19960045290
19960045290
19960045290
R=19960045290 2020-06-10T20:43:16+00:00Z
July 1996
NASA Technical Paper 3559
Dennis B. Finley
Lockheed-Fort Worth Company • Fort Worth, Texas
July 1996
Available electronically at the following URL address: http:lltechreports.larc.nasa.govlltrslitrs.html
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
800 Elkridge Landing Road 5285 Port Royal Road
Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 Springfield, VA 22161-2171
(301) 621-0390 (703) 487-4650
Abstract
An evaluation was made of the effects of integrating the required aircraft compo-
nents with hypersonic high-lift configurations known as waveriders to create hyper-
sonic cruise vehicles. Previous studies suggest that waveriders offer advantages in
aerodynamic performance and propulsionairframe integration (PAl) characteristics
over conventional non-waverider hypersonic shapes. A wind-tunnel model was devel-
oped that integrates vehicle components, including canopies, engine components, and
control surfaces, with two pure waverider shapes, both conical-flow-derived wave-
riders for a design Mach number of 4.0. Experimental data and limited computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) solutions were obtained over a Mach number range of 1.6
to 4.63. The experimental data show the component build-up effects and the aero-
dynamic characteristics of the fully integrated configurations, including control sur-
face effectiveness. The aerodynamic performance of the fully integrated configura-
tions is not comparable to that of the pure waverider shapes, but is comparable to
previously tested hypersonic vehicle models. Both configurations exhibit good lateral-
directional stability characteristics.
G lift coefficient
3. Configuration Design and Model
cM pitching-moment coefficient Development
cn yawing-moment coefficient
3.1. Waverider Design Method
_C n
C_ yawing-moment derivative, _l 3 A specific waverider shape is uniquely defined by
free-stream conditions, the type of generating flow-field
moment reference length, in.
body, and a leading-edge definition (ref. 1). The shapes
CL of the upper and lower surfaces of the configuration fol-
L/D
lift-drag ratio, low from these parameters. The free-stream conditions,
including Mach number and Reynolds number or alti-
Mach number tude, are selected based on mission criteria. The design
model station (distance from nose in stream- method used in this study involves a specific design
wise direction), in. point. The generating flow-field body is used to define
the shock shape upon which the leading edge of the
P pressure, lbf/fi 2 waverider is constructed. Although any arbitrary body in
roll rate, deg/sec supersonic or hypersonic flow can be used as a generat-
ing flow-field body, this study focuses specifically on the
Re Reynolds number class of conical-flow-derived waveriders, in which the
planform area, ft 2 generating flow-field body is a right circular cone in
supersonic or hypersonic flow. At the outset of this
U velocity component, ft/sec
research effort, this option was the best available for the
V total volume, ft3; velocity, ft/sec application of interest. Other possible generating flow
fields include osculating cone flow fields (ref. 4), hybrid
V2/3
cone-wedge generated flow fields (ref. 5), and inclined
volumetric efficiency, Sref
circular and elliptic conical flow fields (ref. 6). The
W.L. waterline of model (distance from zero refer- length of the generating cone, length of the waverider,
ence in vertical direction), in. and semiapex angle of the cone are specified by the
designer. The selection of these parameters can signifi-
XC.g.
moment reference center location
cantly affect the shape of the waverider generated as well
X,F,Z Cartesian coordinates, in. as the aerodynamic performance of the configuration.
y+ inner law variable Figure 1 illustrates the design of a conical-flow-derived
waverider. The planform shape, or leading edge, is
angle of attack, deg defined on the shock wave produced by the cone. The
sideslip angle, deg lower surface of the configuration is defined by tracing
streamlines from the leading edge to the base of the cone.
angle of aileron deflection (trailing edge down
The result is that the lower compression surface is a
positive), deg
stream surface behind the conical shock wave. The con-
angle of elevon deflection (trailing edge down figurations studied here have an upper surface that is
positive), deg designed as a constant free-stream pressure surface.
distance from solid boundary to first cell However, other techniques may be used, such as shaping
center, in. the upper surface as an expansion or compression
surface. The conical flow field, defined behind the
viscosity coefficient, lbf-sec/ft 2
shock wave, exists only below the lower surface of
computational coordinates the waverider.
2
The resultingconfigurationoffers two possible The design code used in this study is the (University
advantages over non-waverider hypersonic configura- of) Maryland Axisymmetric Waverider Program
tions.Thefirst is a potentialaerodynamic performance (MAXWARP) (refs. 1, 2, and 9). The MAXWARP code
advantage (refs.1, 2, and7). Theoretically, the shock is an inviscid design method that includes an estimate for
waveis perfectly attached alongtheouterleadingedgeat skin friction in the design process. Various volumetric
the designMachnumber.Theresultis thatthe high- constraints may also be imposed by the user in order to
pressureregionbehindtheshockwaveis confined tothe produce waveriders with desirable structural characteris-
lowersurface, andnoflow spillagefromthelowersur- tics and component packaging. These constraints include
faceto theuppersurface occurs.Themaximum lift-drag aspect ratio, slenderness ratio, and total volume. For
ratiosthismethodproduces promisetoexceedthoseof the case of conical-flow-derived waveriders, the Taylor-
existinghypersonic configurations.Figure2,takenfrom Maccoll equation, which describes the flow field behind
reference 2, showsthetraditional"L/D barrier"in the a conical shock wave (ref. 10), is integrated using a
supersonic/hypersonic regimeforconventional vehicles. fourth-order Runge-Kutta method to compute the invis-
Thiscorrelation isempirical,based onactualflightvehi- cid conical flow field behind the shock wave. The cone
cleexperience atsubsonic andlowsupersonic speeds and semiapex angle and length of the flow-field generating
extrapolated to hypersonic Machnumbers (ref.7).The body are specified by the user along with free-stream
symbols in figure2 represent predictionsforavarietyof conditions. The code starts with an initial leading-edge
conical-flow-derived waveridershapes generated using definition on the conical shock wave and creates a
thecurrentmethod, whichis described in detailin refer- waverider shape from this initial leading edge. The pres-
ence2.Thewaverider shapesrepresented hereareonly sure distributions on the surface of the configuration are
theforwardportionsof possiblehypersonic configura- integrated to calculate lift and drag coefficients. An esti-
tionsandtherefore arenotrealisticvehicles. Thepredic- mate for skin friction is also included so that force coeffi-
tionsshownassume thattheconfiguration haszerobase cient predictions include both inviscid and viscous
dragin orderto removethe effectof the bluntbase, effects. This estimate is based on the reference tempera-
whichwill beeliminatedin a fully integrated vehicle, ture method, which is described in reference 11. The
andshowonlytheperformance of theforwardportionof effect is to generate shapes for which wetted surface area
sucha vehicle.In otherwords,thepredictions assume is minimized to reduce skin friction drag. The code uses
thatfree-stream staticpressureactsatthebase, makinga a simplex optimization routine (ref. 1) to optimize
directcomparison of thelift-dragratiosfor waveriders waveriders for a given figure of merit: maximum lift-
andthoseof existingsupersonic/hypersonic configura- drag ratio or minimum drag. More recent versions of the
tionsdifficult.Furthermore, thewaveriders represented code allow the user to construct various other objective
heredo nothavelevelsof volumetricefficiencycompa- functions. At each iteration in the optimization process,
rabletothoseofthevehicles usedin theL/D barrier cal- an updated leading-edge definition is used to generate a
culation and may not have been obtained at similar new waverider shape that progresses toward the desired
flight-scaled Reynolds numbers. Although the lift-drag figure of merit. This process continues over a number of
ratios of a fully integrated waverider configuration with iterations until the optimum shape is found without viola-
the blunt base closed would likely be lower than those tion of any of the user-specified volumetric constraints.
for the pure waverider shape, these predictions suggest
that waveriders may offer an aerodynamic performance
3.2. Waverider Shape Description
advantage over non-waverider vehicle concepts. Another
advantage of axisymmetric waverider flow fields is that The pure waverider shapes used in this study, which
the lower surface flow field is uniform, and there is pure define the forward portions of the waverider-derived
conical flow in this region for a perfectly attached shock vehicles, were designed using the MAXWARP design
wave. Therefore, a known uniform flow field can be code. Free-stream conditions and optimization parame-
delivered to scramjet engine modules on the lower sur- ters were chosen based on the applicability of this study
face, providing a benefit in propulsion/airframe integra- to a hypersonic cruise vehicle, with available ground-
tion (PAl) (ref. 8). The osculating cone and cone-wedge based test facility limitations taken into account. The
concepts mentioned previously may provide an even design free-stream Mach number was 4.0 and the design
greater benefit over conical-flow-derived waveriders Reynolds number was 2.0 x 10 6 per foot. Although the
(refs. 4 and 5). The aerodynamic performance and PAI specific cruise Mach number for this type of vehicle
benefits suggested in previous research efforts have gen- would be higher, Mach 4.0 was selected as the design
erated interest in using waveriders for various hypersonic point based on the limitations of the UPWT and the
vehicle designs. range of data desired. The Mach number range of this
facilityis 1.47to4.63.A designpointofMach4.0would of free-stream conditions.Therefore,an attemptwas
permitthe validationof the waveriderconceptat the madeto increase thevolumetricefficiencyasmuchas
designMachnumberandalsoallowfor thedetermina- possiblewhileaccepting a minimumpenaltyin maxi-
tion of aerodynamic characteristics
at off-designMach mumlift-dragratio.Finally,aconfiguration withaflator
numbers. Theuseof endothermic fuelson thisvehicle slightlyconvexbottomsurface in thecrosssectionwas
classis expected to drivetheselection of cruiseMach desiredfor easein propulsionsystemsintegration.In
numberto approximately 5.0to 5.5.No significantdif- additiontothesethreeprimarydesignguidelines, acon-
ferences in theflow physicsareexpected betweenthe figurationfreeof substantial
curvature overmostof the
ultimatedesignMachnumberandthe Machnumber crosssectionwasalsodesired toprovidefortheinclusion
rangeinvestigated in thisstudy.TheReynolds number of aninternalsparin anactualaircraft.Furthermore, the
chosen is basedon nominalfacilityoperating conditions targetvalueof span-to-lengthratiowas0.8.Information
in theUPWTandis notrepresentative of a flightcruise from previousstudiesshowsthat largerspan(higher
altitude.Theconfiguration wasoptimized formaximum aspectratios)waveriders providehigherlift-dragratios
lift-dragratioatthedesignpointbecause thisquantityis but aremoredifficult to integrate as a full waverider-
moreappropriate thanminimumdragasa hypersonic basedvehicle(ref.12).
cruiseperformance parameter.
