Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
R=19930087078 2018-02-16T16:07:52+00:00Z
NACA
RESEARCH MEMORANDU M
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY
Wave drag obtained by the method of Munk and Crown, in which the
wave drag is determined by integrating the momentum loss through the head
shock wave, showed that the wave drag and total drag followed the same
trends with increasing bluntness. Wave drag was also estimated by com-
bining the experimental wave drag of a hemisphere with the theoretical
wave drag of a conical afterbody, and this estimate of wave drag is
believed t.o be adequate for many engineering purposes.
INTRODUCTION
Blunt noses are being considered for some supersonic vehicles for
the purpose of housing guidance equipment. In some cases a high degree
of bluntnes s is required, and the drag penalty due to this bluntness may
be significant. On the other hand, work done by others indicated that
slightly blunt noses will have less drag than pointed noses of the same
fineness ratio. For these two reasons the drag of blunt-nose shapes is
of current interest and therefore an investigation was made in the Ames
supersonic free-flight wind tunnel to determine the influence of blunt-
ness on drag at Mach numbers from 1.2 to 7.4. The models tested were
truncated cones with spherical noses having bluntness ratios of nose
2 NACA RM A52B13
r
SYMBOLS
Cn., .
wave drag coefflcient (\ waveqAdrag)
MODELS
With no air flow through the wind tunnel, Mach numberu varied from
1.2 to 4.2 depending on the model launching velOCity. This condition is
referred to as lIair off.1I Reynolds number varied linearly with Mach
number from 1.0 X 106 to 3.3 X 106 , as shown in figure 2. With air flow
established in the wind tunnel , referred to as Hair on," the combined
velocities of the model and Mach number 2 air stream, with the reduced
speed of sound in the test section, provided test Mach numbers
from 3.8 to 7.4. In this region of testing, Reynolds number was held
approximately at 4 X 106 by controlling test-section static pressure.
In addition, some models were tested at approximate Reynolds numbers
of 3 X 106 and 7.5 X 106 at Mach number 6.
Total Drag
r
Variation of the total drag coefficient with Mach number for each
of the models tested is presented in figure 3. No attempt was made to
join the air-off and air-on data due to differences in Reynolds number,
recovery temperature, and stream turbulence. Variation of drag coeffi-
cient with Mach number for all models is similar, in that the drag
coefficient continually decreased with increasing Mach number. There is,
however, a tendency for the blunter models to show less decrease in drag
coefficient with increasing Mach number.
Wave Drag
skin-friction drag were then subtracted from the total drag of the blunt
models to obtain the wave drag of each model. The results are shown by
the solid curves in figure 6, where wave drag is plotted as a function
of model bluntness.
In the method of Munk and Crown, the wave drag is computed by summing
up the momentum change through the head shock wave. Since part of the
wave shape is unaccounted for because of the limited field of view in
the shadowgraphs, an approximation suggested by Nucci (reference 4) was
used to estimate the wave drag omitted. This approximation gives the
upper and lower limits of the wave drag omitted. The mean value of these
limits was used in all cases. These results are indicated by the points
in figure 6. The mean disagreement between the results of this method
and the results obtained by assuming base drag and skin-friction drag
independent of bluntness is 7 percent.
Viscous Effects
~ave drag of a hemisphere at Mach numbers from 1.05 to 1.40 was esti-
mated from the data of reference 5 by calculating the wave drag of the
pointed body and assuming that the drag due to the afterbody and fins
was not a function of nose shape. At Mach numbers of 1.5, 2.0, 3.0,
and 3.8, wave drag of a hemisphere was obtained from unpublished pres-
sure distributions from the Ames 1- by 3-foot supersonic wind tunnel.
Wave drag of a hemisphere at Mach numbers of 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.0 were
estimated from total drag measurements of spheres (reference 6) by sub-
tracting 70 percent of the maximum possible base drag and neglecting
skin-friction drag. The possible error introduced by estimating the
wave drag of the pointed body of reference 5 and the base drag of the
sphere is believed to be no greater than ±4 percent.
6 NAeA RM A52B13
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1. Seiff, Alvin, James, Carlton S., Canning, Thomas N., and Boissevain,
Alfred G.: The Ames Supersonic Free-Flight Wind Tunnel.
NACA RM A52A24, 1952.
2. Munk, Max M., and Crown, J. Conrad: The Head Shock Wave. Naval
Ordnance Lab. Memo 9773, 1948.
d· .45 inches
C
~{
3d
, 9.46.
