Aerospace Science and Technology, 1998, no.

8, 505-514

Improvement of forebody/in.let intention

for hypersonic vehicle

N. C. Bissinger a*, N. A. Blagoveshchensky b, A. A. Gubanov b,

V. N. Gusev b, V. P. Starukhin b, N. V. Voevodenko b, S. M. Zadonsky b
a Daimler Benz Aerospace AG, MT633,81663 Miinchen, Germany
b Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, TsAGI, 140160 Zhukovsky, Moscow region, Russia
(Received 25 November 1995, revised and accepted 21 September 1998)

B&singer N. C., Blagoveshchensky N. A., Gubanov A. A., Gusev V. N., Starukhin V. P.,
Voevodenko N. V., Zadonsky S. M., Aerospace Science and Technology, 1998, no. 8, 505-514.

AbSWWt Results of a numerical (CID) study of the influence of the forebody shape on local flow parameters at
a bottom-mounted inlet entrance are presented. The free-stream Mach number is assumed to be 3.5-7.0.
Some recommendations on forebody shape optimization are provided. Main characteristicsof the air inlet
are evaluated. 0 Elsevier, Paris

hypersonic inlet characteristics / forebody-inlet integration / hypersonic mu&disturbance theory /

Godunov’s method

Zusammenfmg Verbesserung der Vork&rper/EinIauf-Integration fir Hyperschsdl-F’laggerlite. Es werden die

Ergebnisse von numerischen Rechnungen (CPD) tiber den Einflu6 der Vork&perform auf die
Stronnmgsparameter an einem Unterrumpfeinlauf vorgestellt. Die untersuchten Flugmachzahlen liegen
in dem Bereich von 3.5 bis 7.0. Aus den Ergebnissen werden Empfehhmgen zur Vork&peroptimierung
abgeleitet. Die wichtigsten charakteristischen Gr66en des Einlaufs werden ermittelt. 0 Elsevier, Paris

EiWufckaraktiri$tiken im Hyperschall / Vorkthper-Elnlauf Integration / Theorie kleiner Stirmgen

im I-IyperschaII / Gdunov’s Metbode

1. Itiroddon example, in [l, 3, 4, 61. The results provided herein

Aerodynamic qualities of a flying vehicle designed
for high supersonic speeds depend to a great extent
on the degree of integration between the airframe and
the propulsion system. One integration measure is the
use of the forebody lower surface as a precompression
ramp for the inlet. In this respect it is important to
shape the forebody so as to ensure the most efficient
integration of the airframe and the propulsion system.
Various aspects of optimization are considered, for
indicate a potential for improving essentially the inlet
entrance flowfield by properly adjusting the forebody
shape.
The study involves two versions of an unmanned
hypersonic research vehicle, HYTEX and HYTEX-M,
that were included in a list of 10 alternatives for use
as a ramjet flying testbed [S].
Major geometry parameters of these vehicles (e.g.
wing size, body length, volume etc.) were fixed

