraft with the increase in the Mach number for different angles of attack
were provided.
The flight dynamics affecting a CFD-based two-dimensional air-breathing generic hypersonic
flight vehicle resembling the X-43A aircraft were described by Mirmirani et al. [10], where the nonlinear
longitudinal equations of motion were derived using the inverse square law gravitational model and
the centripetal acceleration. Khankhasaeva et al. [11] studied numerically the influence of energy
sources on the flow past X-43A at different angles of attack and showed that energy input in front
of the bow of the aircraft led to a significant weakening of the bow shock wave and an increase in
aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle. Bonelli et al. [12] developed a new in-house code capable of
optimising the design of hypersonic propulsion systems under the consideration of the viscous stresses
and the real gas effects.
In Kotov et al. [13], the shock-wave structures appearing around the same hypersonic aircraft
studied by the rest of the researchers cited in this paper were filmed using a high speed video
camera and considering two different prototypes with small variations in the geometry. Visualisations
of the flow at the engine entrance throat, where the shock waves reflected, were particularly
interesting. The effects of thermochemical non-equilibrium in hypersonic flows were highlighted
by Colomna et al. [14], demonstrating the importance of considering them. They studied the case
of a hypersonic flow past a sphere as a test model for systems in strong chemical and thermal
non-equilibrium conditions, mimicking the extreme environment experienced by objects entering
a planetary atmosphere. A deep study of the main characteristics of the different hypersonic aircrafts
was presented in Halet et al. [15], where recommendations and required actions to be taken to design
and configure the next generation of hypersonic vehicles was carefully addressed. An improvement
of a basic shape aircraft geometry based on genetic algorithms was introduced in Caros et al. [16].
The Mach number was maintained constant and equal to 7 throughout the study and different altitudes
between 25 and 40 km were considered.
In the present paper, two different models are developed in order to analyse the aerodynamics
of a 2D geometry of X-43A given a certain Mach number, altitude and for different angles of attack.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 3 of 23

In the analytical model, the integral aerodynamic characteristics of the base geometry are calculated.
Furthermore, these parameters are also evaluated when small modifications in the geometry of the
aircraft are carried out. In the CFD model, not only are the main aerodynamic parameters presented,
but also the pressure, density, temperature and Mach fields as well as the mass flow rate throughout
the scramjet for different angles of attack and considering three different geometries. In order to
perform a proper validation of the CFD model, an aerodynamic comparison between both models is
brought at the beginning of Section 4. The present CFD results are also compared with those presented
in [2,3,8]. Finally, a brief explanation of the nose optimisation study whose main objective is to find the
configuration of the nose geometry of X-43A under which both oblique shock waves meet on the tip of
the lower edge of the scramjet is introduced.

2. Analytical Model
This section introduces the required methodology to calculate the mentioned aerodynamic
parameters of the simplified shape of X-43A for a given initial geometry, freestream Mach number,
flight altitude and different angles of attack (AoA, from −4◦ to 14◦ every 0.1◦ ) as well as the way to
calculate the flight conditions of Vertical Force Balance and zero pitching moment.
The geometry of the simplified X-43A was defined by the design angles α1 , α2 , α3 and α4 and the
following main dimensions x1 = 3.66 m, x23 = 1.83 m, Y = 0.2225 m, x4 = 0.762 m and x5 = 1.068 m,
which were extracted from [8,11,17]. In this case, the scramjet was neglected as well as the vertical
and horizontal stabilising surfaces. Although the geometry is 2D, for physical calculations a thickness
of 1 m is considered. Since an oblique shock wave or a Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave originated
from each stage or surface depending on the angle of attack and the design angles, each one of them
presented specific flow conditions. All these features are presented in Figure 1 where, for this particular
angle of attack, two oblique shock waves with different shock wave angles (β 2 and β 3 ) appears at the
beginning of stages 2 and 3 and three Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves at the beginning of stages 1,
4 and 5. Moreover, θ1 and θ2 are characterising the deflection angles between the unperturbed flow
given by M∞ and stages 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Oblique shock waves and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves on the simplified shape of X-43A.

The oblique shock wave and Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave theories employed to find the flow
conditions downstream the waves, which are the Mach number, static pressure and temperature as well
as the fluid density, start from the flow conditions upstream. Their generic equations and the procedure
used to determine the physical parameters are presented afterwards. In addition, steady state flow
conditions were considered, the viscous and heat transfer effects were neglected, the air was set to be a
perfect gas and the flow conditions at the trailing edge (small vertical surface) were neglected.
The oblique shock wave theory, according to [18,19], defines the angle β as the angle between the
shock wave and the upstream flow direction (the unknown angle that needs to be determined at each
stage), the deflection angle between the upstream flow and the solid wall surface known as θ and the
generic upstream Mach number Mu . Equation (1) relates these parameters:
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 4 of 23

Mu 2 sin 2β − 2 cot β
tan θ = (1)
Mu 2 (γ + cos 2β) + 2

where γ is the adiabatic index of the flow. To obtain the Mach number after the oblique shock wave
Md , initially Equation (2) is required. From this equation, the upstream Mach number perpendicular
to the oblique shock wave Mun is gathered. The downstream Mach number perpendicular to the shock
wave Mdn is to be obtained from Equation (3), and, introducing it in Equation (4), the downstream
Mach number is finally determined:
Mun = Mu sin β (2)
1+ ( γ − 1 ) Mu n 2
1
Md n 2 = 2
(3)
γMun 2 − 21 (γ − 1)
Md n
Md = (4)
sin ( β − θ )
The relations between the downstream and upstream static pressure pd and pu , respectively,
and static temperature Td and Tu , respectively, are presented in Equations (5) and (6). As the air is
p
considered to be a perfect gas, the expression ρ = RT is used to calculate the downstream density,
− 1
where R is the gas constant in JK kg :− 1

pd 1 + γMun 2
= (5)
pu 1 + γMdn 2

Td 1 + 12 (γ − 1) Mun 2
= (6)
Tu 1 + 21 (γ − 1) Mdn 2
In the Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave theory, according to [18,19], the flow is considered to be
isentropic. The theory starts with the definition of the Prandtl–Meyer function, which depends on the
unknown downstream Mach number according to Equation (7):
s s
γ+1 γ+1  2  q
νPM ( Md ) = tan−1 Md − 1 − tan−1 Md 2 − 1 (7)
γ−1 γ−1

This equation defines the wall inclination angle νPM that the fluid particles need to turn,
considering that the upstream flow is having a Mach number associated with one Mu = 1, and in order
to obtain a desired downstream Mach number Md . Since the upstream Mach number is not Mu = 1,
Equation (7) needs to be applied twice, to initially obtain the wall inclination angle νPM ( Mu ) needed to
accelerate the fluid from an hypothetical upstream Mach number Mu = 1 to the real existing upstream
Mach number Mu . As the real wall angle θ is known, Equation (8) will be employed to obtain the
flow turning angle νPM ( Md ) to determine the downstream real Mach number providing the upstream
Mach number is one Mu = 1. Once this angle is obtained, it can be substituted in Equation (7) to
determine the required downstream Mach number Md :