A three-viewdrawingandan obliqueviewof the
A fullyturbulentboundary layeranda walltempera- straight-wing puretheoretical waverider shapegenerated
tureof 585°Rwerespecifiedin thedesign.This wall by thedesigncodeareshownin figure3.Table1 sum-
temperature wasselected basedonprevious experimental marizesthe characteristics of this shape.Thespan-to-
datafrommodelstestedin theUPWT.It isnotlikelythat lengthratiois 0.83.Thelowersurfaceof the straight-
fully laminarconditions couldbemaintained in experi- wing configuration hasa slightconvexcurvaturethat
mentaltestingattheconditions of interest,
andtransition facilitatesintegrationof the propulsionsystem.The
is difficultto predict.Fullyturbulentconditionscanbe lengthselectedfor the waveriderconfigurationwas
achieved andmaintained by theapplicationofboundary- 24.0in. basedon the sizeof the test sectionin the
layertransitiongrittothemodelsurface. UPWT.Thelengthof thegenerating conewasselected
to fix thelocationof thewaverider leadingedgeon the
Twodifferentpurewaverider shapes weredeveloped conicalshockwaveto achieve thedesigncriterianoted
for this study.The first is referredto asthe "straight- previously (48.0in. for thisapplication). A selection of
wing" shapeandwasdesigned usingtheMAXWARP differentlocationson the conicalshockwavewould
optimizationroutine.The second,referredto as the resultin waveriderswithmuchdifferentgeometric char-
"cranked-wing" shape,wascreated byadjusting thelead- acteristics
andmayresultin thegeneration of unrealistic
ing edgeof the straight-wingwaveriderto createa shapes thatcouldnot be integrated into vehicles.The
curvedwingtipshapethathadincreased aspectratiobut volumetric efficiency,Vef f, of this configuration is 0.11
still maintained
shockattachment alongtheouterleading with a predicted maximum lift-drag ratio of 6.9.
edgeat the designfree-stream condition.The term
"cranked"inthiscontextreferstoa wingshape in which A three-view drawing and an oblique view of the
the sweepanglenot only changes but alsoexhibitsa cranked-wing pure theoretical waverider shape generated
largeoutboarddihedralanglein theplaneof thebase. by the design code are shown in figure 4. The cranked
The cranked-wingshapewas designedto provide leading edge still lies on the same conical shock wave
improvements in subsonicaerodynamic performance produced by the generating cone used to design the
(becauseof increasedaspectratio) and in lateral- straight-wing waverider. The characteristics of the
directionalstability(because of dihedraleffect)while cranked-wing waverider shape are summarized in
maintaininghigh performancein the supersonic/ table 2. The span-to-length ratio is 0.96, which represents
hypersonic regime. an approximately 16 percent increase in aspect ratio.
This increase in aspect ratio should improve the subsonic
Threeprimarydesigncriteriawereusedtoselectthe aerodynamic performance over the straight-wing wave-
bestwaveridershapedesigns for thisapplication.
First, rider while maintaining the structural characteristics
themaximumlift-dragratiowaschosentobeashighas of the straight-wing waverider near the centerline of
possible whilenotviolatingotherdesignguidelines.
This the configuration. The volumetric efficiency of this
criteriondrivestheselectionof theconesemiapex angle configuration is 0.108 with a calculated maximum lift-
for the generatingflow field. A valueof 8.1° was drag ratio of 6.7. This configuration represents only a
selectedforthisapplication.
Second, thevolumetric
effi- slight decrease of both parameters from the straight-wing
ciency(V2/3/Sref)waschosento beashighaspossible. waverider. The slight convex curvature of the bottom
An inverserelationship existsbetweenthe volumetric surface is maintained toward the centerline of the
efficiencyandthemaximumlift-dragratioforagivenset model. The dihedral angle of the aft cranked section is
approximately28° whenmeasured
fromthecenterline
of surface to integrate some type of engine system and is
thissection. not intended to be a realistic propulsion simulation. The
inlet capture area, expansion ramp turning angle, and
Thevaluesfor maximumlift-dragratiogivenarefor nozzle exit area were designed for full-scale Mach 4.0
thepurewaveridershapesonly. The waveriders were conditions. The compression surface shown in figure 8 is
subsequently altered to close the blunt base and add con-
required for additional precompression of the flow enter-
trol surfaces. The predictions assume that free-stream
ing the inlet. The non-flow-through configuration
static pressure are acting at the base of the unaltered pure
attempts to model the external cowl drag present on a
waverider shape, so that only forebody drag values are
realistic flow-through nacelle, but does not have the
included in the performance predictions. As will be
associated internal drag. Two different nozzle/expansion
shown later, the incorporation of aftbody closure is a sig-
ramps were designed for the model. The first was used
nificant issue in hypersonic vehicle development.
with the pure waverider configurations with the nacelle
attached and the second was used with configurations
3.3. Wind-Tunnel Model Designs that had control surfaces attached. These nozzles are
Two slight modifications to the design-code shapes referred to as the "short" and "long" nozzles, respec-
were implemented in the wind-tunnel model design in tively (figs. 10(a) and 10(b)). Identical nozzles with static
order to accommodate model support hardware and addi- pressure taps were also fabricated in order to obtain sur-
tional vehicle components. A smooth ogive-cylindrical face pressure measurements on the nozzle. The non-
fairing was blended on to the upper surface of the pure instrumented ramps were used for force and moment
waverider shapes to accommodate the sting and balance runs.
5
shows a three-view drawing of the fully integrated ify that yawing and rolling moment values are linear over
configurations. this range (ref. 15). Based on these results, stability
derivatives were calculated from data obtained at the two
4. Experimental Method fixed sideslip angles.
The facility used in this study was the UPWT at The data obtained from the wind-tunnel tests include
NASA Langley Research Center. The UPWT is a closed- six-component force and moment data, static pressure
circuit, continuous-flow pressure tunnel with two 4- by readings on the blunt base of the model, static pressure
4- by 7-ft test sections, which were both used in this data on the nozzle surfaces, and flow-visualization data.
study. The Mach number range of the facility is 1.47 The balance used in this case was the NASA-LaRC-
to 4.63, with a range in the low Mach number test section designated UT-50-B balance, which is a six-component
of 1.47 to 2.86 and a range in the high Mach number test strain gauge balance. Unless otherwise noted, the
section from 2.30 to 4.63. Continuous variation of Mach
moment reference center for all configurations was
number is achieved by using asymmetric sliding block located 16.623 in. aft of the nose. A total of 11 5-psi
nozzles to vary the nozzle throat-to-test-section area pressure transducers were used to measure the static
ratio. The Reynolds number range of this facility is pressure along the blunt base of the configurations and in
0.5 x 106 to 8.0 x 106 per foot. However, the nominal the cavity surrounding the sting. Integrated areas were
Reynolds number for most tests is 2.0 x 106 per foot. assigned to each tap or averaged group of taps and used
A detailed description of the UPWT can be found in to calculate the base axial force. All of the force data pre-
reference 14.
sented is corrected to assume free-stream static pressure
acting at the base. This procedure is carried out so that
The configurations tested ranged from the straight
the data may be presented showing only the upper and
and cranked pure waverider models to the fully inte-
lower surface lift and drag values and eliminating the
grated waverider-derived vehicles. The test configura-
effect of the blunt base. This procedure is necessary
tions were chosen to show pure waverider performance;
because the base will be eliminated in any realistic
to isolate the effects on waverider aerodynamic perfor-
waverider-derived configuration. The method of assum-
mance of the canopy, engine package, and control sur-
ing free-stream pressure at the base is consistent with the
faces; and to show the aerodynamic performance and
design-code method and with previous studies showing
stability characteristics of the fully integrated configura-
predictions for waverider aerodynamic performance
tions. Only the cranked-wing configurations were tested
in the low Mach number test section. The data were cor- (refs. 2, 9, and 16). Details on the procedure used are
included in reference 15. For configurations with both
rected for flow angularity in the test sections. Calibration
data for the UPWT shows that the flow in both test sec- engines and control surfaces, only two base and two
chamber pressures were measured. A 32-port, 5-psi
tions has an upflow angle generally within 0.5 ° of the
external electronically scanned pressure (ESP) module
tunnel centerline (ref. 14). In each run, either six-
was used to measure the static pressure on the nozzle
component force and moment data, nozzle pressure data,
surface for four runs. Figure 10 shows the locations of
or vapor-screen photographs were obtained. Schlieren
pressure taps on the nozzle surfaces for the short and
photographs were taken during the force and moment
runs.
long nozzles. Recall that the short nozzle is used with
configurations having no control surfaces and the long
The test conditions were chosen to investigate the nozzle is used with configurations with control surfaces.
aerodynamic performance and stability of each configu- A total of 12 pressure taps were located on the short noz-
ration at both the design Mach number and at off-design zle and 24 pressure taps were located on the long nozzle.
Mach numbers. Data were obtained at Mach numbers of The data are used to correct the nozzle surface pressures
2.3, 4.0, and 4.63 for all configurations studied and, addi- to assume free-stream static pressure acting on these sur-
tionally, at Mach numbers of 3.5 and 4.2 for some con- faces for some configurations.
figurations. Data for the cranked-wing configurations
were also obtained at Mach numbers of 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0. Schlieren and laser-vapor-screen photographs were
The free-stream Reynolds number for most runs was taken in order to examine flow-field features includ-
2.0 x 106 per foot. Some runs were made at Reynolds ing the shock attachment characteristics for various
numbers of 1.5 x 106 per foot and 3.0 x 106 per foot in configurations. For the vapor-screen runs, the laser was
order to investigate the effects at off-design Reynolds positioned outside of the test section window and the
numbers. The angle-of-attack range studied was -6 ° to light sheet was projected across the model surface in the
10 ° at fixed sideslip angles of 0 ° and 3 °. Data were spanwise direction, illuminating one cross section at
obtained over a sideslip angle range of-5 ° to 5 ° for the a time. The camera was mounted inside of the test sec-
first configuration run in each test section in order to ver- tion above and behind the model. This setup gives a
cross-sectional
viewof thewaverider
flow fieldin the k-computational direction runs from the surface of the
vapor-screen
photographs. configuration to the outer boundary. The grids for each
of the two pure waverider shapes contained 91 points in
The accuracy of theUT-50-Bbalance, basedon a the _ direction, 111 points in the 11 direction, and
May1993calibration, is0.5percent
of full scaleforeach 91 points in the _ direction. Blunt leading edges were
component to within 95-percent confidence. Thefull- modeled for each configuration in order to provide a bet-
scaleload limits were600lbf normal,40 lbf axial, ter comparison with experimental data. Grid points were
1500in-lbfpitchingmoment, 400in-lbfrollingmoment, also clustered near the surface of each configuration in
800in-lbfyawingmoment, and300ibf sideforce.Asan order to adequately resolve the boundary-layer flow. The
example,usingthemethodof root-mean-squares sum- amount of grid spacing needed is judged by examining
mationtocombine independenterrorsources, theselim- the grid spacing parameter, y÷, which is given by
itscorrespond to arangeof uncertaintyin lift coefficient
of 0.0053at_ =0° to 0.0054atot= 10° andanuncer-
tainty rangein dragcoefficientof 0.00036at o_=0° y+= / pcucA_
to0.001ato_= 10° fortheMoo = 4.0 and Reoo = 2.0 × 106 6/ 0c (1)
9
unstable
at all Mach numbers studied. The moment refer- tion when the faceted canopy is used. Similarly, a
ence center location here is an arbitrarily selected 5.1-percent reduction in maximum lift-drag ratio occurs
location at the approximate location of the center of grav- for the cranked-wing configuration. The data indicate
ity of the fully integrated model. This moment reference that a penalty was incurred for the canopy, and therefore
center location (16.623 in. aft of the nose) is used for all attention should be paid to the canopy design in a hyper-
configurations studied unless otherwise stated. The sonic waverider-based vehicle.
cranked-wing pitching moment curve is more nonlinear
than that for the straight-wing shape, indicating that the 7.2. Effect of Engine Package
shock may be detached at higher angles of attack for the
cranked-wing configuration. The yawing moment char- The engine component effects are evaluated by com-
paring experimental data from engine-on and engine-off
acteristics are shown in figure 28. This figure shows the
configurations. Figures 32 and 33 show the effects of
yawing moment derivative versus angle of attack at each
adding the engine package (ramp, inlet, and nozzle com-
Mach number studied for both configurations. The
ponents) to the straight-wing and cranked-wing configu-
straight-wing configuration is directionally unstable at all
rations, respectively. The data shown here are for
Mach numbers studied at angles of attack of 8 ° and
configurations with the canopy and no control surfaces.