* Correspondence and reprints

Aemspace Science and Techndogy, 1270-9638, 98/08/O Elsevier, Paris


Section A-A Seclipn B-B
R I
Figure 1. HYTEX configuration.
or could be varied only within strong limitations.
Therefore for this study the following geometric
parameters of the airplane forebody were assumed
to be design variables:
- the longitudinal curvature of the lower surface,
- the fuselage cross-sectional shapes,
- the angle between the forebody lower surface and
the airplane longitudinal axis,
- the presence of wing strakes.
The influence of viscosity on inlet entrance
flowfields is assumed to be similar for the
configurations considered, and therefore an analysis
is carried out within the frame of an inviscid ideal
gas model.
The major flow parameters that govern (or indicate)
the influence of the airplane forebody on inlet
characteristics, include:
- precompression intensity (measured by changes
in Mach number),
- losses in total pressure,
- flow uniformity at the inlet entrance.
2. Descri@ion of HYTEX & HYTEX-M
co
A general view of HYTEX is presented in figure 1.
This aircraft has the length L=15.4 m, the wing span
e= 3.7 m, and the height H= 2.9 m. The ramjet inlet
entrance plane is at a distance za =9 m from the
forebody nose tip; the width of the inlet entrance
section is 0.8 m, and the height is 0.5 m.
N. C. Bkshager et al.
The forward portion of the forebody is a body
of revolution with a maximum cross-section radius
R=0.55 m and a length of Ax, = 4.4 m. The second
part of the forebody has a length Axs =3.2 m and
is a transition piece smoothly couphng the forward
portion (with circular cross-sections) and the third
portion, whose cross section is
- a semi-circle (with a radius R = 0.55 m) at the top,
- a rectangle (with a width b=2R=l.l m and a
height h =0.6 m) at the bottom,
the sides and the bottom being matched by circular
cylinders with a radius ~0.05 m (see the fuselage
cross-section at a location x= Axr + Ax:2 =7.6 m in
fisure I). The lower surface of this portion is set at
an angle of 0.9” to the airplane longitudinal axis.
The third portion of the HYTRX forebody (from
x = 7.6 m to 5 =x0 = 9 m, seefigure 1) has a “constant”
cross section.
A general view of the HYTEX-M aircraft is
presented in figure 2. It possesses the length
L = 14.64 m, the wing span e=4 m, and the height
H= 3.16 m. The inlet entrance plane is at the. location
x0 =7.84 m as measured from the fuselage nose tip;
the inlet dimensions are the same as on the HYTEX
configuration (that is, 0.8 by 0.5 m).
The HYTRX-M forebody has a Rat lower surface
inclined by an angle @a with respect to the aircraft
longitudinal axis (two versions were considered, one
with 80 =O”, and the other, with 8. =3’). Forebody
cross sections are com#osed of an upper semi-circle
and a lower rectangle of the same width. The
two lower comers of the rectangle are rounded, see
figure 2.
Aerospace Science and Technology
Improvement of forebody/inlet integration for hypersonic vehicle/
Verbesserung der Wrk&-per/Einlauf-Integration fir
t=
Section A-A
Figure 2. HYTEX-M configuration.
The HYTEX-M configuration with Ba= 0” was used
to evaluate the effects of wing strakes on the flow
conditions near the inlet. These strakes were of a
triangular planform with a flat lower surface parallel
to the airplane longitudinal axis; the span of the strakes
in the inlet entrance plane was 2.1 m, the leading edge
sweep angle was 83”. The HYTEX-M wing itself is
completely downstream of the inlet entrance plane and
has not been simulated in the flowfield calculations.
3. Features of the flow around the forebodies
Some recommendations on the optimization of the
hypersonic airplane forebody shape can be formulated
on the basis of a preliminary qualitative analysis of
supersonic flow features.
The first thing that can be noticed about the flow
around the HYTEX forebody is a notable loss of total
pressure in the bow shock wave. The semi-vertex
angle w. of the nose cone is 15”. This means that
the bow shock intensity (as a function of the angle
between a body surface and the free-stream velocity
vector) will be high, even if angles of attack (cy) are
low. Therefore the total pressure losses due to this
shock wave will be large. With increasing incidence
(i.e. with increasing values of the angle between
the lower surface and free stream, (YL = wu + a)
these losses become larger and the total pressure of
the flow entering the inlet will be decreased even
further. Because the maximum angle between the
lower surface and free stream, OL = 60 + a, is smaller
for HYTEX-M its shock losses can be expected to be
much smaller.
Secondly, the convex lower surface of HYTBX
causes the flow to expand, thus increasing the local
1998. no. 8
Hyperschall-Fluggeriite 507
-I
Mach number at the inlet entrance; the precompression
effects become partly lost. The HYTEX-M lower
surface without longitudinal curvature eliminates this
drawback.
Thirdly, compared with HYTEX the flat lower
surface of the HYTEX-M forebody is expected to
provide a more uniform flowfield.
4. Computational method
The influence of the forebody shape on flow
parameters in the vicinity of the inlet was evaluated
using the numerical method of [lo]. The latter is
based on the numerical integration of the equations of
the hypersonic small-disturbance theory [5].
This theory reduces the 3-D Euler equations to
the 2-D unsteady Euler equations (it is assumed
that the longitudinal component of the flow velocity
is u = U, COSQ, U, is the velocity of the free
stream, and the longitudinal coordinate 2 is replaced
by time t : z = U,t cos (Y), which are integrated by
Godunov’s numerical method.
Assuming that:
Mm > 1, r N S = d/L < 1,
and
Moor - 1 or M,7> 1
is the free-stream Mach number, 7 is the
V&c
maximum inclination of the body surface to the
free-stream direction, d is the maximum transverse
dimension of the body, L is the length of the body),
it is possible to simplify the equations of the ideal
gas motion (3-D Euler equations). As follows from
 N. C. Bier et al.

