Flight

AE 5367
High-Speed Aircraft and Space Access

Vehicle Design
Fall Semester 2014
Energy for Cruising Flight
Mach 12 Cruise
Dr. Bernd Chudoba

AVD Laboratory
November 2014
Mechanical
(MAE)
November 2014and Aerospace Engineering Department
Page 1
Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

P.A. Czysz / HyperTech Concepts LLC
CRUISING AIRCRAFT
The title page is an artist rendition of a 1963 Mach 12
strike-reconnaissance aircraft cruising a Mach 12 with the
colors indicating the color temperature of the metal
thermal protection system (TPS) shingles.
Cruising aircraft operate at zero excess thrust, that is
constant speed with thrust equal to drag. The
characteristics of a cruising a/c are as follows:
- engine thrust depends on air density and velocity;
- vehicle drag depends on air density and velocity;
- no change in kinetic energy;
- for cruise thrust = drag;
- all of the energy is left behind in the atmosphere as heat.
For an airbreathing engine, both the engine thrust and the
aircraft drag depend on air density and velocity. For any
type of subsonic through-flow engine concept, the highspeed air must be slowed to a low subsonic Mach number
for proper operation of the engine.
Rolls-Royce, 1986
November 2014
Page 2

Since almost all of the air kinetic energy is converted to

gas pressure and temperature, the quantity of air that
entered the engine will produce no net thrust until the
momentum of the captured air is regained.
Thus, we have zero net thrust when the air exiting the
engine equals flight speed. Clearly, thrust is only
generated by the engine exit flow having a velocity
greater than flight speed. The engine companies call the
energy lost in capturing and decelerating the air Ram
Drag.
Thornborough/Davies, 1988
Crickmore, 1993
November 2014
Page 3

Nord 1500 Griffin
Ram Drag is not actually an aerodynamic drag but an

inlet momentum loss that incurs because the engine must
have low speed airflow as a throughput.
In actuality Gross Thrust is the thrust at zero airspeed
and is of only academic value; even with zero airspeed
there are inlet losses as the air is accelerated into the
inlet.
The next figure shows that the flight corridor for cruising
flight is much narrower than the total flight corridor. This
is due to the limited range of the lift coefficient suitable
for cruising flight and the wing loading of operational
aircraft.
When flight parameters approach the corridor identified
by 300 and 150 psi, a conventional inlet can incur serious
limitations. The pressures indicated are internal inlet
November 2014
Page 4

pressures at the engine face. At those pressures and inlet

temperatures (2,000 to 2,800 F) the inlet weight increases
almost uncontrolled.
Journal of Aircraft, July-August 1965
p. 267
150 psi
1,000 psf
300 psi
2 psf
3 psf
2,000 psf dynamic pressure
If the flow were not slowed to subsonic speed, that static

pressure and temperature could be significantly reduced,
hence the supersonic through flow engine or SCRAMJET.
The lower lighter blue area is at a higher than cruise
dynamic pressure because this is where the acceleration
capability lies.
Note the date: the atmosphere has not changed nor have
the physical constraints.
November 2014
Page 5

Wittenberg, 2000
FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS
The propulsion energy conversion efficiency is given
with
V T
V T
[6.1a]
Qc w fuel Q w air
V I sp
Qc
Q Qc
V Tsp
Q
fuel
air
[6.1b]
[6.1c]
Therefore
V I sp Qc
Equation (6.1) is very important because it provides
insight into designing range dominated aircraft.
The equivalence of velocity times specific impulse (VIsp)
with the energy conversion efficiency and heat of
combustion ( Qc) provides a basis for determining flight
vehicle range dependent on fuel combustion energy (Qc)
and the two efficiencies, aerodynamic efficiency (L/D) and
November 2014
Page 6

the propulsion system energy conversion efficiency ( ).

These can be generically determined without the
necessity of large quantities of detailed data.
The following figure shows the Isp of various propulsion
systems.
Wittenberg, 2000
Thus, it is necessary to define the Breguet Range

Equation as follows:
November 2014
Page 7

W final
R RF ln
Winitial
R RF ln 1 ff [nm]
[6.2a]
[6.2b]
With
ff
W fuel
[6.3]
TOGW
L
D
RF a
sfc
L
RF V I sp
D
L
RF Qc
D
M
[6.4a]
[6.4b]
[6.4c]
As indicated, the aerodynamic and propulsion efficiencies

form the transfer function of available fuel energy into
range.
Interestingly, RF in Equation (6.4c) is only indirectly a
function of Mach number. It is primarily a function of:
- flight vehicle configuration;
- characteristic of the propulsion concept and propellant;
- NOT directly a function of speed
The best endurance equation is given with:
November 2014
Page 8

Best Endurance
L

ln 1 ff [hr]
max
3600 D endurance
I sp
[6.5]
where the loiter speed is given with

V 5.112
[6.6]
S plan CL
with the lift coefficient for best endurance.
Best endurance is a function of

- Isp,
- L/D for maximum endurance,
- fuel quantity.
L/D for maximum endurance is generally at a lift
coefficient 1.73 times the lift coefficient for maximum
L/Dmax (see also later discussion of the drag polar).
CL max
1.73 CL max
endurance
L/ D
The following figure gives the Brequet range factor (RF) in

these terms. As indicated, the aerodynamic and
propulsion efficiencies form the transfer function of
available fuel energy into range.
November 2014
Page 9

The Breguet range equation energy balance is given with:

changing gear
TRANSFER
FUNCTION
NEED
RANGE =
L
D
ENERGY RESOURCE
QI
ln 1
FW
GW
RELATIVE
ENERGY
RESOURCE
RANGE
FACTOR
FW = fuel weight
GW = gross weight
According to Kchemann's concept this means that the

DESIGN range should not be a function of speed.
Of course, for off-design speeds the range factor will have
a different relationship to the slower speeds for each
configuration concept.
Examples:
variable pitch propeller,

manual gear car,
Etc.
changing gear
Kchemann, 1978
November 2014
Page 10

changing gear
Kchemann, 1978
The technical elements and terms engineers are able to

affect numerically, are given with the figure below.
November 2014
Page 11

What is indicated with the text in the figure are those

factors engineers are able to affect in terms of the critical
design parameters.
The reason aero-thermo integration is important is that
now all of the aerodynamic heating is either rejected to
space or is absorbed into the airframe?
If the Russian data is correct, about 30% of the rejected
heat can be recovered and converted into useful work.
That would equate to a clear increase of the utilized
available energy from the fuel. Such approach could
increase the thrust potential delivered by the engine.
Below we show the names of historic individuals that
contributed to the development of each parametric
element (individuals with pertinent facts, data and
information).
November 2014
Page 12

The one historical individual investigating aeropropulsion-thermal integration has been the British
mathematician E.G. Broadbent. Broadbent worked with
L.H. Townsend in the 1960's to enlarge the operational
envelope of scramjets.
In terms of contributions, Broadbent was the only analyst

to assemble the energy recovery idea and the means of
returning this energy to the flow as thrust.
From England, Flower and Kchemann, from Japan Ahiro,
and in Russia Plohtiek and Yugov worked to refine the
combination of aerodynamic and propulsion efficiencies.
Plohtiek was with TsAGI (Central Aerohydrodynamic
Institute) and Yugov was with CIAM (Central Institute of
Aviation Motors) and together they had a vehicle sizing
and performance program almost unequalled.
Builder, Swithenbank and Lindley were a few of the
pioneers in scramjets from 1958 to the early 60's. Builder
and Lindley were with The Marquardt Company and with
John Ahern they pioneered the first successful scramjet.
Ahnstrom, 1959
November 2014
Page 13

Swithenbank was doing combustion of hydrogen in a

2,000+ K stream at over 2 km/sec in Canada at McGill
University at the same time the author P.A. Czysz was
doing the same tests in Bldg. 254 at the then Air Craft
Laboratory.
Pike, Townsend, Anderson, et al were pioneers in wave

riders including off-axis wave riders with spatular noses.
Myhra, 2002
November 2014
Page 14

Design Case Study: Nord-Aviation Griffon 02
Poisson-Quinton, 1989
November 2014
Page 15

November 2014
Page 16

November 2014
Page 17

November 2014
Page 18

November 2014
Page 19

Test Pilot: Andr Edouard Turcat
A Virtual Tour Around the Aircraft
November 2014
Page 20

November 2014
Page 21

November 2014
Page 22

November 2014
Page 23

November 2014
Page 24

November 2014
Page 25

November 2014
Page 26

November 2014
Page 27

November 2014
Page 28

November 2014
Page 29

November 2014
Page 30

We have seen before:

RF f (aircraft configurat ion,
propulsion concept,
propellant ,
etc.)
Future flight vehicle designers have to master:

- configuration concept design,
- propulsion & propellant system design,
- system integration.
November 2014
Page 31

Design approaches for aircraft classes:
Harris, 1989
Propulsion/airframe integration:
Harris, 1989
November 2014
Page 32

Example propulsion options:
Harris, 1989
November 2014
Page 33

Warp Drive
NASA BPP, 1989
Returning to the governing equations which do establish

the range factor RF.
Expressions for the lift-to-drag ratio that correlate the
data of the previous figures can be found in the next
figure which present the governing equations
establishing the range factor.
Simple equations are shown from which to make first
order estimates of the input energy available and its
conversion efficiency into range potential.
The propulsion efficiency is based on Builders analysis,
the aerodynamic efficiency is based on Kchemann and
McDonnell Douglas aerodynamic data bases, and the
available fuel energy is based on work done by S.N.B.
Murthy, J. Swithenbank, L. Hunt, and the author P.A.
Czysz.
November 2014
Page 34

Governing equations establishing the range factor, RF.
November 2014
Page 35

The correlations are plotted in the next figure, which

shows L/D vs. Mach number (McAir high speed data
base).
The following is a different approach representing the

data expressed with the curve fits expressing the
aerodynamic data for Mach numbers greater than 2.0.
L
C1 e
D
November 2014
Page 36
C2
100
[6.7]

with
C1 9.8159 45.934 80.466 2
[6.8a]
C2 4.4148 4.1680 9.8723 2
[6.8b]
The expression contained in the lower rectangle in the

figure
merges the shape of the L/D curve with the technology

level suggested by D. Kchemann.
Four levels are represented. The first and second from
Kchemanns text The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft.
The third represents the level from the McDonnell Aircraft
Company Advanced Engineering team. The fourth is from
data published by John Anderson when at the University
November 2014
Page 37

of Maryland.
Over a 30 year period we have seen a steady
improvement in the aerodynamics of high speed vehicles
as reflected by their lift-to-drag ratio.
The propulsion energy conversion efficiency () analysis

comes from Builder (AIAA 63-243). Murthy, Billig, Ahern
and Tanatsugu focused on the recovery of available
energy to
do
useful work
(second
law
of
thermodynamics).
The recovered energy (Qi) analysis comes from a
modification of a trajectory energy analysis by Larry Hunt
and Coleman DuPont Donaldson.
Energy-Transfer Functions (L/D)
Let us begin to build the energy-transfer function one
element at a time, beginning with the L/D ratio.
The figure before
shows the aerodynamic L/D ratio for highly swept

configurations. The curves are for constant values of
and planform area divided by total volume raised to the
November 2014
Page 38