below. The cranked-wing configuration is directionally
The data are corrected to assume free-stream static pres-
stable at all Mach numbers studied above an angle of
sure acting at the base. No correction is applied to these
attack of 4 °. Both configurations experience a destabiliz-
data for the nozzle surface pressures. Each figure shows
ing effect as Mach number increases. The cranked-wing
lift and drag coefficients as well as lift-drag ratios at
configuration was expected to provide improved direc-
Mach 4.0 and the maximum lift-drag ratio at comparative
tional stability from the increased dihedral along the out-
Mach numbers for engine-on and engine-off configura-
board leading edge. The rolling moment characteristics
tions. The addition of engine components results in a
are shown in figure 29 for each configuration. The
slight increase in lift and a significant increase in drag at
cranked-wing waverider shows better lateral stability
Mach 4.0. These effects are caused by the inlet compres-
characteristics than the straight-wing model. The
sion surface and the increase in projected frontal area and
cranked-wing configuration exhibits positive effective
produce a decrease in lift-drag ratio at positive values of
dihedral above 0 ° angle of attack at all Mach numbers.
lift and a reduction in maximum lift-drag ratio over the
The straight-wing model is unstable at angles of attack
below 6.0 ° at Mach numbers of 4.0 and 4.63 and is unsta- Mach number range studied. The straight-wing engine-
on configuration shows a 19.7-percent reduction in the
ble at angles of attack below 4 ° at a Mach number of 2.3.
maximum lift-drag ratio at Mach 4.0 over the engine-
off configuration. The cranked-wing model shows a
7. Component Build-Up Effects 17.7-percent reduction at the same condition.
The effects of adding the canopy on the aerodynamic The effects of adding undetected control surfaces
performance of the pure straight-wing and cranked-wing are illustrated by comparing data for configurations with
waverider models are illustrated in figures 30 and 31, no control surfaces to those with undetected ailerons and
respectively. These data were obtained for configurations elevons attached. Each configuration includes the canopy
that have no control surfaces or engine components and engine components. Data for both the straight-wing
attached, and the data are corrected to assume free- and cranked-wing configurations are shown. The coeffi-
stream static pressure acting at the base. Each figure cient data are reduced by the planform areas of each cor-
shows the lift and drag coefficients as well as lift-drag responding configuration so the effects of increased
ratios at Mach 4.0 and the maximum lift-drag ratio at planform are accounted for in the normalization of these
each comparative Mach number studied for the canopy- data. The plots showing drag and lift-drag data include
off and faceted-canopy configurations. The canopy-off three separate data sets. The first is the data for the
configurations have the ogive-cylindrical fairing on the controls-off configuration corrected to assume free-
upper surface, as discussed previously. Both the straight- stream pressure at the base. Therefore, only forebody
wing and cranked-wing configurations show little differ- drag values are included in these data and base drag is
ence in lift when the canopy is added. The canopy-on not included. The second data set is the controls-on data
configurations show slightly higher drag than those with and the third set is the controls-off data with base drag
no canopy and an accompanying decrease in lift-drag included (i.e., uncorrected data from wind-tunnel mea-
ratios at positive values of lift over the Mach number surements), so that these data include the effect of the
range studied. The maximum lift-drag ratio at Mach 4.0 blunt base. A comparison between the second and third
is reduced by 3.6 percent for the straight-wing configura- data sets shows the aerodynamic effect of adding control
10
surfaces totheconfiguration,
anda comparison between a waverider stream surface all the way to the base while
the first two datasetsshowstherelativeperformance designing the upper surface as an expansion surface.
betweentheclosedconfigurations andthatof thefore- Longer control surfaces would also reduce the closure
bodysurface onlywithouttheeffectof thebluntbase. angle and enhance the pitch control power of the
configuration.
Theeffectof addingundeflected controlsurfaces to
straight-wing waveriderconfiguration with thecanopy 8. Characteristics of Fully-Integrated
andenginecomponents attached is summarized in fig-
Waverider-Derived Hypersonic Cruise
ure34.Theadditionof controlsurfaces causes a slight
decrease in lift coefficientatMach4.0.Thisdecrease is Configurations
partiallycausedby the largeexpansion anglethat is
present on theelevonlowersurfaces anda 16-percent 8.1. Aerodynamic Performance
increase in reference areafor thecontrols-on configura- Aerodynamic characteristics of each of the fully
tion. A comparison of the controls-offdatawith base integrated waverider-derived configurations are exam-
dragandthecontrols-on datashowsadecrease in dragat ined over the Mach number range using experimental
agivenlift-coefficient value.Thereis aslightincrease in data, and the performance of these configurations are
lift-dragratiosat low positiveanglesof attackandan compared to that of the pure waverider shapes. The
increase in maximumlift-dragratioswhen0° control fully integrated configurations are defined here to have
surfaces wereaddedto theconfiguration. However,a the canopy, the engine components, the undeflected aile-
comparison of thecontrols-on datawiththecontrols-off rons, the undeflected elevons, and the vertical tail
datawith nobasedragshowsthattheclosedconfigura- attached. The aerodynamic characteristics of the straight-
tionhassignificantly higherdragvaluesandlowermaxi- wing and cranked-wing configurations are presented first
mumlift-dragratiosthantheforebody-only values. This followed by comparisons to the corresponding pure
resultindicates thattheinclusionof aftbodyclosurepre- waverider configuration.
sentsa significantchallenge in theintegration of pure
waverider shapes intohypersonic vehiclesandthatthis The aerodynamic performance of the straight-wing
aspectof the configurationdeserves specialconsider- and cranked-wing waverider-derived hypersonic cruise
ationin thedesignprocess. It is likely thatthelift-drag configurations are shown in figures 36 and 37, respec-
ratiosof aclosedconfiguration cannotapproach thoseof tively. The data presented here have the nozzle surface
purewaverider shapes because theeffectof basedragis pressures corrected to assume free-stream pressure acting
oftennotincludedin lift-dragvaluesfortheseconfigura- on the nozzle surface. The data are presented using this
tions.Theeffectsof controlsurfaceadditionaresimilar method to show the aerodynamic characteristics without
for the cranked-wing configuration asindicatedin fig- any propulsive effect on the nozzle surface. The force
ure35. Forreference, the baseareais approximately data were corrected by assigning integration areas to
8.3 percentof theplanformareafor the straight-wing each pressure tap measurement and computing the cor-
model with no control surfacesand approximately rected coefficients. The locations of pressure taps are
9.1percent forthecranked-wing model. shown in figure 10. The straight-wing configuration has
a maximum lift-drag ratio of 4.69 at Mach 4.0 and the
Thecontrolsurfacedesignfortheconfiguration used cranked-wing configuration has a value of 4.56 when the
in thisstudywasasomewhat arbitrary
designbasedonly nozzle surface pressures are corrected to free-stream
on trendsfromvarioussupersonic fighteraircraft.A pressure. The aerodynamic performance of each configu-
moreoptimumdesigncouldminimizetheperformance ration does not vary significantly at off-design Mach
degradation causedby theclosureof thebluntbase.A numbers. The maximum lift-drag ratio for each configu-
performance improvement couldbeobtained by includ- ration also occurs near 2 ° angle of attack at Mach 4.0.
ingthe aftbodyclosurein thedesign/optimization pro- The angle of attack for maximum lift-drag ratio increases
cess.Previousstudieshaveexamined thepossibilityof as Mach number decreases. At Mach numbers of 2.0 and
usingblunttrailingedgesoncontrolsurfaces asameans below, the maximum lift-drag ratios for the cranked-
of enhancing the aerodynamicperformance (refs.25 wing configuration do not follow the general trend of
to27).Thebluntbasereducesthestrengthof the base increasing maximum lift-drag ratio with decreasing
recompression shockandproperdesignof the trailing Mach number. This situation results from lift curve slope
edgecanresultin an increasein basepressure anda values that show similar inconsistencies at Mach num-
decrease in drag.A controlsurfacedesignthattakes bers less than 2.3.
advantage of theseeffectswould enhance the aero-
dynamic performanceof the configuration.This A direct comparison of the straight-wing and
enhancement couldbe accomplished by reducingthe cranked-wing fully integrated vehicles is shown in fig-
thicknessof thebaseby maintainingthelowersurfaceas ure 38. The straight-wing configuration produces slightly
11
highervaluesof maximumlift-dragratio than the maximum lift-drag ratio at Mach 4.0 for the fully inte-
cranked-wing configuration
atMachnumbers of 2.3and grated configuration is 4.56, compared to a value of 6.72
higher.Thestraight-wing modelalsoshowshigherlift for the fully integrated vehicle.
coefficientvaluesatMach4.0.Thestraight-wingmodel
From these results, it can be concluded that the max-
showsa maximumlift-dragratio thatis 3.0 percent
imum lift-drag ratios of a fully integrated waverider-
higherthanthatofthecranked-wingconfiguration
atthe
derived configuration with aftbody closure likely cannot
designMachnumberof4.0.
approach those of pure waverider shapes. Theoretical
Comparisons of the aerodynamics of the straight- predictions for waverider configurations do not include
wingpurewaverider modelandthefullyintegrated con- the effects of aftbody closure. However, it will be shown
figurationareshownin figure39.Thisfigureshowslift that the fully integrated waverider-derived configurations
anddragcoefficients aswellaslift-dragratiosatMach studied here are comparable in aerodynamic performance
4.0andthemaximumlift-dragratiosateachMachnum- to previously tested hypersonic models with performance
berstudied.Asin figures34and35,thesedatasetsare improvements possible through enhanced control surface
presented forcomparison in thedragandlift-dragplots. and propulsion system designs.
Thefirst datasetrepresents thepurewaveridershape
with nobasedragincluded.Thesecondrepresents the In order to characterize the lift-drag values of the
waverider shapewithbasedrag,andthethirdrepresents configurations studied here, a comparison is made
the fully integratedconfiguration. Thenozzlesurface between data for the present cranked-wing fully inte-
pressures arecorrected toassume free-streampressureon grated waverider-derived configuration and experimental
thenozzlesurfacefor the fully integrated vehicles.A data from six hypersonic vehicle wind-tunnel models
comparison of the purewaverider datawith basedrag previously tested in NASA Langley facilities (refs. 28 to
andthefully integrated datashowsthattheaerodynamic 33) in figure 41. Although direct comparisons of these
performance of the purewaveridershapeis degraded data are not possible here because of different conditions,
whenallof thevariousvehiclecomponents areadded.A geometries, levels of volumetric efficiencies, and force
reduction in lift coefficientfor thefully integrated con- accounting methodologies, a range of values can be
figurationis observed at Mach4.0 above0° angleof obtained to compare with the data from the current study.
attack,whichincreases asangleof attackincreases. An As shown in figure 41, the waverider falls within the
increase in dragis observed whenall components are same general range of lift-drag values as the non-
integrated withthepurewaverider model.Theseeffects waverider hypersonic configurations. The lift-drag ratios
resultin a decrease in lift-dragratiosatMach4.0andin of the waverider configurations studied could be
maximum lift-dragratiosatcomparative Machnumbers improved significantly through a better design of the pro-
of 4.0andabove.At Mach2.3,thereis a slightincrease pulsion system and control surface closure. Therefore,
in maximumlift-dragratiowhenall vehiclecomponents the waverider configurations studied here offer at least
areadded.Thisincrease is mostlikelycaused bythenoz- comparable aerodynamic performance and perhaps a
zle surfacepressure correctionto free-stream pressure. modest advantage over conventional non-waverider
Thefree-stream staticpressure increasesasMachnum- hypersonic vehicles.
berdecreases. However,theaerodynamic performance
of thefully integrated vehicleis significantly degraded 8.2. Longitudinal Control Effectiveness and Trim
fromthatofthepurewaverider shapeonlywithnobase
Both fully integrated configurations are longitudi-
dragincluded,because of thedragproduced by thecon-
nally unstable at each Mach number studied. The
trol surfaceaddition.The maximumlift-dragratio at
pitching-moment coefficient data as a function of angle
Mach4.0 for thefully integrated vehicleis 4.69,com-
of attack at each Mach number studied are shown in fig-
paredto6.68forthepurewaverider shape.
