Engineering topics

Bjarke, Lisa J.

Publications and source records attributed to Bjarke, Lisa J..

9 records

NASA NTRS1997

F-16XL Wing Pressure Distributions and Shock Fence Results from Mach 1.4 to Mach 2.0

Chordwise pressure distributions were obtained in-flight on the upper and lower surfaces of the F-16XL ship 2 aircraft wing between Mach 1.4 and Mach 2.0. This experiment was conducted to determine the location of shock waves which could compromise or invalidate a follow-on test of a large chord laminar flow control suction panel. On the upper surface, the canopy closure shock crossed an area which would be covered by a proposed laminar flow suction panel. At the laminar flow experiment design Mach number of 1.9, 91 percent of the suction panel area would be forward of the shock. At Mach 1.4, that value reduces to 65 percent. On the lower surface, a shock from the inlet diverter would impinge on the proposed suction panel leading edge. A chordwise plate mounted vertically to deflect shock waves, called a shock fence, was installed between the inlet diverter and the leading edge. This plate was effective in reducing the pressure gradients caused by the inlet shock system.

Landers, Stephen F.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Flow-visualization study of the X-29A aircraft at high angles of attack using a 1/48-scale model

A water-tunnel study on a 1/48-scale model of the X-29A aircraft was performed at the NASA Dryden Flow Visualization Facility. The water-tunnel test enhanced the results of the X-29A flight tests by providing flow-visualization data for comparison and insights into the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. The model was placed in the water tunnel at angles of attack of 20 to 55 deg. and with angles of sideslip from 0 to 5 deg. In general, flow-visualization techniques provided useful information on vortex formation, separation, and breakdown and their role in yaw asymmetries and tail buffeting. Asymmetric forebody vortices were observed at angles of attack greater than 30 deg. with 0 deg. sideslip and greater than 20 deg. with 5 deg. sideslip. While the asymmetric flows observed in the water tunnel did not agree fully with the flight data, they did show some of the same trends. In addition, the flow visualization indicated that the interaction of forebody vortices and the wing wake at angles of attack between 20 and 35 deg. may cause vertical-tail buffeting observed in flight.

Cotton, Stacey J.↗

NASA NTRS1992

A summary of the forebody high-angle-of-attack aerodynamics research on the F-18 and the X-29A aircraft

High-angle-of-attack aerodynamic studies have been conducted on both the F18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) and the X-29A aircraft. Data obtained include on- and off-surface flow visualization and static pressure measurements on the forebody. Comparisons of similar results are made between the two aircraft where possible. The forebody shapes of the two aircraft are different and the X-29A forebody flow is affected by the addition of nose strakes and a flight test noseboom. The forebody flow field of the F-18 HARV is fairly symmetric at zero sideslip and has distinct, well-defined vortices. The X-29A forebody vortices are more diffuse and are sometimes asymmetric at zero sideslip. These asymmetries correlate with observed zero-sideslip aircraft yawing moments.

Bjarke, Lisa J.↗

NASA NTRS1992

A summary of the forebody high-angle-of-attack aerodynamics research on the F-18 and the X-29A aircraft

Bjarke, Lisa J.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Flow Visualization Study of a 1/48-Scale AFTI/F111 Model to Investigate Horizontal Tail Flow Disturbances

During flight testing of the AFTI/F111 aircraft, horizontal tail buffet was observed. Flutter analysis ruled out any aeroelastic instability, so a water-tunnel flow visualization study was conducted to investigate possible flow disturbances on the horizontal tail which might cause buffet. For this study, a 1/48-scale model was used. Four different wing cambers and one horizontal tail setting were tested between 0 and 20 deg angle of attack. These wing cambers corresponded to the following leading training edge deflections: 0/2, 10/10, 10/2, and 0/10. Flow visualization results in the form of still photographs are presented for each of the four wing cambers between 8 and 12 deg angle of attack. In general, the horizontal tail experiences flow disturbances which become more pronounced with angle of attack or wing trailing-edge deflection.

Bjarke, Lisa J.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Water tunnels

Some of the uses of water tunnels are demonstrated through the description of the NASA Ames-Dryden Flow Visualization Facility. It is concluded that water tunnels are capable of providing a quick and inexpensive means of flow visualization and can aid in the understanding of complex fluid mechanics phenomena.

Bjarke, Lisa J.↗

NASA NTRS1990

An in-flight interaction of the X-29A canard and flight control system

Many of today's high performance airplanes use high gain, digital flight control systems. These sytems are liable to couple with the aircraft's structural dynamics and aerodynamics to cause an aeroservoelastic interaction. These interactions can be stable or unstable depending upon damping and phase relationships within the system. The details of an aeroservoelastic interaction experienced in flight by the X-29A forward-swept wing airplane. A 26.5-Hz canard pitch mode response was aliased by the digital sampling rate in the canard position feedback loop of the flight control system, resulting in a 13.5-Hz signal being commanded to the longitudinal control surfaces. The amplitude of this commanded signal increased as the wear of the canard seals increased, as the feedback path gains were increased, and as the canard aerodynamic loading decreased. The resultant control surface deflections were of sufficient amplitude to excite the structure. The flight data presented shows the effect of each component (structural dynamics, aerodynamics, and flight control system) for this aeroservoelastic interaction.

Kehoe, Michael W.↗

NASA NTRS1990

An in-flight interaction of the X-29A canard and flight control system

This paper presents the details of an aeroservoelastic interaction experienced in flight by the X-29A forward-swept-wing aircraft. A 26.5-Hz canard pitch-mode response was aliased by the digital sampling rate in the canard-position feed-back loop of the flight-control system, resulting in a 13.5-Hz signal being commanded to the longitudinal control surfaces. The amplitude of this commanded signal increased as the wear of the canard seals increased, as the feedback path gains were increased, and as the canard aerodynamic loading decreased. The resultant control-surface deflections were of sufficient amplitude to excite the structure. The flight data presented shows the effect of each component (structural dynamics, aerodynamics, and flight-control system) for this aeroservoelastic interaction.

Kehoe, Michael W.↗

NASA NTRS1989

An in-flight technique for wind measurement in support of the space shuttle program

A technique to use an aircraft to measure wind profiles in the altitude range of 1,500 to 18,200 m was demonstrated at NASA Ames-Dryden. This demonstration was initiated to determine if an aircraft could measure wind profiles in support of space shuttle launches. The Jimsphere balloon is currently the device used to measure pre-launch wind profiles for the space shuttle. However, it takes approximately an hour for the Jimsphere to travel through the altitudes of interest. If these wind instruments could be taken with an aircraft closer to launch in a more timely manner and with the same accuracy as a Jimsphere balloon, some uncertainties in the measurements could be removed. The aircraft used for this investigation was an F-104G which is capable of flight above 18,000 m. It had conventional research instrumentation to provide air data and flow angles along with a ring laser gyro inertial navigation system (INS) to provide inertial and Euler angle data. During the course of 17 flights, wind profiles were measured in 21 climbs and 18 descents. Preliminary comparisons between aircraft measured wind profiles and Jimsphere measured profiles show reasonable agreement (within 3 m/sec). Most large differences between the profiles can usually be explained by large spatial or time differences between the Jimsphere and aircraft measurements, the fact that the aircraft is not in a wings-level attitude, or INS shifts caused by aircraft maneuvering.

Bjarke, Lisa J.↗