θ = νPM ( Md ) − νPM ( Mu ) (8)

As the process is considered isentropic, the ratio of variables across the expansion is calculated by
assuming conservation of total (or stagnation) quantities, see Equations (9) and (10):

Td 1 + 12 (γ − 1) Mu 2
= (9)
Tu 1 + 21 (γ − 1) Md 2
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 5 of 23

γ
γ −1
!
2 γ −1
pd 1+ 2 Mu
= γ −1 2
(10)
pu 1+ 2 Md
Starting from the freestream flow conditions (stage ∞, upstream conditions), where M∞ = 7,
and considering the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) [20] at an altitude of z = 30 km, in which
p∞ , T∞ and ρ∞ were previously defined, the flow conditions of stages 1 and 2 (downstream conditions)
were calculated by using the equations presented above. Afterwards, stage 2 became the new upstream
stage and stage 3 the downstream stage, and so on until stage 5. Table 1 shows the deflection angle
between the different stages and the physical phenomenon (oblique shock wave or Prandtl–Meyer
expansion wave) that occurs depending on the angle of attack and the design angles.

Table 1. Deflection angle and physical phenomenon between the different stages.

Upst. Downst.
Physical Phenomenon Deflection Angle
Stage Stage
If AoA < α1 , oblique shock wave θ1 = α1 − AoA
Stage ∞ Stage 1
If AoA > α1 , Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave θ1 = AoA − α1
If AoA > 0◦ , oblique shock wave θ2 = AoA + α2
Stage ∞ Stage 2
If AoA < 0◦ & | AoA| > α2 , Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave θ2 = | AoA + α2 |
Stage 2 Stage 3 Oblique shock wave θ3 = α2 + α3
Stage 3 Stage 4 Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave θ4 = α3
Stage 4 Stage 5 Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave θ5 = α4

Lift L and drag D are the aerodynamic forces calculated from the constant pressure distribution
of each stage in the perpendicular and streamwise flow directions, respectively. A thrust force FT
was added in the calculation, its application point being located at the centre of the scramjet engine,
not shown in Figure 1 (point located in the middle of stage 4 and separated downwards a vertical
distance half of the engine width). Since the aircraft position remained constant, the thrust force was
always pointing horizontally, regardless of the angle of attack evaluated. The pitching moment MCG
is, therefore, the sum of all moments evaluated about the Centre of Gravity (CG). Finally, the lift and
drag coefficients, which were defined as CL = q∞L S and CD = q∞L S , respectively, the aerodynamic
MCG
efficiency E = L/D and the pitching moment coefficient C MCG , which was interpreted as C MCG = q∞ Sc ,
were calculated knowing that q∞ = 12 γM∞ 2 p∞ (dynamic pressure), S = c (surface) and c ≈ x1
(chord line). The angles of attack that allowed a zero pitching moment condition AoA(CM =0) and a
CG
Vertical Force Balance condition AoA(VFB) were calculated from applying the equations of equilibrium
−−→
∑ MCG = 0 and ∑ Fyb = 0, respectively. In addition, it was imposed that FT = D cos AoA − L sin AoA
for any AoA and the aircraft weight was known to be W = 13.22 kN at an altitude of z = 30 km.
A single angle of attack permitting simultaneously both conditions or, in other words, a Horizontal
Rectilinear and Uniform Flight (HRUF), was not possible due to the non-consideration of the stabilisers
and, equivalently, the aerodynamic forces that would have been generated near the trailing edge in
order to compensate the extra pitching moment of the aircraft. Furthermore, this situation was also
given since the weight of the real X-43A was considered despite analysing a 2D model with a width of
1 m.
Only one analytical case, which incorporates the design angles α1 = 2.7◦ , α2 = 3.07◦ , α3 = 11.5◦
and α4 = 13.9◦ , is studied. Afterwards, the variations of the aerodynamic parameters in terms of the
angle of attack due to the modifications in the geometry of the aircraft are evaluated.

3. CFD Model
The current section encompasses the pre-process of the CFD model in which the real 2D design
of X-43A is considered. Therefore, the definition of the geometric and physical conditions, the finite
volume discretization of the computational domain and the OpenFOAM set up are precisely described.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 6 of 23

The OpenFOAM version 6 software enabled to carry out a more complex geometry of X-43A
based on the implementation of the scramjet, which, in fact, only consisted of a trapezoidal shape
extending along stage 4 at a distance of yS = 0.1101 m from it. Therefore, the CFD geometry of the
aircraft was characterised by the same parameters as those from Figure 1 but with the addition of
the scramjet. The CFD domain, which is visualised in Figure 2a, had a rectangular shape, the same
orientation as the aircraft and was divided into different quadrilateral regions. Between the left side
(inlet) and the leading edge of X-43A, a distance of 1.5c was set in order to guarantee an undisturbed
flow stream; a distance of 5c was chosen between the trailing edge and the right side (outlet) of the
domain to ensure that the oblique shock and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves dissipated properly.
A distance of 3c was selected between the up or down sides and the chord line of the aircraft for the
purpose of avoiding the impact of those physical phenomena into the domain limits. In addition,
different small regions in contact with the contours of the aircraft (walls), named boundary layer
domain, were designed with the objective of facilitating the boundary layer capture. The other regions
further away from the aircraft which were in contact with the domain perimeter zones were called the
outside domain.

Figure 2. Grid used in the present study, (a) entire mesh domain, (b) mesh nearby the body, (c) mesh
details at several body locations.