ure 42. Data for the straight-wing and cranked-wing fully
A comparison of thefully integrated cranked-wing integrated waverider-derived hypersonic cruise configu-
configurationand the pure cranked-wingwaverider rations are shown. The moment reference center is
modelyieldsconclusions similartothoseofthecompari- located at 62.5 percent of the centerline chord. At higher
sonof thestraight-wing configurations. Figure40shows angles of attack, the cranked-wing configuration shows a
the aerodynamicperformanceof the cranked-wing destabilizing increase in the pitching moment curve. This
waveriderforebodyandthe cranked-wing fully inte- increase indicates that the shock may have detached from
gratedconfiguration.The additionof vehiclecompo- the leading edge of the outer cranked portion of the wing
nentscausesa slightdegradation in the aerodynamic at higher angles of attack. The longitudinal instability of
performance,but the lift-drag ratios observed for the these configurations may be addressed in one of two
fully integrated model are significantly lower than those ways. First, it may be possible to shift the center-of-
for the pure waverider shape only with no base drag. The gravity location for a fully integrated flight vehicle to a
12
locationthatwouldprovideatleastneutralstabilityover sible to control the shift in static margin from subsonic to
the Machnumberrange.Recommendations for such supersonic speeds using fuel transfer. Neutral stability
locationsarepresented laterin thissection.Second, the can be achieved by placing the center of gravity at a loca-
additionof a fully functioning propulsion system would tion equal to 58 percent of the centerline chord for the
enhance thelongitudinal instabilitybyincreasing theaft- fully integrated straight-wing configuration and 59 per-
bodylowersurfacepressures. cent of the centerline chord for the cranked-wing config-
uration. Data for lift and pitching-moment coefficients
Thepitchcontroleffectiveness of theelevonsand referenced to these center-of-gravity locations are shown
devon/aileron combination for thestraight-wing config- in figure 45 for the straight-wing vehicle and in figure 46
urationis shownin figure43.Dataareshownforthree for the cranked-wing vehicle. In figure 45, the data for
trimsettings. Thefirst is onewithboththeelevons and the trailing-edge-up elevon deflections were extrapolated
aileronsat 0°, the secondwith a positive20° elevon from the cranked-wing data and applied to the straight-
deflection(_E) and a 0 ° aileron deflection (_A), and the
wing configuration. Also note that all of the data pre-
third with both elevons and ailerons deflected at 20 °. The
sented here are for unpowered conditions. The addition
effectiveness of the elevon decreases as Mach number
of a functioning propulsion system will enhance the lon-
increases, as evidenced by the smaller increments in lift
gitudinal stability of the vehicle even further. These data
and pitching-moment coefficients produced by each
are presented only to indicate the effects of an alternative
deflection. The ailerons were more effective than the
choice of center-of-gravity locations. Subsequent data
elevons in pitch control because of the shadowing of the
are presented at the original moment reference center
elevon behind the thick wing shape and the location of
location of 62.5 percent of the centerline chord.
the elevon in an expansion flow field. The CFD flow
field solutions showed that the bottom surface flow field
8.3. Lateral-Directional Stability and Control
expands to pressure below free-stream pressure in the
Effectiveness
region where the elevons are placed. Also, the closure
angle for the elevon was severe because of the thick base The lateral-directional stability of the straight-wing
of the waverider. Each aileron has only 70 percent of the and cranked-wing hypersonic cruise vehicles are shown
planform area of the elevon but at higher angles of attack in figures 47 and 48, respectively. Each figure shows
generates substantially more pitching moment. These yawing and rolling moment derivatives at each Mach
characteristics may be unacceptable and indicate that the number studied. Both configurations are directionally
pitch control concept should be redesigned. stable at all Mach numbers investigated, with the
cranked-wing model providing higher stability levels
The pitch control effectiveness of the elevons for the
than the straight-wing model. The cranked-wing fully
cranked-wing configuration is shown in figure 44. Each
integrated configuration is laterally stable across the
figure shows data for 0 °, 20 °, and -20 ° elevon deflec-
angle-of-attack range at all Mach numbers studied. The
tions with 0 ° ailerons. No runs were made with both aile-
straight-wing fully integrated configuration is laterally
rons and elevons deflected at the same angle because of
unstable at angles of attack below 6 ° (at Mach 4.0). This
the shape of the trailing edge for the cranked-wing con-
roll instability may be caused in part by the high place-
figuration. The elevon pitch control power for this con- ment of the balance in the model. No transfer distance in
figuration also decreases as Mach number increases.
the vertical direction was applied to the moment refer-
However, in contrast to the straight-wing pitch control
ence center in the presentation of data.
data, the cranked-wing pitching moment curves are non-
linear. This factor makes the elevon pitch control power Figures 49 and 50 show the effect of the vertical tail
even more critical for this configuration than for the on yawing moment derivative and rolling moment deriv-
straight-wing vehicle. These data indicate that the nose- ative values for each configuration. The effect of the ver-
down pitch control power of this configuration is not suf- tical tail is to significantly enhance the directional
ficient. Either symmetric ailerons must be used to pro- stability of both the straight-wing and cranked-wing con-
vide additional pitch control power or the elevon area figurations, indicated by the large positive shift in yaw-
should be increased. ing moment derivatives when the vertical tail is added to
each model. No rudder control effectiveness runs were
Because of the combination of unstable pitching
made in this study, so it is not clear whether sufficient
moment characteristics and low pitch control power
yaw control power exists to augment stability. The addi-
observed in the experimental data, the configurations
tion of the vertical tail does not cause any significant
should be balanced such that they are at least neutrally
change in the lateral stability characteristics of either
stable to ensure adequate pitch control power throughout
configuration.
the angle-of-attack range. For a realistic full-scale flight
vehicle, it should be possible to control the center-of- The effectiveness of a 20 ° aileron deflection on the
gravity location through packaging. Also, it may be pos- straight-wing configuration is shown in figure 51. A 20 °
13
ailerondeflection indicated
hereimpliesoneaileronwith controllability characteristics of the fully integrated
a 20° trailing-edge-down deflection and the other with a hypersonic cruise vehicles.
20 ° trailing-edge-up deflection. The elevons remained
The flow-field characteristics and aerodynamic per-
fixed at 0 ° for these runs. Figure 51 shows rolling
formance of the two pure waverider shapes were
moment and yawing moment increments between the
examined using experimental and computational data.
deflected and nondeflected runs. Additionally, the
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions and
DATCOM computer code was used to estimate the
laser vapor-screen photographs of the straight-wing and
steady state roll rates for this configuration (ref. 34).
cranked-wing pure waverider models confirmed the
Table 4 shows the steady roll rate capabilities as pre-
shock attachment/detachment characteristics of each
dicted by this method. The roll rate is shown as deg/sec
configuration. The shock was slightly detached from the
of roll, normalized by flight velocity. For most vehicles
outer leading edge at the design Mach number of 4.0
of this type, excess roll-control power is available at
and 0 ° angle of attack. This detachment distance exists
lower angles of attack. The requirements for pitch and
roll control surfaces for the waverider-derived vehicles because of boundary-layer displacement effects as well
as blunt leading-edge effects. The design code assumes
may be driven by low-speed flying qualities. These qual-
an infinitely sharp leading edge and does not account for
ifies include roll-rate capabilities at subsonic speeds and
the physical presence of a boundary layer. Comparisons
crosswind landing requirements.
between experimental force data and CFD predictions
Figure 52 shows the effectiveness of the ailerons for were generally good. The maximum lift-drag ratios
the cranked-wing fully integrated configuration. How- observed experimentally were lower than the design-
ever, a significant difference exists between these results code predictions, as expected. These lower lift-drag
and those for the straight-wing configuration. The ratios were caused by a loss of lift and an increase in drag
cranked-wing ailerons produce considerably more caused by the shock not being perfectly attached as well
adverse yaw at 0 ° angle of attack than the straight-wing as to loss of lift from the lower-surface expansion and an
configuration, as evidenced by the large negative values increase in drag from the additional volume added to the
of AC t. The adverse yaw produced by the cranked-wing upper surface to accommodate model support hardware.
ailerons will further drive the control power requirements The maximum lift-drag ratio for each configuration
of the rudder. occurs at an angle of attack above 0 °. Both the CFD pre-
dictions and experimental data showed that there were no
Figure 53 shows the aileron effectiveness on lateral-
significant performance degradations at off-design Mach
directional stability with the ailerons deflected at 20 ° for
numbers. The cranked-wing pure waverider model
the cranked-wing fully integrated configuration. Rolling exhibited slightly better aerodynamic performance at the
moment and yawing moment increments for a positive comparative Mach numbers studied than the straight-
20 ° elevon deflection and a +_20° aileron deflection are
wing model.
shown. A comparison of these data shows that a 20 °
elevon deflection has no effect on roll control power, Component build-up effects of waverider-derived
indicating that interaction between controls is minimal at vehicles were examined by comparing experimental
the Mach numbers studied here. force and moment data. The primary effect of individu-
ally adding the canopy and the engine package was to
increase the drag of the configuration, thereby resulting
9. Concluding Remarks
in a degradation in aerodynamic performance. The aero-
The aerodynamic performance and stability and con- dynamic effect of adding control surfaces was to increase
trol characteristics of two Mach 4.0 waverider-derived the maximum lift-drag ratios slightly at each Mach
hypersonic cruise configurations were examined. Experi- number studied. However, the aerodynamic performance
mental force, moment, and flow-visualization data were of the controls-on configurations was significantly
obtained for the two Mach 4.0 waverider configurations degraded from that of the pure waverider shape only by
in both test sections of the Langley Unitary Plan Wind the addition of aftbody closure and the associated drag
Tunnel (UPWT). The wind-tunnel models were designed production. The values presented for the pure waverider
to allow testing of various configurations ranging from model show the performance of the waverider surface
pure waveriders to fully integrated vehicles. The two only and do not include base drag. These results indicate
pure waverider shapes were referred to as the straight- that additional consideration should be applied to
wing pure and the cranked-wing pure waveriders. Exper- the design of control surfaces and aftbody closure in
imental data as well as limited computational solutions waverider-based hypersonic cruise configurations. A
were used to examine the flow field and aerodynamic control surface configuration with a less severe closure
characteristics of the two pure waverider shapes, the angle or controls with blunt trailing edges may result in
component build-up effects, and the aerodynamic and improved performance. Inclusion of the aftbody closure
14
in the optimization process for the waverider shape may 2.
Corda, Stephen; and Anderson, John D., Jr.: Viscous Opti-
also improve the performance significantly. mized Hypersonic Waveriders Designed From Axisymmetric
Flow Fields. AIAA-88-0369, Jan. 1988.
unstable across the Mach number range studied for 9. Corda, Stephen; and Seifert, E. Scott: User Information for
unpowered conditions with the selected reference Maryland Axisymmetric Wave Rider Program (MAXIWARP).
moment center. Additionally, locations were recom- Univ. of Maryland, Jan. 1989.
mended for placement of the center of gravity in each
10. Anderson, John D., Jr.: Modern Compressible Flow--With
configuration in order to ensure at least neutral stability
Historical Perspective. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1982.
across the Mach number range. The pitch-control effec-
tiveness of the elevons was judged to be unacceptable for 11. Anderson, John D., Jr.: Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas
both configurations, and the data indicate that the pitch Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1989.
control concept should be redesigned. The ailerons were
12. Beuerlein, David L.: Optimization of Waveriders to Maximize
significantly more effective than the elevons for pitch
Mission Performance. Proceedings of the 1st International
control. The cranked-wing vehicle shows significantly
Hypersonic Waverider Symposium, John D. Anderson, Jr.,
better lateral-directional stability than the straight-wing Mark J. Lewis, Stephen Corda, and Isaiah M. Blankson, eds.,
vehicle. The straight-wing configuration was unstable at Univ. of Maryland, 1990.
angles of attack below 6 ° at Mach 4.0. The vertical tail
13. Cockrell, Charles E., Jr.: Interpretation of Waverider Perfor-
has a significant stabilizing effect on directional stability,
mance Data Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. AIAA-
but very little effect on lateral stability. The ailerons are
93-2921, July 1993.
also highly effective for the cranked-wing vehicle, but
produce a significant amount of adverse yaw. 14. Jackson, C. M., Jr.; Corlett, W. A.; and Monta, W. J.: Descrip-
tion and Calibration of the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel.
