C 14

872 PA RT 3 Inviscid, Compressible Flow
C H A P T E R 14 to Mach 36. So hypersonic aerodynamics has been

around for a relatively long time, but for all practical
purposes it is still a young, developing discipline.
Hypersonic aerodynamics is the subject of this
chapter. What is it about hypersonic flows that make
them any different from supersonic flows? Why is it
that they justify a separate chapter in this book? After
all, hypersonic flow is flow with velocities greater than
Figure 14.1 X-43 hypersonic test vehicle (NASA). the speed of sound, which is the definition of super-
sonic flow, except that hypersonic flows are moving
Elements of Hypersonic Flow TUFI/AETB

at velocities generally a lot larger than the speed of
sound. Indeed, an old rule of thumb defines hyper-
Carbon-Carbon sonic flow as flow at Mach 5 or greater. However,
Haynes Alloy there is nothing magic about Mach 5. If you were fly-
Tungsten ing at Mach 4.99, and you accelerate to Mach 5.01,
Almost everyone has their own definition of the term hypersonic. If we were to nothing new is going to happen—the flow will not
conduct something like a public opinion poll among those present, and asked change from green to red, and there will be no clap of
thunder. (In contrast, if you were flying at Mach 0.99
everyone to name a Mach number above which the flow of a gas should properly
and accelerated to Mach 1.01, the flow would “change
be described as hypersonic there would be a majority of answers round about 5 from green to red,” i.e., the physics of the flow would
or 6, but it would be quite possible for someone to advocate, and defend, change drastically as we have already seen, and there
numbers as small as 3, or as high as 12. would be a “clap of thunder,” the sudden occurrence
P. L. Roe, of shock waves.) So why is a distinction made be-
comment made in a lecture Figure 14.2 X-43 thermal protection system. tween hypersonic and supersonic flows? The answer
at the von Karman Institute, Belgium is that certain physical phenomena that are not so im-
January 1970 Hypersonic flight of other human-made vehicles portant at supersonic speeds become dominant at hy-
has been a reality since 1949, when a WAC Corporal personic speeds. These phenomena are described in
rocket, boosted to high altitudes on top of a captured Section 14.2, which basically constitutes a four-page
German V-2 rocket, powered itself back into the at- definition of hypersonic flow. Read on, and find out
mosphere at over 5000 mph at White Sands Proving for yourself what this is all about.
PREVIEW BOX Ground in New Mexico (see Reference 52). Since Hypersonic aerodynamics is state-of-the-art
then, a whole host of space vehicles, such as the space aerodynamics. It is exciting, and it is fun. This chapter
shuttle and the Apollo return module have returned to introduces you to some of the special aspects and anal-
Airbreathing hypersonic flight is held by many aerodynamic heating becomes a major problem, and Earth after entering and flying through the atmosphere yses of hypersonic flow. It is just a beginning for you,
(including this author) to be the last frontier of air- the vehicle must be fabricated from special high- at large hypersonic Mach numbers, from Mach 26 but I predict that it will be an enjoyable beginning.
vehicle design. Some progress has been made, but temperature materials. The X-43 thermal protection
much needs to be done. The practical design of hy- design is shown in Figure 14.2. The two successful
personic vehicles for sustained hypersonic flight in flights of the X-43 in 2004 made aerospace engineer-
the atmosphere will be a major challenge to the next ing history; for the first time a SCRAMjet engine oper-
generation of aerospace engineers. ated successfully for a sustained period in atmospheric 14.1 INTRODUCTION
Aeronautical history was made in March 2004 flight. After more than 40 years of research and tech-
when the X-43 Hyper-X test vehicle, shown in Fig- nical development, enough progress had been made to The history of aviation has always been driven by the philosophy of “faster
ure 14.1, achieved sustained flight for 11 s at Mach 6.9 allow a successful test of the design methodology. But and higher,” starting with the Wright brothers’ sea level flights at 35 mi/h in
powered by a supersonic combustion ramjet engine so much more needs to be done to achieve truly prac- 1903, and progressing exponentially to the manned space flight missions of the
(SCRAMjet). In November, another X-43 achieved tical devices and flight vehicles. That is where some 1960s and 1970s. The current altitude and speed records for manned flight are the
sustained flight at nearly Mach 10, making it the of you come into the picture; perhaps you will be the moon and 36,000 ft/s—more than 36 times the speed of sound—set by the Apollo