the hypersonic small-disturbance theory, in accordance Here, the expressions in square brackets denote the
with an order-of-magnitude estimate, dimensionless differences in the corresponding magnitudes ahead and
variables (with subscript “0”) are introduced: behind the shock, and as the flow velocity ahead of
the coordinates: the shock wave we have taken the free-stream velocity
component in the plane z =const.
2 = La-J, y = dye, z = dz,, This is the problem of the 2-D unsteady motion of
the flow velocity components: a gas caused by the expansion of a 2-D piston [2].
The theory described above has been extended to
21= U&l + S%(J), w = u,sva, w = U&W& the case of high angles of attack (up to 90”) by
the density: V.V. Sychev [9]. Sychev’s theory leads to the same
2-D unsteady equations as Hayes’s theory [5]. The
P = POOPO, numerical method used here is based on both theories
the static pressure: [5] and [9].
The hypersonic small-disturbance theory equations
P = Pmu~~2Po. (HSDTE) are integrated by Godunov’s first-order
Discarding terms of the order of r2 as compared approximation method. The bow shock wave is fitted
with unity, we can obtain relations identical to 2-D by the procedure given in [7] and is assumed to be
unsteady flow equations, if the variable zo is replaced a boundary of the calculation region. The disturbed
by to ($0 = to): region is confined between the body surface and the
bow shock wave. Accordingly, the calculation grid is
dP0 dPov0 + apow =o attached to the body surface and the bow shock wave.
Tg+- - > If the calculation region is geometrically complex this
0 dY0 azo
region may be divided into simple subregions. In
~+vo~+wo~+--dl, 1 ape each subregion the calculation grid is built such that
0 aYo 0 p. ho grid points coincide on the boundaries of neighboring
awe &w, awe subregions. The shape of the cross section determines
Tg + 210 -+---~o,1 aPo the number of subregions and their arrangement.
0 z& +wo azo p. azo
The advantages of the numerical method based on
hypersonic small-disturbance theory are the following :
- significant saving of computer time in comparison
with the numerical integration of the complete
Euler equations, as a result of the successful
Here, K = 1.4. amalgamation of hypersonic small disturbance
theory with Godunov’s method;
The approximate conditions on the surface of - the numerical method based on HSDTE is more
the body (g(xa, yc,xo) = 0 is the equation which
determines this surface) will have the form: stable in operation and more robust than 3-D
Euler space-marching methods because HSDTE
69 ag
-+wodz=o.
ag are always hyperbolic. (Their longitudinal
at 0 +voa~o 0 velocity component stays constant.) In contrast,
The transformation of the conditions at the shock 3-D Euler space-marching methods often loose
wave (the equation F(za, ye, ~0) = 0 represents the their stability due to the change of the equation
shape of the shock-wave which is being determined type when the longitudinal velocity component
during the numerical calculations) leads to the becomes subsonic;
following relations: - the HSDTE method even allows the calculations
of flows with small subsonic flow regions.
Because of the very small bluntness of the HYTEX
[PO%] =o, [PoTJog +PoE] = 0, and HYTEX-M forebodies (radii 0.02 m and 0.025 m
respectively) this method could be applied with
sufficient accuracy.
The numerical method and program based on
HSDTE have been tested on a great variety of
configurations. The results of those calculations have
been compared with experimental data and with results
of various numerical methods including 3-D Euler
=o, methods with Godunov and McCormack flow salvers.
The results of such investigations are presented in [lo].
The basic theory is asymptotic, but in practice it has
been shown that the applicability range of this method
is: 2 5 1M, 5 10, (a] <90”.
Aerospace Science and Technology
Improvement of forebodykdet integration for hypersonicvehicle/
Verbesserung der VorkiirperfEinlauf-Integration j?ir Hyperschall-Fluggeriite
The present numerical method calculates the flow
parameters p, p, w and w. After the completion
of the marching procedure the longitudinal velocity
component u can be obtained using Bernoulli’s
equation:
u2 + ?J2+ w2 +2-P-= v; K pm
2 K-1 p 2f-- K-1 poo’
This procedure has been used to predict the mass
flow ratio of the inlet because it improves the
accuracy of the conservation of mass by taking into
account the most important higher-order terms of
the basic relations. Comparisons with the results of
computations based on 3-D Euler equations for similar
configurations with flow precompression in front of
inlets showed that differences in mass flow ratios do
not exceed 1% in the Mach number range from 2 to
7 and for angles of attack of 0” < Q 5 10”.
5. Results of flowfield calculations