The CFD domain, as well as the computational mesh, were created by the Gmsh software
(version 3.0.6). The quadrilateral regions of the domain allowed the construction of a structured mesh
since the solution converged earlier and there was a higher control in the distance between the solid
boundaries and the first mesh layer (Y) than in an unstructured mesh. Two different structured
meshes were characterised: the boundary layer mesh, which corresponded to the discretization of
the boundary layer domain, and the far field mesh, which was the mesh of the outside such domain.
In case of the boundary layer mesh, the height of the cells in contact with the walls was selected to
capture the effects of the buffer layer (y+ between 5 and 30) according to the turbulent boundary layer
equations from [21]. Despite a y+ lower than 1 would have permitted a more precise visualisation
of the boundary layer effects, in the current study, it was not possible due to the limitations in the
computational power. Therefore, a relatively moderate growth rate (1.5%) in the perpendicular
direction of the walls was chosen along the domain except from the regions surrounding the scramjet,
which was about 1%. For the far field mesh, only a moderate growth rate between 2% and 4% was
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 7 of 23

selected. The resulting mesh had approximately 3 × 106 elements with a maximum aspect ratio of
26.03, a maximum non-orthogonality of 46.24◦ and a maximum skewness ratio of 1.814, and was
extruded one element since OpenFOAM only accepted 3D models. According to the OpenFOAM
User’s Guide, see [22], the mesh employed can be considered to be a good one, since OpenFOAM
recommends not exceeding a non-orthogonality of 65◦ and a skewness ratio of 4. An overview of the
resulting mesh is depicted in Figure 2.
The same incident Mach number and altitude as in the analytical model was considered. Table 2
shows the main characteristics of the incoming flow, which was also considered to be a perfect gas.
The initial data for the computation where the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, their respective values
were Re∞ = 9.16 × 106 and Pr∞ = 7.27 × 10−1 . The solver rhoCentralFoam was used, which is a
density-based compressible flow solver based on central-upwind schemes of Kurganov and Tadmor.
Although the flow was highly turbulent according to Re∞ , the authors decided to directly use the
continuity, Navier–Stokes and energy equations for compressible flow conditions without employing
any turbulence model, in order to avoid the use of the parameters associated with a given model and
their possible tuning. Since a maximum Courant number of 0.85 was imposed, a time step between
10−7 s and 10−6 s was automatically displayed by the software. Although the air at an altitude of
30 km and at Mach number 7 should be considered as a real gas, in the present paper, it was assumed
to be an ideal gas. Furthermore, the fluid was assumed to be Newtonian and the viscous stresses were
considered. The following boundary conditions were specified along the domain.

• The Dirichlet boundary conditions were used for:

– Velocity at the inlet, up, down and walls faces.

– Pressure at the inlet and outlet faces.
– Temperature at the inlet face.
• The Neumann boundary conditions were used for:

– Velocity at the outlet face.

– Pressure at the up, down and wall faces.
– Temperature at the outlet, up, down and wall faces.

The residuals, which were the scalar components of the velocity and the specific enthalpy,
were considered to be tightly converged as they were under magnitude orders of 10−6 .
The aerodynamic parameters were directly determined by the simulation, while the mass flow rate
throughout the scramjet and parallel to its walls ṁS involved a post-processing step based on numerical
integration. It was also checked that these aerodynamic parameters converged properly to a constant
value. The analysis of the zero pitching moment and Vertical Force Balance conditions was carried out
by approximating all the discretized values of the aerodynamic parameters and mass flow rate into
polynomials of degree n = 6.

Table 2. Oncoming flow characteristics and initial data.

−→
Velocity vector U∞ = 2135.3 (cos AoA, sin AoA, 0) ms−1
Angle of attack AoA = [−4, −2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14]◦
Pressure p∞ = 1172 Pa
Temperature T∞ = 231.49 K
Density ρ∞ = 0.0176 kgm−3
Dynamic viscosity µ∞ = 1.502 × 10−5 kgm−1 s−1

Three different cases where each one of them was characterised by specific design angles presented
in Table 3 were considered. For each case, one simulation per angle of attack was performed where,
in fact, the velocity vector was the only modified parameter. Therefore, 10 simulations were done per
case studied, composing a total of 30 CFD simulations.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 8 of 23

Table 3. Design angles values of the three CFD cases.

Design Angles
Case
α1 (◦ ) α2 (◦ ) α3 (◦ ) α4 (◦ )
1 2.7 3.07 11.5 13.9
2 1 3.07 10.8 10
3 0 2 12.2 11.8

4. Results
The current section starts with the analysis of the mesh independence as well as a brief explanation
of the aircraft nose optimisation. The results of the comparison study between an analytical and a
CFD case, accompanied by the modifications of the geometry of the aircraft and the three CFD cases
are presented afterwards. Finally, another comparison analysis which involves the results presented
in [2,3,8] is carried out.

4.1. Mesh Independence Study

A mesh independence study was done to ensure a proper precision in the final results,
thus three different meshes were properly designed and evaluated. Mesh 1, the least refined mesh,
was dimensioned in order to capture the log layer effects, while Mesh 2 and Mesh 3 (the finer one) were
designed with the objective of visualising the buffer layer effects. Table 4 shows the number of elements,
the minimum and average y+ values and the Mach numbers of stages 1, 2 and 3 characterising the
three different meshes evaluated. The angle of attack was maintained at zero degrees, AoA = 0◦

Table 4. Number of elements, minimum and average y+ values and Mach numbers of stages 1, 2 and 3
of Mesh 1, Mesh 2 and Mesh 3 for AoA = 0◦ .

N◦ of Minimum Average Mach Number Mach Number Mach Number

Mesh
Elements y+ y+ of Stage 1 of Stage 2 of Stage 3
Mesh 1 2.6 × 106 9.10 × 10−1 43.87 6.58 6.51 5.51
Mesh 2 3.0 × 106 8.34 × 10−1 26.22 6.52 6.49 5.50
Mesh 3 3.4 × 106 1.21 × 10−1 18.4 6.51 6.48 5.50

As seen in the table, the minimum and average y+ decreases as the mesh is further refined.
Mach numbers in all three stages were quite similar regardless of the mesh chosen; however, the results
obtained from meshes 2 and 3 presented a higher similarity between them. In case of the Mach number
of stage 1, a deviation of 1% and 0.1% was observed between Mesh 3 and Mesh 1 and Mesh 3 and
Mesh 2, respectively. Furthermore, Mesh 3 differed in a 0.5% from Mesh 1 and a 0.1% from Mesh 2
when the Mach number of stage 2 was considered. For the Mach number of stage 3, Mesh 3 presented
a deviation of 0.2% from Mesh 1 but a zero deviation from Mesh 2. Therefore, as meshes 2 and 3
had a very close Mach number values and both of them were able to capture the buffer layer effects,
and considering that Mesh 2 converged about 16% faster than Mesh 3, Mesh 2 was finally selected to
perform all the CFD simulations of the article.

4.2. Nose Optimisation

One of the objectives of the study was to find the nose geometry of X-43A, defined by the design
angles α2 and α3 , for which the oblique shock waves from stages 2 and 3, see Figure 1, were meeting
on the tip of the lower edge of the scramjet and, consequently, the mass flow rate throughout it was
maximum. In this case, the aircraft was considered to be flying with the nose optimised configuration.
It is important to realise that, if the shock waves did not impact at the scramjet inlet lower surface,
it would highly compromise the engine’s efficiency and performance.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 9 of 23

In the analytical model, the nose optimisation was carried out despite it did not include the
scramjet effects for the calculation of the aerodynamic parameters. Given a certain Mach number and
angle of attack, the design angles α2 and α3 that allowed the nose optimised configuration could be
found by using an iterative process based on the calculation of the shock waves angles β 2 and β 3 and
the use of basic trigonometry. In fact, the analytical case that will be studied was designed to reach this
type of configuration for AoA = 0◦ .