NASA TP-1905, 1981.
NASA Langley Research Center 15. Cockrell, Charles Edward, Jr.: Vehicle Integration Effects on
Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Hypersonic Waveriders. NASA TM-109739, 1994.
May 6, 1996
16. Bauer, Steven X. S.; Covell, Peter F.; Forrest, Dana K.; and
McGrath, Brian E.: Analysis of Two Viscous Optimized
References Waveriders. Proceedings of the 1st International Hypersonic
Waverider Symposium, John D. Anderson, Jr., Mark J. Lewis,
1. Bowcutt, K. G.; Anderson, J. D.; and Capriotti, D.: Viscous Stephen Corda, and Isaiah M. Blankson, eds., Univ. of
Optimized Hypersonic Waveriders. AIAA-87-0272, Jan. 1987. Maryland, 1990.
15
17. Braslow, A. L.; and Knox, Eugene C.: Simplified Method for 27. Dutton, J.; Herrin, J.; Molezzi, M.; Mathur, T.; and Smith, K.:
Determination of Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Some Problems in Transonic Aerodynamics. AIAA-95-0476,
Particles for Boundary-Layer Transition at Mach Numbers Jan. 1995.
From 0 to 5. NACA TN-4363, Sept. 1958.
28. Penland, Jim A.; Hallissy, James B.; and Dillon, James L.:
18. Braslow, A. L.; Hams, R. V., Jr.; and Hicks, R. M.: Use of
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Hypersonic Research Air-
Grit-Type Boundary-Layer-Transition Trips on Wind-Tunnel
plane Concept Having a 70 ° Swept Double-Delta Wing at
Models. NASA TN D-3579, 1966.
Mach Numbers From 0.80 to 1.20, With Summary of Data
From 0.20 to 6.0. NASA TP-1552, 1979.
19. Stallings, Robert L., Jr.; and Lamb, Milton: Effects of Rough-
ness Size on the Position of Boundary-Layer Transition and on
29. Dillon, James L.; and Pittman, Jimmy L.: Aerodynamic Char-
the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 55 Degree Swept Delta
acteristics at Mach 6 of a Wing-Body Concept for a Hyper-
Wing at Supersonic Speeds. NASA TP-i 027, 1977.
sonic Research Airplane. NASA TP- ! 249, 1978.
20. Steinbrenner, John P.; and Chawner, John R.: The GRIDGEN
Version 8 Multiple Block Grid Generation Software. MDA 30. Penland, Jim A.; Edwards, Clyde L. W.; Witcofski, Robert D.;
Engineering Report 92-01, 1992. and Marcum, Don C., Jr.: Comparative Aerodynamic Study of
Two Hypersonic Cruise Aircrafi Configurations Derived From
21. Richardson, Pamela F.; McClinton, Charles R.; Bittner, Robert
Trade-OffStudies. NASA TM X-1436, 1967.
D.; Diiley, A. Douglas; and Edwards, Kelvin W.: Hypersonic
CFD Applications for the National Aero-Space Plane. SAE 31. Small, William J.; Kirk.ham, Frank S.; and Fetterman,
892310, Sept. 1989.
David E.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Hypersonic
22. McGrory, W. D.; Huebner, L. D.; Slack, D. C.; and Waiters, Transport Configuration at Mach 6.86. NASA TN-D-5885,
1970.
R.W.: Development and Application of GASP 2.0. AIAA-
92-5067, Dec. 1992.
32. Watts, Joe D.; Olinger, Frank V.; Weidner, John P.; Johnson,
23. McGrory, William D.; Slack, David C.; Applebaum, Stuart K.; Sanders, Bobby W.; and Keyes, J. Wayne: Mach 5
Michael P.; and Waiters, Robert W.: GASP Version 2.2--The Cruise Aircraft Research. Proceedings of the Langley Sympo-
General Aerodynamic Simulation Program. AeroSoft, Inc., sium on Aerodynamics, Volume 2, Sharon H. Stack, Compiler,
1993. NASA CP-2398, 1986, pp. 285-304.
24. Takashima, Naruhisa: Navier-Stokes Computations of a Vis- 33. Ellison, James C.: Investigation of the Aerodynamic Charac-
cous Optimized Waverider. NASA CR- 189658, 1992.
teristics of a Hypersonic Transport Model at Mach Numbers
to 6. NASA TN D-6191, 1971.
25. Bushnell, D. M.: Supersonic Aircraft Drag Reduction. AIAA-
90-1596, June 1990.
34. Williams, John E.; and Vukelich, Steven R.: The USAF
26. Chapman, Dean R.: Reduction of Profile Drag at Supersonic Stability and Control Digital Datcom. Volume 1: User's Man-
Velocities by the Use of Airfoil Sections Having a Blunt ual. AFFDL-TR-79-3032-VOL-I, Apr. 1979. (Supersedes
Trailing Edge. NACA TN-3503, 1955. (Supersedes NACA AFFDL-TR-73-23, AFFDL-TR-74-68, and AFFDL-TR-76-
RM A9H11.) 45-VOL-1.)
16
Table 1. Characteristics of Straight-Wing Waverider Designed by MAXWARP
Straight-wing pure model with engine 1.894 19.80 24.0 0.1481 69.3
components
Straight-wing fully integrated model 2.202 19.80 26.60 0.0194 62.5 a
Cranked-wing pure model with engine 2.052 23.016 24.0 0.1745 69.3
components
deg/sec
Mach number Pss per unit velocity,
ft/sec
2.3 0.119
4.0 0.095
4.63 0.095
17
Z
Conical
shockwave
I
I X
18
16
10
E
8
6
.... I , , , , I , , , , I .... I , , , i I , , , , I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Mach number
18
........_z_,,-i:!ii;ii?
iii
i'
; i_ii_i!J_ii_ii!ii_ii!ii_i!_!_i]iiii!iiii!
, i i i il,ii ii iiiiiiii!iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
...... !iiii
/
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiililiiii!iii_ili_i!iiiii!ii_iiiii!_ ¸_
_ _ _ _i,_iiiii,i_iiiii!_iiiiiiii!ili!!!ii;_
,_"
Profile Rear
.... i
, : 9:
. ¢ :: 3,_ -
_ _;_._ i_ -:_
j_
Planforrn Oblique
..............................
_i_!iiill_ii!iii!!!_ii!_iii_ii_iiiii_i_i_!iiii!i_iiii!iiiiii_i_!iiill
.....................
Profile Rear
19
Figure5. Straight-wing
purewaverider
modelin UPWT.
2O
E_
.E
0
E
c_
o_
°_
21
_-- Expansion
surface
Figure7. Lowersurface
ofcranked-wing
purewaverider
model.
22
0
E
p_
'r_
c_
LT_
0
c_
23
0
E
0
0
E
N
._
t:m
o .o
24
Tap No. Model Sta. B.L. W.L.
1 22.030 -1.353 -1.785
2 22.030 -1.015 -1.788
3 22.030 -0.676 -1.792
4 22.030 -0.338 -1.796
5 22.791 -1.353 -1.244
Top view 6 22.791 -1.015 -1.252
7 22.791 -0.676 -1.254
I
8 22.791 -0.338 -1.255
I
I
9 23.552 -1.353 -0.964
I
Short ramp
(No-controls configurations)
M.S. M.S.
3.5"
21.779" 23.750"
1.971"
W.L. 0.0
t
°
Pressure tap
locations on nozzle
surface
Side view Rear view
25
Tap No. Model Sta. B.L. W.L.
13 24.313 -1.353 -0.724
14 24.313 -1.015 -0.731
15 24.313 -0.676 -0.734
16 24.313 -0.338 -0.745
17 25.075 -1.353 -0.516
18 25.075 -1.015 -0.523
19 25.075 -0.676 -0.532
20 25.075 -0.338 -0.739
Top view 21 25.836 -1.353 -0.332
22 25.836 -1.015 -0.339
23 25.836 -0.676 -0.451
24 25.836 -0.338 -0.739
Long ramp
(Fully integrated configurations)
_-- 3.5"
M.S. M.S.
21.779 26.597
Taps 21-22 _ I
4_ 4.818" _
W.L. 0.0
_o----'_'_-- --_ W.L. 0.0
Taps 17-19_
Taps 13-16 oOoO_ [
.... - 2.01
Taps 9-12 _ o °oo °oi _ Taps 20,
26
Hinge line
.22'z---_
lnboard side
----3.760"-------,- 10 o
_'-_ __._ \ /---Trailing edge
\ " _t
0.588-| "_
U _
_ "_Trailing edge
3
(c) Cranked-wing inboard ailerons. (d) Cranked-wing outboard ailerons.
27
//
Cranked
/ wing
11.5"
Cranked wing
Canopy --
\
Nozzle
surface
62.5 percent of
model length Straight wing
1 ' Straight
wing
L 0.87" radius
/"
/"
Elevon surface
Waverider /
stream surface _jr
Compression ,/
surface ","_ Sidewalls -- Aileron surface
""--- Lower surface of engine module
28
PNS marching zone
7 TLNS global
iteration zone
Figure 13. Coordinates and computational scheme for waverider CFD solutions.
29
Shock
Lowersurface
ofmodel
(a) Vapor-screen
photograph
ofbase.
P/Poo
Baseof
configuration 1.71
1.62
\ 1.54
1.46
1.37
1.29
_ 1.20
1.12
1.03
0.95
Figure 14. Comparison of base-view vapor-screen photograph and CFD nondimensional static pressure contours of
straight-wing pure waverider model at M = 4.0 and cx = 0 °.
30
Shock
Lowersurface
ofmodel
(a) Vapor-screen
photograph
ofbase.
P/P_
Baseof
configuration 1.61
1.54
1.47
1.39
1.32
1.24
i_iii_iiiiiiiiii_!iii!_i!ii_
1.17
i:i:i;!iii!ii:iiii!ili
1.10
i i
1.02
0.95
Figure 15. Comparison of base-view vapor-screen photograph and CFD nondimensional static pressure contours of
pure cranked-wing waverider model at M = 4.0 and _x = 0%
31
P/P,,_
2.18
2.05
1.92
1.79
1.66
1.53
1.39
1.26
1.13
/ 1.00
P/Po,,
2.18
2.05
1.92
\ 1.79
1.66
1.53
1.39
1.26
1.13
1.00
Figure 16. Comparison of CFD nondimensional static pressure contours near leading edge at base of cranked-wing and
straight-wing pure waverider models at M = 4.0 and ot = 0 °.
32
Sho(
Upper surface
of model
P/Poo
Base of 1.28
configuration
\,\ 1.24
\
1.21
1.17
1.13
1.10
iii!iiiiiiii_iiii_iii_i_ii
1.06
1.02
0.99
0.95
Figure 17. Comparison of base-view vapor-screen photograph and CFD nondimensional static pressure contours of
cranked-wing pure waverider model at M = 2.3 and o_ = 0 °.
33
Shock
Uppersurface
of model
P/Poo
1.71
Base of
configuration
--\
1.62
\
1.54
i .46
1.37
1.29
1.20
1.12
1.03
0.95
Figure 18. Comparison of base-view vapor-screen photograph and CFD nondimensional static pressure contours of
cranked-wing pure waverider model at M = 4.63 and o_ = 0 °.