In order to identify the most promising configuration
of HYTEX-M for more detailed studies, figure 3
represents the calculated inlet mass flow ratio f as
a function of the angle of attack at the Mach number
M, = 7; hereinafter, f = A,/Ai, A, is the cross-
sectional area of the free stream tube captured by
the inlet, Ai is the inlet capture area as measured
in the plane normal to the forebody lower surface.
From the diagram it can be seen that the influence of
f
/
2.5
/a=0
051”“-
0 5
Figure 3. Inlet mass flow ratio for different concepts of HYTEX-M.
f versus angle-of-attack, cx. A& =7.
1998, no. 8
509
wing strakes on the mass flow ratio is insignificant
(the related increments in f do not exceed 5 %), and
the removal of the strakes may he compensated by
increasing the forebody lower surface inclination angle
0s by about 1”.
One should take into account both a likely negative
impact of the wing strakes on the airplane longitudinal
stability and their low efficiency; with this in view,
we shall dwell on HYTEX-M with no strakes and a
forebody lower surface inclination angle B0= 3”. At
this value of 00 the forebody bow shock will not
impinge on the inlet lip if a 5 10”. This is evidenced
by the shock wave shapes yigure 4) calculated for the
inlet entrance plane at M, =7.
Figure 4. Shock-wave configurations at the inlet entrance plane,
x=7.84 m for HYTEX-M. 00 = 3”, without strakes, A4, =7.
Local forebody flowfields at the inlet entrance cross-
sections (x = za) of both HYTEX and HYTEX-M at
M, = 7, a = 6” are presented in figures 5 to 10.
These flowfields are represented by distributions of
the local Mach number, Me, the ratio of local total
pressure, PQ to the free-stream total pressure, Pt,,
and the local mass flow ratio:
fe = Pe ue
Pee v,’
Pe is the local flow density at the inlet entrance
plane, pm is the free-stream density, ue is the z-
component of the disturbed flow velocity; U, is the
velocity of the free-stream. Figures 11 to 13 depict
the variation of the flow parameters mentioned above
at the inlet entrance location along two vertical lines:
near the aircraft symmetry plane (y =0,02 m) and near
the side wall of the inlet (y=O.O38 m).
These results make it clear that over a considerable
part of the HYTEX-M inlet entrance the local Mach
510
Figure 5. Local Mach number, M, distribution at the inlet entrance
plane, z = 9 m for HYTEX forebody. A& = 7, (Y= 6’.
Fiire 6. Ratio of local total to free-steam total pressure, l’,e/Pt,
distribution at the inlet entrance plane, cz= 9 m for HYTEX forebody.
M, =7, a=6’.
numbers are lower, and values PQ/P,, and fe are
higher, than those of HYTEX. Also, the HYTEX-M
flowfield is more uniform, Each of these differences
indicates the superiority of the HYTEX-M over
HYTEX concerning the onset-flow for the inlet which
will be detailed in chapter 6 below.
The configurations under study feature an insignif-
icant dependence of inlet entrance flow parameters
on the distance to the symmetry plane: the curves
for y=O.O2 m and for y =0.38 m corresponding to a
particular forebody configuration differ only slightly.
All of the results demonstrated in this paper have
been obtained on a grid fine enough to produce
results that are grid independent. This grid has beon
determined by numerous calculations with several
more and more refined grid densities. The final grid
for one half of the symmetric forebody had 41 x 81
points in each cross-sectional plane (41 points on each
of 81 grid lines connecting the body surface with the
N. C. Rissimgeret al.
Figure 7. Local mass flow ratio, fp distribution at the inlet entrance
plane, z = 9 m for HYTEX forebody. M, = 7, a = 6’.
Figure 8. Local Mach number, Me, distribution at the inlet entrance
plane, z = 7.84 m for HYTEX-M forebody. Mm = 7, a = 6’.
bow shock-wave). Comparisons of the results from
calculations with this fine grid with results obtained
using a grid of 21 x 41 points showed differences in
all flow parameters considered to be less than 1% for
the HYTEX configuration.
6. Evaluation of air inlet characteristics
Characteristics of inlets are usually estimated
preliminarily in terms of area-averaged flow conditions
at the inlet entrance plane. Results of the calculation
of averaged values of the local Mach number M,, and
the ratio of the averaged total pressure Pt, to the free-
stream total pressure Pt, at various Mach numbers
AG!, over the angle-of-attack range from 0” to 10”
may be seen in Jigures 14 and 15. It is evident that
the averaged Mach numbers for both I-IYTEX and
HYTEX-M differ insigticantly; the correspoud&g
differences of A& between HYTEX and HVI’BX-M
Aerospace Science and Technology
Improvement of forebody/inlet integration for hypersonic vehicle/
Verbesserung der VorkiirpedEinlauf-Integration fir Hyperschall-Fluggeriite 511

