Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Haering, Edward A., Jr..
43 sonic booms generated (a few were evanescent waves) a) Overpressures of 0.08 to 2.20 lbf/sq ft; b) Rise-times of about 0.7 to 50 ms. Objectives: a) Structural response of a house of modern construction; b) Sonic boom propagation code validation. Approach: a) Measure shockwave directionality; b) Determine effect of height above ground on acoustic level; c) Generate atmospheric turbulence filter functions.
This viewgraph presentation reviews the QuietSpike flight test results. It shows the previous tests from Nearfield probes. The presentation then reviews the approach to test the QuietSpike, and shows graphics of the positions of the test vehicles. It also shows the components of the Sonic Boom Probing Noseboom. A graph of the Pressure Over- Under-shoot (Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration (SSBD)Data) is presented. It reviews the Shock Probing Orientations, explaining that the probing plane is always behind the tail of the QuietSpike jet. Graphs of the Shock Position Geometry (SSBD Data) and the QuietSpike signature as of the test on 12/13/06, Near-Field Probing Directly Under the QuietSpike jet, and Near-Field Probing to Side, Near-Field Probing Above and to Side. Several slides review the Computational Fluid Dynamic models, and results compared to the probe tests.
This DVD contains a database of the 10m Tower Sonic Boom recordings.
This Section provides a brief introduction to airdata measurement and calibration. Readers will learn about typical test objectives, quantities to measure, and flight maneuvers and operations for calibration. The Section informs readers about tower-flyby, trailing cone, pacer, radar-tracking, and dynamic airdata calibration maneuvers. Readers will also begin to understand how some data analysis considerations and special airdata cases, including high-angle-of-attack flight, high-speed flight, and nonobtrusive sensors are handled. This section is not intended to be all inclusive; readers should review AGARDograph 300, Volume 1, "Calibration of Airdata Systems and Flow Direction Sensors" for more detailed information. [11-1] References 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 also supply pertinent information to better understand airdata measurement and calibration and related terminology. Airdata are vital to successfully complete an aircraft's mission and are derived from the air surrounding the aircraft. These airdata encompass indicated and true airspeed, pressure altitude, ambient air temperature, angles of attack and sideslip, Mach number, and rate of climb. Typically, pitot and static pressures are sensed and converted (by mechanical means in the instruments themselves) into indications on the altimeter, vertical speed indicator, airspeed indicator, and Machmeter. Similarly, measured local flow angles establish angles of attack and sideslip, and the outside air temperature is measured and indicated in the cockpit. (Instruments that can perform the conversion, such as airspeed indicators, altimeters, and Machmeters, do not correct for errors in the input values.) These measured parameters are commonly input to the airdata computer which, using appropriate algorithms and correction factors (or calibrations, as discussed later), can provide other parameters, such as true airspeed, required by the aircraft's avionics or flight control system. The presence of the aircraft in the airstream causes input errors to the measuring instruments - the aircraft disturbs the air that it flies through, thereby also disturbing the airdata measurements. Figure 11-1 shows the airflow around an airplane wing. The air above the wing has lower pressure than the ambient air, while the pressure below the wing is higher than the ambient air. Compressibility and shock waves also disturb the air and affect the measurements. Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3. As a result the static pressure around an airplane varies considerably with location. Local flow angles also differ from the free-stream flow direction. In straight-and-level flight the airflow rises to the wing leading edge and falls below the trailing edge, causing errors in flow direction measurements. To some extent these errors can be studied in wind tunnels, but wind-tunnel measurements cannot replace in-flight measurements.
The Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration project showed for the first time that by careful design of aircraft contour the resultant sonic boom can maintain a tailored shape, propagating through a real atmosphere down to ground level. In order to assess the propagation characteristics of the shaped sonic boom and to validate computational fluid dynamics codes, airborne measurements were taken of the pressure signatures in the near field by probing with an instrumented F-15B aircraft, and in the far field by overflying an instrumented L-23 sailplane. This paper describes each aircraft and their instrumentation systems, the airdata calibration, analysis of the near- and far-field airborne data, and shows the good to excellent agreement between computational fluid dynamics solutions and flight data. The flights of the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration aircraft occurred in two phases. Instrumentation problems were encountered during the first phase, and corrections and improvements were made to the instrumentation system for the second phase, which are documented in the paper. Piloting technique and observations are also given. These airborne measurements of the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration aircraft are a unique and important database that will be used to validate design tools for a new generation of quiet supersonic aircraft.
The recent flight demonstration of shaped sonic booms shows the potential for quiet overland supersonic flight, which could revolutionize air transport. To successfully design quiet supersonic aircraft, the upper limit of an acceptable noise level must be determined through quantitative recording and subjective human response measurements. Past efforts have concentrated on the use of sonic boom simulators to assess human response, but simulators often cannot reproduce a realistic sonic boom sound. Until now, molecular relaxation effects on low overpressure rise time had never been compared with flight data. Supersonic flight slower than the cutoff Mach number, which generates evanescent waves, also prevents loud sonic booms from impacting the ground. The loudness of these evanescent waves can be computed, but flight measurement validation is needed. A novel flight demonstration technique that generates low overpressure N-waves using conventional military aircraft is outlined, in addition to initial quantitative flight data. As part of this demonstration, evanescent waves also will be recorded.