34
Shock
wave
Figure 19. Comparison of planform schlieren photographs of cranked-wing pure waverider model at M = 2.3, 4.0,
and 4.63.
35
.30
.25 C)
.20
.15
.10
.05
8
0
-.05
C) Experimental
-.10 dictions
_.208...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,.,,_.,,.,.,,,,,,
- -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.07
Q) Experimental (3
.06 CFD predictions
(3
[] MAXWARP prediction
.05
O
.r
e-
._ .04
U
§ .03
g .02
.01
Lift coefficient, CL
8
[]
6
2
6
0
-2 ental
.2
-4 _ _ CFD predictions
/_) [] MAXWARP prediction
-6 ,¢
i i i i I i i i i [ .... I , i . . I .... I .... [ , i i . I .... I
-8
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 20. Comparison of experimental data, CFD predictions, and design-code predictions for aerodynamic perfor-
mance of straight-wing pure waverider model at M = 4.0 and Reynolds number of 2.0 x 106 per foot.
36
.30
.25
.20
.15
= .10
¢.J
.05
0
1
-.05
_ CFD predictions
-.10
[] MAXWARP prediction
-.15
-.20
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.07
C) Experimental
.06 dl&
I, CFD predictions O
[] MAXWARP prediction
.05 O
,..r
_= .04
§ .03
_ .02
.01
0 .... I , , J , I , , , t I , , , , I .... I L t _ i I i i t _ t j j L i I
Lift coefficient, CL
8
0
013
-2 rimental
,.-1
-4 _ CFD predictions
-6
/ [] MAXWARP prediction
.... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... t .... I .... I
-8
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .I 0 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 21. Comparison of experimental data, CFD predictions, and design-code predictions for aerodynamic perfor-
mance of cranked-wing pure waverider model at M = 4.0 and Reynolds number of 2.0 x 106 per foot.
37
.30
.25 [] Straight wing []
.20
,..a.15
•" .10
e-,
.05
o Cran_OZ)(__
O
-.05
-.10
-.15
-.20
-6 --4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.07
[] Straight wing []
.O6 O Cranked wing
.05 ©
r,.) []
..r
.N
¢..,
.04
Q
[]
8 .03
.02
.01
Lift coefficient, CL
%
O_U_)_) _)_)
4 [] _t_
2 0
[]
0
# -2
0 [] Straight wing
[] 0 Cranked wing
,..1
-4 O
[]
-6
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 22. Comparison of aerodynamic performance of straight-wing and cranked-wing pure configurations at M = 4.0
6
and Reynolds number of 2.0 x 10 per foot.
38
.4
D
D
.3 D
> %
¢o .2
.3
ca
"3 .1
ca
j D Mach 4.0
2.3
D © Mach 4.63
-.2
i , ,_l , ,
-4
I, ,,I
-2 , ,L[t
0 2
_IILL_IIL
4 '
6I ' ' ,ll
8 , ,I
10 , , ,
12
I
Lift coefficient, CL
10 10.0
8
_> t> l> D 9.5
6
4 __ t>E>D 9.0
8.5
,.d O
6 2 80
•_ o <> D Mach 2.3 _ 7.5
,= < Mach 3.5 "_
-2 7.0
©
"7 -4 <_ _ Mach 4.0 6.5 © 0
45 6.0 ©
<_ + Mach 4.63
©Mach 4.2
-8 DD 5.5
I _ I
-10 , , , I n i , I h J , , , l , _ , , * , , J , i i i L i I , i _ i i
Figure 23. Aerodynamic performance of straight-wing pure waverider configuration across Mach number range
studied.
39
.4 .07
[] 13 Mach 1.6
b
[] b b Mach 2.3
.3 .06
<1 Mach 3.5
[] b
,.d .05 Mach 4.0
.2
..J * Mach 4.2
e- [z []_> r_
.04
© Mach 4.63 b
.1 [] Mach 1.6
.03 []
Q _ Mach 2.3 8
0 et0 []
<_ Mach 3.5 t_
,.d .02
_ Mach 4.0
--.1 []
+ Mach 4.2 .01
Mach 4.63
--.2
45 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.2 -.1 6 .! .L .3 .;
Lift coefficient, CL
14 12.0
12 11.5
[] []
10 11.0
8 10.5
1_ Ib _> b U []
6 [] [] 10.0
bb 9.5
4
6 9.0
2 O
0 8.5
[] Mach 1.6 E
-2 8.0
D Mach 2.3
J
t_
-4 7.5
<1 Mach 3.5
-6 7.0 O
-8 Mach 4.0 6.5 O0
6.0
0
-10 [] [] + Mach 4.2
-12 _- O Mach 4.63 5.5
-14
-2 -. 1 0 .l .2 .3 .4 5°1_5'''2'.6'''2'.5'' '3'.6"'315' :_Y i5.... 5'.0
Lift coefficient, CL Mach number, Moo
Figure 24. Aerodynamic performance of cranked-wing pure waverider configuration across Mach number range
studied.
4O
.30
.25 (_(_
.20
.15 (_
,.d
"_
e- .10
.05 __1. 6
5XlO per foot
8 o
,d -.05
(_(_ 0[] 2.0 x× 106
106 per foot
3.0 per foot
-.10
-.15
f_
-'2_-8 _ -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 I0 12
ot
.07
e., 0
._ .04
0
8 .o3 d
02
.01
Lift coefficient, CL
10
6
4
6 2 0
0
0 /_ 1.5 x 106 per foot
-? -2
eq [] 2.0 × 106 per foot
,.d
-4 0 0 3.0 x 106 per foot
-8
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 25. Effects of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of straight-wing pure waverider configuration at
M= 4.0.
41
.30
.25
©0
.20 0
0
,2 .15
= .10
.o 0
.05 0
0 O O /X 1.5 x 106 per foot
-.15
ik*llhllLiLl,,,I,,,I,,,l*,,I,,,I,*,l,,,I
-.20
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.07
/_ 1.5 x 106 per foot
.06
[] 2.0 x 106 per foot
._ .04
_ .03
.02
.01 _ O
O#OOOO
0 , , , , i .... i .... I .... i .... i .... i .... i .... I
Lift coefficient, CL
10
4 O t_¢_f_t _
6 2
0
{_ /X 1.5 x 106 per foot
-2
[] 2.0 x 106 per foot
,.-1 -4
0 3.0 x 10 6 per foot
-6
-8
.... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... i .... i
-10
-.!0 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 26. Effects of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of cranked-wing pure waverider configuration at
M= 4.0.
42
.030 [>
Mach 2.3
_>
.025 <3 Mach 3.5 D
,O
L)
.020 0 Mach 4.0
.010
O
.005
_0
e-
0 AJ
-.005
-.010
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.030
[] Mach 1.6
[] b
.025
t> Mach 2.3 [] E>
Mach 3.5
.020 q
[] t>
0 Mach 4.0 [] b
0 <_
.015
÷ Mach 4.2 [] I> .q (_
¢.J
O
E
.005 [] °;
P
©
-.005
-.010 _,,I,,,l,,_l,_,l,,,I,J,l_l,,,l,,,]tll I
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
43
.0004
.0003
.0002
.0001
.r-
u Stable b
0
E
,_ -.0001
--.000_
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.0008
[]
.0006
b
r,.) []
,; .0004
_" .0002
[] 8
lStab,o [] _ e
o
E
d_ b [] Mach 1.6
.- -.0002
Mach 2.3
--.0004
Mach 4.0
0 Mach 4.63
L , , I , , _ I _ , , I . , , I , , , I . _ i I e A i I e _ , I , _ , I
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
a
44
.0016
_ Mach 4.0
d .0008
_(_ O Mach 4.63
_ .0004 g> % o
E 0 0 0
P 0 0
I Stable O
._ -.00O4
D
-.0008
-.0012 _'I'J'I''LI'''I'''IllLiIIII_I_I
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
.0008
.0004
e_
_- o
o"
_ _ _ 8 8 i Stable
._ -.0004
-r"
-.0008
S
e-,
E>
-.0012 []
o P
_-.0016 []
[] Mach 1.6
-6 -.0020 Mach 2.3 []
e¢
Mach 4.0 []
-.0024
0 Mach 4.63
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t_
45
.30
.07 Moo = 4.0
.25 O
.06 []
.20 0
[]
,..1 .15 r_ .05
r_ 0
,.z .10 []
e-
.__ .04
ej
.05
_ o 8 .o3 []o
._ -.05 .02
-.10
.01 _ [] Canopy
(2) Canopy on
off
-.15
-'20-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 o_o.......................................
.I -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
6
2 [] _ 8.0 8
0 o S 75
E
7.0
-2 0
0 D 0 o
,.d 6.5
[] [] []
-4 @
-6 _S_IS)DO O
[] Canopy off
on 6.0
5.5
-8
-.10
....
-.05
I .... I ....
0
i ....
.05
I ....
.10 .15
I .... i ....
.20
i ....
.25
I
.30
5.020
• .............................
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 30. Effect of canopy on aerodynamic performance of straight-wing pure waverider configuration.
46
.30 Mo_ = 4.0
.07
Moo = 4.0
.25
.20 O0 ° .06
-.20
' - '6"S "-'2...................
0 '2'' 4 6 8 'l_O'' 1_2
°_ ............. , .... , .... , ...............
20.l -.05 0 .05 .10 15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
M = 4.0 14
13 O Canopy off
12 [] Canopy on
O0 0
11 D
.1 23
2 © 12
6
E
0 10
E
O
i -2 9
,-.1 8
-4 ID
© Canopy off 7
[] Canopy on 6
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 5L5 .......................
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4 ,...........
0 4.5 5.0
Figure 31. Effect of canopy on aerodynamic performance of cranked-wing pure waverider configuration.
47
Moo = 4.0
.30 .07
Moo = 4.0
.25
.06
.20
.05 %
o 8 .03
-.20 0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
8 Moo = 4.0 10
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 32. Effect of adding engine package on aerodynamics of straight-wing pure waverider model with canopy.
48
.30 Moo = 4.0
.07
Moo = 4.0
.25 D
.20 .06 ©
[]
,.d .15 .05
DO
.10 e-,
.04 m©
"U
.05 O _2 DO
o _3 _3
8 .03
m©
-.05 O _ 0 Engine off m©
0 _ .02
DO O Engine off
-.10 [] Engine on
5_ [] DO [] Engine
-.15 .01 (_ (_ (_ (_(]_£0 0 on
-.20 0 , , , , I , , J , I , L, , I , , , , I .... I _ + L k l i i i i I i L i _ _
-6 -4 -2
+tI'''I'''JL'+I'+,IL,,I,++I,,,L,,,]+ 0 2 4 6 8 0 ,,I 12 -.!0 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
8 M°° = 4.0 10
Q
0 Engine off
6 00_00
[] Engine on
4 % [] [] [] D(_ (_ (_(_ (_ O
2 _ 8
d []
B
0 [] _ 7
© [] O
-2
m Oo
[] 6 0
-4 []O
D_ 0 Engine off [] []
[] []
-60 w [] Engine on
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 33. Effect of adding engine package on aerodynamics of cranked-wing pure waverider model with canopy.
49
Moo = 4.0
.30 .07
Moo = 4.0
.25 O
OAO/x .06
.20 O No controls (no base drag) AS]
L_ 0 ° controls
.15 0 ¢_OA _ .05 [] No controls (base drag) _3
L) L)
O
'_ .10 ¢-
_ .04
"U _yO
.05
o 8 .03 _0
_0
,2 -.05 No controls (no base drag) _ .02
zx_ /_ 0 ° controls _y_ _t_O _0
-.10
[] No controls (base drag) .01
_O--d 0 0 _
-.15
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 o_
.1 o........
-.05 .... . 5.........................