Cone , 0% blunt
- -±-
t 8.870
a075ddia. ~
I
7£ %blunt
t 825 °
aI5ddla.~ 15 % blunt
J = I3
0
J 698
~
o
!I>
(b) Test models mounted on plastic sabots. ~ACb--
A-16'JRO.l ~
!I>
V1
f\)
b:J
Figure 1.- Concluded. I-'
LA!
"
"
, 1
, .
~
o
>-
~
();
81 Air_Off Operafion tWm1:Ii: f\)
t:d
t-'
CI)
:-:-:.:-:.:.:-: : : : : : : : A'Ir-vn
1"\ a .'
"'lIra/lon
~ 6 ,,-
.~
.....
::::::
~
~
~ 2 ,---t--_L mm://\
Q::
~
O'------~------~------~------~------~------~----~------~
o I 2 .3 4 5 6 1 8
Mach number, M
f-'
f-'
12 NACA RM A52B13
~
"'5
c;:,
~
......
1::
~ ~ c;:,
..q
~
~
1:: ......
fi5 ~
..q ~
c;:,
~ ....~
......
~
1'1) § ~ c;:,
~
.50 ~ ....~
...... §
,
I{) o R - 0.6 ItI I 10 6, tllr off
~ <> R-~ IIO~
~
f:ID... ~, o R - 4 x 10 , air
olr on
Dn
.40 .50 "" R - 7.6 I 10 6 , tll r on
~ ~
~ ~
~
{i
.....
.1 0.20.30 flO.50
0 ./0 .20.30 .4 0
\ ':\
\c \
\
~
"" :l.....
" I'-.
~
...........
f-<P-
- A. ,
30
<.;;()
.t c::::::J
~
~
0 ./0.20.30
\
'" ~
ldp-
- 15 .t c::::::::::J
"I
0./0 .20 '" "Lx
~
0-
- T 1/2 .t
t-- ~
c:::::::::]
1 -.Jj.
0.10
~
r---: - ~~
con e
~
-====;::J. -
1 1 '1
In-l
I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mach number, M
.5
I
----
_M=l2
- R=I.OxI0 6
c:---
&
........
.4
1.5
I
/
/
/
./
- _-
~
I I
1.6xIO~
--
"..,
/'
/
c::: /
~ /
.~
~
::::Cb
a
.3 2.0
I
I
I
/
- - 2.6XI0 6/
.....
7 ~ J
~
~
I
I
V /
~
~ .2 3.0 , I
I
-- -~
~~
I
V
I
...... ~
I
---::;:;;.;:::;: ~/06~
~
--
r---. 4.5 I ~
{!!. I
6.0
.1 ,
I
7.0
~
o Y
o 10 20 30 40 50
Percent bluntness, dn/d x 100
.5
.4 r-- ~.2
:::. ~~
& r-- r--!:.5
~
..........
......'"
c::
.~
.~
~
-...:
Cb
(;)
~
.3
r-- __ 2.0
r--
--
- ~ 1.2x 'Of
I I
1.6x10 6
I--
-
----- -----
.2 L----
~ ~
6.0
7.0
::::---
4xlO 6
~
~
'I
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
Percent bluntness, dn/d x 100
LO
1.0
- 0 v
~ If
·8 V I
.~
.\)
~
~-
(.,)
........
~
-..;:
.6 L
Cb
()
(.l
~ .4
~ ~
'S
~ o 50" bl.nt mOd'}Unpubli.h,d pr...." data
~ fro. Ih. Am.. 1- /)y-~ fo()lf
.2 o H,m;sph,r, .up'F$onlt: wind IUIII,.1
A Esf!mol,d from r,f,r.nc. 5
<> E.flmol,d from r,f,r.nc. 6
I I I ~
0
0 I 2 345 6 7 8 !21
Mach numb~r, M ~
;t:>
~
!x>
Figure 7. - Variation of wove drag coen,cient with Moen number for a hemisphere. 'r<3
to
f--'
W
.,
3S NACA RM A52B13 17
-,
6
R =4 X 10
R = 7.5 X 10
6
. ~
A-1670 4
Fi gure B.- Shadowgraphs of cones and 50- per cent blunt models at
Mach numbe r 6 .
18 NACA RM A52B13
.-
Figure 9.- Shadowgr aphs compar ing smooth flow with di s turbed flow
on cones at Mach n umber 3 . 7 ~ Reynolds number of 3 X 10 6 •