4.3. Comparison Study

The comparison study between the analytical and CFD models was set to validate the CFD model
used to develop the aerodynamic study. To do so, a CFD case with the aircraft geometry of Figure 1
was developed. Since the scramjet was neglected, few changes in the CFD domain were carried out:
only the quadrilateral regions around the intrados of the aircraft were slightly modified, see Section 3.
The structure of the mesh was maintained and its discretization was identical to that from Mesh 2
since it was the optimal one according to Section 4.1. All the other parameters such as the height of the
cell in contact with the contours of the aircraft or the boundary conditions remained exactly the same.
Furthermore, this case incorporated the same design angles as those from the analytical case and one
single simulation per angle of attack was run, composing a total of 10 simulations.
The pressure, density, temperature and Mach fields for AoA = 0◦ of the CFD case with the
scramjet neglected are depicted in Figure 3. The different discontinuities due to the oblique shock and
Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves are clearly visible as well as the drastic expansion at the trailing edge.
These physical phenomena are precisely explained in Section 4.5.

Figure 3. Pressure field (a), density field (b), temperature field (c) and Mach field (d) of the CFD case
with the scramjet neglected for AoA = 0◦ .

The comparison of the aerodynamic parameters is represented in Figure 4. Figure 4a shows that
the CFD lift coefficient is lower than the analytical one in terms of absolute value; from AoA = −4◦ to
AoA = 6◦ , the maximum deviation is under 1%, while from AoA = 8◦ to AoA = 14◦ , a maximum
deviation of 5% is observed, approximately. The CFD drag coefficient is around 22% higher (Figure 4b).
These differences are mainly caused by the viscous stresses considered in the CFD model since the
analytical model did not include them. The aerodynamic efficiency is plotted in Figure 4c where,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 10 of 23

in terms of absolute value, the analytical aerodynamic efficiency is larger than the CFD for all the
presented angles of attack since its drag coefficient is lower. In this case, the maximum efficiency in the
analytical case is 18% higher than that of the CFD case (maximum deviation); such discrepancy is due
to the viscous forces evaluated in the CFD simulations. Finally, according to Figure 4d, the pitching
moment coefficient is similar in both types of studies and regardless of the angle of attack evaluated;
only a maximum deviation of around 1% is observed.

Figure 4. Aerodynamic parameters in terms of the angle of attack (comparison study), (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

Table 5 shows the analysis of the zero pitching moment and Vertical Force Balance conditions of
the CFD case with the scramjet neglected. For the analytical case studied, the same analysis is presented
in the following section, Table 6. The characteristic angles of attack AoA(CM = 0) and AoA(VFB) are
CG
almost the same as those calculated in the analytical study, compare Tables 5 and 6. The CFD angle
of attack that allows a zero pitching moment condition, C MCG = 0, which is −3.89◦ , is 0.5% higher
than that of the analytical case, shown in Table 6. For the CFD angle of attack in which the aircraft
flies with the Vertical Force Balance condition, which is 5.21◦ , it is exactly the same as the analytical
one, shown in Table 6. As a result, for this last condition, the CFD lift coefficient is exactly the same as
the analytical one and the CFD pitching moment coefficient C MCG only differs by 3%. The CFD drag
coefficient and CFD aerodynamic efficiency, however, differ by 21% and 17%, respectively, due to the
consideration of the viscous effects in the CFD model.

Table 5. Aerodynamic parameters for the zero pitching moment (C MCG = 0) and Vertical Force Balance
(VFB) conditions of the CFD case with the scramjet neglected.

Condition AoA (◦ ) CL CD E C MCG

C MCG = 0 −3.89 −0.0471 0.0152 −3.1 0
VFB 5.21 0.0899 0.0271 3.32 0.026

This study shows that the analytical and CFD implementations generate very similar results.
Only the drag coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency show some deviations, around 20% between
both models.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 11 of 23

Table 6. Aerodynamic parameters and shock wave angles for the zero pitching moment (C MCG = 0)
and Vertical Force Balance (VFB) conditions of the analytical case.

Condition AoA (◦ ) CL CD E C MCG β 2 (◦ ) β 3 (◦ ) βnoc ◦

2 ( ) βnoc ◦
3 ( )
C MCG = 0 −3.87 −0.0486 0.0116 −4.19 0 - 14.7 - 15.5
VFB 5.21 0.0899 0.0224 4.01 0.0268 14.7 16.9 15.5 15.5

In order to further validate the CFD model, the results of the CFD case 1 presented in
Section 4.5 were compared by those presented in [2,3,8], where full three-dimensional CFD models and
experimental tests at Mach number 6 were analysed. The parameters involved in the comparison study
were the lift and drag coefficients for AoA = 2◦ , AoA = 4◦ , AoA = 8◦ and AoA = 10◦ . It is particularly
remarkable to see that the experimental data presented in [2,8] is almost identical. In each of these
two studies, there is also a good agreement between the experimental and CFD results. In addition
to that, it is seen that the drag coefficients presented in the current paper are slightly smaller than
those presented in the other studies. This fact is understandable since the wings, stabilizers and the
lateral side of the aircraft are not considered in the present approach. It is also remarkable to see
that the lift coefficients of the present paper are very close to the experimental and simulated ones
obtained by [2,8]. For the drag coefficient, a maximum deviation of 37% between the experimental
results from [2] and the results from the 2D CFD case 1 is obtained for an angle of attack of 2◦ . For the
rest of the angles of attack evaluated, the CD average deviation is 17%. The maximum deviation for
the lift coefficient is observed to be 20% for an angle of attack of 2◦ . The average CL deviation for
the other angles of attack is 10%. Perhaps one positive conclusion extracted from the comparisons
presented is that simple 2D simulations are capable of showing a trend in the same direction as full 3D
experimental tests and CFD approaches. Furthermore, they show that the main body of the aircraft is
responsible for most of the lift and drag exerted on the body.

