FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2319626872> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2319626872 abstract "angle of attack for this example i s found to be approximately 15 degrees. Experience indicates that the airstream normally Experimental studies, including pressure measurements, will not be able to flow around the leading edge at this large force measurements and flow visualization techniques, have angle of attack without flow separation. This i s particularly shown that predicted aerodynamic performance levels of supertrue for the thin airfoils that are characteristic of supersonic sonic wings can be achieved only when the flow remains wing designs. This leading.edge flow separation completely attached over the entire wing surface. alters the character o f the flow pattern over the wing. The nature of the breakdown of potential flow on supersonic wings is discussed and illustrated with experimental f low visualization pictures and wind-tunnel data. Various types of flow breakdown are examined. Simplified flow analogies that explain these flow phenomena are developed. Practical procedures that ensure design for attached flow at prescribed con. ditions are described. Flow analogies are used to explore the impact of various airplane design parameters on the breakdown of attached flow. 1.0 Introduction The design of efficient, very highly swept supersonic wings is one of the more difficult problems in aeronautics. These highly swept wings are of interest because they have the potential, according to theory, o f having relatively low drag a t super. sonic lifting conditions. LWell known supersonic wing theory' indicates that the leading edge of a wing must be a t an angle of sweepback greater than the angle weak shockwaves make with the free stream a t corresponding Mach numbers to achieve low drag a t lifting conditions. Sweepback angles of 70 to 75 degrees are necessary for Mach numbers in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 Theoretical predictions indicate that an airplane with a wing of such high sweep would have an advantage of approximately 15 to 20 percent in liftldrag ratio when compared to an airplane having a much lower sweepback angle (for example, 50 degrees). When i t was first attempted to substantiate these very encouraging predictions with wind-tunnel models, it was found that the experimental results did not confirm them a t all. Subsequent examinations revealed that the low drag predicted by theory was not achieved because the flow pattern around the wings, implicit in theory, did not occur in practice. Viscosity, which normally has a relatively small effect on the overall f low over wings a t normal cruise lift conditions, had a rather substantial effect on these highly swept wings. Consider as an example a wing a t Mach 3.0 and a t an angle of attack of 4 degrees-typical supersonic conditions. With the wing swept 75 degrees to achieve low drag, the Mach number component normal t o the leading edge i s 0.78. Hence near the wing leading edge, a recognized subsonic flow condition i s produced. The leading edge flow is governed by the angle normal to the leading edge. Using simple sweep theory. the normal !d Leadingedge flow separation i s only one of the reasons why the predicted low drag levels o f highly swept wings could not be obtained. The flow over the wing, which i s a t a relatively low pressure, must adjust t o freestream pressure through a shock wave at the trailing edge. If the theoretical f low requires too large a pressure rise, trailing-edge separation occurs. Again the flow pattern postulated by theory cannot occur and the theoretical drags cannot be achieved. Similar problems can occur on other partsof sucha highly swept wing. The establishment o f a f low consistent with theoretical low drag is, therefore, contingent on the response of the boundary layer to potentially severe conditions a l l over the wing. The development and behavior of highly swept wing boundary layers under complicated three-dimensional flow conditions is not amerable to theoretical calculations. Necessary wing design limitations cannot be defined strictly on the basis of analytical studies, and therefore had t o be developed from experimental test programs. This paper presents a comprehensive set o f design conditions that can be used to define efficient, highly swept super. sonic wings. I f these conditions are applied as constraints to theoretical calculations, the flow pattern resulting from analysis would not have a very large effect on the wing boundary layers and the theoretical flow, and drag, could be expected to be obtained in practice. The results presented in this paper are based on work that began in the la te 1950s and was carried through the U.S. SST program until cancellation of the program in 1971. The object of the work was to develop methods for the design of efficient supersonic wings. More recently. interest in the design of such wings has been renewed both for eventual commercial' and military3 applications. For the latter case, not only does the designer require low drag a t cruising conditions, but he also requires a reasonable flow at higher l i f t coefficients associated with military maneuvers. A review of design methods to accomplish this is therefore timely and appropriate, and forms the subject of this paper. In Section 2 the basic characteristics of supersonic wing planforms are discussed, pointing out the advantages of highly swept wings in supersonic flow. This i s followed by a review of experimental results illustrating the basic flow problems of highly swept wings. The potential effects of warping the sur. face of such wings, (e.g., camber and twist) are discussed in" @default.
• W2319626872 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2319626872 creator A5013095498 @default.
• W2319626872 creator A5035311850 @default.
• W2319626872 date "1978-01-16" @default.
• W2319626872 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2319626872 title "Real flow limitations in supersonic airplane design" @default.
• W2319626872 cites W1590253347 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W1612417327 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W175014758 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W1967372142 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W2170055296 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W2466285792 @default.
• W2319626872 cites W2469534889 @default.
• W2319626872 doi "https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1978-147" @default.
• W2319626872 hasPublicationYear "1978" @default.
• W2319626872 type Work @default.
• W2319626872 sameAs 2319626872 @default.
• W2319626872 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2319626872 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2319626872 hasAuthorship W2319626872A5013095498 @default.
• W2319626872 hasAuthorship W2319626872A5035311850 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C146978453 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C178802073 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C197482802 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C205991772 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C2781407631 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C38349280 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConcept C57879066 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C121332964 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C127413603 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C146978453 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C178802073 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C197482802 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C205991772 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C2781407631 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C38349280 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C41008148 @default.
• W2319626872 hasConceptScore W2319626872C57879066 @default.
• W2319626872 hasLocation W23196268721 @default.
• W2319626872 hasOpenAccess W2319626872 @default.
• W2319626872 hasPrimaryLocation W23196268721 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W1440918713 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W1594516962 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W2313742291 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W2327270332 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W2330581636 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W2733634638 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W3084690187 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W3166410348 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W573893240 @default.
• W2319626872 hasRelatedWork W1812376481 @default.
• W2319626872 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2319626872 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2319626872 magId "2319626872" @default.
• W2319626872 workType "article" @default.