An airdata estimation and evaluation system and method, including a stable algorithm for estimating airdata from nonintrusive surface pressure measurements. The airdata estimation and evaluation system is preferably implemented in a flush airdata sensing (FADS) system. The system and method of the present invention take a flow model equation and transform it into a triples formulation equation. The triples formulation equation eliminates the pressure related states from the flow model equation by strategically taking the differences of three surface pressures, known as triples. This triples formulation equation is then used to accurately estimate and compute vital airdata from nonintrusive surface pressure measurements.
Airplane design studies have developed configuration concepts that may produce lower sonic boom annoyance levels. Since lower noise designs differ significantly from other HSCT designs, it is necessary to accurately assess their potential before HSCT final configuration decisions are made. Flight tests to demonstrate lower noise design capability by modifying an existing airframe have been proposed for the Mach 3 SR-71 reconnaissance airplane. To support the modified SR-71 proposal, baseline in-flight measurements were made of the unmodified aircraft. These measurements of SR-71 near-field sonic boom signatures were obtained by an F-16XL probe airplane at flightpath separation distances ranging from approximately 740 to 40 ft. This paper discusses the methods used to gather and analyze the flight data, and makes comparisons of these flight data with CFD results from Douglas Aircraft Corporation and NASA Langley Research Center. The CFD solutions were obtained for the near-field flow about the SR-71, and then propagated to the flight test measurement location using the program MDBOOM.
Blunt-forebody pressure data are used to study the behavior of the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center flush airdata sensing (FADS) pressure model and solution algorithm. The model relates surface pressure measurements to the airdata state. Spliced from the potential flow solution for uniform flow over a sphere and the modified Newtonian impact theory, the model was shown to apply to a wide range of blunt-forebody shapes and Mach numbers. Calibrations of a sphere, spherical cones, a Rankine half body, and the F-14, F/A-18, X-33, X-34, and X-38 configurations are shown. The three calibration parameters are well-behaved from Mach 0.25 to Mach 5.0, an angle-of-attack range extending to greater than 30 deg, and an angle-of-sideslip range extending to greater than 15 deg. Contrary to the sharp calibration changes found on traditional pitot-static systems at transonic speeds, the FADS calibrations are smooth, monotonic functions of Mach number and effective angles of attack and sideslip. Because the FADS calibration is sensitive to pressure port location, detailed measurements of the actual pressure port locations on the flight vehicle are required and the wind-tunnel calibration model should have pressure ports in similar locations. The procedure for calibrating a FADS system is outlined.
Blunt-forebody pressure data are used to study the behavior of the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center flush airdata sensing (FADS) pressure model and solution algorithm. The model relates surface pressure measurements to the airdata state. Spliced from the potential flow solution for uniform flow over a sphere and the modified Newtonian impact theory, the model was shown to apply to a wide range of blunt-forebody shapes and Mach numbers. Calibrations of a sphere, spherical cones, a Rankine half body, and the F-14, F/A-18, X-33, X-34, and X-38 configurations are shown. The three calibration parameters are well-behaved from Mach 0.25 to Mach 5.0, an angle-of-attack range extending to greater than 30 deg, and an angle-of-sideslip range extending to greater than 15 deg. Contrary to the sharp calibration changes found on traditional pitot-static systems at transonic speeds, the FADS calibrations are smooth, monotonic functions of Mach number and effective angles of attack and sideslip. Because the FADS calibration is sensitive to pressure port location, detailed measurements of the actual pressure port locations on the flight vehicle are required and the wind-tunnel calibration model should have pressure ports in similar locations. The procedure for calibrating a FADS system is outlined.
Wing compression shock shadowgraphs were observed on two flights during banked turns of an L-1011 aircraft at a Mach number of 0.85 and an altitude of 35,000 ft (10,700 m). Photos and video recording of the shadowgraphs were taken during the flights to document the shadowgraphs. Bright sunlight on the aircraft was required. The time of day, aircraft position, speed and attitudes were recorded to determine the sun azimuth and elevation relative to the wing quarter chord-line when the shadowgraphs were visible. Sun elevation and azimuth angles were documented for which the wing compression shock shadowgraphs were visible. The shadowgraph was observed for high to low elevation angles relative to the wing, but for best results high sun angles relative to the wing are desired. The procedures and equations to determine the sun azimuth and elevation angle with respect to the quarter chord-line is included in the Appendix.
