Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:26:22.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Starting characteristics of a rectangular supersonic air-intake with cowl deflection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. Das  and
J. K. Prasad
S. Das
Affiliation:
sudipdas@bitmesra.ac.in, Department of Space Engineering and Rocketry, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, India
J. K. Prasad
Affiliation:
jkprasad.1@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experimental and computational investigations have been made to obtain the details of the flow field of a supersonic air-intake with different cowl deflection angles and back pressures at the exit. The flow field obtained with an inviscid computation on the basic configuration, designed for Mach 2·2, shows starting behaviour whereas computation with k-ω turbulence model and experiments indicate unstart characteristics. Both experiments and computations indicate that provision of a small angle at the cowl tip leads to start of the same intake and also improves it’s performance. Results obtained with cowl deflection shows a better performance in comparison to performance achieved with a basic intake and with a bleed of 2·8%. Sustainable back pressure could be obtained through the computations made at different back pressures for different cowl deflection angles. Overall results suggest that provision of small cowl deflection angle itself leads to improvement in performance achieved in comparison to a bleed of 2·8%, even with back pressure at the exit.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 114 , Issue 1153 , March 2010 , pp. 177 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S., Tests with a variable ramp intake having combined external/internal compression, and a design Mach number of 2.2, Aeronautical Research Council – CP – 805, August 1962.Google Scholar
2. Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S., Further tests with a variable ramp intake having a design Mach number of 2·2, Aeronautical Research Council C P No. 826, February 1963.Google Scholar
3. Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S., More tests with a variable ramp intake having a Design Mach Number of 2·2, Aeronautical Research Council – CP – 938, November 1963.Google Scholar
4. Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S., Some tests with a variable ramp intake having sidewall compression and a design Mach number of 2.2, Aeronautical Research Council, CP, 936.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, S.A., Neale, M.C and Brooks, A.J., On the sub-critical stability of variable ramp Intakes at Mach numbers Around 2, Aeronautical Research Council, Reports and Memoranda No 3711, 1972.Google Scholar
6. Trapier, S., Duveau, P. and Deck, S., Experimental study of super-sonic Inlet buzz, AIAA J, October 2006, 44, (10), pp 2354–2365.Google Scholar
7. Trapier, S., Deck, S and Duveau, P., Delayed detached-eddy simulation and analysis of supersonic inlet buzz, AIAA J, January 2008, 46, (1), pp 118–131.Google Scholar
8. Trapier, S., Deck, S., Duveau, P. and Sagaut, P., Time-frequency analysis and detection of supersonic Inlet buzz, AIAA J, September 2007, 45, (9), pp 2273–2284.10.2514/1.29196Google Scholar
9. Newsome, R.W., Numerical simulation of near-critical and unsteady, subcritical inlet flow, AIAA J, October 1984, 22, (10), pp 1375–1379.10.2514/3.48577Google Scholar
10. Liou, M.S., Hankey, W.L and Mace, J.L., Numerical simulation of a supercritical inlet flow, AIAA, 1985, 1214.Google Scholar
11. Hsieh, T., Wardlaw, A.B., Collins, P and Coakley, T., Numerical investigation of unsteady inlet flowfields, AIAA J, January 1987, 25, (1), pp 75–81.10.2514/3.9584Google Scholar
12. Biedron, R.T. and Adamson, T.C., Unsteady flow in a supercritical supersonic diffuser, AIAA J, November 1988, 26, (11), pp 1336–1345.Google Scholar
13. Hirschen, C., Herrmann, D and Gulhan, A., Experimental investigations of the performance and unsteady behaviour of a supersonic Intake, J Propulsion and Power, May-June 2007, 23, (3), pp 566–574.Google Scholar
14. Watanabe, Y., Murakami, A and Fujiwara, H., Effect of Sidewall configurations on the aerodynamic performance of supersonic air-intake, AIAA 2002–3777.Google Scholar
15. Tan, H. and Guo, R., Experimental study of the unstable-unstarted condition of a hypersonic inlet at Mach 6, J Propulsion and Power, July-August 2007, (23), 4, pp 783–788.10.2514/1.28039Google Scholar
16. Wagner, J.L., Yuceil, K.B., Valdivia, A., Clemens, N.T. and Dolling, D.S., Experimental investigation of unstart in an inlet/isolator model in Mach 5 Flow, AIAA J, June 2009, 47, (6), pp 1528–1542.Google Scholar
17. Tan, H., Sun, S. and Yin, Z., Oscillatory flows of rectangular hypersonic inlet unstart caused by downstream mass-flow choking, J Propulsion and Power, January-February 2009, 25, (1), pp 138–147.Google Scholar
18. Lanson, F and Stollery, J.L., Some hypersonic intake studies, Aeronaut J, March 2006, 110, (1105), pp 145–156.Google Scholar
19. Van Wie, D.M., Kwok, F.T and Walsh, R.F., Starting characteristics of supersonic inlets, AIAA Paper 96–2914.Google Scholar
20. Babinsky, H. and Ogawa, H., Sbli control for wings and inlets, Shock waves, 2008, 18, pp 89–96.Google Scholar
21. Babinsky, H., Understanding Micro-ramp control of supersonic shock wave boundary-layer interactions, USAF Technical Report, AFRL-SR-AR-TR-08-0074, January 2008.Google Scholar
22. Mizukami, M. and Saunders, J.D., Parametrics on 2D Navier-Stokes analysis of a Mach 2.68 rectangular bifurcated mixed compression inlet, AIAA 95-2755, 1995.Google Scholar
23. Syberg, J and Konesek, J.L., Bleed system design technology for supersonic inlets, J Aircr, July 1973, 10, (7), pp 407–413.Google Scholar
24. Vivek, P and Mittal, S., Buzz instability in a mixed-compression air intake, Technical Notes, J Propulsion and Power, May-June 2009, 25, (3), pp 819–822.Google Scholar
25. Najafiyazdi, A., Tahir, R and Timofeev, E.V., Analytical and numerical study of flow starting in supersonic inlets by mass spillage, AIAA 2007-5072, July 2007.Google Scholar
26. Herrmann, C.D and Koschel, W.W., Experimental investigation of the internal compression of a hypersonic intake, AIAA-2002-4130.Google Scholar
27. Reinartz, B.U., Hermann, C.D., Ballmann, J. and Koschel, W.W., Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and experiment, J Propulsion and Power, September-October 2003, 19, (5), pp 868–875.Google Scholar
28. Tillotson, B.J., Loth, E., Dutton, J.C., Mace, J. and Haeffele, B., Experimental study of a Mach 3 bump-compression flowfield, J Propulsion and Power, May-June 2009, 25, 3, pp 545–554.Google Scholar
29. Kim, S.D., Aerodynamic design of a supersonic Inlet with a parametric bump, J Aircr, January-February 2009, 46, (1), pp 198–202.Google Scholar
30. Kubota, S., Tani, K. and Masuya, G., Aerodynamic performances of a combined cycle inlet, J Propulsion and Power, July-August 2006, 22, (4), pp 900–904.10.2514/1.17777Google Scholar
31. Das, S. and Prasad, J.K., Flow field investigation of a rectangular supersonic air-intake with cowl bending, J Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, May 2009, 61, (2), pp 312–324.Google Scholar
32. Das, S. and Prasad, J.K., Effect of cowl deflection angle in a super-sonic air-intake, Defence Science J, March 2009, 59, (2), pp 99–105.Google Scholar
33. Matsuo, K., Miyazato, Y. and Kim, H.D., Shock train and pseudo-shock phenomena in internal gas flows, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1999, 35, pp 33–100.Google Scholar