2/3 power. This is for the basic L/D ratio produced by

aerodynamics.
Plotting aerodynamic L/D ratio as a function of Mach
Numbers for different values of , tau we understand as to
how critical this parameter is.
An aircraft flying around the earth is represented by a
constantly rotating vector (change in direction and
magnitude).
Zipfel, 2000
Clearly, even at constant speed there is acceleration

perpendicular to the flight path due to earths curvature
and atmospheric variations.
Such acceleration increases in magnitude as speed
increases, thus the perpendicular force from the
acceleration is opposite gravity. Thus, the approximate
apparent weight of the aircraft is
November 2014
Page 39

WV 0
M
WV 0 1
25.6
[6.9]
Natural horizon
November 2014
Page 40

Thus, we receive:
M
1
25.6
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.6
0.9998
0.9992
0.9807
0.9205
0.0000
The figure shows the magnitude of that relief as a virtual

increase in lift to drag ratio, (L/D).
The effect is to straighten out the lift to drag ratio curve.
The scramjet propulsion system also adds a vertical force

to the aircraft because of the pressure forces on the inlet
ramps and nozzle. The force applies only as the engine is
operating as a scramjet, so it is probably limited to the
Mach 6 to 15 region as shown in the next figure.
November 2014
Page 41

This figure shows the propulsion L/D increment for cruise

resulting from scramjet propulsion system operation.
[A L/D equals one means the combustion process is stoichiometric or the

fuel burns all of the available oxygen in the air. If phi is increased (fuel rich)
and the excess hydrogen is used to recover some of the aerodynamic
heating as thrust, in this case the propulsion increment is greater but unquantified in the literature.]
Energy-Transfer Functions
(Propulsion Energy Conversion Efficiency, )
The next figure was assembled for the Douglas HSCT
study. The lower cross-hatched band is the derived from
second low analysis by Builder for kinetic compression
engines (ram-scram jets).
November 2014
Page 42

The propulsion energy conversion efficiency, , as a

function of Mach number:
The upper cross-hatched area is Builder's analysis for

tubo-machinery (kinetic compression supplemented by
mechanical compression to reach the compression ratio
for minimum cycle entropy rise).
The lower dashed lines are for a ramjet and the air turbo
ramjet engine (aero jet Sacramento).
The triangular points are three designs by Douglas for
three speeds.
The short vertical bars are actual engine proposals

November 2014
Page 43

received by Douglas for the HSCT study. There are a

number of engines represented in each vertical bar.
The vertical hatched band represents Builder's analysis
when the kinetic compression reaches the optima for
minimum enthalpy rise.
Continued unlimited kinetic compression begins to
decrease the energy conversion efficiency so that at
about Mach 11 there is insufficient thrust to maintain
flight (not shown here but in chapter Building on
Builder).
If the kinetic compression static enthalpy rise is limited to
the optimum value, i.e., less kinetic (velocity) energy is
converted to static enthalpy and pressure, that means the
flow passes through the combustor at an ever-increasing
fraction of flight speed (at Mach 15 it is about 90%, so the
speed through the combustor is about 13,500 ft/sec and
the static pressure less than 2 atmospheres).
Energy-Transfer Functions Combined

Combining the propulsion energy conversion efficiency
() and the aerodynamic efficiency (L/D = 0.40), then we
have the following trends (gravity relief is indicated).
November 2014
Page 44

As D. Kchemann predicted, the design range potential is

a) nearly a constant with a maximum in the Mach 4 to 6
regions for no gravity relief, and a
b) continuing increase in ( L/D) with speed if gravity
relief is included.
As noted in chapter Aircraft Volume and Mass

Characteristics from Low-Speed to High-Speed, increased
volume per planform area, , significantly reduces ( L/D).
Looking at three fuels and taking into account the volume
changes of the aircraft from chapter Aircraft Volume and
Mass Characteristics from Low-Speed to High-Speed, we
November 2014
Page 45

get an impression of the final range factor potential as

indicated in the figure before.
The following table lists a number of representative fuels.
Fuel Heat of Combustion
per Unit Fuel Mass
Brayton Cycle Heat
Addition; Combustion
Energy per Unit Airflow;
Thrust Potential
Fuel Heat of Combustion
per Unit Volume
November 2014
Page 46

Hydrogen-Derived Fuels
The top group contains hydrogen and hydrogen derived
fuels. The three hydrogen listings are for normal boiling
point (4.36), sub cooled (4.66) and 50% slush (5.13)
hydrogen.
In spite of the very high fuel heat of combustion per unit
mass (Qc), the heat of combustion per unit volume (Qv) is
the lowest of all the fuels considered in the table.
Ammonia was the X-15 fuel, and Hydrazine is a commonly
used fuel. Hydrazine has one of the highest combustion
energies per unit volume (Qv) in the group of the
hydrogen derived fuels.
Conventional Hydrocarbons
The next group of fuels are conventional hydrocarbons.
Note that only Acetylene has the same combustion
energy per unit airflow (1,565 to 1,504 BTU per pound air)
compared to the hydrogen-derived fuels.
This group of hydrocarbons has two to three times the
energy per cubic foot (Qv) compared to Hydrogen,
although their combustion energy per unit fuel mass (Qc)
is about 40% that of hydrogen.
With respect to cruising aircraft, Acetylene offers the
same thrust potential (Q), but over 3.5 times the energy
density per cubic foot.
November 2014
Page 47

Partially-Oxidized Hydrocarbons
The
third
group
represents
partially
oxidized
hydrocarbons. Most common fuels are the alcohols,
ethanol and methanol.
Methanol (CH3OH) has just one oxygen atom per carbon

atom. When used as a thermally decomposed
(exothermic) fuel, it has the advantage of decomposing
into two hydrogen molecules and one carbon monoxide
molecule.
Ethanol and Methanol can be used to similar gas
temperatures in cooling passages. The heat absorbed is
similar to hydrogen at the same gas temperature. Its
disadvantage is low heat of combustion per unit fuel
mass (Qc).
As a class, all of the partially oxidized hydrocarbons have
less energy of combustion per unit fuel mass (Qc) and a
higher or equivalent energy of combustion per unit
volume (Qv).
Modified Hydrocarbons
The fourth group of fuels is hydrocarbons modified to
change their molecular configuration.
The heat of combustion per unit mass (Qc) is equivalent
to JP-4/JP-5.
The heat of combustion per unit volume (Qv) is 20% to

November 2014
Page 48

25% greater than conventional hydrocarbons.
Molecular Strained Hydrocarbons

The fifth group is representative of molecular strained
hydrocarbons.
These have the highest combustion energy per unit mass
(Qc) and volume (Qv).
Although expensive, they offer a reduction in fuel storage
volume for volume critical missile configurations.
Design Case Study: ICBM
The chart below compares US ICBMs.
Stine, 1991
ICBM is an acronym; it stands for InterContinental

Ballistic Missile.
An ICBM is a specific type of the general class of a selfNovember 2014
Page 49

propelled, extremely long range ballistic missile.
An ICBM differs from all other artillery shells and ballistic

missiles because of its extremely long range.
It may be launched from any place on earth and hit a
target at any location on earth.
The ICBM started as a short-range (200 km) ballistic
missile and it grew until it became a ballistic missile with
intercontinental and then worldwide range.
Unlike an artillery shell, a ballistic missile is not fired or
launched from a gun barrel.
A ballistic missile is still accelerating or gaining speed
when it leaves its launch tube.
November 2014
Page 50

A ballistic missile is rocket-propelled.
Ahnstrom, 1959
A rocket-propelled ballistic missile carries its own

propellant along with it.
Since the ballistic missile can take longer to come up to
its ultimate speed, this lessons the sudden shock of
launching.
A lower acceleration also reduces the aerodynamic drag
of a ballistic missile because it passes through the
densest and lowest part of the earths atmosphere at a
lower speed.
If enough propellant is carried in the ballistic missile to
allow it to achieve a final velocity of about 7,600 m/s (M
22.9), its range will be infinite and it can be aimed to hit
any place on earth.
November 2014
Page 51

A ballistic missile must be self-guiding if it is to hit its

target; thus, it is guided either by external means or
internal devices.
Stine, 1991
November 2014
Page 52

November 2014
Page 53

Fi-103
Smith, 1946
Stine, 1991
November 2014
Minuteman 1
Stine, 1991
Page 54

The next figure graphs the heat of combustion of fuels

that are liquid at sea level conditions versus fuel density.
It shows that combustion energy is a consistent function

of fuel density.
This clearly shows the trend of how hydrocarbon and
modified hydrocarbon fuels compare to strained
November 2014
Page 55

hydrocarbons and partially oxidized hydrocarbons that

form into discrete families.
Comparing the fuel combustion energy per unit volume
(Qv) with that per unit mass (Qc) in the next figure, we see
a lambda-like structure.
Room temperature liquid hydrocarbons offer over a 2 to 1
increase in the volumetric combustion energy at constant
mass combustion energy.
November 2014
Page 56

The hydrocarbons form a central spine around 20,000

BUT/lb. with two branches.
The branch to the left is partially oxidized hydrocarbons
and hydrogen derived fuels such as Ammonia and
Hydrazine.
The branch to the right points to hydrogen.
Fuel Mixtures
In the 1960s one fuel considered for launches was
methane frozen in liquid hydrogen. In effect, a dissimilar
mixture of fuels to create a hydrogen-methane slush.
Other materials such as finely divided metals and other
fuels were also frozen into liquid hydrogen to form a
slush mixture in an attempt to increase the bulk density of
the liquid hydrogen. To the extent it was successful, it
was always accompanied by a decrease in the effective Isp
of the fuel mixture, that essentially negated the density
increase in the vehicle sizing process.
In the case of the Methane-Hydrogen mixture, a

continuous curve can connect the Methane point to the
hydrogen point as the ratio of Methane to Hydrogen is
varied. The limit is reached when the quantity of methane
ice becomes too viscous to pump or the temperature of
the mixture increases above the Hydrogen liquid
temperature.
November 2014
Page 57