4.4. Analytical Case and Geometric Modifications

The dependence of the lift coefficient, drag coefficient, aerodynamic efficiency and pitching
moment coefficient on the angle of attack of the analytical case studied at Mach 7 and an altitude of
30 km are depicted in Figure 5. In the analytical study, it was verified that the aerodynamic coefficients
did not depend on the altitude, but the main parameters in which the aircraft flew with the Vertical
Force Balance condition did. Within the angles of attack from −4◦ to 14◦ , the lift coefficient increases
almost linearly with the angle of attack (Figure 5a), while the drag coefficient does it in a parabolic
way (Figure 5b). The stall in CL vs. AoA is not contemplated since the effects of the boundary layer
detachment were not considered. Efficiency E increases with the increase in the angle of attack, reaches
its maximum value of 4.02 at AoA = 4.94◦ , and then decreases (Figure 5c). Finally, the pitching
moment coefficient, which was considered to be positive in the pitch up of the aircraft, also increases
approximately in a linear way with the AoA (Figure 5d). As its gradient, known as the longitudinal
static stability index, is positive, the aircraft is unstable with regard to any disturbance in the angle of
attack; when ∆AoA > 0, then ∆C MCG > 0 and the aircraft tends to raise its nose.
Table 6 shows these coefficients in addition to the shock wave angles β 2 and β 3 for the zero
pitching moment and Vertical Force Balance conditions as well as the corresponding AoA(CM = 0)
CG
and AoA(VFB) . Both parameters βnoc noc
2 and β 3 are the shock wave angles of stages 2 and 3, respectively,
in which the aircraft would fly with the nose optimised configuration according to the defined angles
of attack. This configuration can be considered if the deviations between them and β 2 and β 3 are
under 10%. The zero pitching moment condition is achieved for AoA(CM = 0) < 0, which leads
CG
to a negative lift coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency, and a Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave is
originated at the beginning of stage 2. Moreover, since β 3 is very close to βnoc 3 , the aircraft can
be considered to fly with the nose optimised configuration. In case of the Vertical Force Balance
condition, since AoA(VFB) = 5.21◦ , the lift coefficient is positive and the aerodynamic efficiency is
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 12 of 23

almost maximum, but C MCG > 0. As β 2 differs by 5% from βnoc noc

2 and β 3 by 8% from β 3 , the aircraft
can also be considered to fly with the shock waves of stages 2 and 3 focusing on the tip of the lower
edge of the scramjet.

Figure 5. Aerodynamic parameters in terms of the angle of attack of the analytical case, (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

The variations of the lift coefficient, drag coefficient, aerodynamic efficiency and pitching moment
coefficient as a consequence of the changes in the design angles are evaluated next. These parameters
in terms of the angle of attack for different α1 and maintaining constant the remaining design angles
(α2 , α3 and α4 ) as those from the analytical case are presented in Figure 6, where a reduction of α1
brings an increase of the lift coefficient, aerodynamic efficiency and pitching moment coefficient and a
decrease of the drag coefficient. As seen in Figure 7, decreasing α2 increases the lift, drag and pitching
moment coefficients while the aerodynamic efficiency decreases. According to Figure 8, a reduction of
α3 implies an increase of the pitching moment coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency and a decrease of
the lift and drag coefficients. Figure 9 finally shows the modifications of the aerodynamic coefficients
due to the changes in α4 where, in this particular case, a decrease of this design angle comes with
an increase of the lift coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency and a decrease of the drag and pitching
moment coefficients. Overall, since the surface of stage 1 is far bigger than that of the other stages,
the variations of the aerodynamic parameters are more significant when α1 is manipulated than when
the other design angles are modified. Although modifications on α1 are smaller than those on the other
angles, the differences of the aerodynamic coefficients are more notorious in the first case.

4.5. CFD Cases

Case 1 is initially presented with the variation of the pressure field throughout the aircraft at a
zero angle of attack in Figure 10a. Since AoA < α1 , a shock wave is produced at the beginning of the
extrados where, consequently, the pressure is increased and remains approximately constant along
the surface. This phenomenon is also present in the aircraft nose (stages 2 and 3); in case of stage 3,
the increase of pressure is more significant due to the difference in the design angles (α3 >> α1 & α2 ,
see Table 3).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 13 of 23

Figure 6. Variations of the aerodynamic parameters due to the modifications in α1 , (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

Figure 7. Variations of the aerodynamic parameters due to the modifications in α2 , (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 14 of 23

Figure 8. Variations of the aerodynamic parameters due to the modifications in α3 , (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

Figure 9. Variations of the aerodynamic parameters due to the modifications in α4 , (a) CL vs. AoA,
(b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

Figure 10b shows that shock waves of stages 1 and 2 are completely attached to the sharp leading
edge of the wedge. This fact is given because of the high Mach number where X-43A flies and the small
wedge angle that presents at the leading edge. X-43A uses the fuselage nose part to form the shock
in front of the intake. Theoretically (according to the analytical model), the aircraft should fly with
the nose optimised configuration under those conditions of design angles and AoA. Notice that in
this case a different colour scale has been used to represent this phenomenon. Focusing on Figure 10c,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 15 of 23

shock 2 (which is the one formed at the beginning of stage 2) is focused on the tip of the lower edge,
while shock 3 (the one that corresponds to the shock wave created at the beginning of stage 3) is
slightly deflected into the entrance of the throat.

Figure 10. Pressure field of case 1 for AoA = 0◦ , (a) all the aircraft, (b) attached leading edge (different
colour scale), (c) tip of the lower edge of the scramjet, (d) scramjet region.

Inside the scramjet, different things occur together (see Figure 10d for more detail).
On the one hand, the flow expands as a Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave being produced at the
end of stage 3. As a result, there is a small region situated in the upper left side in which the pressure
decreases from that of the previous stage. On the other hand, shock 3 reflects from the lower edge
generating a new shock, which, in turn, reflects from the upper edge forming, once again, another
shock wave. In other words, two regular reflections in steady flow inside the engine are created.
The first reflection leads to a high pressure region downstream at about 25 kPa, while the pressure after
the second reflection is 15 kPa approximately. These differences are caused by the incident pressure of
each reflection shock (the one of the first reflection shock is bigger than that of the second reflection
shock) which, overall, translates into an energy dissipation of these reflection shock waves along the
scramjet. In addition to that, after the first reflection, the flow is theoretically parallel to both wedges.
This phenomenon is known as the shock diamond and provides some regions with strong adverse
pressure gradients which induce flow separation. Finally, at the end of the upper right side of the
scramjet, a Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave is originated. The pressure decreases and remains constant
along the surface all the way to the trailing edge; there, the expansion process is so drastically that the
pressure goes down to 20 Pa approximately, which enables the creation of some vortex.
Overall, all the waves originating along the aircraft are dissipated slowly downstream until the
outlet boundary section.
The density, temperature and Mach fields of the domain for the same angle of attack are depicted
in Figure 11 in addition to the y+ distribution along the walls of the aircraft. The density behaviour
(Figure 11a) is almost the same as the pressures: a high density in some regions inside the scramjet
and an almost zero one along the trailing edge. In addition, as the flight altitude is high, the density
values are relatively small as well as those from pressure. Since the air was considered to be a perfect
gas, the density along the surfaces is reduced due to the high temperatures there. In case of the
temperature field (Figure 11b), two remarkable things are given in addition to the discontinuities
caused by the oblique shock and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves. Firstly, some aircraft contours
are illuminated or, equivalently, the temperature is higher. This means that these regions capture the
thermal boundary layer; the surface temperature is higher and decreases with the normal direction
until arriving to the freestream temperature, which it keeps constant. From a theoretical point of view,
this high temperature is caused by the viscous stresses, which, in turn, are caused by the enormous
velocity gradients along the boundary layer. According to Figure 11d, these regions are the same as
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 16 of 23

