Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing of the NPS/NASA Ames Mach 6

106 Pages·2007·3.15 MB·English

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Monterey, California
--
I
Cow
DTIC
F
ELECTE
D]
AUG2 4 1994
F
W THESIS
I-
)LOW-SPEEWDI ND TUNNEL
"TESTINGO F THE NPS/NASA AMES
MACH 6 OPTIMI7ED WAVERIDER
By
Mark E. Cedrun
June 1994
Thesis Advisor: Conrad F. Newberry
Co-Advisor: Jeffrey V. Bowles
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
94 8 23 043
j..AoFoo-Lm AAM ,,o
REPORT DOCUMENT PAGE 0706-,.
puk bdeid 1a ~so 00g0~~* f inlaW moosI sd dd I aisIm rwe. b.Pdm UrntIaON, PDf5*r4V n vuUgms U
n 1bl t m n 0mou gO fs uqWuI S1d0 mIdn 3= .m*Ree~Ss ailouruim Pora7 s0f-tOu Eb)d wWnm Oes eDoC s,n nm WA m.p.s.. 1,2 ,1,l _ _n, ., _o6 _h n_o_w-s."m.. .. 1, 2. kabgm__su.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LAW B,* 2. REPORT DATE 3. PoErT TYPE AD ATES COVERED
J_ 1994 Master's Thesis
1_16 _E
"4. TTLE N SUBTIL S. FUNDING NUMBERS
LOW-SPEED WIND TUNNEL TESTING OF THE NPS/NASA-
AMES MACH 6 OPTIMIZED WAVERIDER
6. AUTHORS
Cedrun, Mark E.
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY
REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPUMENTARY NOTES
The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the Department of Defense or the U. S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABULTY STATEMENT 12b. oDSTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
Low-speed wind tunnel tests were conducted to determine the subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of an optimized
supersonic (Mach 6) conical-flow waverider designed for a deck-launched intercept mission. These tests are part of the
continuing waverider research being conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School and the NASA Ames Research Center. The
tests consisted of performing a and 8 sweeps, at different dynamic pressures, with a 15 inch aluminum waverider model in the
NPS low-speed wind tunnel. Force and moment data were then collected using a six-degree-of-freedom sting balance.
Coefficients of lift, drag and pitch were calculated from the data and compared to theory and existing waverider subsonic
aerodynamic performance data. Flow visualization using tufts was also done. The results of the experiments show that
waverider exhibits high lift characteristics at positive angles of attack. The design also compares favorably with both subsonic
thin airfoil theory and the results of the delta wing and subsonic waverider analysis done by Vanhoy. However, flow
visualization showed that vortex bursting occurred at a dynamic pressure of 12.11bf at ±15 degrees angle of attack. Based
upon the data collected in this analysis, the development of an actual waverider aircraft using the NPS/NASA Ames waverider
design as a baseline is a plausible endeavor.
14. SUBJECTTERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Waveriders, Hypersonics, Aircraft Design 107
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECuRrTYCLASSIFiCATION 20. LIMrTATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL
NSN 7540- 1-2S65500 SWWdaid Foin 29N (Rev. 2-89)
Pinuuwbrml rnUm. llS
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Low-speed Wind Tunnel Testing of the NPS/NASA Ames
Mach 6 Optimized Waverider
by
Mark E. Cedrun
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B. S., United States Naval Academy, 1984
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
June 1994
Author:__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mark E. edrun
Approved By:
_(7_niaV_., nj Thss.d~
,14rf(cid:127)/f/(cid:127)f V. Bowles, Co-Advisor
D. J. Collins, (hairman
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
ii
ABSTRACT
Low-speed wind tunnel tests were conducted to determine the subsonic
aerodynamic characteristics of an optimized supersonic (Mach 6) conical-flow
waverider designed for a deck-launched intercept mission. These tests are part of
the continuing waverider research being conducted by the Naval Postgraduate
School and the NASA Ames Research r-'nter. The tests consisted of performing
a and 6 sweeps, at different dyn& (cid:127)- pc. (cid:127) sures, with a 15 inch aluminum
waverider model in the NPS low-speed v, .nd tunnel. Ferce and moment data
were then collected using a six-degree-of-freedom sting balance. Coefficients of
lift, drag and pitch were calculated from the data and Zompared to theory and
existing waverider subsonic aerodynamic performance data. Flow visualization
using tufts was also done. The results of the experiments show that wsverider
exhibits high lift characteristics at positive angles of attack. The design also
compares favorably with both subsonic thin airfoil theory and the results of the
delta wing and subsonic waverider analysis done by Vanhoy. However, flow
visualization showed that vortex bursting and flow separation occurred at a
dynamic pressure of 12.llbf at ±15 degrees angle of attack. Based upon the data
collected in this analysis, the development of an actual waverider aircraft using
the NPS/NASA Ames waverider design as a baseline is a plausible endeavour.