Another combination was Hydrogen Peroxide frozen in

Hydrogen. As long as the mixture was held to less than 13
C and the Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) remained frozen,
there was no chemical reaction. However, once the
Hydrogen Peroxide became a liquid, there could be a
reaction that became increasingly likely as the
temperature increased toward 288 C, the boiling point of
hydrogen peroxide. In effect, this mixture produced
hypergolic Hydrogen ignition.
With the following overview we are discussing various
rocket types with their pros and cons, see [Sellers, 2003].
Mono-Propellant Rockets
Bi-Propellant Rockets
November 2014
Page 58

Solid Rockets
Hybrid Rockets
Solar-Thermal Rockets
November 2014
Page 59

Electro-Dynamic Rockets
Thermo-Electric Rockets
November 2014
Page 60

Nuclear-Thermal Rockets
November 2014
Page 61

Thermodynamic Rockets
November 2014
Page 62

PERSPECTIVE
November 2014
Page 63

The Loss of a Life is a Tragedy

The Loss of a Limb is a Disaster
The Loss of Time is Catastrophic
Time is Opportunity -
If You Waste Time You Waste Your Life
November 2014
Page 64

As noted in chapter Aircraft Volume and Mass

Characteristics from Low-Speed to High-Speed, increased
volume per planform area, , significantly reduces (L/D).
Looking at three fuels and taking into account the volume
change of the aircraft described in chapter Aircraft
Volume and Mass Characteristics from Low-Speed to
High-Speed, we can see what the final range factor
potential looks like (see below).
The figure below show the ideal (Breguet) range factor as
a function of Mach number for three fuels. As it can be
seen, the RF is essentially constant above Mach 6.
RANGE FACTOR versus MACH NUMBER
15000
IDEAL RANGE FACTOR

(nautical miles)
hydrogen fuel
volume effects included
10000
Liquid Hydrogen
Methane, LNG
5000
Kerosene
0
0
10
MACH NUMBER
November 2014
Page 65
15
The following figure shows the ideal (Breguet) range

factor as a function of compression side radiation
equilibrium skin temperature. As can be seen, flying
above Mach 6 limits surface temperatures and does not
penalize range potential.
RANGE FACTOR versus TEMPERATURE
IDEAL RANGE FACTOR

(nautical miles)
15000
Liquid Hydrogen
10000
Methane, LNG
5000
Kerosene
0
0
500
1000
1500
TEMPERATURE (C)
Three fuels and propulsion systems are shown. These

are:
(a) air turbo ramjet using kerosene,
(b) combined-cycle ramjet using sub-cooled liquid
Methane or LNG,
(b) combined cycle ram-scramjet using sub-cooled
liquid hydrogen.
November 2014
Page 66

Note the similarity of the curves. The asymptotic part of

the curve shows that even with the substantial reduction
in range factor potential due to aircraft total volume
available, the hydrogen fueled aircraft has a 2.5
advantage over a hydrocarbon-fueled aircraft.
An article in Lockheeds HORIZONS publication
discussed, that if the Mach number is limited to between
Mach 4.5 to Mach 6 or less, the system is near its
maximum range and the maximum skin temperature on
the compression side ramps is less than 700 C.
This is an important consideration for supersonic cruise

aircraft. When MBB was designing the Snger TSTO
vehicle, the first stage was intended to be the basis for a
supersonic cruise commercial transport.
Ernst Hoegenauer and his team determined that the best
productivity per unit cost is Mach 4.65. That is essentially
the center on the knee of the curve as shown below.
RANGE FACTOR versus MACH NUMBER
15000
IDEAL RANGE FACTOR

(nautical miles)
hydrogen fuel
volume effects included
10000
5000
0
0
10
15
MACH NUMBER
November 2014
Page 67

The result is that titanium is the most advanced material

needed for this speed regime. The following table shows
the materials employed with the SR-71.
When Douglas Aircraft examined the HSCT mission, the

maximum Mach number required was Mach 5.
These results agree with what Dietrich Kchemann
determined in the early 1960s. On the other side, if
requirements force a higher speed, there is little penalty
except a higher skin temperature.
The RF curves discussed before include gravity relief
November 2014
Page 68

and the reduction in angle of attack that results from the

lower aerodynamic lift required as speed increases.
The previous charts shown are two-dimensional state
space representations. The late Dietrich Kchemann
(1911-1976) put together a three-dimensional state space
solution to the Breguet range factor.
November 2014
Page 69

These were presented to and are now preserved by John

Flower at Bristol University. The opportunity presented
itself to photograph these during an AGARD meeting in
1986.
The figure is a pictorial representation of the

configurations. The Swept Wing shows a wing with a
trailing edge notch. Slender is a swept wing with a
straight trailing edge (like CONCORDE), and Waverider is
a blended capture shock configuration for equal fuel
heating.
The Mach 4 to 6 plateau is only one contour less
compared to the plateau depicting the best supersonic
configuration concept.
Clearly, the figure applies to kerosene fuel. Note that
supersonically, for Mach number other than 4 to 6, the
performance is less compared to subsonic aircraft.
Swept wing aircraft rapidly decrease in
performance compared to delta configurations.
range
A wave rider configuration on kerosene has less range

performance less than the delta supersonic configuration.
The maximum range performance for the waveride
configuration is in the Mach 20 range, a flight vehicle less
slender compared to the delta configuration.
November 2014
Page 70

But D. Kchemann's contention was, that for a

supersonic transport it must have a cruise speed in the
Mach 4 to 6 regime. Note that the Mach 3.5 range on this
log scale has about 90% of the range potential of the
Mach 4 to 6 range.
If hydrogen is added to the waverider as the primary fuel,

the
following
three-dimensional
state
space
representation results. Shown is a three-dimensional
overlay for a hydrogen fueled waverider.
Range Factor
November 2014
Page 71

Now, with Hydrogen the range capability of the waverider

is over two times the best kerosene Mach 4-6 aircraft.
The figure below shows the Brguet ranges for various
types of aircraft from D. Kchemanns book The
Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft.
This latter performance gain gave D. Kchemann the

ability to judge range as a fraction of the circumference of
the earth (24,800 nautical miles).
D. Kchemann presents in his book the supersonic
aerodynamics of a hydrogen fueled aircraft with range
approaching the earth's circumference flying with Mach
18 for 90-minute flight times.
November 2014
Page 72

November 2014
Page 73

November 2014
Page 74

November 2014
Page 75

November 2014
Page 76

November 2014
Page 77

November 2014
Page 78

November 2014
Page 79

November 2014
Page 80

D. Kchemanns analysis did not consider recovering a

portion of the aerodynamic heat transferred to the
airframe through friction and converting that energy into
thrust work.
The thermal recovered energy can be converted to thrust

via the supersonic injection of hot hydrogen fuel into the
combustion chamber. The fuel kinetic energy offsets
some of the internal combustor friction energy losses and
the Isp of the hydrogen injection nozzles is approximately
550 seconds.
The range factor versus temperature figure shows the
results of the Coleman DuPont Donaldson analysis.
RANGE FACTOR versus TEMPERATURE
IDEAL RANGE FACTOR

(nautical miles)
15000
10000
5000
0
0
500
1000
1500
TEMPERATURE (C)
The table shows a conservative assessment of the impact

of recovered aerodynamic heating converted to thrust on
November 2014
Page 81

fuel fraction required to cruise at about 4,000 nm that

reduces the fuel required by 15%.
The Russian AJAX information gives a value of 30% for

Mach 10 to 12. There is a sustained, but gradual increase
in the energy conversion efficiency as the Mach number
increases; thus, and more available thermal energy is
recovered with increasing Mach.
This analysis is based on a very conservative heat
transfer analysis with a relatively hot skin. The ratio of the
wall enthalpy to the adiabatic wall enthalpy determines
the wall heat transfer rate. As the wall enthalpy increases
the heat transfer decreases.
November 2014
Page 82

Who is Dietrich Kchemann (1911-1976) ?

Hirschel/Prem/Madelung, 2004
November 2014
Page 83

Vector Diagram
With the following we present the summation of forces for
the hypersonic cruiser.
Wgravity relief T
a
sin
sin
W
W
g
V 0
T
cos
1
Wgravity relief
a
T
cos D
sin
T
g
W
WV 0
L
cos
W
2
Wgravity relief V cos

W
1 V
orbit
V 0
sin
[6.10]
[6.11]
[6.12]
H
V t
[6.13]
The representative airbreather vector diagram.
November 2014
Page 84

Definitions of axes and aerodynamic angles in three

dimensions.
Stevens/Lewis, 2003
Climb and Decent

Climb and decent needs to be determined as the cruise
range is the great circle distance minus the climb and
cruise distance for an aircraft with at least a one g initial
acceleration capability.
As indicated in the airbreather vector diagram, the
cruising aircraft operates at a relatively low angle of
attack () and low body angle with respect to the fixed
earth axis ().
November 2014
Page 85

The summation of forces in the lift and drag direction is

given with the equation set (6.10 6.13).
The velocity term squared in parenthesis is the gravity
relief term. The thrust to weight term is lift thrust support.
For a high thrust to weight ratio at maneuvering angle of

attack a combat aircraft can have substantive
maneuvering thrust support.
In the drag direction the critical factor is the thrust-todrag modifying the thrust-to-weight.
McElyea, 2003
November 2014
Page 86

Full acceleration is achieved only when the thrust-to-drag

is infinitely large, that is in space.
If the angle-of-attack is low, a thrust-to-drag of 2 will
reduce the effective thrust to weight by one-half. In a
vertical climb, = 90, an additional weight term is added,
reducing the effective thrust to drag by one unit.
Clearly, thrust-to-drag is critical for acceleration and that
is critical for a cruise mission to reduce the propellant
consumed in reaching cruising speed. This is discussed
later in the chapter.
The equation set (6.10 to 6.13) shows that the acceleration

along the flight path is a strong function of thrust to drag.
November 2014
Page 87

The acceleration level is important to reduce climb time

and fuel consumption. The distance and time curves as a
function of cruise speed given with the next two figures
are determined for an aircraft that can have an initial
acceleration in the 1.1 to 1.15 g range.
First, the climb and descent distance as a function of
speed.
M12
Note that the time and distance rapidly increase.

For a Mach 12 cruise, the total up and down distance
approaches 3,000 nautical miles and one hour in time.
Clearly, the up & down time and distance can be
significant.
November 2014
Page 88

The climb and descent time as a function of speed is

given below.
60 min
Equation sets (6.14 to 6.15) are curve fits to the climb and
descent distance and time values.
SC 34.4 10
0.125V
1, 000
[nm]
[6.14]
2
V
V
tC 1.85 0.527
0.0573
[min]
1
,
000
1
,
000
S D 56.2 10
t D 5.10 10
November 2014
0.122V
1, 000
0.0671V
1, 000
[6.15]
[nm]
[6.16]
[min]
[6.17]
Page 89

Note the descent is longer and requires more time.

