Experimental study of aeroelastic instability of overexpanded rocket nozzle extensions
Aeroelastic instability of overexpanded rocket nozzle extensions
Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Tuovila, W. J..
Aeroelastic instability of overexpanded rocket nozzle extensions
Flutter tests have been made on flat panels having a 1/4 inch-thick plastic-foam core covered with thin fiber-glass laminates. The testing was done in the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel at Mach numbers from 1.76 t o 2.87. The flutter boundary for these panels was found to be near the flutter boundary of thin metal panels when compared on the basis of an equivalent panel stiffness. The results also demonstrated that the depth of the cavity behind the panel has a pronounced influence on flutter. Changing the cavity depth from 1 1/2 inches to 1/2 inch reduced the dynamic pressure at start of flutter by 40 percent. No flutter was obtained when the spacers on the back of the panel were against the bottom of the cavity.
A transonic and a supersonic flutter investigation of 1/2-size models of the all-movable canard surface of an expendable powered target has been conducted in the Langley transonic blowdown tunnel and in the Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic aeroelasticity tunnel, respectively. The transonic investigation covered a Mach number range from 0.7 to 1.3, and the supersonic investigation was made at Mach numbers 1.3, 2.O, and 2.55. The effects on the flutter characteristics of the models of different levels of stiffness and of free play in the pitch control linkage were examined. The semispan models, which were tested at an angle of attack of 0 deg, had pitch springs with the scaled design and 1/2 the scaled design pitch stiffness and total free play in pitch ranging from 0 to 1 deg. An additional model configuration which had a pitch spring 1/4 the scaled design pitch stiffness and no free play in pitch was included in the supersonic tests. All model configurations investigated were flutter free up to dynamic pressures 32 percent greater than those required for flight throughout the Mach number range. Several model configurations were tested to considerably higher dynamic pressures without obtaining flutter at both transonic and supersonic speeds.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Panel-flutter tests have been made at transonic and supersonic speeds With particular reference to buckled curved panels with longitudinal stringers. Other panel configurations were also tested in an attempt to determine effects of skin thickness, curvature, stringers, buckling, pressure differential, and Mach number on the dynamic pressure necessary to start flutter. For buckled curved panels with longitudinal stringers, the dynamic pressure required to start flutter was increased by increasing the skin thickness and increasing the pressure differential across the panel. There was no apparent effect of Mach number variation from 1.3 to 2.0. None of the curved panels failed because of flutter although the dynamic pressure at the start of flutter was exceeded by a factor of 3 in many cases. curved panels and four flat panels failed because of flutter. The flat panels fluttered at lower dynamic pressures than the curved panels and four flat panels failed because of flutter.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.