Accesion For
NTIS CRA&I
DTiC TAB '
Unantouaced 0
Justification
Distribution I
Availability Codes
Avail and Io r
Dist Special
il
Dle
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L INTRODUCTION "s ......
A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .................... 1...
B. WHY LOW-SPEED TESTING .................................................................... 8
C. PREVIOUS WORK AND TESTING MOTIVATION .............................. 8
KI EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS............. . .................... 10
-
A. WIND TUNNEL. ....................................................................................... 10
B. STING BALANCE ...................................................................................... 12
C. ACQUISITION SYSTEM ......................................................................... 13
1. Signal Conditioners/FEctronO Amplifiers ........................................ 13
2. Data Sampling/Computer System ................................................. 14
D. WAVERIDER MODEL ............................................................................ 20
HL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . .22
A. MODEL PREPARATION............................................................................. 22
B. DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM PREPARATION .............................. 24
I. Sting Balance Local Calibration .................................................... 24
2. Signal Conditioner/Amplifier Preparation .................................... 25
C. STING BALANCE EXPERIMENTS ..................................................... 25
1. Test Matrix ... . ......................................................................................... 25
-2. Balance Tares-, ................................................................................ 27
3. Tunnel Operation ....... .................................................................. 28
4. Flow Visualization ............................................................................ 28
D. DATA REDUCTION ............................................................................... 28
iv
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . ..- ..... . ...... 31
A. STING BALANCE DATA ....................................................................... 31
1. "a-sweep" Testing at 8=0° ............................................................. 31
a. Lift and Drag ............................................................................ 31
b. Pitch ............................................................................................ 31
2. "B-sweep" Testing at a=00 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 49
a. Lift and Drag ............................................................................ 49
b. Pitch ............................................................................................ 50
B. COMPARISON WITH THEORY AND VANHOY ............................... 54
1. Theory ............................................................................................... 54
2. V anhoy .................................................................................................. 56
a. Lift .............................................................................................. 56
b. Drag ............................................ 57
c. Pitch ............................................................................................ 57
C. FLOW VISUALIZATION ........ ..................................... 62
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 63
A. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 63
B. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 64
REFIERENCES .............................-.-.-. 6S
APPENDIX A -STING BALANCE CALIBRATION CONSTANTS ...... 67
APPENDIX B -STING BALANCE PROGRAM .......... .70
APPENDIX C -EXPERIMENTAL RAW DATA.................................79
INITIAL DISTRIBUTIT ON LIST ... ................ ....... .. 95
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 MODEL PARAMETERS ................................................................. 20
TABLE 2.2 7075 ALUMINUM PROPERTIES ................................................. 20
TABLE 3.1 RUNS AND TEST CONDITIONS ...................... 27
TABLE 4.1 LIFT-CURVE SLOPES .................................................................... 57
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Eggers and Syvertson Hypersonic Model ............................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Nonweiler's Caret-Shaped Waverider .............................................. 4
Figure 1.3 Conical Flow Waverider ........................................................................ 5
Figure 1.4 Bowcutt and Anderson Optimized Mach 6 Waverider ................... 6
Figure 1.5 Price Optimum Mach 6 Waverider Configuration ............................ 7
Figure 1.6 Vanhoy's Mach 6 Waverider ............................................................... 9
Figure 2.1 NPS Horizontal Low Speed Wind Tunnel ........................................ 11
Figure 2.2 MK XX 3/4" TaskO (Sting) Balance ................................................. 13
Figure 2.3 NPS Wind Tunnel Turntable Drive .................................................... 15
Figure 2.4 Sting Balance Coordinate System .................................................... 16
Figure 2.5 Sting Lead/Cannon Plug Connections ............................................ 16
Figure 2.6 Sting Balance Signal Conditioners ..................................................... 17
Figure 2.7 Ectron 536H9 Signal Amplifiers ......................................................... 18
Figure 2.8 MC-MIO-16L-9 I/O Board ................................................................. 19
Figure 3.1 Finished Waverider Model .................................................................. 23
Figure 3.2 Phase 1 Waverider Model Mounting ............................................... 26
Figure 4.1 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 1. ............................................................... 33
Figure 4.2 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 2 ................................................................. 34
Figure 4.3 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 3 ................................................................. 35
Figure 4.4 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 4 ................................................................. 36
Figure 4.5 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 5 ................................................................. 37
Figure 4.6 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 6 ................................................................. 38
Figure 4.7 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 7 ................................................................. 39
Figure 4.8 CL vs. CD. Run No. 1 ........................................................................... 40
Figure 4.9 CL vs. CD, Run No. 2 ............................................................................. 41
Figure 4.10 CL vs. AOA (Reynolds Number) ...................................................... 42
Figure 4.11 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 1&2 ......................................... 43
Figure 4.12 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 3&4 ........................................ 44
Figure 4.13 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 5&6. ........................................ 45
vii
Figure 4.14 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No. 7 ................................................. 46
Figure 4.15 C. vs. CL ........ ..................................... 47
Figure 4.16 C. vs. CL .............................................................................................. 48
Figure 4.17 CL. CD vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No. 8 .......................................... 51
Figure 4.18 CL, CD vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No. 9 .......................................... 52
Figure 4.19 Cm vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No.'s 8&9 ....................................... 53
Figure 4.20 CL vs. .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.21 CL vs. a Comparison .......................................................................... 59
Figure 4.22 CD vs. a Comparison ......................................................................... 60
Figure 4.23 Cm vs. a Comparison .......................................................................... 61
vmii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincerest appreciation goes to Prof. Conrad F. Newberry, Naval
Postgraduate School, and Mr. Jeffrey V. Bowles, NASA-AMES Research Center,
for all of their unyielding support in what has been a most challenging research
project. They were always there when direction was needed in bringing all of the
pieces together to test the waverider. Thanks to all of the exceptionally
professional people at the Model Shop and Calibration Lab at the NASA-AMES
Research Center who provided the waverider model and sting balance. This
project would not have been possible without their untiring efforts. Specifically,
thanks to Prof. Richard M. Howard for providing wind tunnel equipment and
guidance necessary to run the tests. Thanks to Mr. Jack King for his expertise in
wind tunnel operation and his work in the data acquisition system electronic set-
up. I was constantly amazed by his technical prowess in making everything
work . Also, thanks to Mr. Colin C. Cooper for helping me with getting the
computer data acquisition software squared away. I watched in awe as he
demonstrated his alacrity on the computer keyboard. Finally, my greatest
appreciation goes to my wonderful wife, Chey, and my children, Matthew and
Aubrie. Their love, patience, understanding, and support kept me going
throughout this entire project. Without them and their help, this would have not
been possible. Again, thanks to all.
Mark Cedrun, June 1994
Monterey, California
ix