The descent was based on the upstart characteristics of
an integrated propulsion system and shock system
response to decreasing Mach number.
Drag Polar
Cruise implies thrust equals drag flight at approximately
the same altitude and speed. In academic analyses
maximum range occurs at maximum lift to drag ratio.
The following figure shows a realistic flight vehicle polar.
Vinh, 1993
November 2014
Page 90

CL max
CL
CD
CL min
CD
CL min
Dubs, 1990
With the exception of the twin-jet civil transport that must

be able to takeoff and institute climb on a single engine,
few aircraft have sufficient thrust to fly at the altitude
dictated by the lift coefficient for L/D maximum.
N.X. Vinh documents the parametric analysis used by
November 2014
Page 91

the aerodynamicists at McDonnell Aircraft in St. Louis.
The maximum lift-to-drag ratio is not always the optimum

place to fly. N.X. Vinh gives a fundamental lesson in drag
polar interpretation.
N.X. Vinh uses the parameter (exponent) m, and
McDonnell Douglas aerodynamicists used the parameter
B. The parameter B was used to determine the critical
points on the drag polar. These are related by the
following equalities.
m
B
[6.18a]
2m
2 B
m
[6.18b]
1 B
CD0
CL B
[6.19a]
L
CD0
m
2m
L
CD (1 B ) CD0
CL
[6.19b]
[6.20a]
2
CD0
2m
L
B
D (1 B ) 2 L CD0
CD
m ( 2 m)
L
D 2 L CD0
November 2014
Page 92
[6.20b]
[6.21a]
[6.21b]

These relationships are an excellent guide for estimating

total drag for any drag polar that is essentially parabolic
(no significant leading edge separations).
This also shows why very few aircraft fly at L/D maximum
unless, like the current civil twins, are so overpowered to
achieve the single engine out capability and they have
excess thrust for cruise.
T
D
Morgenstern/Plath, 1996
The lift coefficient CL required for maximum L/D ratio has

associated a very high drag.
Cruising at the CL recommended by N.X. Vinh provides
about 94% of the maximum L/D ratio but at 75% of the
drag associated with L/Dmax.
Evaluating the equation set (6.18 to 6.21), we obtain the
following table shown on the next page.
The table shows that the optimum range potential comes
at a price of a 30% to 43% larger sea level static
uninstalled engine thrust requirement.
November 2014
Page 93

Remember, a cruiser is burning significant amounts of

fuel during its cruise leg. Thus, the determination of the
optimum operating point is key.
Paying Payload
Hannigan, 1994
When m and B have the value of one (1.0), then the

parameters are for L/Dmax.
If CL is reduced from its optimum value, see table, the CL
for L/Dmax is achieved where the drag is twice CD0.
November 2014
Page 94

However, it is not the cruise thrust that sizes the thrust

and cost of the engine, but the sea level static uninstalled
thrust.
Uninstalled thrust is from 5% to 10% greater than
installed thrust.
Turbojet and turbofan engines scale thrust with altitude
with the atmospheric density ratio.
The four points given in the table and CD0 are plotted in
the figure below.
B = 0.333
B = 1.0
B = 3.0
B = 0.5
The point to the far right, where B = 3.0 is normally

considered the lift for maximum endurance.
As CL decreases, the altitude is decreased at constant
Mach number.
November 2014
Page 95

The required dynamic

proportional to CL since
pressure,
q,
is
inversely
V
2
qSL 1188.5
1,481.3 M
1,000
L q ALT SW CL N z W
q ALT qSL
N z W
SW CL
[6.22]
[6.23]
[6.24a]
N z W
qSL SW CL
[6.24b]
We assume for cruising flight N = 1.0, then follows from

Equation (6.24b)
S
W
qSL CL
SW
[6.25]
CD0
qSL B
L
The force equilibrium at the cruise point

TALT DALT q ALT CD S plan
[6.26a]
TALT DALT qSL 1 B CD0 S plan

TSLSU
TSLSU
[6.26b]
1.075 TALT
[6.27a]
1.075 TALT
0 .45 0 .05
1
.
075
1 B CD0 S plan
SL
0 .65 0 .05
November 2014
Page 96
[6.27a]

Thus, we have obtained an approximation for the sea

level static uninstalled (SLSU) thrust as given before.
Historically, was equal to 0:70 for turbojet and low
bypass ratios. Large, high bypass ratio engines scale with
equal to about 0.6.
For B = 0.5 the cruise thrust is greater, but the sea level
thrust is significantly lower meaning a smaller, less costly
engine.
For this case, the range factor RF is 94% of the maximum
with an engine that is only 84% of the L/Dmax engine.
[If the lapse rate is equal to the change in density ( = 1), then the engine
sea level thrust decreases the same as the density decreases. If is less
than one, then the engine thrust decreases less than the density
decrease.]
The reduced drag also means, that when the cruise thrust
at altitude is converted to sea level thrust, the engines
require 70% to 77% of the sea level static uninstalled
(SLSU) thrust of the optimum L/D sea level static
uninstalled thrust with the overall effect of reducing cost
and aircraft size.
Spacedev
X-34
November 2014
Page 97

Acceleration can occur at a low value of CL (higher

dynamic pressure) that results in only 15% of the drag
and 50% of the L/D ratio.
As we shall see, it is the drag that is critical for
acceleration, not the L/D ratio.
Supersonic Aerodynamic Lift

The supersonic and hypersonic lift-curve slopes are
obtained from the correlation of data on delta wing
configurations as shown in the figure on the next page.
MAC AST
B2707-300
B2707-200
Concorde
Owen, 2001
November 2014
Page 98

For wing-body configurations, the lift-curve slope is

determined (from):
(a) as a function of the ratio of body diameter d to wing

span b, (d/b) (slenderness parameter),
(b) the wing leading edge sweep angle,
(c) the Mach number.
Because of the similarity of the wing-body vehicle shapes
studied, a d/b of 0.3 was selected as representative and
used for all wing-body aircraft.
For all-body configurations, an equivalent d/b ratio was
used, where b is the overall span of the vehicle and d is
the equivalent diameter of the vehicle, based on its
maximum cross-sectional area.
Wing-Body [HOTOL]
Blended Wing Body [Snger]
All-Body [Bowcutt]
Typical variations of the lift-curve slope for hypersonic

vehicles with Mach number are shown on the next page.
November 2014
Page 99

CL = 0.43
CL = 0.21
The above figure is based on experimental data. It shows

a typical variation of aerodynamic lift coefficient (CL) with
angle-of-attack () for the vehicles under consideration.
This chart was prepared by P. Czysz for Richard Petersen
and Thomas Gregory for the HyFAC contract in 1968.
Please observe that the variation of lift with angle-ofattack is non-linear, especially at high Mach numbers (not
shown here).
November 2014
Page 100

Drag Estimation
The drag coefficients of the HYFAC vehicles
X-24C, Astronautica
are computed using the simplified form:
CD
CD0
zero lift drag coefficient
L CL2
[6.28]
drag due to lift
Normally, hypersonic vehicles are classified as either an

(a) all-body configuration, or the (b) wing-body
configuration. A comparison of typical L/D values is
shown as a function of Mach number below.
November 2014
Page 101

It should be noted that the zero lift drag coefficients (CD0)

do not include drag due to the airbreather propulsion
system during engine-on operation.
The propulsion system drag, consisting of ram drag, spill
drag, bleed drag and leakage drag, are accounted for as a
reduction of gross propulsive thrust.
SUBSONIC AERODYNAMIC DRAG
For wing-body aircraft, the subsonic value for CD0 is
obtained by the following relationship:
CD0
1
2
L
4 L
D max
The (L/D)max is given for various hypersonic gliders:
November 2014
Page 102
[6.29]

The drag due to lift factor L is defined by

L N K
[6.30]
where the theoretical induced drag factor is given with

N
1
0.98 AR
[6.31]
And the additional induced drag factor is given with

K 0.10
A typical variation of L' and CL with Mach number for

wing-body configurations is shown below
November 2014
Page 103

For the all-body configurations, the same relationship is

used to determine L. A typical variation of L' and CL with
Mach number is shown below.
The values for L' used for the all-body configurations

(blended-body) are based on data from a number of
typical all-body designs.
The next figure compares the CD0 for wing-body
configurations
and
blended-body
(all-body)
configurations.
November 2014
Page 104

The figure above shows representative CD0 curves for four

basic airframe/propulsion concepts:
Model-250 is an all rocket-blended body.
Model-254 is a dual mode scramjet vehicle with aft rocket for low
speed acceleration and high speed acceleration above scramjet
operation. Because the ramjet is not producing thrust in the
transonic region there is an additive drag. A rocket ejector ramjet
peak would be less compared to the all rocket version.
Model-257 is a wing-body with turbojet transonic acceleration.
The second curve is the same configuration with base burning.
November 2014
Page 105

Once Mach 4 is reached, the CD0 values are nearly

constant, decreasing slightly with increasing Mach
number.
TRANSONIC AERODYNAMIC DRAG

The drag increment reference area is SF, which is the
maximum cross-sectional area (or frontal area) minus
95% of the stream tube entering the engines.
The Sears-Haack optimum body of revolution has a drag
rise given by
S
CDP 0.15 F2
L
[6.32]
However, for real combat aircraft the correlation is
S
CDP 0.15 F2 0.062
L
[6.32]
Note that some aircraft such as the F-104 and T-38 with
straight trapezoidal planform wings have very high
transonic drag rises. In the range of conventional aircraft,
the curve is linear.
However, for the stout hypersonic aircraft with hydrogen
fuel, that is not the case as shown on the next page.
November 2014
Page 106

The transonic drag rise appears to level off at a plateau

value. The hypersonic gliders, such as FDL-7C/D, or FDL7MC are in the SF/L2 range of 0.025, whereas the blunt
SV-5 and half-cone bodies are in the 0.07 range.
CD0 at Mach 1.2 is based on the drag rise correlation given

by the following two figures as a function of vehicle
frontal area and length.
The
transonic
CD0
increment
for
high-volume
configurations can be read from the figure above.
November 2014
Page 107

The drag coefficient at M = 1.2 is determined by
CD M 1.2 CD subsonic CD
0
S front
plan
[6.32]
For vehicles with scramjet engines, the cross-sectional

area was defined by
S front Amax Aprop
[6.33]
where Amax is the maximum cross-sectional area of

theoretical vehicle, and Aprop is the cross-sectional area
attributable to the propulsion system.
In this case, CD0 is defined by
CD M 1.2 CD subsonic CD
0
prop q SFN
CD0
S front
CD
0
S
plan
prop
[6.34]
[6.35]
plan
In the equation above values for q and FN at Mach 1.2 and