those with low y+ values, which, evidently, translates into a more precise capture of the boundary
layer. Contrary to that, other regions where the pressure is relatively high (e.g., some parts of the walls
inside the scramjet or the wall of stage 3), the maximum y+ values are around 50 or, in other words,
are relatively high and, consequently, the temperature gradients can not be properly visualised. In fact,
the y+ of the different surfaces of the aircraft are extremely different due to the drastic changes of the
air properties that are caused by the shock and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves phenomena. Secondly,
the temperature around the trailing edge is extremely high and decreases gradually downstream
producing two lines around it. These lines represent discontinuities such as expansion waves, forming
a triangle that dissipates with the distance. Finally, for the Mach field (Figure 11c), a zero Mach number
is found in some aircraft contours, which translates into a zero flow velocity. In fact, these regions
are also the same as those with low y+ , meaning that some part of the boundary layer is captured.
The Mach number starts being zero on the surface and increases gradually along its normal direction
until arriving to the Mach number downstream the wave. Overall, the Mach field has the same
behaviour as the pressure and temperature fields. The oblique and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves
are clearly delimited, and the regions where the pressure increases, the Mach number decreases and
vice versa. As well as in the temperature field, a large fluid expansion occurs at the trailing edge;
the Mach number falls to zero and increases progressively downstream.

Figure 11. Density field (a), temperature field (b), Mach field (c) and y+ distribution along the walls (d)
of case 1 for AoA = 0◦ .

The main fields for AoA = 14◦ of case 1 are also evaluated, see Figures 12 and 13. Under these
conditions, a Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave is originated at the beginning of extrados, thus the
pressure (Figure 12a), density (Figure 12b) and temperature (Figure 13a) decrease and the Mach
number (Figure 13b) increases. The increase of the angle of attack causes a displacement to the left
side of shock 3, which cuts the one coming from stage 2 due to its superiority in pressure strength and
incapacitates it to reach the scramjet. A third reflection takes place at the end of the tip of the scramjet,
which is almost imperceptible due to its weakness. Finally, the increase of the AoA also produces an
increase of the pressure gradients inside the scramjet in addition to a higher curvature of shock 3 and
the waves created at the trailing edge.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 17 of 23

Figure 12. Pressure field (a) and density field (b) of case 1 for AoA = 14◦ .

Figure 13. Temperature field (a) and Mach field (b) of case 1 for AoA = 14◦ .

For AoA = 4◦ (Figure 14), the aircraft can be considered to fly with the nose optimised
configuration since the oblique shock wave formed at the beginning of stage 3 is focused on the
tip of the lower edge of the scramjet.

Figure 14. Tip of the lower edge of the scramjet of case 1 for AoA = 4◦ .

The pressure field of the other two CFD cases studied, case 2 and case 3 defined in Table 3 for
AoA = 0◦ , is presented in Figure 15. Case 2 was designed to fly with the nose optimised configuration
for AoA = 0◦ as seen in Figure 15a. In addition to that, the design angles α1 and α4 were slightly
reduced from case 1 in order to have a better aerodynamic performance according to the results
obtained of the analytical model, see Figures 6 and 9; the maximum reached pressure (situated in
the lower edge of the scramjet) is about 22 kPa instead of the 25 kPa observed in case 1 which, in the
end, translates into a higher lift. Case 3 was not only created to improve the aerodynamics of the
aircraft by reducing α1 and α4 from case 1, but also to avoid the drastic expansion and, consequently,
an extremely low pressure and velocity and a high temperature at the trailing edge by eliminating its
surface. In this case, for AoA = 0◦ , shock 3 is slightly deflected into the entrance of the throat as seen
in Figure 15b. Furthermore, it was seen that the aircraft flew with the nose optimised configuration
for AoA = 4◦ (this corresponding simulation is not presented in the study). The maximum pressure
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 18 of 23

is focused along the scramjet and is about 27 kPa. Furthermore, as the surface of the trailing edge is
eliminated, the drastic expansion is not observed as in the other cases.

Figure 15. Pressure field of case 2 (a) and case 3 (b) for AoA = 0◦ .

The integral aerodynamic characteristics CL , CD , E and C MCG in terms of the angle of attack for
the three CFD cases are shown in Figure 16. As seen in Figure 16a, case 3 has the highest lift coefficient
until AoA = 6◦ , where it is approximately the same as that of case 2. Case 1, however, has the lowest
lift coefficient with a negative lift coefficient for AoA = 0◦ . According to Figure 16b, case 1 has the
highest drag coefficient up to AoA = 2◦ , where the first place is replaced by case 3, and case 1 has a
very similar drag coefficient as case 2. The combination between the lift and drag coefficients leads
to the aerodynamic efficiency in terms of the AoA (Figure 16c). Both cases 2 and 3 have a similar
E; the aerodynamic efficiency of case 3 is higher for AoA = [−4, −2, 0, 2]◦ and lower for the other
angles of attack. Therefore, according to this graph, the maximum aerodynamic efficiency of case
2 is the highest one (Emax = 3.52 for AoA = 6◦ ), followed by the one in case 3 (Emax = 3.28 for
AoA = 6 ◦ ) and finally case 1 (Emax = 3.09 for AoA = 8◦ ). In addition, from AoA = 10◦ , all cases
seem to converge to a certain value. Finally, the behaviour of the pitching moment coefficient through
the different angles indicates a longitudinal instability condition with regard to any perturbation of
the AoA (Figure 16d); cases 1 and 2 are mostly similar according to this graph, while case 3 has the
highest pitching moment coefficient for AoA = [−4, −2, 0]◦ and the lowest one for the other angles
of attack. Therefore, as stated before, cases 2 and 3, which are very similar from an aerodynamic point
of view, offer, in general, a better aerodynamic performance than the one from case 1.
The mass flow rate throughout the scramjet in terms of the angle of attack of the three CFD cases
is presented in Figure 17 where, for the three cases, increases with it. In addition to that, all cases have
approximately the same mass flow rate for AoA = [−4, −2, 0]◦ ; at higher angle of attack, the mass
flow rate of case 1 is the highest one, followed by the one from case 2 and finally case 3. For AoA = 4◦ ,
the mass flow rate of cases 1 and 3 are higher than that of case 2 as the aircraft flies with the nose
optimised configuration.
All of the presented parameters of the three CFD cases are shown in Tables 7 and 8 for the
zero pitching moment and Vertical Force Balance conditions, respectively. For the first condition,
all cases have a negative lift coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency since the angle of attack is negative;
case 2 presents a lift coefficient slightly least negative than the rest, while case 3 has the lowest drag
coefficient. This leads case 2 to reach the least negative aerodynamic efficiency and case 3 to have
the lowest AoA(CM = 0) . It is important to highlight that the negative lift coefficient obtained in the
CG
present study is caused by the non consideration of the stabilizers. These elements would be able
to compensate this coefficient allowing the aircraft to fly. For the second condition, case 2 also gets
the highest aerodynamic efficiency and the lowest drag coefficient. However, case 3 achieves this
condition with a lower AoA(VFB) , which translates into a better aerodynamic performance from a
“lift point of view”. In addition to that, when the Vertical Force Balance condition is achieved, all cases
present their corresponding maximum aerodynamic efficiency. Despite case 1 being the worst case in
all aerodynamic aspects, it has the highest mass flow rate for both conditions.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 19 of 23

