NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California -- I Cow DTIC F ELECTE D] AUG2 4 1994 F W THESIS I- )LOW-SPEEWDI ND TUNNEL "TESTINGO F THE NPS/NASA AMES MACH 6 OPTIMI7ED WAVERIDER By Mark E. Cedrun June 1994 Thesis Advisor: Conrad F. Newberry Co-Advisor: Jeffrey V. Bowles Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 94 8 23 043 j..AoFoo-Lm AAM ,,o REPORT DOCUMENT PAGE 0706-,. puk bdeid 1a ~so 00g0~~* f inlaW moosI sd dd I aisIm rwe. b.Pdm UrntIaON, PDf5*r4V n vuUgms U n 1bl t m n 0mou gO fs uqWuI S1d0 mIdn 3= .m*Ree~Ss ailouruim Pora7 s0f-tOu Eb)d wWnm Oes eDoC s,n nm WA m.p.s.. 1,2 ,1,l _ _n, ., _o6 _h n_o_w-s."m.. .. 1, 2. kabgm__su. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LAW B,* 2. REPORT DATE 3. PoErT TYPE AD ATES COVERED J_ 1994 Master's Thesis 1_16 _E "4. TTLE N SUBTIL S. FUNDING NUMBERS LOW-SPEED WIND TUNNEL TESTING OF THE NPS/NASA- AMES MACH 6 OPTIMIZED WAVERIDER 6. AUTHORS Cedrun, Mark E. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPUMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U. S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABULTY STATEMENT 12b. oDSTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Low-speed wind tunnel tests were conducted to determine the subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of an optimized supersonic (Mach 6) conical-flow waverider designed for a deck-launched intercept mission. These tests are part of the continuing waverider research being conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School and the NASA Ames Research Center. The tests consisted of performing a and 8 sweeps, at different dynamic pressures, with a 15 inch aluminum waverider model in the NPS low-speed wind tunnel. Force and moment data were then collected using a six-degree-of-freedom sting balance. Coefficients of lift, drag and pitch were calculated from the data and compared to theory and existing waverider subsonic aerodynamic performance data. Flow visualization using tufts was also done. The results of the experiments show that waverider exhibits high lift characteristics at positive angles of attack. The design also compares favorably with both subsonic thin airfoil theory and the results of the delta wing and subsonic waverider analysis done by Vanhoy. However, flow visualization showed that vortex bursting occurred at a dynamic pressure of 12.11bf at ±15 degrees angle of attack. Based upon the data collected in this analysis, the development of an actual waverider aircraft using the NPS/NASA Ames waverider design as a baseline is a plausible endeavor. 14. SUBJECTTERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Waveriders, Hypersonics, Aircraft Design 107 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECuRrTYCLASSIFiCATION 20. LIMrTATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL NSN 7540- 1-2S65500 SWWdaid Foin 29N (Rev. 2-89) Pinuuwbrml rnUm. llS Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Low-speed Wind Tunnel Testing of the NPS/NASA Ames Mach 6 Optimized Waverider by Mark E. Cedrun Lieutenant, United States Navy B. S., United States Naval Academy, 1984 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 1994 Author:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mark E. edrun Approved By: _(7_niaV_., nj Thss.d~ ,14rf(cid:127)/f/(cid:127)f V. Bowles, Co-Advisor D. J. Collins, (hairman Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics ii ABSTRACT Low-speed wind tunnel tests were conducted to determine the subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of an optimized supersonic (Mach 6) conical-flow waverider designed for a deck-launched intercept mission. These tests are part of the continuing waverider research being conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School and the NASA Ames Research r-'nter. The tests consisted of performing a and 6 sweeps, at different dyn& (cid:127)- pc. (cid:127) sures, with a 15 inch aluminum waverider model in the NPS low-speed v, .nd tunnel. Ferce and moment data were then collected using a six-degree-of-freedom sting balance. Coefficients of lift, drag and pitch were calculated from the data and Zompared to theory and existing waverider subsonic aerodynamic performance data. Flow visualization using tufts was also done. The results of the experiments show that wsverider exhibits high lift characteristics at positive angles of attack. The design also compares favorably with both subsonic thin airfoil theory and the results of the delta wing and subsonic waverider analysis done by Vanhoy. However, flow visualization showed that vortex bursting and flow separation occurred at a dynamic pressure of 12.llbf at ±15 degrees angle of attack. Based upon the data collected in this analysis, the development of an actual waverider aircraft using the NPS/NASA Ames waverider design as a baseline is a plausible endeavour. Accesion For NTIS CRA&I DTiC TAB ' Unantouaced 0 Justification Distribution I Availability Codes Avail and Io r Dist Special il Dle TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION "s ...... A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .................... 1... B. WHY LOW-SPEED TESTING .................................................................... 8 C. PREVIOUS WORK AND TESTING MOTIVATION .............................. 8 KI EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS............. . .................... 10 - A. WIND TUNNEL. ....................................................................................... 10 B. STING BALANCE ...................................................................................... 12 C. ACQUISITION SYSTEM ......................................................................... 13 1. Signal Conditioners/FEctronO Amplifiers ........................................ 13 2. Data Sampling/Computer System ................................................. 14 D. WAVERIDER MODEL ............................................................................ 20 HL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . .22 A. MODEL PREPARATION............................................................................. 22 B. DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM PREPARATION .............................. 24 I. Sting Balance Local Calibration .................................................... 24 2. Signal Conditioner/Amplifier Preparation .................................... 25 C. STING BALANCE EXPERIMENTS ..................................................... 25 1. Test Matrix ... . ......................................................................................... 25 -2. Balance Tares-, ................................................................................ 27 3. Tunnel Operation ....... .................................................................. 28 4. Flow Visualization ............................................................................ 28 D. DATA REDUCTION ............................................................................... 28 iv IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . ..- ..... . ...... 31 A. STING BALANCE DATA ....................................................................... 31 1. "a-sweep" Testing at 8=0° ............................................................. 31 a. Lift and Drag ............................................................................ 31 b. Pitch ............................................................................................ 