20,000 ft (6,096 m) are used. The ratio FN/q Splan is read
from a graph or is obtained from analysis. Note that FN is
negative at these conditions (engine is not a rocket
ejector ramjet and is not yet producing net positive
thrust) and thus results in an additive drag term.
November 2014
Page 108

SUPERSONIC/HYPERSONIC AERODYANMIC DRAG

Values of CD0 at supersonic and hypersonic speeds are
calculated by using
CD0
1
2
L
4 L
D max
[6.36]
(L/D)max is read as a function of Mach number and

Vtot2/3/Splan from the following figure summarizing data for
both the wing-body configurations and all-body
configurations.
November 2014
Page 109

November 2014
Page 110

Values of L' for wing-body configurations are calculated

by using
1
L
CL
[6.37]
Where
L
L
CL
[6.38]
is the leading edge suction parameter and it is read

from the following figure
November 2014
Page 111

The results of this calculation are shown in the following

figure for wing-body configurations.
Since the variation in L' and CL from one wing-body
design to another was found to be quite small, the results
shown in this figure are employed for all wing-body
designs.
Values of L' and CL for all-body configurations (blendedbody) are read from the figure below.
November 2014
Page 112

This variation of L' with Mach number is based on data for

a number of all-body vehicles and represents an average
curve through the data.
The summation of forces along the flight path shows the

dependence of acceleration on thrust-to-drag ratio.
Clearly, it is important to reduce CD0.
Robert Krieger, when at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics,
St. Louis, investigated two dimensional noses as a means
of drag reduction (a sharp wedge has less drag than a
sharp cone).
Richard D. Neumann, when at the USAF Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, investigated two dimensional noses.
November 2014
Page 113

Jack Pike, when at Cranfield College of Aeronautics, did a

systematic investigation of right circular cones with and
without two dimensional noses. In Great Britain, the term
spatular nose was coined.
The next figure depicts the four classes of circular cones.
November 2014
Page 114

Both Euler code and Newtonian code analyses were the

primary investigational tools. Of some selected
configurations wind tunnel models were fabricated and
wind tunnel tested at Cranfield and Farnborough.
The optimum spatular nose was a result of a Newtonian

analysis shaping the configuration for minimum drag.
The figure on the next page presents the result of Pikes
investigation. The drag of the pointed cones is normalized
to the value of 1 across the top. Four examples are
shown by their half-angle as well as Kchemanns .
November 2014
Page 115

The figure is a comparison of CD0 for conical shapes with

and without spatular noses.
The three lines represent the drag of the three

configurations referenced to the equivalent cone drag.
The first important observation is that the spatular cone
has lower drag at lower cone angles and the Sear-Haack
cone has lower drag at high cone angles.
November 2014
Page 116

The simple spatular cone has less drag compared to the

Sears-Hack shapes for cone angles less than 23 degrees,
and reduces cone drag by 25% to 22%.
The optimum spatular cone reduces the drag level an
additional 5% and it has an advantage over the SearHaack cone up to 40 cone angle.
The important application is for slender shapes with
values of less than 0.25. Clearly, drag reductions in zero
lift drag from 25% to 30% can be expected with the
application of the spatular configurations.
November 2014
Page 117

In addition to transonic drag rise, transonic base drag is

also a high drag element as shown with the
representative base pressure coefficients in the figures
below.
Hoerner, 1965
November 2014
Page 118

November 2014
Page 119

Note that the X-15 data matches two-dimensional solution

better than the three-dimensional solution.
The X-15 side fairing, fuselage and fin bases are shown.
The maximum drag rise is about Mach 1.5. The drag

increment is given with:
November 2014
Page 120

CDbase
Abase pbase p
S plan
p
[6.39]
The transonic base drag is high, and as shown by the X15 data, it is applicable to hypersonic configurations.
Clearly, uncontrolled base drag can significantly increase
transonic thrust requirements and it can significantly
decrease transonic acceleration.
The XB-70 could fly Mach 3+ any time it could fly Mach
1.1. And that was initially not possible.
In order to reduce cost, the propulsion installation was
greatly simplified. The result was the XB-70 suffered from
a high transonic base drag that limited the thrust minus
drag margin to negative values for some atmospheric
conditions.
Campbell, 1998
November 2014
Page 121

Base and External Burning (Base-Drag Reduction)

The following figure shows that with base and external
burning 90% of the base drag could be eliminated by
burning hydrogen in the base.
The drag reduction and the fuel used to produce the base
drag reduction corresponds to an Isp 4000 to 5000 sec.
November 2014
Page 122

That is a more efficient use of Hydrogen compared to

burning it in the gas turbine. Obviously, it is important
that the Hydrogen is getting burnt; otherwise the drag
compensation would be minimal.
As indicated in the previous wing-body drag curve, a way

to reduce drag is to burn in the base by increasing the
base pressure.
AGARD-CP-307 from 1981 provides some definitive data.
The first observation is, that for Hydrogen injection, if the
hydrogen does not burn, there is very little base pressure
increase and the specific impulse of that injection is no
better than a turbojet.
However if the injectant burns (see dashed times as
ellipse symbols), there is a step function in the base
pressure and the Isp of the base injectant. For modest
Hydrogen flow rates of about 0.05% of the base area
stream tube flow, 90% of the base drag can be eliminated.
To achieve this 90% reduction in base drag, the Hydrogen
flow is less than 0.01% of the free stream mass flow
through an area equal to the base area, see Equation
(6.40).
I sp base Drag
[6.39a]
w injectant
I
November 2014
w H 2
V Abase
Page 123
[6.39b]
For values of I that achieve about 90% base

pressurization, the Isp of the injected fuel is the 4000 to
5000 sec. range.
This is much better than any
conventional power plant (rocket or turbojet) at almost no
significant weight penalty.
The next figure shows a cylindrical model with a radial
slot injection at Mach 1.5 for almost complete base
pressure compensation. The picture is from the British
Aerospace Corporation transonic tunnel at Brough.
Schlieren picture of 1 inch diameter cylinder in 1 ft

transonic tunnel at Brough with axial slot Hydrogen
injection.
Normally as the flow passes the base it converges toward
November 2014
Page 124

the center line forming a re-compression shock as shown

in the shadowgraph of a conventional projectile base
below.
The next figure shows a shock-free forebody at Mach 2.1.

The concave nose of this body of revolution shows a
smooth compression (see Sears-Haack cone).
Van Dyke, 1982

November 2014
Page 125

Essentially, the unrecovered energy dissipated in the

turbulent wake produces the high drag.
With base burning,
the wake lacks the turbulent energy dissipation of the

normal base flow. The Hydrogen is introduced along the
radial gap at the base. The reported Hydrogen flow is less
than 0.1% of the stream tube mass of the base area in
size.
The next figure is a color photograph of the Hydrogen
burning zone in the model base.
November 2014
Page 126

[The model is a cylinder with a sharp 20 total angle cone nose section.
The cylinder is mounted to the tunnel wall with a zero sweep strut through
which the instrumentation and hydrogen passes. The wind tunnel was in
Brough England, and the tests were conducted in the late 1970s. The
tunnel has since been deactivated and demolished.]
The past discussion has focused on reducing the zero-lift

drag (CD0) That is not only to increase the acceleration
capability but also to increase the lift to drag ratio (L/D).
It is of importance to discuss the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) in

more detail. L/D is essentially a function of CD0 as shown
below with the correlation of supersonic L/Dmax for fighter
and transport aircraft wind tunnel models.
November 2014
Page 127

The L/D ratio is given with

L
1
D
4 K CD0
[6.40]
where
K
K
0.21 for a subsonic leading edge

0.25 for a supersonic leading edge
The hatched marks in the figure are the L/D estimates for
the aircraft given below.
November 2014
Page 128

The points in the upper left hand corner are 1973 Douglas
Advanced Supersonic Transport (AST) wind tunnel tests
at near full scale Reynolds numbers in the NASA Ames 11
foot tunnel. Corrected to full-scale values, the L/D was
10.1 for the AST aircraft.
A wing with a supersonic leading edge does have a larger
induced drag. The following chart is from the
aerodynamics group in the Advanced Engineering
Division of McDonnell Aircraft.
Shapiro also has an analogous evaluation for drag due to
lift for a supersonic wing. The values are slightly higher,
and there is a transition as the wing leading edge
becomes supersonic ( = tan ) as shown below.
Shapiro, 1958
November 2014
Page 129

The right two columns are for the supersonic leading

edge. The left three columns show the free stream Mach
number for a sonic leading edge.
For the 82 sweep of the reference configurations, the
leading edge will be supersonic for Mach numbers greater
than 7.19.
As shown in Equation (6.40), the supersonic lift-to-drag
ratio is essentially of function of CD0 and Mach number
().
The factor K differentiates a supersonic leading edge

from a subsonic leading edge. We have seen the value of
L/D plotted versus CD0.
The top curve is for a subsonic leading edge; the shock

wave is ahead of the leading edge.
The lower curve is for a supersonic leading edge; the
shock wave is behind the leading edge.
November 2014
Page 130

Clearly, a wing with a supersonic leading edge has a

lower L/D for the same Mach number and CD0.
The leading edge is sonic (i.e. normal Mach number is
equal to 1.0) when = tan L. The data points plotted are
from legacy NACA and NASA reports.
This figure (correlation of supersonic L/Dmax for fighter
and transport wind tunnel models) is for complete
aircraft, that is why the point scatters.
Some design integrations are better than others, and
there are integration effects such as propulsionenthroned-lift, that increases the lift-to-drag above that
theoretically possible for the wing alone.
The Douglas Aircraft Company 1973 Advanced
Supersonic Transport (AST) models tested in the NASA
Ames 11 foot tunnel are one example. The four under-thewing nacelles produced an interaction at supersonic
speeds that increased the pressure field on the wing
underside that increased lift and reduced drag.
Ingells, 1979
November 2014
Page 131

The wind tunnel data (shown in the upper

corner), when corrected to full scale Reynolds
achieved a lift-to-drag ratio at Mach 2.50 of
Ames 11 foot tunnel tests were near full scale
numbers values.
left-hand
numbers,
10.1. The
Reynolds
The sweep angle for sonic leading edge increases rapidly

with increasing Mach number, see the following figure.
For highly swept wings to have any practical volume,

sweeps above 75.5 are shown with spatular noses.
The sweep of 75.5 corresponds to Mach 4.0.
November 2014
Page 132

Many of the McDonnell hypersonic vehicle designs

included in these notes have wing sweep angles of 78 .
That is a sonic leading edge Mach number of 4.6.
Clearly, the Mach 4.5 designs with 78 wing sweeps have
subsonic leading edges, and Mach 6 and higher blended
body and wing body designs have supersonic leading
edges.
Typical transonic transports with subsonic leading edges

with Mach 0.7 normal Mach numbers are also shown by
the dashed line. These wings normally have transonic
crest Mach numbers (crest is the point of maximum
height above the mere chord line of the upper surface).
The leading edge becomes sonic when the flight Mach
number component perpendicular to the leading edge is
equal to Mach 1.0. For more detailed analyses for
preliminary and configuration development, the crest line
determines the wing detailed aerodynamics.
Lan, 1988
November 2014
Page 133

Asher Shapiro in Compressible Fluid Flow gives slightly

different values for the value of K compared to those used
by McDonnell Aircraft as given in Equation (6.41).
When
When
tan LE
tan LE
th en
0.75 then
0.266
[6.41a]
0.220
[6.41b]
The values of K in transition from subsonic to supersonic

leading edge has been given with the table shown before.
Clearly, there is a gradual transition in K from 0.75 to 1.0.