Figure 16. Aerodynamic parameters in terms of the angle of attack of the three CFD cases, (a) CL vs.
AoA, (b) CD vs. AoA, (c) E vs. AoA, (d) C MCG vs. AoA.

Figure 17. Mass flow rate throughout the scramjet in terms of the angle of attack of the three CFD cases.

Table 7. Aerodynamic parameters and mass flow rate for the zero pitching moment condition
(C MCG = 0) of the three CFD cases.

Case AoA(CM = 0) (◦ ) CL CD E C MCG ṁS (kg/s)

CG

1 −1.45 −0.0299 0.0122 −2.45 0 10.55

2 −1.53 −0.0139 0.0094 −1.48 0 10.49
3 −2.15 −0.0149 0.0093 −1.6 0 9.87
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 20 of 23

Table 8. Aerodynamic parameters and mass flow rate for the Vertical Force Balance condition (VFB) of
the three CFD cases.

Case AoA(V FB) (◦ ) CL CD E C MCG ṁS (kg/s)

1 6.96 0.0899 0.0291 3.09 0.0207 20.09
2 6.14 0.0899 0.0255 3.52 0.0176 18.5
3 6.03 0.0899 0.0274 3.28 0.0158 19.12

5. Conclusions
A 2D aerodynamic study of the NASA’s X-43A hypersonic aircraft has been performed using
two approaches. The first one (analytical) neglects the effects of the scramjet and is based on the
resolution of the oblique shock wave and Prandtl–Meyer expansion wave theories, while the second
one (computational) considers the real shape of the aircraft and involves the use of a CFD package.
On the one hand, in the analytical model, only one single case whose design angles allowed the aircraft
to fly with the nose optimised configuration for AoA = 0◦ has been strictly studied for M∞ = 7
and z = 30 km. The lift coefficient, drag coefficient, aerodynamic efficiency and pitching moment
coefficient in terms of the angle of attack with AoA ∈ [−4, 14]◦ have been depicted. The linearity
of the lift coefficient, the second order polynomial dependence of the drag coefficient, the increase
and decrease of the aerodynamic efficiency with Emax = 4.02 for AoA = 4.94◦ and the longitudinal
instability of the aircraft have been observed. Afterwards, the study of the pitching moment and
Vertical Force Balance conditions have been defined. For the zero pitching moment condition, the lift
coefficient has resulted in being negative and, consequently, a negative aerodynamic efficiency has
been obtained. Contrary to that, for the Vertical Force Balance condition, the aircraft has reached
its maximum aerodynamic efficiency. In both conditions, the aircraft has been analysed to be flying
with the nose optimised configuration. The discussion of the analytical model has been closed by
the changes of the aerodynamic parameters (lift and drag coefficients, aerodynamic efficiency and
pitching moment coefficient) with the design angles. The changes of these parameters have been far
more significant with the manipulation of α1 . Furthermore, it has been observed that the aerodynamic
efficiency of the aircraft increased with the decrease in the design angles α1 and α4 .
On the other hand, in the CFD model, three different cases with different design angles have
been analysed for M∞ = 7, z = 30 km and AoA = [−4, −2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14]◦ . The pressure,
density, temperature and Mach fields of case 1 have been shown for AoA = 0◦ and AoA = 14◦
as well as the pressure field for the other cases at a zero angle of attack. Firstly, the oblique shock
and Prandtl–Meyer expansion waves along the physical domain have been visualised as well as an
attachment condition at the leading edge for all situations. Case 1 has appeared to be flying with
the nose optimised configuration for AoA = 4◦ (different from the 0◦ of the analytical study) as well
as case 3, while for case 2 it has been imposed to be for AoA = 0◦ . Secondly, the shock diamond
inside the scramjet with two reflection waves causing high pressure gradients has been confirmed.
Thirdly, an expected flow disturbance caused by the drastic flow expansion at the trailing edge has
been detected and, finally, the boundary layer could have been visualised in those regions with low y+
values. In addition, the same aerodynamic parameters as in the analytical study and the mass flow rate
throughout the scramjet in terms of the angle of attack have also been presented. The study highlights
the importance of properly choosing the aircraft nose design angles in order to generate oblique shock
waves meeting at the scramjet inlet lower edge. The analysis of the zero pitching moment and Vertical
Force Balance conditions has also been carried out. Once again, AoA(VFB) and AoA(CM = 0) have
CG
been calculated since a single angle of attack could not allow both conditions. Cases 2 and 3 have
resulted in a better aerodynamic performance, but case 1 generated a higher mass flow rate for both
operating conditions.
As part of the validation of the CFD model, the results from a CFD case without the scramjet
have been compared with the corresponding analytical data. Both models have generated a similar
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 21 of 23