Figure 9. Ratio of local total to free-stream total pressure, Pte /Pt,

distribution at the inlet entrance plane, 2 = 7.84 m for HYTEX-M
forebody. M, =7, cy=6O. 0.25

Figure 11. Local Mach number at the inlet entrance planes, Me

versus distance from the forebody bottom surface, AZ. M, =7,
a=6'=.

PPtX
r
0.E -

0.; -
11
1P
I I
Figure 10. Local mass flow ratio, fe distribution at the inlet entrance
plane, z = 7.84 m for HYTEX-M forebody. M, = 7, (Y = 6O.
-
0.1
are less than 0.1-0.2. However, these configurations
show considerable differences of inlet entrance total I/
/ /
aom
-cc-
y=O.O2m
038m I Hy[D(
pressure, especially at low incidence. For example, Ii - y=O.O2m
at M o. = 7 and a, =0 the HYTEX-M configuration I 038m I W&I
provides a Pt,, which is greater by 30% than that
of HYTJZX. The differences of Pt, become smaller
0. tk-
II
with increasing a.
The slightly decreased average Mach numbers in I i
combination with the increased values for the inlet I I I
entrance total pressure of HYTEX-M produce a 0.
0 0.25 0.5 A2
noticeable increase in both the mass flow ratio and
the total pressure recovery factor.
Figure 12. Ratio of local total to free-steam total pressure at inlet
The computed values of the inlet mass flow entrance planes, Pte JPt, versus distance from the forebody bottom
ratio f (obtained by integration over the capture area surface, AZ. M, =7, a =6’.
measured in the plane normal to the lower surface of
the forebody) are presented in jgure 16. One can see considered. At Mm = 7 and 0~ Q < 10” the mass flow
advantages of HYTEX-M under all flow conditions ratio increments attained are 30-40 %.
1998, no. 8
 512 r et al.

Pdptl

0.9

0.8

-*- y= 0.02m
/ -CC- 038m1 HylM
- y=O.O2m 0.7
038m I *M

T- I
0.6

0 0.25 0.5 u

Figure 13. Local mass flow ratio at the inlet entrance planes, ff
versus distance from the forebody bottom surface, AZ. M, = 7,
5 10 al"J
cx=6’.

Figure 15. Ratio of average total pressure at inlet entrance locations

to free-steam total pressure, I&/P,- versus angle-of-attack, Q.

The total pressurerecoveryfactor v = Pt,f/Ptm

V&f is the total pressureat the engine face, and
Pt- is the total pressureof the free stream)is also
regardedas one of the most importantcharacteristics
of inlets. In order to estimatethis factor, one can
fix the kinetic energyrecoveryfactor 7 definedfor
the flow within the inlet (from the tip of the inlet to
the engineface), for instance,at the level q=O.92,
andperformthe appropriatecomputationby usingthe
averagedparameters(&faVandP,,/P,- ) of the flow
at the inlet entrance:

P -A
y=tav
P t- [
1+ +I$(1

Computedvaluesof v for HYTEX and HYTEX-

0 5
Figure 14. Average Mach number at inlet entrance locations, M,,
versus angle-of-attack, (2.
- 77)
1
M, as well as the correspondingvaluesof v for an
isolatedinlet in a uniform free streamarerepresented
in jlgure 17.
These results show that the HYTEX-M fore-
bodyiinlet integration increasesthe total pressure
recoveryfactor in comparisonwith the isolatedinlet,
throughoutthe flight envelopeconsidered.Increments
in v betweenIWI’FX andNYTElX-M exceed30% at
Mm=7 and O<CY<~~.
10 aP1 Theseincrementsin both the massflow ratio and
thetota4pressurerecoveryfactorwill give HYTEWM
a notably largerenginethrust andspecificimpulse.
Aerospace Science and Technology
Improvement of forebodyblet integration for hypersonicvehicle/
Verbesserung der Vorkiirper/Einlauf-Integration fiir Hyperschall-Fluggeriite 513

f V

2.5 o?b

0.5

2.0

0.4

1.5

0.3

1.0
0.2
x=10”
I
----Hmx
- hYE%M o=o
0.1 1
0.5
3 4 5 6 ' M,
0 5 10 aP1
Figure 17. Total pressure recovery factor, v versus Mach number,
Figure 16. Inlet mass flow ratio, f versus angle-of-attack, (Y. n/r,.

