Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Fink, Lawrence E..
A supersonic inlet includes a supersonic section including a cowl which is at least partially elliptical, a ramp disposed within the cowl, and a flow inlet disposed between the cowl and the ramp. The ramp may also be at least partially elliptical.
This report describes the work conducted under NASA funding for the Boeing N+2 Supersonic Experimental Validation project to experimentally validate the conceptual design of a supersonic airliner feasible for entry into service in the 2018 -to 2020 timeframe (NASA N+2 generation). The primary goal of the project was to develop a low-boom configuration optimized for minimum sonic boom signature (65 to 70 PLdB). This was a very aggressive goal that could be achieved only through integrated multidisciplinary optimization tools validated in relevant ground and, later, flight environments. The project was split into two phases. Phase I of the project covered the detailed aerodynamic design of a low boom airliner as well as the wind tunnel tests to validate that design (ref. 1). This report covers Phase II of the project, which continued the design methodology development of Phase I with a focus on the propulsion integration aspects as well as the testing involved to validate those designs. One of the major airplane configuration features of the Boeing N+2 low boom design was the overwing nacelle. The location of the nacelle allowed for a minimal effect on the boom signature, however, it added a level of difficulty to designing an inlet with acceptable performance in the overwing flow field. Using the Phase I work as the starting point, the goals of the Phase 2 project were to design and verify inlet performance while maintaining a low-boom signature. The Phase II project was successful in meeting all contract objectives. New modular nacelles were built for the larger Performance Model along with a propulsion rig with an electrically-actuated mass flow plug. Two new mounting struts were built for the smaller Boom Model, along with new nacelles. Propulsion integration testing was performed using an instrumented fan face and a mass flow plug, while boom signatures were measured using a wall-mounted pressure rail. A side study of testing in different wind tunnels was completed as a precursor to the selection of the facilities used for validation testing. As facility schedules allowed, the propulsion testing was done at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) 8 x 6-Foot wind tunnel, while boom and force testing was done at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) 9 x 7-Foot wind tunnel. During boom testing, a live balance was used for gathering force data. This report is broken down into nine sections. The first technical section (Section 2) covers the general scope of the Phase II activities, goals, a description of the design and testing efforts, and the project plan and schedule. Section 3 covers the details of the propulsion system concepts and design evolution. A series of short tests to evaluate the suitability of different wind tunnels for boom, propulsion, and force testing was also performed under the Phase 2 effort, with the results covered in Section 4. The propulsion integration testing is covered in Section 5 and the boom and force testing in Section 6. CFD comparisons and analyses are included in Section 7. Section 8 includes the conclusions and lessons learned.
Development of commercial supersonic aircraft has been hindered by many related factors including fuel-efficiency, economics, and sonic-boom signatures that have prevented over-land flight. Materials, propulsion, and flight control technologies have developed to the point where, if over-land flight were made possible, a commercial supersonic transport could be economically viable. Computational fluid dynamics, and modern optimization techniques enable designers to reduce the boom signature of candidate aircraft configurations to acceptable levels. However, propulsion systems must be carefully integrated with these low-boom configurations in order that the signatures remain acceptable. One technique to minimize the downward propagation of waves is to mount the propulsion systems above the wing, such that the wing provides shielding from shock waves generated by the inlet and nacelle. This topmounted approach introduces a number of issues with inlet design and performance especially with the highly-swept wing configurations common to low-boom designs. A 1.79%-scale aircraft model was built and tested at the NASA Glenn Research Center's 8-by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel (8x6 SWT) to validate the configuration's sonic boom signature. In order to evaluate performance of the top-mounted inlets, the starboard flow-through nacelle on the aerodynamic model was replaced by a 2.3%-scale operational inlet model. This integrated configuration was tested at the 8x6 SWT from Mach 0.25 to 1.8 over a wide range of angles-of-attack and yaw. The inlet was also tested in an isolated configuration over a smaller range of angles-of-attack and yaw. A number of boundary-layer bleed configurations were investigated and found to provide a substantial positive impact on pressure recovery and distortion. Installed inlet performance in terms of mass capture, pressure recovery, and distortion over the Mach number range at the design angle-of-attack of 4-degrees is presented herein and compared to that at 0- degrees, as well as the isolated inlet configuration to highlight installation effects. Performance of the installed inlet fell below that of the isolated inlet at Mach numbers of 1.4 and greater. The installed inlet demonstrated adequate operability over the expected range of angles-of-attack and yaw, but did exhibit definite angle-ofattack and yaw limits at supersonic conditions. At each supersonic flight Mach number, performance parameters near zero yaw angle were relatively insensitive to yaw, but in general the yaw angle yielding best performance was non-zero and varied with angle-of-attack. Performance of the installed inlet is also presented as functions of angle-of-attack and yaw to highlight these effects. Distortion at the aerodynamic interface plane ranged between 10 and 25% at the inlet critical points over the range of flight Mach numbers tested and did not decrease significantly for the isolated inlet. Although these distortion levels would be considered high for operation with a turbine engine, the over-wing installation is likely not as significant a contributor as the low test Reynolds number. This is demonstrated by comparing CFD analysis of the isolated inlet at test scale with that at intermediate and full scales.
A methodology used in support of a contract study for NASA/MSFC to optimize the design of gas generator hybrid propulsion booster for uprating the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) is presented. The objective was to compare alternative configurations for this booster approach, optimizing each candidate concept on different bases, in order to develop data for a trade table on which a final decision was based. The methodology is capable of processing a large number of independent and dependent variables, adjusting the overall subsystems characteristics to arrive at a best compromise integrated design to meet various specified optimization criteria subject to selected constraints. For each system considered, a detailed weight statement was generated along with preliminary cost and reliability estimates.
Hydrogen, RP-1, propane, and methane were identified by propulsion technology studies as the most probable fuel candidates for the boost phase of future launch vehicles. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of booster engines using these fuels and coolant variations on representative future launch vehicles. An automated procedure for integrated launch vehicle, engine sizing, and design optimization was used to optimize two stage and single stage concepts for minimum dry weight. The two stage vehicles were unmanned and used a flyback booster and partially reusable orbiter. The single stage designs were fully reusable, manned flyback vehicles. Comparisons of these vehicle designs, showing the effects of using different fuels, as well as sensitivity and trending data, are presented. In addition, the automated design technique is described.