Also listed in the table are representative leading edge
sweep angles and flight Mach numbers for sonic leading
edges and Mach 0.7 leading edges.
One of the reported difficulties associated with
hypersonic configurations is the low-speed lift-to-drag
ratio (L/D).
November 2014
Page 134

Values on the order of 4.0 are required for good handling

qualities and pilot capable landing speeds.
In the following work graph (subsonic blended-body L/D
correlations) from the Advanced Engineering Department
of McDonnell Aircraft, you can see the line drawn for L/D
= 4.0.
The goal was to have a controlled volume configuration

that could achieve the desired value of lift-to-drag ratio.
The maximum acceptable value for the volume coefficient
is V2/3/Sp = 0.28. This translates into = 0.15.
November 2014
Page 135

The L/D values shown are trimmed clean configurations

(no landing gear or flaps).
In chapter Necessary Energy Accelerating Aircraft, the
hypersonic gliders from McDonnell Douglas Astronautics,
St. Louis, have similar high lift-to-drag performance with
landing characteristics better than the X-15.
Reed, 1997
November 2014
Page 136

Earlier in this chapter the transonic drag rise increment

for conventional aircraft is given. If that curve were used
to estimate the transonic drag rise for hypersonic
vehicles, the drag rise would be very large, two or three
times greater than conventional aircraft.
The next figure shows the transonic drag rise increment
for high volume conventional aircraft in the lower lefthand corner.
The frontal area/length squared parameter for

hypersonic vehicles can be up to five times greater than
conventional aircraft.
November 2014
Page 137

The nature of the drag rise is that fortunately it is not

linear for the stouter hypersonic vehicles. The curve
appears to have an upper limit increment magnitude of
about 0.46.
The right hand linear part of the curve can represented

as:
S
CD drag
12.3 F2 0.077
[6.42]
rise
L
The curve part can be represented as:
CD drag
rise
S
S
S
983.14 F2 200.96 F2 14.49 F2
L
L
L
0.0944
[6.43]
This drag coefficient is based on vehicle frontal area. In

order to base it on vehicle planform area (reference area),
the drag coefficient becomes
SF
C drag
CD drag
rise
rise
S plan S plan
frontal
area
[6.44]
However, the highest Mach number in the data set is 3.0.
e.g., XB-70
November 2014
Page 138

We need a data set for higher Mach numbers, so

configuration concepts can be evaluated in a future
design environment. The next figure repeats the L/D ratio
data for three Mach numbers, 2.0, 5.0, and 12.0.
November 2014
Page 139

The solid line is a mean value established and used by

the aerodynamics group in the Advanced Engineering
Department of McDonnell Aircraft led by Don Scheller.
The dashed line represents the locus of the higher values.
For Mach 12, Dwight Taylor of the Advanced Engineering
Aero Group, correlated CD0,and L/Dmax as a function of
geometric characteristics, see the following figure.
November 2014
Page 140

The drag index, DI,is given with
V 2 / 3 S 3 / 2
DI tot wet K w0.75 0.333

S
plan S plan
[6.45]
CD0 M 2 1 CD0 0.0577 e0.4076DI
[6.46]
L
3.96 0.4693 DI
D
[6.47]
From D. Kchemann comes a representation of the total

supersonic drag coefficient as a function of scaled
finesse ratio.
November 2014
Page 141

We obtain
FR
half span
length
b FR M 2 1
[6.48]
S
L
[6.49]
This shows that there is a finesse ratio for minimum drag,

and as Mach number increases the finesse ratio
increases.
a
November 2014
Page 142

Stability and Control

The designs have been configured with consideration
toward achieving adequate stability characteristics at all
speeds.
Reed, 1997
HiMAT/NASA, 1997
November 2014
Page 143

The cg variation is felt to be realistic and attainable by the

proper location of equipment within the aircraft and by
designing to provide adequate fuselage area forward of
the effective wing apex.
The cg range can be maintained by utilizing fuel

management.
A control augmentation system is anticipated in order to
assure desirable handling qualities and precise flight path
control.
November 2014
Page 144

For rocket equipped vehicles, the engine is canted so that

the thrust vector acts through the center of gravity.
Jenkins, 2001
Scramjet engines must be placed below the fuselage in

order to use the underside of the fuselage as part of the
inlet and exit systems. Large negative pitching moments
can result when the scramjet is initiated.
The negative moment contribution of the scramjet can be
November 2014
Page 145

used to help trim the basic aircraft. When the scramjet is

not being operated, a nozzle flap is extended at
hypersonic speeds to help reduce the pitching moment
difference between scramjet power-on and off.
The control concept of a blended-body ram-scram jet is

illustrated below.
[Note the difference in the induced drag factor below Mach 4 for the wingbody. One of its advantages for turbojet power is lower transonic zero lift
drag and drag due to lift.]
The figure above shows the classical McDonnell Aircraft

blended-body (sometimes call all-body in early
references) hypersonic cruise configuration. This
November 2014
Page 146

configuration dates back to the early 1960s and is based

on literally thousands of runs at the Cornell Aero
Laboratory Shock Tunnels and the McDonnell Hypersonic
Impulse Tunnel. Unfortunately, all of the models and date
were destroyed for security reasons.
The figure shows the blended-body external control
systems.
Wing tip control panels are used for pitch and roll control,
as they are more effective at negative control deflection
angles (trailing-edge-up) compared to elevons, since they
operate in essentially free-stream conditions at all control
deflections and angles of attack.
Elevons would loose effectiveness due to the separated
flow field on the wing-body upper surface at hypersonic
speeds and moderate angles of attack.
The vehicle vertical fins have been toed-in to increase
their effectiveness at low angles of sideslip.
Rudders of the plain flap type are incorporated at the

trailing edge of the vertical tails for directional control.
The location at the aft extremity of the vehicle provides
maximum tail length for directional control and the
vertical location is consistent with minimizing rolling
moment due to rudder deflection.
November 2014
Page 147

Speed brakes will be provided for range compression and

glide path control on landing approach. These can be in
the form of separate speed brake panels, as shown in the
figure before, or unsymmetrical deflection of the rudders.
On the Space Shuttle we have:
Jenkins, 2001
November 2014
Page 148

Jenkins, 2001
Flight Vehicle Synthesis

We have spent most of this chapter on aerodynamics and
performance. We need now to focus on real systems and
the approach of sizing vehicles to requirement and
changing size.
For low-speed designs, a subscale flight vehicle is
sometimes employed. Both the Russian Tu-144 and the
British Concorde had subscale aircraft to confirm the
performance of the Ogee wing.
However, these analogs aircraft were aerodynamic test
November 2014
Page 149

beds, they had neither the range nor total system

capability of the full-scale operational system.
HP 115
Orlebar, 1994
BAC221
FD2 (Fairey Delta 2)
Trubshaw, 2000
MiG-21I/1
Gordon/Gunston, 2000
November 2014
Page 150

One can attempt to down-scale the large aircraft design to

the small-scale version, using the same wing and other
performance features of the larger aircraft.
However, these efforts are for naught. The basic physics
of aerodynamics, propulsion, and design & geometry
prohibits this from being accomplished efficiently.
The next figure depicts the basic behavior of changing
size.
As discussed in chapter Mass and Convergence Sizing

Programs, photographic scaling of flight vehicles does
not scale real systems linear.
November 2014
Page 151

As the size of the system is reduced, each sub-system

changes size, volume and weight differently.
As implied in the figure before, as the size is reduced and
the volume, wetted area, and planform area change with
respect to each other, the smaller the vehicle the larger
the volume and wetted area per unit planform area.
Clearly, if the large aircraft is large with good range
performance, the small version will have much less
performance even with greater thrust per unit planform
area.
As indicated in the sketches, the smaller the wetted area
per unit volume, the larger (proportionately) the
propulsion system on the smaller aircraft.
Because boundary layer transition is a function of
absolute length, transition that occurs on the forward part
of the large aircraft will occur near the aft end of the
smaller vehicle.
In order to get aerodynamic similitude, the leading edge

radii of the small-scale demonstrator are proportionately
smaller which increases the heat transfer rate
proportionately to the square root of the radius.
Clearly, the smaller aircraft has greater heating and less
range than the large aircraft.
November 2014
Page 152

This is really a show-stopper for spacecraft. Few things

could be more demanding and costly and less rewarding
than building a small version of a full scale spacecraft
and attempting full-scale performance.
AST Scaling Case Study: This story begins with Colonel

Everest Riccioni in the mid-1970s. Col. Riccioni was one
of the fighter Mafia triad that brought about the F-X fighter
requirements that focused on maneuverability and
specific excess power and later became the McDonnell
Douglas F-15 series. The other two members were Col.
John Boyd and Pierre Sprey. Rich was impressed with
the Douglas Aircraft DAC D3230-2.2-5A Advanced
Supersonic Transport (AST) design.
Ingells, 1979
He wanted a fighter with supersonic cruise (like the AST)

that was smaller than the light-weight fighter. And Rich
would not take NO for an answer. The result was that a
14,000 lb. aircraft could achieve long range at Mach 2.2 if
the only mass was the fuel and engines. The structure,
system and airframe were aerodynamically shaped but
had no mass.
The path that led there and had Rich accept the results,
was a stepwise sizing process. Using the McDonnell
November 2014
Page 153