.10 .15 .20 .25 .30
Lift coefficient, CL
8 M = 4.0 9.0
8.5
6
O 0 8.0
4 0 No controls (no base drag)
7.5 /k 0 ° controls
(Z 0
2 [] No controls (base drag)
6 7.0
E
0 /k 6.5
O
6.0
-2
,.d 5.5
-4 O
Z_O0 0/x 5.0
0No controls
o controls (no base drag) O
-6 [] No controls (base drag) 4.5
-8 4.0
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 34. Effect of undeflected control surface addition on aerodynamics of straight-wing pure waverider configura-
tion with canopy and engine package attached,
5O
.3O Mo_ = 4.0
.07 Moo = 4.0 []
.25
.06 O No controls (no base drag) _ O
.20
/_ 0 ° controls _O
[] No controls (base drag)
,.d .15
6o
'_ .10 _@@_q u._='_
.05
.04
"U
.05 65o
_ 0 @ @ Q _ .03
45o
Q O No controls (no base drag)
,_ -.05
O @
A 0ocontrols _ .02 E_ _Dso_°
-.10 [] No controls (base drag)
-.15
-.20
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 °-.1o'-.;5; ............................
.05 .1o _5 So .25 .3o
Lift coefficient, CL
4 o__K:s_t_ @ 7.0
,.d O
d 6.5
o _9 .--i 6.0
i.
5.5
-2 []_ O
..d 5.0
[]/x 0 No controls (no base drag) O
-4 _ O z_ 0 °controls
4.5
/x _ A
-6 O O [] No controls (base drag)
4.0
-.10 -.05 0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 35. Effect of undeflected control surface addition on aerodynamics of cranked-wing pure waverider configura-
tion with canopy and engine package attached.
51
.30 .09
D Moo = 2.3 D Moo = 2.3
.25 M =4.0 .08 Moo = 4.0
oo
I
-.20 0 + + _ I i + + I i L + I h _ I I
-I -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3
Lift coefficient, CL
s.0 0
-2
_Q 4.5 0 0
,.d
-4
4.0
-6 3.5
I + i i I
-8 i i h i , +
0 .1 .2 .3 3"02 .d ' ' '2'.5.... 3t.O ...................
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
-.2 -.1
52
.4 [] M = 1.6 .10 [] M = 1.6
/x Moo = 1.8 .[3 .09 /x Moo = 1.8
.3
M:20 V
.08 V Moo = 2.0 []
.2 l> M =23 &_ I_ _,_
,..J .07 D Moo = 2.3 '_
O M =40 A_i7 _z9 Ga
M =-4.0
.1
oo • ^n t_ _))U_) ¢- .06 oo
'ra O Moo = 4.63 _
E .05 L.),
0
¢J .04
t_
,d .03
.02
--.2
.01
--.3 0 , , , I . . . I i i _ [ _ , i I i _ i I , , _ I , , , I
.... -6 .......
-4 -2 '''l'''''''jO 2 4 ...........
6 8 1'0''1'2 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4
Lift coefficient, CL
V Mo =2.0 7.0
l> Moo = 2.3
6.5
2 Moo = 4.0
6 6.0
.,.._ O Moo = 4.63 E
0 5.5
5.0
0 0
,--i -2 4.5
) 0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
-.3 -.2 -. 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Lift coefficient, CL Mach number, Moo
53
M = 4.0 M=4.0
.30 .07
.25
.06 [] Straight wing (_
.20, 08
0 Cranked wing (5]
,_ .15 r_ .05
.10
0 o e-
e_
0 o .N .04
.05 0
Oo ° 8 .o3
-_ -.05 .02
[] Straight wing
-.10
0 Cranked wing .01
-.15
M,, ° = 4.0
12
[] Straight wing
6 11
0 Cranked wing
10
4
(9 9
2
6 0 8
E
0
e_D (9 .e_ 7
-2 0
[] Straight wing
,J OF
-4
(ff_3 0 Cranked wing
)o ° 0 0 0
-6
Figure 38. Comparison of aerodynamics of straight-wing and cranked-wing fully integrated configurations.
54
M = 4.0 M = 4.0
.4 .09
.08
.3 0 Pure waverider (no base drag) 0 Pure waverider (no base drag)
.07 A Pure waverider (base drag) A
.2 [] Fully integrated DO
.06 z5
..7
e-
[]0
.1
.05
¢,a
_0
0 /_ Pure waverider (base drag) _20 .04
,.-1
--.1
o.0
t_ .03
.02
°
-.2
.01
, , I , J , I I I I
-'3-8'''-6J'''-4''''-_2'''O_'''2''''4L'''6''''8J'''I_(I ''1_2 0_.2 --,1 0 .1 .2 .3
Lift coefficient, C L
M = 4.0
8 9.0
7.0
2 @ 0
d [] ,..1 6.5 O0
-.--r
E 0
0 6.0
t_
5.5
-2
5.0
,.d _0 /x /x /k A
-4 4.5 [] []
eq_ 0 Pure waverider (no base drag)
0 A Pure waverider (base drag) 4.0
-6
0 0 [] Fully integrated 3.5
, J J I , , _ I , _ , I _ , , I J , , I
-8 3.0 t,,,l .... I .... l*il,lliiilliltl
Figure 39. Comparison of aerodynamic performance of straight-wing fully integrated and straight-wing pure waverider
configurations.
55
M o = 4.0 Moo : 4.0
.4 .09
.08
.3
.07 0 Pure waverider (no base drag)
.2 A Pure waverider (base drag)
,..1 @@@@ .06
[] Fully integrated
,.r I:_ °
.1 @@ @@ o .05
"5 _0
8 .04 _0
8 0
I_¢D QO _0
.03 _0
,.d ®@
--,l
(2) Pure waverider (no base drag) _0
.02
A Pure waverider (base drag) @_ _0
--.2 [] Fully integrated .01
O__n 0
_00000_
1 I
0
-'3_8' I ' I'--6
I ' ' ' --4
I ' ' '--12' L * 0I * ' k 2L _ ' ' 4L ' ' ' 6I ' ' ' 8
I ' ' ' lO
I _ ' _12 --.2 -.1 0 .! .2 .3
O_
Lift coefficient, CL
Moo = 4.0
8 12
11
6 000000 -
(3 Pure waverider (no base drag)
10
4 Zk Pure waverider (base drag)
g_ 9 [] Fully integrated
2 (3
6 r_ 8
E
0
g_ .e. 7
(D 0 O0
-2 rq
6
0
,.d
-4
_t A_(3 (3
A Pure
Pure waverider
waverider (no
(base base drag)
drag) 5 [] [] /k /xA ix
[_ [] [] []
0 [] Fully integrated 4
(3(3
i i i I b _ i , I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... i
-8 L I I _ , J I I I 3
--.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 40. Comparison of aerodynamic performance of cranked-wing fully integrated and cranked-wing pure waverider
configurations.
56
Present fully integrated
cranked-wing waverider
• Reference 28
• Reference 29
• Reference 30
• Reference 31
• Reference 32
6 • Reference 33
E
= 4
e.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mach number, M._
57
.020 M_ = 2.3
M =4.0
.015
¢0 0 M =4.63
b
t- b
.010
.005
E
O
,_ 0
_= -.005
-'010-8 ......
-6 _ - h ; _...........
4 6 _ '1;' ' '1'2
.025
[] Moo = 1.6
A Moo = 1.8 []
.020
v M_ = 2.0 []
D M = 2.3 [] z_v
E] &v
.015 []
O M,_ = 4.0 [] Av
0 M =4.63 0 DO A _V 0
,_ .010
E DD_DDO _b_b©QQ
_, .oo5
.=. bbv_ _
¢.., bbbb_
h2 0
-.005
...................................
-6 --4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 _d"12
Figure 42. Longitudinal stability of each fully integrated waverider-derived configuration with undeflected elevons and
ailerons.
58
Mo_ = 2.3 Mo_ = 2.3
.3 .025
[]
.020 []
[] _A = 0% fiE = 0° []
.2 r,.) []
,_ .015 _A = 0°' _E = 200 []
¢- [] 0
,.d
"0
o
@ fA = 200' 8E = 200 [] []
.010
t- [] GO ©
8
•D D _
,_ .005
0
8 ••D ©0 0 oo0
o 0
,e
.=- -.005 00© 00000
-.1 _ 5 A = 0 °, 8 E = 20 ° ._,
O 5 A = 20 °, fE = 200 -.010
ooOO 000
4).15 '''l'''l'''l'''l'L'l_'l'''llllLIL_lLlll
-'2-8'"] '1--6
'''1'' -4 '- [2'_'1'''1
0 2 _ ''] 4 '''_ 6 '''1"' 8 10
_' ' 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
M = 4.0 M• = 4.0
.O25
.020 [] fA = 0% fE = 0°
2
0 N .005
[]DaD•O© 0
8 aDDS• _ 000
o 0
-2 t@888 , =oo [] 0000 O0 O0
_O O 0000
-4 _ OSA = 0°, fE = 20° _ -.005
O00@QO0 00°0
0 fA = 20% _E = 20°
-6 -.010
-.015
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 --4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 43. Pitch control effectiveness of elevons and elevon/aileron combination for straight-wing fully integrated
configuration.
59
M,, ° = 4.63 M = 4.63
.3 .O25
[] _A = 0°' _E = 0°
.2
•-_ .015 O 8 A = 0 °, _E = 200
[]
,d
© _A = 20°, q_E = 20° [] []
e_ .1 []E3
.010
[] O0 0
o•[]D_©
i .005 oog_,O0 0
.1 _ _&__oo ___oo ,E o
o _A: 0%_: 20° .=.-.oo5
e.
ooooooooO°°°°
-.1
©Sa : 2°°, _E = 20° _-.010
-6
[ ' ' '
-4
_ ' ' '
-2
' ' ' '
0
_ ''12 . ' '
4
] ` ' [
6
_ 1 ' '
8
J ' ' j
10
I ' t t
12
I _0.15
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ot
.035
.3
.030 0 o°
0
.2 .025
,-d 00000 []
O000OO []
...$ .o20
.1
8 .015
DDDD_DODG DD_D 0 o
.010
O 0
E
--.1
So
0o ,.=
.005
0 IS 8A = 0°, fiE = 0°
--.2
8o _A--°°,_ --2°° ._ -.005
t_ + 8 A = 0 °, 8 E = 20 °
.035
.030
'_ .025 0 o
,..A
k) 0 o
.020
e-
.015
O00000oO0 Oo _D
13
o .010
,.d
o O
.005
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ot
Figure 44. Pitch control effectiveness of elevons for cranked-wing fully integrated configuration.
61
Moo = 2.0 Moo = 2.0
.4 .040
.035
.3
rj_ .030
.025
.2
.020
OOQOQOOOQO 00000
.1 .015
_ .005
--.1
.= 0 m _A = 0°, 8E = 0°
r.,
.035
.3
.030
.025
.2 .o
,-1 _9
.020
,,d
I:I
.1 .015
.OlO
oooooooooOO°°!°°° 13131313 00 °
0 0
896:f 8 g gg 88 _ .005 00[3013 rq ° ° u.... 0<_0
.1 --,l [] a A = 0 o, i_E = 0 o ._ 0 OO OOOOOOOv[]aA=O°,_=O °
-.015
-'38' -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 l0 12
62
Moo = 4.0 Moo = 4.0
.4 .040
.035
.3 [] 8 A = 0 o, 8 E = 0 o
.030
¢9 8g = 0 °, 8 E = 20 °
,..j .2 8_ o
.025
08 A = 0 °, 8 E =-20 °
L_
.020
.1 _0000_ 8 .o15
.010
_80 _
.=.