31 2. "B-sweep" Testing at a=00 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 49 a. Lift and Drag ............................................................................ 49 b. Pitch ............................................................................................ 50 B. COMPARISON WITH THEORY AND VANHOY ............................... 54 1. Theory ............................................................................................... 54 2. V anhoy .................................................................................................. 56 a. Lift .............................................................................................. 56 b. Drag ............................................ 57 c. Pitch ............................................................................................ 57 C. FLOW VISUALIZATION ........ ..................................... 62 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 63 A. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 63 B. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 64 REFIERENCES .............................-.-.-. 6S APPENDIX A -STING BALANCE CALIBRATION CONSTANTS ...... 67 APPENDIX B -STING BALANCE PROGRAM .......... .70 APPENDIX C -EXPERIMENTAL RAW DATA.................................79 INITIAL DISTRIBUTIT ON LIST ... ................ ....... .. 95 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 MODEL PARAMETERS ................................................................. 20 TABLE 2.2 7075 ALUMINUM PROPERTIES ................................................. 20 TABLE 3.1 RUNS AND TEST CONDITIONS ...................... 27 TABLE 4.1 LIFT-CURVE SLOPES .................................................................... 57 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Eggers and Syvertson Hypersonic Model ............................................... 2 Figure 1.2 Nonweiler's Caret-Shaped Waverider .............................................. 4 Figure 1.3 Conical Flow Waverider ........................................................................ 5 Figure 1.4 Bowcutt and Anderson Optimized Mach 6 Waverider ................... 6 Figure 1.5 Price Optimum Mach 6 Waverider Configuration ............................ 7 Figure 1.6 Vanhoy's Mach 6 Waverider ............................................................... 9 Figure 2.1 NPS Horizontal Low Speed Wind Tunnel ........................................ 11 Figure 2.2 MK XX 3/4" TaskO (Sting) Balance ................................................. 13 Figure 2.3 NPS Wind Tunnel Turntable Drive .................................................... 15 Figure 2.4 Sting Balance Coordinate System .................................................... 16 Figure 2.5 Sting Lead/Cannon Plug Connections ............................................ 16 Figure 2.6 Sting Balance Signal Conditioners ..................................................... 17 Figure 2.7 Ectron 536H9 Signal Amplifiers ......................................................... 18 Figure 2.8 MC-MIO-16L-9 I/O Board ................................................................. 19 Figure 3.1 Finished Waverider Model .................................................................. 23 Figure 3.2 Phase 1 Waverider Model Mounting ............................................... 26 Figure 4.1 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 1. ............................................................... 33 Figure 4.2 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 2 ................................................................. 34 Figure 4.3 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 3 ................................................................. 35 Figure 4.4 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 4 ................................................................. 36 Figure 4.5 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 5 ................................................................. 37 Figure 4.6 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 6 ................................................................. 38 Figure 4.7 CD, CL vs. AOA, Run No. 7 ................................................................. 39 Figure 4.8 CL vs. CD. Run No. 1 ........................................................................... 40 Figure 4.9 CL vs. CD, Run No. 2 ............................................................................. 41 Figure 4.10 CL vs. AOA (Reynolds Number) ...................................................... 42 Figure 4.11 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 1&2 ......................................... 43 Figure 4.12 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 3&4 ........................................ 44 Figure 4.13 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No.'s 5&6. ........................................ 45 vii Figure 4.14 Cm vs. Angle of Attack, Run No. 7 ................................................. 46 Figure 4.15 C. vs. CL ........ ..................................... 47 Figure 4.16 C. vs. CL .............................................................................................. 48 Figure 4.17 CL. CD vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No. 8 .......................................... 51 Figure 4.18 CL, CD vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No. 9 .......................................... 52 Figure 4.19 Cm vs. Angle of Sideslip, Run No.'s 8&9 ....................................... 53 Figure 4.20 CL vs. .................................................................................................... 55 Figure 4.21 CL vs. a Comparison .......................................................................... 59 Figure 4.22 CD vs. a Comparison ......................................................................... 60 Figure 4.23 Cm vs. a Comparison .......................................................................... 61 vmii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincerest appreciation goes to Prof. Conrad F. Newberry, Naval Postgraduate School, and Mr. Jeffrey V. Bowles, NASA-AMES Research Center, for all of their unyielding support in what has been a most challenging research project. They were always there when direction was needed in bringing all of the pieces together to test the waverider. Thanks to all of the exceptionally professional people at the Model Shop and Calibration Lab at the NASA-AMES Research Center who provided the waverider model and sting balance. This project would not have been possible without their untiring efforts. Specifically, thanks to Prof. Richard M. Howard for providing wind tunnel equipment and guidance necessary to run the tests. Thanks to Mr. Jack King for his expertise in wind tunnel operation and his work in the data acquisition system electronic set- up. I was constantly amazed by his technical prowess in making everything work . Also, thanks to Mr. Colin C. Cooper for helping me with getting the computer data acquisition software squared away. I watched in awe as he demonstrated his alacrity on the computer keyboard. Finally, my greatest appreciation goes to my wonderful wife, Chey, and my children, Matthew and Aubrie. Their love, patience, understanding, and support kept me going throughout this entire project. Without them and their help, this would have not been possible. Again, thanks to all. Mark Cedrun, June 1994 Monterey, California ix