Table I. Comparison of two configurations.

However, it should be noted that the final selection
of the shape of the forebody for the vehicle in addition
requires the consideration of lift, drag and moments
acting on the whole vehicle.
It is interesting to compare the inlet flow parameters
obtained by numerical calculation of the flow past
the HYTEX-M configuration and those for the inlet
located under a 2-D flat plate with unswept leading
edge, which is inclined to the free-stream direction by
the same angle as the lower surface of the HYTEX-M
forebody (Q~ = B. + a). The results corresponding
to 19~= 3’) Mm = 7, (Y= 6” are presented in Table I.
It can be seen that, though both precompression
surfaces considered here are flat, differences are signif-
icant, and therefore numerical flowfield investigations
are necessary for correct quantitative prediction of the
inlet performance.
7. Conclusion
The above studies illustrate the considerable
potential for improving aerodynamic configurations
of high-speed air-breathing aircraft by means of
forebody/inlet integration. The following conclusions
can be derived.
1. Convex lower surfaces of forebodies should be
avoided ; otherwise, the total pressure losses in
1998, no. 8
Inlet under a flat plate 5.41 0.786 2.38 0.205
the nose shock are large and, additionally, the
flow in front of the inlet is accelerated.
2. A flat-bottomed forebody with the length-to-
width ratio of about 6.5 ensures a uniform local
flow at the inlet entrance when the flight Mach
number is 3.5-7.0 and a=O-10’.
3. For an airplane with a flat lower surface of
the forebody the wing strakes are poor means
for flow precompression intensification. With
strakes removed, the inlet mass flow ratio
decrease may be compensated for by increasing
the forebody lower surface inclination angle by
one degree.
4. The HYTEX-M forebody configuration formed
with due account of inlet entrance flow condition
requirements enables to increase the mass flow
ratio and the total pressure recovery factor by
514 N. C. l%singer et al.

30%ati&,=7andOcac6”,ascomparedwith and Integration for Hypersonic Vehicles, Z. Flugwiss.

HYTEX that has an axisymmettic forward part.
Acknowledgement
Most of the work the results of which are reported in
this paper has been supported by the Bundesministerium fur
Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF)
within the German Hypersonic Technology Programme.
References
[l] Beach H.L., Blankson I.M., Prospects for Future
Hypersonic Air-Breathing Vehicles, AIAA Paper
91-5009 (1991).
[2] Cox R.N., Crabtree L.F., Elements of Hypersonic
Aerodynamics, The English Universities Press LTD,
London, 1965.
[3] Gubanov A.A., Pritulo M.F., Ruch’yev V.M., The-
oretical Investigation of Airframe/Inlet Interference
Weltraumforsch (1994) 18.
[4] Gusev V.N. Aerospace Aerothermodynamics, TsAGI
Journal l(1) (1994).
[5] Hayes W.D. On Hypersonic Similitude, Quart. Appl.
Math. 5 (1) (1947).
[6] Hirschel E.H., Aerofhermodynamics and Propulsion
Integration in the SANGER Technology Programme,
AIAA Paper 91-5041 (1991).
[7] Krajko A.N., Makarov V.E., Tillayeva N.I. On
Numerical Construction of Shock-WaveFronts, J. Num.
Math. and Math. Phys. 20 (3) (1980).
[8] Kraus M., Lazarev V., Sacher P., Shkadov L.
Hypersonic Flight Test Vehicle for Ramjet Testing.-
IAC ‘94 (International Aerospace Congress, August
15-19, 1994), Moscow, Russia.
[9] Sychev V.V. Three-dimensional Hypersonic Gas Flow
Past Slender Bodies at High Angles of Attack, J. Appl.
Math. Mech. 24 (2) (1960).
[ 101 Voevodenko N.V., Computation of Super-
sonic/Hypersonic Flow near Complex Configurations,
ICAS-94-2.2.3, 1994.

Aerospace Science and Technology