A schlieren imaging system that uses the sun as a light source was developed it) obtain direct flow-field images of shock waves of aircraft in flight. This system was used to study how shock waves evolve to form sonic booms. The image quality obtained was limited by several optical and mechanical factors. Converting the photographs to digital images and applying digital image-processing techniques greatly improved the final quality of the images and more clearly showed the shock structures.
This paper describes ground-level measurements of sonic boom signatures made as part of the SR-71 sonic boom propagation experiment recently completed at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. Ground-level measurements were the final stage of this experiment which also included airborne measurements at near and intermediate distances from an SR-71 research aircraft. The types of sensors were deployed to three station locations near the aircraft ground track. Pressure data collected for flight conditions from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.60 at altitudes from 30,000 to 48,000 ft. Ground-level measurement techniques, comparisons of data sets from different ground sensors, and sensor system strengths and weaknesses are discussed. The well-known N-wave structure dominated r sonic boom signatures generated by the SR-71 aircraft at most of these conditions. Variations in boom shape caused by atmospheric turbulence, focusing effects, or both, were observed for several flights. Peak pressure and boom event duration showed some dependence on aircraft gross weight. The sonic boom signatures collected in this experiment are being compiled in a data base for distribution in support of the High Speed Research Program.
Two F-18 aircraft were flown, one above the other, in two formations, in order for the shock systems of the two aircraft to merge and propagate to the ground. The first formation had the canopy of the lower F-18 in the tail shock of the upper F-18 (called tail-canopy). The second formation had the canopy of the lower F- 18 in the inlet shock of the upper F-18 (called inlet-canopy). The flight conditions were Mach 1.22 and an altitude of 23,500 ft . An array of five sonic boom recorders was used on the ground to record the sonic boom signatures. This paper describes the flight test technique and the ground level sonic boom signatures. The tail-canopy formation resulted in two, separated, N-wave signatures. Such signatures probably resulted from aircraft positioning error. The inlet-canopy formation yielded a single modified signature; two recorders measured an approximate flattop signature. Loudness calculations indicated that the single inlet-canopy signatures were quieter than the two, separated tail-canopy signatures. Significant loudness occurs after a sonic boom signature. Such loudness probably comes from the aircraft engines.
In-flight measurements of the SR-71 near-field sonic boom were obtained by an F-16XL airplane at flightpath separation distances from 40 to 740 ft. Twenty-two signatures were obtained from Mach 1.60 to Mach 1.84 and altitudes from 47,600 to 49,150 ft. The shock wave signatures were measured by the total and static sensors on the F-16XL noseboo. These near-field signature measurements were distorted by pneumatic attenuation in the pitot-static sensors and accounting for their effects using optimal deconvolution. Measurement system magnitude and phase characteristics were determined from ground-based step-response tests and extrapolated to flight conditions using analytical models. Deconvolution was implemented using Fourier transform methods. Comparisons of the shock wave signatures reconstructed from the total and static pressure data are presented. The good agreement achieved gives confidence of the quality of the reconstruction analysis. although originally developed to reconstruct the sonic boom signatures from SR-71 sonic boom flight tests, the methods presented here generally apply to other types of highly attenuated or distorted pneumatic measurements.
Flight experiment conducted using an SR-71, F-16XL, and YO-3A airplane to study propagation of sonic booms. Work geared toward developing high-speed civil transport (HSCT) aircraft. Data used to soften sonic booms from supersonic aircraft. Techniques used in experiment to measure pressures and relative aircraft separation accurately also under consideration for use in other flight research unrelated to sonic booms.
This memorandum provides a brief introduction to airdata measurement and calibration. Readers will learn about typical test objectives, quantities to measure, and flight maneuvers and operations for calibration. The memorandum informs readers about tower-flyby, trailing cone, pacer, radar-tracking, and dynamic airdata calibration maneuvers. Readers will also begin to understand how some data analysis considerations and special airdata cases, including high-angle-of-attack flight, high-speed flight, and nonobtrusive sensors are handled. This memorandum is not intended to be all inclusive; this paper contains extensive reference and bibliography sections.
SR-71 sonic boom signatures were measured to validate sonic boom propagation prediction codes. An SR-71 aircraft generated sonic booms from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.6, at altitudes of 31,000 to 48,000 ft, and at various gross weights. An F-16XL aircraft measured the SR-71 near-field shock waves from close to the aircraft to more than 8,000 ft below, gathering 105 signatures. A YO-3A aircraft measured the SR-71 sonic booms from 21,000 to 38,000 feet below, recording 17 passes. The sonic booms at ground level and atmospheric data were recorded for each flight. Data analysis is underway. Preliminary results show that shock wave patterns and coalescence vary with SR-71 gross weight, Mach number, and altitude. For example, noncoalesced shock wave signatures were measured by the YO-3A at 21,000 ft below the SR-71 aircraft while at a low gross weight, Mach 1.25, and 31,000-ft altitude. This paper describes the design and execution of the flight research experiment. Instrumentation and flight maneuvers of the SR-71, F-16XL, and YO-3A aircraft and sample sonic boom signatures are included.