Experimental Validations of a Low Boom Aircraft Design

Magee, Todd; Shaw, Stephen G.; Fugal, Spencer R.

doi:10.2514/6.2013-646

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this design also induces substantial wave drag since the entropy increase due to the strong shock waves is irreversible. The Boeing's N+2 design appears to adopt the flat-top overpressure signature strategy [8,9]. The second strategy is based on the ramp overpressure signature of JSGD theory to use a sharp nose in order to generate weak shocks.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aspect ratio increase is hence quite limited. Both the scissor wing and swing wing configurations are not adopted by Boeing and Lockheed Martin for their N+2 and N+3 designs [8,9,10,11,12]. …”

Section: Aerodynamic Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most challenging requirement for both N+2 and N+3 is the sonic boom noise level (based on linear theory) should be between 65 to 70 dBPL. NASA contracted Boeing [8,9] and Lockheed Martin [24] to conduct design of N+2 supersonic airplane. Both the designs have good aerodynamic performance, but the sonic boom levels are at about 80-85dBPL [9,10,11], still quite distanced from the targeted 65 to 70 dBPL.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NASA contracted Boeing [8,9] and Lockheed Martin [24] to conduct design of N+2 supersonic airplane. Both the designs have good aerodynamic performance, but the sonic boom levels are at about 80-85dBPL [9,10,11], still quite distanced from the targeted 65 to 70 dBPL. Welge et al [8,9] present Boeing's projected supersonic civil transports up to N+3 in 2040, which indicates that their configurations for the next 3 decades will be mostly the same tube-wing configuration with the difference in the details and refinement.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of a Low Boom Supersonic Flying Wing Preliminary Design

Gan

Zha

2015

53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the numerical analysis of a low boom supersonic bi-directional flying wing (SBiDir-FW) preliminary design to demonstrate the advantages of the concept. The mission requirements include cruise Mach number of 1.6, cruise altitude around 50kft, payload of 100 passengers, and a range of 4000nm. The gross takeoff weight is about 197kLb. The configuration is a flying wing symmetric about both the longitudinal and span axes. The sweep angle varies from 82 • at the very leading edge to 78 • at the tip. Two designs with same sweep angles and planform shapes are presented by varying airfoil meanline angle distributions to achieve different overpressure signatures and L/D ratios. The first design D82-78.4 achieves an L/D of 8.16, C L of 0.54, and the ground sonic boom noise level of 71.7PLdB. The second design D82-78.8 increases the C L and L/D with C L =0.60 and L/D = 8.54, while keeping a low level of ground sonic boom at 71.9PLdB by cruising at a little higher altitude of 52kft. A typical near field overpressure signature has a strong shock wave followed by a strong expansion in the overall process of expansion. The strong shockexpansion is mostly canceled out by themselves during the process of the wave propagation to ground. The designs indicate that the overpressure signature and aerodynamic efficiency are very sensitive and controllable by the variation of meanline angle distributions of the airfoils. This is an important relationship between the geometry parameters and the sonic boom/aerodynamic efficiency so that a design optimization strategy can be developed. All the designs with varied meanline angle distributions in this paper are conducted manually. With the encouraging results achieved so far, it is believed that the NASA's N+2 and N+3 goal to have ground sonic boom below 70PLdB for a supersonic civil transport is close to reach if a systematic design optimization is conducted.

show abstract

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Aerodynamic Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of a Low Boom Supersonic Flying Wing Preliminary Design

Gan

Zha

2015

53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…References after 2010 include validation of CFD methods for computing off-body pressure distributions 1-10 by using novel wind tunnel measurement techniques, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] new methods for design of low-boom supersonic configurations, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] and development of low-boom supersonic concepts that include nacelles and some mission constraints. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] One of the remaining technical challenges in development of low-boom supersonic concepts is the difficulty of knowing when to continue work on the current configuration layout for a trimmed low-boom design and when to move on with a more promising concept. It is not unusual to work on a seemingly promising concept for many months, and then realize that it would be impossible to achieve a trimmed low-boom design by only morphing the OML at the given cruise condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Supersonic Aircraft Concepts for Low-Boom and Flight Trim Constraints

2015

33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents a process for analyzing whether a particular supersonic aircraft configuration layout and a given cruise condition are feasible to achieve a trimmed lowboom design. This process was motivated by the need to know whether a particular configuration at a given cruise condition could be reshaped to satisfy both low-boom and flight trim constraints. Without such a process, much effort could be wasted on shaping a configuration layout at a cruise condition that could never satisfy both low-boom and flight trim constraints simultaneously. The process helps to exclude infeasible configuration layouts with minimum effort and allows a designer to develop trimmed low-boom concepts more effectively. A notional low-boom supersonic demonstrator concept is used to illustrate the analysis/design process.

show abstract

Design of top mounted supersonic inlets for a cylindrical fuselage

Saheby

Gouping

Hays

2018

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing an inlet based on the fuselage geometry and its constraints is an important part of flight vehicle design. Among the different possible configurations, design integration of a supersonic inlet with a cylindrical fuselage is a major challenge. On one hand, propulsive efficiency requirements force the designers to consider the simplest compression surfaces for the inlet entrance geometries and on the other hand, the considerable drag of inlet/diverter integrations needs to be minimized, which can affect the inlet. In this paper, two new concepts as a replacement for a top mounted pitot inlet are presented: a three-dimensional wave-derived inlet and a trigonometric bump inlet. They are designed based on computational fluid dynamics simulations and their performance has been measured and compared with the initial single normal shock inlet as a baseline.

show abstract

Experimental Validations of a Low Boom Aircraft Design

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

Analysis of a Low Boom Supersonic Flying Wing Preliminary Design

Analysis of a Low Boom Supersonic Flying Wing Preliminary Design

Feasibility of Supersonic Aircraft Concepts for Low-Boom and Flight Trim Constraints

Design of top mounted supersonic inlets for a cylindrical fuselage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About