,1 --.1
0
8_ 0g []_A__oo
__o o
,_ .005
oooooooo _VID t_
©O o
," 0
--,2 G 8 A = 0% 8 E = 20 ° ._-.oo5
e_
O8 A = 0 °, 8 E =-20 ° -.010
, I , , , i , , , , , , I , , , I , , , J .... i -.015
-'38' ' _ _- ''2'- ()' 2 4 6 8' '1'() '1'2 ,,,r,,,I,,,t2,,,J,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,i
-6 -4 - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
o[
.035
.3
.030 _ 8A = 0°, 8E = 0°
8 A = 0 °, 8 E = 20 °
..d .2 .025
08 A =0 °, 6 E =-20 °
.020
e_
,015
0 _ 00_ .010
8
..d
,_ .005
oooooooo0 O
-.1 [] 8A = 0o, $_E = 0o ,_
e-
0 BSB8888_l_o_°°_
8 A = 0 °, 8 E = 20 ° -.005
--,2 e_
0 8 A = 0 °, fiE = -20° -.010
_.015_,,,,,,,_,,.,,,,_,,,,,,,_,,.,,.,_,,,,,,,,
-' 3_8,,, -6t,,.,,.,L2,,,
-4 - 0I,,, 2I,,,J,,,t,,,,,..,,,,1,2
4 6 8 10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ot O[
63
M = 2.3 M. =2.3
.4 .040
.035
[] _A = 0°' _ = 0°
.3
r_ .030
_A = 0°, _E = 20°
E .020
O .1 888888 8888 O
8 .015
.010
OOQOQO00QO0000000
0 E
_ .005 CDCDDDDODODDDDO00
...1 --.1
.= 0
-.015
-" -6
,,,i,,,i,,,l,,,i,,,i.,.i,,,),,,i,,,i,,,i -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
¢t
.035
[] 8A = 0°, 8E = 0°
.3
.030
QSA = 0°, 8E = 20°
8 = .025 O _A = 0°' _E = -20°
.2
.1
.r
.020
.1 .015
"0
OOO00o o .010
0 0 E
8
E, .005 00000000000000888
DFIr_ mDC)[] O DDI_ _ _ r_
,.d
.= o
O8 A = 0 o, _ = 20 ° ._ -.oo5
--.2
-.015
-'38' --6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 lO 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
o_ O_
Figure 45. Pitch control effectiveness of elevons for straight-wing fully integrated configuration with moment reference
center at 58 percent of body length.
64
Mo= = 4.63 M o = 4.63
.4 .040
.035
.3 [] 8A = 0°' _E = 0°
.030
r,.)
6A = 0°' _E = 20°
.2 .025
O fiA = 0°' fiE = -20°
.020
.1
L_
.o15
.010
8 0
E
.=. .005 °°°°oooooo9888899
,.-I --.l
O 8 A = 0 o, _ = 0o .n 0 8<SS>8<Sa
oooooooooooo
--.2
+ _A = °°, _ = 2°° :_-.oo5
o 8A = 0%_ = -20 ° -.010
(b) M_ = 4.63.
65
Moo = 1.6 M, ° = 1.6
.4 4_5
D 8A = 0°, 8E = 0°
.040
.3
° .035
O _A = 0°' 8E = 20°
O 8 A = 0 °, _E = -20°
.2 .030 O
.g
©©
.1
.025 O00000000000oO
.020
[]
0 []
--.2
_o ° <>8A_-oo,__-2ook- .005 _©_©_©_©©_<_
0
O 0 8A = 0°' 8E = -20°
-6 -4 - 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
c-
'= .020
.1 OOOo000000OO00000
o
0
8
0,,
.010 [] D[] [] n D rIC_C)_C) D(_ [] C]N R
,.d --.1
.oo5
_ _:oo,_:2oo _ o
o_:oo,_:-2oo -005
--.2
--.3
,,',,,',,,_,,,_,,''_''''''''''''''''''_ -.010
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 46. Pitch control effectiveness of elevons for cranked-wing fully integrated configuration with moment reference
center at 59 percent of body length.
66
Moo = 2.0 Moo = 2.0
.4 .040
.035 O 8A = 0°, _E = 0°
© 8A = 0°' _E = -20°
,d .2 .025
"5
.020
_9
8 QOOOOOOooooooOQO 0
- .015
E .010
8 0
o E
.005
(3 CI D [3 CI C][31_ C]I_I V113 D V1CI rl FI
.E
' _ o 00000'_00©©0.0©,00©0
-.2 _JA =0 ' _E 20o
-.005
(2) _iA = 0% gE = -20°
88 _8 020
,d
.1
0 8_ 8
8888188 _, .015
O000Oo00000000000
OlO
,.d --.|
oo,
6A = 0°' 815 = 20° ._ 0
--.2 tL
O _A = 0% _E = -20° -.005
--.3
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
67
Moo = 4.0 .040 M = 4.0
.4
.035
.3
.030 [] _A = 0°' _)E = 0°
.2 •_8 A = 0% 8 E : 20 °
,.d o .025
88_8 "o 0 8 A : 0 °, _E = -20°
.1 8088_ __ .020
o
0
8 80080 _ o15
,.d 888 _ olo °°°OOooooooooooo 8
--.1
[]_A=0%_E= 0o ._ 005 _[]••OrZDnDDDDDDO
o
+ 8A = 0 °, _ = 20 ° <P<}_'_O<D'OQCpO_O<D,O©O
--.2
O 8A = 0% _E = -20° -.005
--.3 -.010 ,, , ', ,, ',,, _,,, J,,, '... ',,, J,,, ..,, ,,.,
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
IX IX
.035
.3
D 8A = 0°, 8E =0°
.030
8 A = 0 o, 8E = 20 °
,..d .2 O0 "0
.025
©8 A = 0 o, 8 E =-20 °
e-: .1 00000 .020
"0 8
-e- .015
o 0 0_0
8 _: .010
Q
,...1
-.1 _ 0_00 E
& .005
13 8A = 0°, qSE= 0° °°Ooooooooooo9999
[]D(3D(3U
0
O 8A = 0 °, 8 E = 20 °
--.2 ta_
O8 A = 0 °, 8 E =-20 ° -.005
68
.0008 .0020
[]M =2.3
NM =2.3
.0007 .0016 QM = 4.0
M = 4.0 I> _-
_= .0006 OM = 4.63
OM = 4.63 D _ .0012
> .0005 [ > b
'_ .0008
'r_ .0004
cD
b
l> D D
b
4 .0004
e
t>
._ .0003
_D 0 eP 8 8
E
@
.0002 <? E
I Stable
,E
.,=
.0001 ° 8 _O _ _0
O 0 Stable
t _,-.oo_ B>
_2 -.0008 >
0
>,
O i>
-.000l -.0012 I>
-.0002
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
[] M =1.6 [] M =1.6
.O022 A Moo= 1.8 .0024 S M = 1.8
.0020 M o=2.0 .0020 V M =2.0
'_-.OOl8 D M =2.3 ca..0016 D M =2.3
r..)
.0012
d .0016 <_ M =4.0 [] d @ M =4.0
> .0008
"_ .0014 O M =4.63 [] ..-_
O Moo=4.63
A ;_ .0004
_ .oo12 [] .r"
[] A v ID
"_ 0
.0010
[] s /" v D g-.ooo4
E .0008 [] [] /x V
o
E .0006
A
v
S
v V
V
l>
[> -.0008 [],,_' _> g g.
D _ v b
&-.O012 v D
.. .0004 t> > l> t> e-. [] s D
;-= -.0016 s V D
.0002
8 8 o_8 6 8 [] s
V
Stable I -.0020
[] A
0 -.0024
[]
-.0002 ,,,I,.,l_,,I,,,I,,,I,.,ll_lljlllll_l -.0028
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
69
.0010 .0016
,; .0006 d .0008
t_
;_ .0004 ;_ .0004
.r-
g
[]
.0002 E2 [] _ 0
[] [] [] []
_A
Stable [ i Stable
E
o 0 O _ -.0004
E i
0 0 0 0 0 0
•=- -.0002 _ -.0008
ID
--,0004 -.0012
Figure 49. Effects of vertical tail on lateral-directional stability of straight-wing fully integrated configuration at
M_ = 4.0.
.0010 .0016
0 Vertical tail off 0 Vertical off
tail
,_, .0008 .0012
[] Vertical tail on [] Vertical tail on
e_
u-..0008
_; .0006 []
e_ [] .0004
.0004 [] O -r"
o [] [] D [] Q.I
©
"fi .00O2 © •_ 0
t t
© O O O Stable / 0 rl _ _Stable
o 0
E, _ -.0004
@
;= -.0008 @
•_ -.0002
--.0004 -.0012
-.000% .........
-4 - 2'"0 .... 2' ..............
4 6 8 .........10 ;2 -.0016 _ --4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 50. Effects of vertical tail on lateral-directional stability of cranked-wing fully integrated configuration at
M_, = 4.0.
7O
.016 .010
I> M = 2.3 _> Moo = 2.3
.008
.014 (> Moo = 4.0 © Moo = 4.0
.006
O Moo = 4.63 O Moo = 4.63
.012
w- .004
<]
- .010
t> b E>E>t> _ b _> .002
D b g
fi E
o .008 O 0
E D2> D I>D D2> E
-.002
" .006 .=.
-6 --.004
"¢ .004
-.006
.002
-.008
f_
L8 4 4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -'01_-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 51. Aileron effectiveness on lateral-directional stability of straight-wing fully integrated configuration;
fiA = +20° and _E = 0°-
.002
-.008
u(3mNN[]NN
Figure 52. Aileron effectiveness on lateral-directional stability of cranked-wing fully integrated configuration;
_A = +20° and _5E = 0 °.
71
Moo= 1.6 Mo= 1.6
_ .008 E
o 0
E E
" .006 ._ -.002 o@@@@g@
0 f>v - @@@@
_" .004
-.006
.002 -.008
[3 VI VI FI £)_ 13 i- I
,,,i,, ,i ,,,I,,,It,,/,ILI,,,I,,,II,,I,, ,I
08, , ,i,...6
i _, ,--4
] , , ,-2_, _, 0i , , , 2i , , , 4i , , , 6i _, , _, , ,lO
t , , , 12 -'010-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 53. Combined roll/pitch effectiveness on lateral-directional stability of cranked-wing fully integrated configura-
tion; _A = +20° and 8E = 20°-
72
!
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I ro,_ A_o,o,_,_
ouBNo.oro4-ol a8
I
Public re_i;.g burden for this collectio_ of klformetion is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and revlewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden esttmete or any other aspect of this
collection of Informetion, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Direclorste for Information Operations end Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 2220_-4302. and to the Office of Managernenl and Budget, Pape_¥ork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
S. AUTHOR(S)
7. PP-HFORM;t;G
ORGANIZATION
NAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Cockrell and Huebner: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Finley: Lockheed-Fort Worth Company,
Fort Worth, TX.
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category 02
Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390
An evaluation was made on the effects of integrating the required aircraft components with hypersonic high-lift
configurations known as waveriders to create hypersonic cruise vehicles. Previous studies suggest that waveriders
offer advantages in aerodynamic performance and propulsion/airframe integration (PAl) characteristics over con-
ventional non-waverider hypersonic shapes. A wind-tunnel model was developed that integrates vehicle compo-
nents, including canopies, engine components, and control surfaces, with two pure waverider shapes, both conical-
flow-derived waveriders for a design Mach number of 4.0. Experimental data and limited computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) solutions were obtained over a Mach number range of 1.6 to 4.63. The experimental data show the
component build-up effects and the aerodynamic characteristics of the fully integrated configurations, including
control surface effectiveness. The aerodynamic performance of the fully integrated configurations is not compara-
ble to that of the pure waverider shapes, but is comparable to previously tested hypersonic models. Both configura-
tions exhibit good lateral-directional stability characteristics.
A04
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescnbed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102