lift and pitching moment coefficients against the angle of attack (maximum error about 5%), but they
have presented certain differences in the drag coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency due to the
viscous stresses considered in the CFD simulations (deviation around 20%). In addition to that,
the analysis of zero pitching moment and Vertical Force Balance conditions has provided similar results
(maximum error about 2%) except from the the drag coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency (maximum
error about 21%). In general, it has been seen that the influence of the scramjet is undermining the
aerodynamics of the aircraft. In case of the comparison between the CFD case 1 and the experimental
results provided by references [2,8], it can be concluded that there has been a reasonable agreement
between them. Although the initial conditions were not the same, the order of magnitude of the lift
and drag coefficients have been the same, showing average differences of 12 and 22%, respectively.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, J.M.B. and A.N.; methodology, A.N. and J.M.B.; software, A.N.;
validation, A.N.; formal analysis, A.N.; investigation, A.N.; resources, A.N.; data curation, A.N.; writing—original
draft preparation, A.N.; writing—review and editing, J.M.B.; visualisation, A.N.; supervision, J.M.B.;
project administration, J.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
α1 , α2 , α3 , α4 Design angles (◦ )
AoA Angle of attack (◦ )
AoA(CM = 0) Angle of attack at zero pitching moment condition (◦ )
CG
AoA(VFB) Angle of attack at Vertical Force Balance condition (◦ )
β Shock wave angle (◦ )
βnoc Shock wave angle at nose optimised configuration (◦ )
c Line chord m
CD Drag coefficient
CL Lift coefficient
C MCG Pitching moment coefficient
D Drag force (N)
E Aerodynamic efficiency
Emax Maximum aerodynamic efficiency
FT Thrust force (N)
HRUF Horizontal Rectilinear and Uniform Flight
L Lift force (N)
γ Adiabatic index
M Mach number
MCG Pitching moment (Nm)
Md Downstream Mach number
Md n Downstream Mach number perpendicular to the shock wave
Mu Upstream Mach number
Mu n Upstream Mach number perpendicular to the shock wave
µ∞ Freestream dynamic viscosity (Nsm−2 )
M∞ Freestream Mach number
ṁS Mass flow rate throughout the scramjet (kgs−1 )
n Polynomial degree
νPM Prandtl–Meyer wall inclination angle (◦ )
p Pressure Pa
pd Downstream pressure Pa
pu Upstream pressure Pa
p∞ Freestream pressure Pa
Pr∞ Freestream Prandtl Number
q∞ Dynamic pressure Pa
R Air gas constant (Jkg−1 K−1 )
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 22 of 23

Re∞ Freestream Reynolds number

ρ Density (kgm−3 )
ρ∞ Freestream density (kgm−3 )
S Aircraft surface (m2 )
T Temperature (K)
Td Downstream temperature (K)
Tu Upstream temperature (K)
T∞ Freestream temperature (K)
θ Deflection angle (◦ )
−→
U∞ Freestream velocity vector (ms−1 )
VFB Vertical Force Balance
W Aircraft weight (N)
x1 , x23 , x4 , x5 Design distances m
( xb , yb , zb ) Body axes
( xw , yw , zw ) Wind axes
y+ Non dimensional number
Y, yS Design distances m
z Flight altitude m

References
1. Frendi, A. On the CFD Support for the Hyper-X Aerodynamic Database. In Proceedings of the 37th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 11–14 January 1999. [CrossRef]
2. Bunin, P.G.; Wong, T.C.; Dilley, A.D.; Pao, J.L. Computational Fluid Dynamics Prediction of Hyper-X Stage
Separation Aerodynamics. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 2001, 38, 820–827. [CrossRef]
3. Cockrell, C.; Engelund, W.; Dilley, A.; Bittner, R.; Jentink, T.; Frendi, A. Integrated aero-propulsive CFD
methodology for the Hyper-X flight experiment. In Proceedings of the 18th Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14–17 August 2000; pp. 161–170.
4. Ahuja, V.; Hartfield, R.J. Optimization of hypersonic aircraft using genetic algorithms. Appl. Math. Comput.
2014, 242, 423–434. [CrossRef]
5. Gupta, K.K.; Voelker, L.S. Aeroelastic Simulation of Hypersonic Flight Vehicles. AIAA J. 2012, 50, 717–723.
[CrossRef]
6. Gupta, K.K.; Choi, S.B.; Lung, S.F.; Ibrahim, A. Aerothermoelastic-Acoustics Simulation of Flight Vehicles.
AIAA J. 2016, 55, 49–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Elizarova, T.G.; Shirokov, I.A. Artificial Dissipation Coefficients in Regularized Equations of Supersonic
Aerodynamics. Dokl. Math. 2018, 98, 648–651. [CrossRef]
8. Zheleznyakova, A.L.; Surzhikov, S.T. Application of the Method of Splitting by Physical Processes for the
Computation of a Hypersonic Flow over an Aircraft Model of Complex Configuration. High Temp. 2013,
51, 816–829. [CrossRef]
9. Zheleznyakova, A.L.; Surzhikov, S.T. Calculation of a Hypersonic Flow over Bodies of Complex
Configuration on Unstructured Tetrahedral Meshes Using the AUSM scheme. High Temp. 2014, 52, 271–281.
[CrossRef]
10. Mirmirani, M.; Kuipers, M.; Levin, J.; Clark, A.D. Flight Dynamic Characteristics of a Scramjet-Powered
Generic Hypersonic Vehicle. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA,
10–12 June 2009; pp. 2525–2532.
11. Khankhasaeva, Y.V.; Borisov, V.E.; Lutsky, A.E. Influence of Energy Input on the Flow Past Hypersonic
Aircraft X-43. IOPscience 2017, 815, 012018. [CrossRef]
12. Bonelli, F.; Cutrone, L.; Votta, R.; Viggiano, A.; Magi, V. Preliminary design of a hypersonic air-breathing
vehicle. In Proceedings of the International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies
Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 11–14 April 2011; pp. 2011–2319.
13. Kotov, M.A.; Ruleva, L.B.; Solodovnikov, S.I.; Surzhikov, S.T. Preliminary experimental assessment of
supersonic airflow behavior over ExoMars and X-43 inlet models using multiple flow regime shock tube.
J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1009, 012038. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8211 23 of 23

14. Coloma, G.; Bonelli, F.; Pascazio, G. Impact of fundamental molecular kinetics on macroscopic properties of
high-enthalpy flows: The case of hypersonic atmospheric entry. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2019, 4, 033404. [CrossRef]
15. Haley, J.G.; McCall, T.P.; Maynard, I.W.; Chudoba, B. A sizing-based approach to evaluate hypersonic
demonstrators: Demonstrator-carrier constraints. Aeronaut. J. 2020, 124, 1318–1349. [CrossRef]
16. Caros, L.; Christian, J.; Coma, M.; Prats, J.P.; Bergada, J.M. Study of the aerodynamic forces on a simplified
shape X-43 aircraft under supersonic conditions, design optimization. Revista Internacional de Métodos
Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 2020, 36. [CrossRef]
17. Marshall, L.A.; Griffin, P.C.; Sherrill, R. A Chief Engineer’s View of the NASA X-43A Scramjet Flight Test.
In Proceedings of the AIAA/CIRA 13th International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and
Technologies Conference, Capua, Italy, 16–20 May 2020.
18. Anderson, J.D., Jr. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 3rd ed.; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
19. Anderson, J.D. Modern Compressible Flow, 5th ed.; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
20. Talay, T.A. Introduction to the Aerodynamics of Flight; National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Washington, DC, USA, 1975.
21. Schlichting, H.; Gersten, K. Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill Book Company: Dallas, TX, USA, 2003.
22. Christopher, J.G. OpenFOAM: User Guide, 7th ed.; The OpenFOAM Foundation: London, UK, 2019.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).