Aircraft Computer Aid Design Evaluation (CADE) tool, a

series of aircraft were systematically sized. Each a/c has
been sized to resemble a scaled version of the DAC-5A
wing.
The next figure shows four of the five configurations

based on the DAC D3230-2.2-5A wing. The goal was to
obtain the largest possible range at Mach 2.0 for each
design.
The Model 269-F2 was the basis for the Supersonic Cruise
Attack Fighter (ACAF). There were four subscale
adoptions of the Douglas AST wing, a F-111 sized aircraft,
November 2014
Page 154

a F-15 sized aircraft, a F-16 sized aircraft, and a Folland

Gnat sized aircraft. The dimension, gross weight, and
wing planform area are given in the figure before.
The results confirm that photographic scaling, although
easy, is completely inappropriate for aircraft scaling as
shown in the following figure (smallest and largest
overlay of the SST to E3 with the same wing size)
There is a factor of three in range factor and a factor of

over four in relative volume. Even though the crew cabin
of the AST was designed for a crew of three, it is in this
November 2014
Page 155

figure the size of a Volkswagen wheel rim.
The propulsion system occupies a much larger relative

volume for the 269-E3 configuration compared to the fourengined DAC3230-2.2-5A. However, that does not mean a
smaller fighter configuration cannot make a viable fighter
attack aircraft, as we shall see.
The next figure shows the advantage of large aircraft.
November 2014
Page 156

As seen in chapter Volume Characteristics of Hypersonic

Aircraft, the most demanding technology is associated
with the smallest demonstrator, NOT the large full size
operational aircraft.
The F-111 sized aircraft has the advantage of moving

away from the main sequence of aircraft, see figure on
previous page.
By the way, the Douglas Aircraft D3230-2.2-5A Advanced
Supersonic Transport (AST) wing did end up on a
lightweight fighter when the McDonnell aerodynamicist in
Advanced Engineering thought that high sweep wings
were dominated by vortex drag. He vetoed any application
of the Douglas Aircraft D3230-2.2-5A Advanced
Supersonic Transport (AST) wing to either the F-15 or F18. So it ended up o the F-16XL!
November 2014
Page 157

Clearly, there are two pertinent observations from this

part of this chapter:
- Smaller a/c have more volume per unit planform area

and therefore have less L/D; volume increases with
respect to planform area, which decreases range
potential.
- When scaling aircraft, one must consider volume and
mass together. Just determining the weight of a scaled
vehicle is not sufficient.
The following figure shows that slenderness is the key to
high L/D for Mach 2+ aircraft.
November 2014
Page 158

As can be seen, the trend with volume continues for

hypersonic configurations like the Mach 12 scramjet
family. Recall that the range factor, RF, for the Mach 12
vehicles is similar to the Mach 2.2 class aircraft.
Although Colonel Riccioni wanted a micro-supersonic

fighter, what did emerge was a F-15A weight class aircraft
with a supersonic range capability comparable to its
subsonic range capability.
Spick, 2003
The key compromise was an aircraft with the maneuver

capability of an F-4E, not some future super F-15.
The primary operational assumption was, that on an
attack mission at supersonic cruise it would NOT slow up
to engage non-engaging aircraft.
November 2014
Page 159

[Work was done with H. David Froning of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics

and Motorola of Scottsdale, Arizona, to create a folded fin, tail control AIM7 with a dual seeker and active end-fire antenna that had the antenna
power of a 2,400 W power supply with only 240 W. An end-fire antenna has
10db amplification. The same active guidance was deleted for active
tracking of the target AND missile by a launching aircraft using a track
while scan radar. Guidance connections were passed to the missile during
radar scans until the active seeker locked-on the target. Removing the
wing control skid-to-turn system for a tail control bank-to-turn missile
removed over 120 lb from the AIM-7. With folding tails, the missile could be
carried conformally. With a 75 lb blast-fragmentation warhead the missile
could attack ground or airborne targets that the guidance concept of
Motorola provided.]
The next figure is an artists picture of the Model 269-F2

configuration (SCAF configuration F2 with conformal
weapons).
November 2014
Page 160

[It is armed with six AIM-7 tail control missile using the AIM-7M 75 lb.
warhead, and powered by Hercules dual pulse rocket. It also carries two
planar wing long range missiles.]
The next figure shows the SCAF fighter attack concept for
an under-wing propulsion configuration based on the
Douglas propulsion integration approach.
[A subsonic wind tunnel model that could be reconfigured to either
propulsion integration was built but unfortunately was never tested.]
The next two figures show the key features of its

operating envelope.
November 2014
Page 161

First the SCAF flight envelope.
Second the SCAF performance envelope.
November 2014
Page 162

The figure showing the SCAF flight envelope presents the

Mach Number vs. Operating Altitude envelope. The green
is military power, and the yellow partial afterburner
operation.
Between about 38,000 ft and 43,000 ft, Model 269-F2 was

capable of Mach 1.8 plus cruise at military power. It could
achieve maximum speed (Mach) at sea level in military
power. The engine that permitted this was a version of the
GE-101 developed for the Northrop YF-17. The engine was
a leaky turbojet with a small by-pass ratio scheduled for
high military power thrust. A 2-D thrust vector nozzle was
based on the Rohr-developed light weight 2-D nozzle for
the Rolls-Royce 593 Concorde engine.
The design dynamic pressure was 1700 psf. Two
temperature boundaries are shown. The lower is based on
high temperature aircraft aluminum (250 F). The higher is
based on a Carbon/Bi-Polyimide composite surface
material for the component skins.
The dashed line was the best conventional F-100/F-404
class of transonic fighter on the Advanced Engineering
Design floor at the time the configuration was developed
(1974-1976).
The aircraft could cruise alone Mach 2 on partial
afterburner (less than 40% of afterburner throttle setting)
at altitudes to 63,000 ft.
November 2014
Page 163

The figure showing the SCAF performance envelope

presents the combat radius as a function of Mach number
with lines of constant altitude indicated.
The same two temperature boundaries are shown. The
lower limit was operation at 1700 psf dynamic pressure.
The goal of a balanced combat radius at supersonic and
subsonic speeds was closely accomplished. The
maximum range at supersonic speeds (Mach 1.5) was 505
nm, and the maximum range at subsonic speeds (Mach
0.8) was 585 nm. During operational tactical combat they
were equal. At a combat radius of 450 nm, the mission
could be flown from sea level at Mach 0.75 to Mach 2.0 at
50,000 ft. The fuel fractions on internal fuel were less than
30%.
The artist depictions of Model 269 show two propulsion
integrations used.
The under-the-wing-configuration case shows the axissymmetric inlet nacelles installed at the location defined
for the DAC 3230-2.2-5A. The configuration retains the
aerodynamic configuration of the DAC AST.
The propulsion integration for the upper-fuselage

configuration shows vertical fins integrated into the
nacelles and a beaver tail pitch control surface between
the nacelles. This version carries four planar wing
missiles and aerodynamic constraints. Three engine
November 2014
Page 164

throttle settings are shown.
Green is non-afterburning military power. Yellow is partial

afterburner throttle, setting less than 40%. Red is partial
afterburner throttle operation greater than 40%
afterburner throttle setting.
No full afterburner operation is shown as this would
exceed the airframe temperature limits. Full afterburner is
used for acceleration only.
The gross weight of the SCAF was 35,900 pounds. The
missiles it was armed with could attack tactical ground
targets or tactical aircraft targets. The radar was a
development of Hughes and originally proposed for the F15. It could track any target moving greater than 1 m/sec.
It was capable of tracking an incoming SAM and with the
proper size AIM-7 missile with a flechette or BB
warhead capable of intercepting incoming SAMS.
[The zero lift drag and drag due to lift-coefficient are shown in Appendix A.]
Professor John Flower and the First Waverider: The wave

rider, or as it is known in Great Britain, the captured
shock configuration, has emerged as having the highest
lift-to-drag ratios.
The L/D ratio has little application for an accelerating

November 2014
Page 165

launcher that operates very close to CD0, but for cruising

vehicles and entry hypersonic gliders lift-to-drag.
In the United States, John Anderson at the University of
Maryland is recognized for his wave rider pioneering, to
be followed by his students, Kevin Bowcutt and later Mark
Lewis.
In Great Britain, Terence R.F. Nonweiler of Queens

University, Belfast, is associated with caret wing
waverider concept.
November 2014
Page 166

However, with respect to the spatular-nose type

waveriders, work may have been initiated by Professor
John Flower in Great Britain.
When P. Czysz met John Flower in 1983 at a AGARD
meeting in Bristol, England, he showed him a perspective
model dating from the early 1960s.
Today, with modern computers, the computations are
quickly accomplished.
In early 1960 this was done with mechanical calculators
and numbers of students that computed the intersection
of the wing leading edge and the shock front. At this time,
the wave rider design Mach number was 2.5 not 25.
Clearly, at this lower Mach number the waverider shape is
different compared to a hypersonic waverider.
What is unique about Prof. Flowers approach is, that the

body of revolution he transformed included the expansion
side of a body of evolution that included an expansion
system that resulted in zero pitching at the design
conditions.
The result is shown as a model, see the next pages, that
Professor Flower and his students built from Plexiglas
and Aluminium.
How exactly he did this is unclear, as the colleague

negative comments about such a strange shape being an
November 2014
Page 167

aerodynamic shape for Mach 2.5 flight caused him to stop

his work. He moved to Martin Baker and focused his
career on ejection sects!
The following shows Prof. John Flowers Petal Wing; one
of the first fully propulsion integrated waveriders.
Later in his career he returned to Bristol, but much about

the early accomplishments has been lost. When P. Czysz
was taking the pictures of the models, in a basement
storage area, the School Dean walked past with some
Lockheed visitors. When asked about the models the
Dean commented that this was a product of an older
November 2014
Page 168

professor whose time had passed by and who was living

in the past.
In fact, Professor Flower was a professor who almost
crated the future. This was the first and perhaps only
waverider that included a propulsion section and an
expansion surface. The top rear port wing was contoured
to control the pitching moment so the vehicle was
trimmed.
The pictures of Flowers models were taken in Fall of 1983
in the basement of Bristol University. It is constructed of
Plexiglas strips and Aluminum templates. The next figure
shows photographs arranged as a three-view.
November 2014
Page 169

The span wise curvature is significant. Although the

leading edge appears in the top view to sweep forward, in
the side view it appears to be almost planar. The
contouring on the top aft surface is clearly shown. It is
unfortunate since more information is not available.
Professor Flower and his students were studying the offdesign shock structure on the waverider compression
side, beginning with Nonwelers caret wing.
Comparing Four Propulsion Systems

The Obvious Answer is not the Answer!
This part of this chapter deals with propulsion system
evaluation using a McDonnell Aircraft Mach 6 fighter
configuration developed for Mel Buck of AFFDL.
Aerojet in Sacramento was working on several ATR

concepts (air-turbo-ramjet) and was seeking to evaluate
them on a high speed aircraft.
Aerojet Sacramento had the original ATR patent on the
AirTurboRam jet based on TITAN rocket motor turbopump
and turbine hardware.
The following figure shows the aircraft configuration (this
model was on Mel Bucks bookcase for many years) and
the Aerojets original mission ground rules.
November 2014
Page 170

