Boundary-Layer Transition on X-43A

Berry, Scott A.; Daryabeigi, Kamran; Wurster, Kathryn E.; Bittner, Robert D.

doi:10.2514/1.45889

Cited by 42 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19. Both the upper surface (smooth) and lower surface (tripped) results behaved as expected based on the ground-based data and scaling for flight.…”

Section: F Hyper-x 1996supporting

confidence: 48%

Recommendations for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing

Berry

Kimmel

Reshotko

2011

41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much has been learned about the physics underlying the transition process at supersonic and hypersonic speeds through years of analysis, experiment and computation. Generally, the application of this knowledge has been restricted to simple shapes like plates, cones and spherical bodies. However, flight reentry vehicles are in reality never simple. They typically are highly complex geometries flown at angle of attack so three-dimensional effects are very important, as are roughness effects due to surface features and/or ablation. This paper will review our present understanding of the physics of the transition process and look back at some of the recent flight test programs for their successes and failures. The goal of this paper is to develop rationale for new hypersonic boundary layer transition flight experiments. Motivations will be derived from both an inward look at what we believe constitutes a good flight test program as well as an outward review of the goals and objectives of some recent US based unclassified proposals and programs. As part of our recommendations, this paper will address the need for careful experimental work as per the guidelines enunciated years ago by the U.S. Transition Study Group. Following these guidelines is essential to obtaining reliable, usable data for allowing refinement of transition estimation techniques.

show abstract

“…19. Both the upper surface (smooth) and lower surface (tripped) results behaved as expected based on the ground-based data and scaling for flight.…”

Section: F Hyper-x 1996supporting

confidence: 48%

Recommendations for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing

Berry

Kimmel

Reshotko

2011

41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the X-43A was reported in 2004 and 2005, the upper surface natural transition onset data were shown to agree very well with the NASP developed criterion [10,16]. A summary of the boundarylayer transition results and its excellent agreement with the criterion can also be found in Sec.…”

Section: Boundary-layer Transition Flight Results From X-43amentioning

confidence: 69%

Hypersonic Boundary-Layer Transition: Application to High-Speed Vehicle Design

Lau

2008

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the boundary-layer transition characteristics of airbreathing hypersonic configurations and their impact on design environments. It discusses the evolution of the National Aerospace Plane configuration from an axisymmetric baseline to a wedgelike configuration where the transition mechanism is dominated by "natural" transition. The natural transition is characteristic of the "quiet" environment in free flight of smooth slender vehicles. This type of transition mechanism gradually evolves spatially in different modes that can be computed analytically and verified experimentally. The paper discusses the effect of leading-edge bluntness, surface wall temperature, and adverse pressure gradient in compression ramp on transition. The effect of freestream Mach number, Reynolds number, and angle of attack are also studied over the range of peak aerodynamic heating conditions of the National Aerospace Plane environment. The transition behavior was investigated using e N -type calculations based on a linear stability code known as the e Malik code.static pressure coefficient for the local condition c p = specific heat of air at constant pressure, Btu=lb m ; R c v = specific heat of air at constant volume, Btu=lb m ; R H aw = adiabatic wall enthalpy, Btu=lb m H t = total enthalpy, Btu=lb m H w = wall enthalpy, Btu=lb m h i = heat transfer coefficient for the local condition, Btu=ft 2 s; R L = length, inches or feet M = Mach number M e = boundary-edge Mach number Pr = Prandtl number p e = pressure at the boundary-layer edge, psia or psfa p i = pressure for the local condition, psia or psfa p t , p t1 = total or settling pressure, psia or psfa p t2 = pitot pressure in test section, psia or psfa p 1 , p = freestream static pressure, psia or psfa _ q w = heat transfer rate based on wall temperature, Btu=ft 2 s q 1 = freestream dynamic pressure, psi or psf R = radius, ft R g = gas constant per unit mass Re = Reynolds number Re = momentum thickness Reynolds number r = recovery factor St = Stanton number St 1 = freestream Stanton number T aw = adiabatic wall temperature, R T o = total temperature, R T t = total temperature, R T w = model wall temperature, R T 1 = freestream static temperature, R v 1 , v = freestream velocity, ft=s x=L = longitudinal position as a fraction of the reference length = angle of attack, degrees = angle of sideslip, degrees = ratio of specific heats, c p =c v = boundary-layer momentum thickness 1 = freestream dynamic viscosity, slugs=ft s e = dynamic viscosity at the boundary-layer edge, slugs=ft s w = dynamic viscosity at the wall, slugs=ft s = kinematic viscosity, slugs=ft s 1 = freestream density, slugs=ft 3 e = density at the boundary-layer edge, slugs=ft 3 w = density at the wall, slugs=ft 3 Subscripts aw = adiabatic wall condition e = boundary-layer edge condition effective = composite boundary-layer transition value used for vehicle design rn = nosetip/leading-edge (bluntness) t = total condition threshold = baseline boundary-layer transition value from simple correlation w = wa...

show abstract

“…32 while the analysis of the flight trip performance results was presented in Ref. 33. Flight success was enhanced by the experimental effort to screen trips and then determine the proper scaling for wind tunnel to flight.…”

Section: Forebody Tripping (1997--2000)mentioning

confidence: 99%

NASA Langley Experimental Aerothermodynamic Contributions to Slender and Winged Hypersonic Vehicles

Berry

Berger

Brauckmann³

et al. 2015

53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of recent NASA Langley Research Center experimental aerothermodynamic contributions to slender and winged hypersonic flight programs is presented. Significant findings and lessons learned are highlighted and discussed for a range of high profile national flight programs. In many cases, the experimental results are shown to be crucial to the success of these programs. To assure success with future hypersonic flight programs, experimental aerothermodynamic facilities will be required to provide invaluable support both pre--and post--flight.

show abstract

Boundary-Layer Transition on X-43A

Cited by 42 publications

References 9 publications

Recommendations for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing

Recommendations for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing

Hypersonic Boundary-Layer Transition: Application to High-Speed Vehicle Design

NASA Langley Experimental Aerothermodynamic Contributions to Slender and Winged Hypersonic Vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About