Optimization and Performance Analysis of a Supersonic Conical-Flow Waverider for a Deck-Launched Intercept Mission
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1993-06 Optimization and performance analysis of a supersonic conical-flow waverider for a deck-launched intercept mission Price, David R. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/39832 AD-A272 498 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California t IC THESIS OPTIMIZATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A SUPERSONIC CONICAL-FLOW WAVERIDER FOR A DECK- LAUNCHED INTERCEPT MISSION by DAVID R. PRICE June 1993 Thesis Advisor: C. F. NEWBERRY Co-Advisor: J. V. BOWLES Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 93-27041 93li .. -w Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 0MB4 No 0104-0188 Puolic reloo'tin owroen tor this coleciron o trio'r'.tion s%sti~maea to if.'fqe 1ioroer-'SOOMC n~loudo,r th~etime to, '1-e-h.nq n~tt~tC"% ýej'C"hq -S stni Oita ýCw~ce% laheno&n~ tnn te 4t ned a na comp.elunq ara 1 ý. -q t me roited.ion of snformat ion %ehn cortmnCts lP0fO~4riq th.% ~ti~mt 4tord~01,S. )the, aDe'fOfIn's (outifton of iflormatJion fldludinq sggestion%for reducing in,% ouoefl to eva~lhnigton rifidoquar1Cr Ser1ires 12,ecl~tora e v~~ao 00diO, n e t ~efffson- Da~qqh~a, Suite 1204 AifritqOn, 4A 12202 4302 and to tho Officeot ManageenSft anrd duaget 'd0'oe.o~ Ricuclto" P'Oet (0)04 018) Washington LC 2050] 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blan)-7 ?2--OT DATE J3 . REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED IEPIJune 1993 Master's Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS OPTIMIZATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A SUPERSONIC CONICAL-FLOW WAVERIDER FOR A DECK-LAUNCHED INTERCEPT MISSION 6. AUTHOR(S) Price, David R. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are thocse of the author and do not reflect the official policy or positicn of the Departimnt of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (Maxiumum 200 words) An aircraft configuration for a dcxk launched intercept mission was mwestigated as part Of an on-going %wauvridcrstudy by the Naval Postgraduate School and the NASA Amecs Research Center. Thle mission rctemcuiiznts for the carner-launched and recovered aircraft, included Mach 6 cruise out to a 1000 nautical mile comibat radius aid 20 minutes of comibat follovcu by retum to the carrer. A conical-flow waweider served as the starting pount for the aircraft configuration. A hydrocarbon sc=jeit was integrated with the waverider body. The aft end of dhe wavender was fitnxl to decrease the base arma thereby reducing the tranisonic base drag. A numierical opurnmizton was then completed to nuiaimize dhe product of IA) (lift to drag ratio) and Is (specific impulse). Variables fbr die optimization imluckd the cone shock angle (used to derive the conical flow wavender) and the geometry of both the wavender body and the integrated propulsion systan. Tlie vedicIc was constrained to a minimum volunme of 3240 cubic fixt a mam'iumn span of 60 fiet and a fixedIafint of 60 feet. The integrated propulsion *sytem was conistrained to produce a minimumn contraction ratio of 12.0 and assurance that the cowl shiock was within an acceptable distance of the inlet shioulder of die combustor. The optimium configuration met or exceeded all constraints. LID comparisons w=r made between the integrated configuration (i.e., die subject of this study), pure Mach 6 optimized waveriders and historical trends. Additionally, model design, test meia adjp teat paramieter siekction were studied for planned low speed wind and water tunnel tests as well as performance predictions fir die planned win~d tunnel tests. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Waveniders, Hypersonics, Aircraft Design 82 `16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION I18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT j OF THIS PAGE OF A3SSTRACT UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL NSN 7540-01 -280-5500 iStandard Form 298 (Rev 2-89) PesriWtod bv ANSI Std 139-1S Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. Optimization and Pcrformance analysis of a Supcrsonic Conical-Flow Waverider for a Deck- Launched Intercept Mission by David R. Price Lieutenant, United States Navy B. S., United States Naval Academy, 1985 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 1993 Author: avid R. Price Approved By: 61- J. VD. J. Collins, Chairman Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics ii ABSTRACT An aircraft configuration for a dock launckod intercept missioni %%as investgated as pan of an on- going %%avendcrstudy, by the Naval Postgraduate School and thec NASA Ames Rcserch Ccnter. The mission requirements for the carncr-launchxi and rocoverml aircraft mncludod Mach 6 cruise out to a I(XX) nautical milcL combat radius and 20 minutes of combat Uoknocd by' return to the earnier. A conical-flow %%avendcrservod as the starting point for the aircraft configuration. A h',drocarbon scramjit was integrated with the wa~vendo bodyv. The aft aid of the %%avnderwas fU1red to decrease the base area thereby reducing the transonic base drag. A numencal optimization was then completed to maximiac the product of L/D (lift to drag ratw) and ISP (specific 4urluse). Vaniabk for dic upiimunion~a included the cone shock angle (used to denve the conical flow avender) and the geometry of both the %%awriderboxdy and the integrated propulsion Sstemn. The vehicle, %%as constraned to a minimum volume of 3240 cubic fbet a maximumn span of 60 Wcand a fixed length of 60 fba. The integrated propulsion s*Vtn was constrained to produce a minimum conraction ratio of 12.0 and assurance that the cowvl shock wmas wlthin an aecceptable distance of the inlet shoulder of the combustor. The optimum configuration met or cxeixk" all constraint. L/D comparisons v=r made bet%%=m the integrated configuration (ice, the subject of this study), pure Mach 6 optimizod vawrhides and historical trends. Additionally, model design, test media and test paramete selection %e= studied for planned low speed %wind and wauter tunnel tests as %vell as perfortmanc predictions for the planned wind tunnel tests. Accesion For NTIS CRA&M - -*DTIO TAB JU ci ftc, tion DiA ib Aio:' I Dist TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN T R O D U C T IO N .............................................................................. ................... I A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................................... 3 B. DESIGN MOTIVATION ...................................................................... 4 II. M ISSION DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 8 A. M ISSION SPECIFICS 8............................................................................8 B. AIRCRAFT SIZING ............................................................................. 9 C. ENGINE AND FUEL SELECTION 1........................................................10 Ill. W AVERIDER GENERATION AND OPTIMIZATION .................................. 12 A. W AVERIDER GENERATION ......................................................... 15 B . O P T IM IZ A T IO N .................................................................................. 16 C. OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY .................................................... 16 D. FIXED GEOMETRY PARAM ETERS ..................................................... 19 I. Vehicle Length ................... ...................................................... 19 2 . C o m busto r ............................................................................... 19 3. Equivalence Ratio ...................................................................... 21 4. Fairing Start Point ...................................................................... 22 5. Assumptions ............................ ................................................ 22 E. OPTIM IZATION CONSTRAINTS ......................................................... 23 1. V o lu m e .................................................................................. 2 3 2. Span to Length Ratio ................................................................. 23 3. Contraction Ratio ...................................................................... 24 4. Unaccelerated Level Flight Requirements ....................... 24 5. Leading Edge Temperature ............................................................ 25 6. Shock on Shoulder ...................................................................... 26 F. OPTIM IZATION VARIABLES .......................................................... 27 1. Generating Curve ...................................................................... 27 2. Propulsion System Geometry .................................................... 28 3. Leading Edge Radius ................................................................. 30 4. Generating Flowfield Shock Angle ............................................. 30 5. Fairing Start Angle .................................................................... 30 G. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION .................................................................... 30 IV. OPTIM IZATION RESULTS .........................................................................