The figure shows the Mach 6 hypersonic cruise aircraft.
The mission ground rules read as follows:

- Mach 4+ military aircraft
- 3,500 nm range (6,482 km)
- air-turbo-ramjet (ATR) propulsion
- McAir aero database for 1960s
- blended-body configuration
- original fuel was Methane
An ATR (air-turbo-ramjet) in its simplest form, that Aerojet

patented during WW II, was released in 1947 and it is
shown in the figure on the next page.
November 2014
Page 171

The generic Air-Turbo-Ramjet (ATR) cycle.
The compressor can be driven by either an expansion

turbine (shown) or by a rocket combustor (original ATR).
This decouples the performance of the compressor from
the performance of the turbine, and the compressor can
be operated at maximum performance because the
turbine is independent of the compressor performance.
Without the turbine in the compressor flow path, a high

nozzle pressure ratio can be maintained with a lower
compressor pressure ratio because there are no turbine
losses.
Clearly, a compressor with a compression ratio of 5 to 9
yields the performance of a conventional 12 to 20
compressor.
Don Kissinger of Aerojet and Dwight Taylor of McDonnell
Aircraft Advanced Engineering have worked together to
November 2014
Page 172

establish the fuel-engine part of the range equation. The

range factor parameter is given with
V I sp
L
L
Qc q
D
D
[6.50]
Equation (6.50) is plotted against flight speed in the

following figure, which is a comparison of enginepropellant combinations.
November 2014
Page 173

Four ATR concepts were being considered:

1. Regenerative LH ATR. Not unlike N. Tanatsugus
ATREX concept. There is an air/Hydrogen in the inlet
upstream of the compressor. There is also an
air/Hydrogen in the flow-path upstream of the nozzle. The
recovered energy in the Hydrogen drives an expander
turbine and that Hydrogen burns in the combustor
upstream of the downstream heat exchanger.
2. ATR based on the original Aerojet concept of a rocket

combustion chamber upstream of a turbine that drives
the compressor. The compressed airflow passed around
the rocket/turbine and mixed with the turbine exhaust
upstream of the nozzle.
3. This is a Regenerative Methane ATR where the closed
cycle expander cycle used a heat transfer gas (Helium or
Hydrogen) to receive the residual heat and transfer it to
the Methane before entering the combustion chamber.
4. Represents a conventional rocket
analogous to (2.) using JP-4 as fuel.
based
ATR
The manager of the Aerojet group was Mike Hamel with

Don Kissinger and Dave Kohrs as propulsion engineers.
Looking at the figure on the page before, many engineers
who worked with conventional single fuel gas turbine
engines quickly formed an opinion as which propulsion
system was the best.
November 2014
Page 174

The JP-4/LOX ATR was only capable of Mach 4.5

operation because of the temperature limitation of JP-4
due to thermal decomposition and coke formation.
Considering Mach 4 operation, the VIsp parameter in
nautical miles is given for Mach 4 operation, the ATR
powerplant, Aerojet Tech Systems Data, in the figure
below.
Again, for the conventional single fuel gas turbine

propulsion engineer the propulsion system ranking was
obvious.
But, the missing term was the L/D ratio. A parameter not
essential in this early screening because it is essentially
invariant with fuel.
However, as we saw in the previous chapter, fuel density

November 2014
Page 175

does affect the L/D ratio.
Secondly, the thrust per unit airflow is not the same for
each propulsion system. The aircraft requires a minimum
thrust to operate. If the specific thrust (thrust per pound
per second of inlet airflow) is low, large inlets would be
required. Thus, if a low density fuel is combined with a
low specific thrust propulsion system, the aircraft
convergence process could diverge.
In summary, the historic ATRs required the vehicle to
carry LOX/fuel just as for a rocket. In effect, the ATR was a
rocket powered, moderate by-pass, air breathing engine.
The regenerative engine suffered from a lower specific
thrust because the gas entering the turbine was lower
compared to the historic ATRs.
H.D. Altis was Director of Advanced Engineering and Lead
Engineer for the early McDonnell Aircraft hydrogen fueled
hypersonic cruiser (see cover of the chapter).
November 2014
Page 176

With his suggestion, factor C was used as a screening

tool for the results from the CADE sizing tool.
C
Aeng
S plan
rJP4
r fuel
[6.51]
where Aeng is the capture area for the total number of

engines in the configuration.
This simple volume-related scaling parameter shows that

the Isp ranking does not explain sizing results.
November 2014
Page 177

The expected result was that the greater the magnitude of

C the greater the gross weight.
The following table summarizes the results.
An apparently 30% better Isp for the isolated engine

integrated into a 107% heavier air vehicle that could be
75% more costly.
At a value of C = 7.4, the regenerative hydrogen ATR
powered aircraft failed to show signs of converging at
over 500,000lb, so the effort was terminated.
The LOX/JP-4 ATR was next with a gross weight for 3,500
at 160,000lb.
Next was the LH/LOX conventional ATR at 93,000lb.
The final propulsion system with the smallest

performance margin led to the lowest gross weight at
November 2014
Page 178
59,000lb.
Clearly, propulsion alone or the flight vehicle alone is

necessary but not sufficient. Propulsion, fuel and airframe
MUST be sized as a system.
Recovery of Available Energy When Available

Since the discussion before introduced the subject of
regeneration, let us look at the hypersonic aircraft as an
energy flow system and not just thrust and drag.
The next figure compares a hypersonic aircraft with a
conventional gas turbine nacelle, i.e., inlet-compressorcombustor-turbine-nozzle integration.
The kinetic compression hypersonic propulsion system is
analogous to a conventional supersonic propulsion
system.
November 2014
Page 179

The key addition to a conventional kinetic compression

engine (ram-scramjet) is the recovery of the aerodynamic
heating energy normally rejected as thermal radiation
from the aircraft skin, or as in the case of the X-15 and
SR-71, absorbed into the airframe and stored fuel (at least
for the SR-71, the X-15 was a rocket).
The airframe becomes a thermal capacitor whose
temperature is proportional to the energy stored in the
airframe. The fuel becomes a thermal absorber that gets
pumped into the combustor. Hot fuel itself does not
contribute to thrust in a conventional gas turbine engine.
Thermal recovery as applied to cruising flight is an
adaptation of the acceleration Jones-Donaldson
derivation, see chapter Necessary Energy Accelerating
Aircraft.
In summary, applying the recovered thermal energy to the

range equation, this increases the range factor because
the energy conversion efficiency increases.
This derivation uses the approximation by D. Kchemann
for the 1960 state-of-the-art design L/D ratio. From the
correlations, an approximate value of is
max 0.46 M 0.126
[6.52]
Next, the range and weight ratio, with thermal recovery

follows:
November 2014
Page 180

We obtain for the range:
W final
Range -Range Factor ln

Winitial
L
Range Factor Qc
D
L W final
Range AB 0 Qc ln
D Winitial
[6.53a]
[6.53b]
[6.53c]
W final
Winitial
Range AB 0 1 A B Qc L ln
D
[6.53d]
We obtain for the weight ratio:
WR e
WR e
Range
Range Factor
Range
Q L
c
WR AB 0 e
WR AB 0 e
November 2014
[6.54a]
Page 181
[6.54b]
Range
Q L
c
[6.54c]
Range
Q L 1 A B
c
[6.54]d

Note that the fuel is not injected at any velocity. However,

if the fuel becomes a gas and it gets injected at a velocity
proportional to the square root of its temperature, then
the fuel momentum can contribute to thrust.
In the equations listed before, the terms A and B are

detailed in chapter Necessary Energy Accelerating
Aircraft. The terms are proportional to the aerodynamic
heating to the airframe on the fraction that can be
recovered within the fuel.
Although developed initially for airbreathing launchers, it
can be adapted to cruising vehicles.
In chapter Application of Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic (MHD)
Concepts to High Speed Propulsion on MHD, the Russian
AJAX system shows a 30% energy recovery in the Mach
10 to 12 range compared to the 15% at Mach 6.
The following figure shows tabular results for a cruising
aircraft with recovery of thermal energy normally
discarded as cooling energy.
Tajmar, 2003
November 2014
Page 182

Clearly, for a Mach 5.5 HSCT using Methane or Liquefied

Natural Gas (LNG) with a 600,000 lb gross weight and a
300,000 lb. Methane fuel load, thermal recovery can
reduce the fuel carried to 258,000 lb, a 42,000 lb reduction
in weight or almost 2/3 of the passenger payload.
Although further discussed in Mach 12 Research

Vehicle, the figure on the next page keys the important
factors for high speed cruise.
We have just seen that thermal energy recovery can
reduce fuel fraction from 15% to 30% when considering
the total system for a ram compression propulsion
system, which has a significant impact on the lift
November 2014
Page 183

determination.
Overall, high-speed flight yields both inertia forces and

propulsion forces that increase total cruise performance.
An Euler, CFD or whatever aerodynamic code you use, it

can only yield the bottom curve in this figure. The ramcompression propulsion system adds a CL prop increment
November 2014
Page 184

that adds 50% to the classical aerodynamic lift.
At Mach 12, the centrifugal force of the aircraft flying a

curved path in space reduces the weight, and therefore
reduced the lift required by another 20%.
Overall, at 8 cruise angle-of-attack, the equivalent lift
generated is 0.108 not 0.055.
November 2014
Page 185


Flight

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Flight

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AE 5367

High-Speed Aircraft and Space Access

Dr. Bernd Chudoba

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Since almost all of the air kinetic energy is converted to

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Nord 1500 Griffin

Ram Drag is not actually an aerodynamic drag but an

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

pressures at the engine face. At those pressures and inlet

2,000 psf dynamic pressure

If the flow were not slowed to subsonic speed, that static

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

the propulsion system energy conversion efficiency ( ).

Thus, it is necessary to define the Breguet Range

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

As indicated, the aerodynamic and propulsion efficiencies

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

where the loiter speed is given with

with the lift coefficient for best endurance.

Best endurance is a function of

The following figure gives the Brequet range factor (RF) in

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

The Breguet range equation energy balance is given with:

According to Kchemann's concept this means that the

variable pitch propeller,

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

The technical elements and terms engineers are able to

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

What is indicated with the text in the figure are those

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

In terms of contributions, Broadbent was the only analyst

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Swithenbank was doing combustion of hydrogen in a

Pike, Townsend, Anderson, et al were pioneers in wave

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Design Case Study: Nord-Aviation Griffon 02

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Design Case Study: Nord-Aviation Griffon 02

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Design Case Study: Nord-Aviation Griffon 02

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Energy for Cruising Flight

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab