Hypersonic flight has been with us since 22 September 1963, when Robert M. White flew the North American X-15 at 4520 mph at an altitude of 354; 200 ft-a Mach number of 6.7! This remarkable achievement was accomplished over six decades due to intensive research and development by a large number of scientists and engineers. In spite of that momentous achievement, designers have found the hypersonic environment to be harsh and non-forgiving. New programs since the 1960s have often uncovered the unknown unknowns, usually the hard way-early flights of new systems have often revealed problems of which the designers were unaware. Such problems include: the ineffectiveness of the body flap for the Space Shuttle Orbiter, the viscous/inviscid interactions produced by the umbilical fairings that damaged the conical section tile protection system of the Gemini Capsule, and the shock/shock interaction that damaged the X-15A-2 when it carried the hypersonic ramjet experiment. In order to continue to make advances in hypersonic flight a sustained and visionary effort is essential to generate required knowledge and technology. In order to better prepare for future developments in hypersonic flight, this article reviews the advances made within the past 50 years and then looks into the future, not just for new technological developments, but for new ways of thinking about the unknown challenges that lie ahead.

The challenges in understanding hypersonic flight are discussed and critical hyper sonic aerothermodynamics issues are reviewed. The ability of current analytical meth ods, numerical methods, ground testing capabilities, and flight testing approaches to predict hypersonic flow are evaluated. The areas where aerothermodynamic short comings restrict our ability to design and analyze hypersonic vehicles are discussed, and prospects for future capabilities are reviewed. Considerable work still needs to be done before our understanding of hypersonic flow will allow for the accurate pre diction of vehicle flight characteristics throughout the flight envelope from launch to orbital insertion.

Detached-eddy simulation is applied to an axisymmetric base flow at supersonic conditions. Detached-eddy simulation is a hybrid approach to modeling turbulence that combines the best features of the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and large-eddy simulation approaches. In the Reynolds-averaged mode, the model is currently based on either the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model or Menter’s shear stress transport model; in the large-eddy simulation mode, it is based on the Smagorinski subgrid scale model. The intended application of detached-eddy simulation is the treatment of massively separated, high-Reynolds number flows over complex configurations (entire aircraft, automobiles, etc.). Because of the intented future application of the methods to complex configurations, Cobalt, an unstructured grid Navier-Stokes solver, is used. The current work incorporates compressible shear layer corrections in both the Spalart-Allmaras and shear stress transport-based detached-eddy simulation models. The effect of these corrections on both detached-eddy simulation and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes models is examined, and comparisons are made to the experiments of Herrin and Dutton. Solutions are obtained on several grids—both structured and unstructured—to test the sensitivity of the models and code to grid refinement and grid type. The results show that predictions of base flows using detached-eddy simulation compare very well with available experimental data, including turbulence quantities in the wake of the axisymmetric body.

A two-dimensional numerical investigation was performed to determine the effect of a Gurney flap on a NACA 4412 airfoil. A Gurney flap is a flat plate on the order of 1-3% of the airfoil chord in length, oriented perpendicular to the chord line and located on the airfoil windward side at the trailing edge. The flowfield around the airfoil was numerically predicted using INS2D, an incompressible Navier-Stokes solver, and the one-equation turbulence model of Baldwin and Barth. Gurney flap sizes of 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 2.0%, and 3.0% of the airfoil chord were studied. Computational results were compared with available experi mental results. The numerical solutions show that some Gurney flaps increase the airfoil lift coefficient with only a slight increase in drag coefficient. Use of a 1.5% chord length Gurney flap increases the airfoil lift coefficient by �C + 0.3 and decreases the angle of attack required to obtain a given lift coefficient by �� ��� '! 3°. The numerical solutions show the details of the flow structure at the trailing edge and provide a possible explanation for the increased aerodynamic performance.

This paper examines the analytical, experimental, and computational aspects of the determination of the drag acting on an aircraft in flight, with or without powered engines, for subsonic/transonic flow. Using a momentum balance approach, the drag is represented by an integral over a crossflow plane at an arbitrary distance behind the aircraft. Asymptotic evaluation of the integral shows the drag can be decomposed into three components corresponding to streamwise vorticity and variations in entropy and stagnation enthalpy. These are related to the established engineering concepts of induced drag, wave drag, profile drag, and engine power and efficiency. This decomposition of the components of drag is useful in formulating techniques for accurately evaluating drag using computational fluid dynamics calculations or experimental data. Nomenclature a -speed of sound C -area of integration c p -specific heat at constant pressure c v -specific heat at constant volume D = drag (force parallel to freestream direction) E = rate of energy input as a result of fuel combustion F = aerodynamic force vector H = stagnation enthalpy y, k = grid indexes L = lift (force perpendicular to freestream direction) n = surface normal unit vector p = pressure q = flow speed, = u 2 + v 2 + w 2 R = universal gas constant r -radius in polar coordinates 5 = surface of integration s -entropy J7oo = freestream velocity vector u = velocity vector u, v, w = velocity components in x, y, z directions, respectively x, y, z = Cartesian coordinate system a = computational cell index; angle of attack = computational cell centroid F = circulation y = vorticity f = streamwise vorticity, distributed line source 6 = angle in polar coordinates

, "Reduced order unsteady aerodynamic modeling for stability and control analysis using computational fluid dynamics" (2014 Contents ABSTRACTRecent advances and challenges in the generation of reduced order aerodynamic models using computational fluid dynamics are presented. The models reviewed are those that can be used for aircraft stability and control analysis and include linear and nonlinear indicial response methods, Volterra theory, radial basis functions, and a surrogate-based recurrence framework. The challenges associated with identification of unknowns for each of the reduced order methods are addressed. A range of test cases, from airfoils to full aircraft, have been used to evaluate and validate the reduced order methods. The motions have different amplitudes and reduced frequencies and could start from different flight conditions including those in the transonic speed range. Overall, these reduced order models help to produce accurate predictions for a wide range of motions, but with the advantage that model predictions require orders of magnitude less time to evaluate once the model is created.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

As computational fluid dynamics matures, researchers attempt to perform numerical simulations on increasingly complex aerodynamic flows. One type of flow that has become feasible to simulate is massively separated flow fields, which exhibit high levels of flow unsteadiness. While traditional computational fluid dynamic approaches may be able to simulate these flows, it is not obvious what restrictions should be followed in order to insure that the numerical simulations are accurate and trustworthy. Our research group has considerable experience in computing massively separated flow fields about various aircraft configurations, which has led us to examine the factors necessary for making high-quality time-dependent flow computations. The factors we have identified include: grid density and local refinement, the numerical approach, performing a time-step study, the use of sub-iterations for temporal accuracy, the appropriate use of temporal damping, and the use of appropriate turbulence models. We have a variety of cases from which to draw results, including delta wings and the F-18C, F-16C, and F-16XL aircraft. Results show that while it is possible to obtain accurate unsteady aerodynamic computations, there is a high computational cost associated with performing the calculations. Rules of thumb and possible shortcuts for accurate prediction of massively separated flows are also discussed.

No abstract