fastest airplane in history to date. At these speeds, ones to tackle this last frontier. lunar capsule in 1969. Although most of the flight of the Apollo took place in
space, outside the earth’s atmosphere, one of its most critical aspects was reentry
871
CH A P T ER 14 Elements of Hypersonic Flow 873 874 PA RT 3 Inviscid, Compressible Flow
into the atmosphere after completion of the lunar mission. The aerodynamic p p
phenomena associated with very high-speed flight, such as encountered during
atmospheric reentry, are classified as hypersonic aerodynamics—the subject of
this chapter. In addition to reentry vehicles, both manned and unmanned, there are
other hypersonic applications on the horizon, such as ramjet-powered hypersonic p p const
p
missiles now under consideration by the military and the concept of a hypersonic
transport, the basic technology of which is now being studied by NASA. There- x x
fore, although hypersonic aerodynamics is at one extreme end of the whole flight
spectrum (see Section 1.10), it is important enough to justify one small chapter Shock wav
e
M 1
in our presentation of the fundamentals of aerodynamics. M 1 p
This chapter is short; its purpose is simply to introduce some basic consid- p Mach wav
e
erations of hypersonic flow. Therefore, we have no need for a chapter road map Thick boundary layer
x x
or a summary at the end. Also, before progressing further, return to Chapter 1
and review the short discussion on hypersonic flow given in Section 1.10. For an (a) No viscous interaction (b) Viscous interaction
in-depth study of hypersonic flow, see the author’s book listed as Reference 52.
Figure 14.4 The viscous interaction on a flat plate at hypersonic speeds.
14.2 QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF a thickening of the boundary layer. In many cases, the boundary-layer thickness
HYPERSONIC FLOW is of the same magnitude as the shock-layer thickness, such as sketched in the
Consider a 15◦ half-angle wedge flying at M∞ = 36. From Figure 9.9, we see that insert at the top of Figure 14.3. Here, the shock layer is fully viscous, and the
the wave angle of the oblique shock is only 18◦ ; that is, the oblique shock wave shock-wave shape and surface pressure distribution are affected by such viscous
is very close to the surface of the body. This situation is sketched in Figure 14.3. effects. These phenomena are called viscous interaction phenomena—where the
Clearly, the shock layer between the shock wave and the body is very thin. Such viscous flow greatly affects the external inviscid flow, and, of course, the external
thin shock layers are one characteristic of hypersonic flow. A practical conse- inviscid flow affects the boundary layer. A graphic example of such viscous in-
quence of a thin shock layer is that a major interaction frequently occurs between teraction occurs on a flat plate at hypersonic speeds, as sketched in Figure 14.4.
the inviscid flow behind the shock and the viscous boundary layer on the surface. If the flow were completely inviscid, then we would have the case shown in Fig-
Indeed, hypersonic vehicles generally fly at high altitudes where the density, hence ure 14.4a, where a Mach wave trails downstream from the leading edge. Since
Reynolds number, is low, and therefore the boundary layers are thick. Moreover, there is no deflection of the flow, the pressure distribution over the surface of
at hypersonic speeds, the boundary-layer thickness on slender bodies is approxi- the plate is constant and equal to p∞ . In contrast, in real life there is a bound-
mately proportional to M∞ 2
; hence, the high Mach numbers further contribute to ary layer over the flat plate, and at hypersonic conditions this boundary layer
can be thick, as sketched in Figure 14.4b. The thick boundary layer deflects the
external, inviscid flow, creating a comparably strong, curved shock wave which
Shock wave
trails downstream from the leading edge. In turn, the surface pressure from the
Thin viscous shock layer leading edge is considerably higher than p∞ , and only approaches p∞ far down-
Body surface stream of the leading edge, as shown in Figure 14.4b. In addition to influencing
the aerodynamic force, such high pressures increase the aerodynamic heating
at the leading edge. Therefore, hypersonic viscous interaction can be important,
and this has been one of the major areas of modern hypersonic aerodynamic
research.
There is a second and frequently more dominant aspect of hypersonic flow,
18 namely, high temperatures in the shock layer, along with large aerodynamic heat-
M 36
15 ing of the vehicle. For example, consider a blunt body reentering the atmosphere
at Mach 36, as sketched in Figure 14.5. Let us calculate the temperature in the
Figure 14.3 For hypersonic flow, the shock layers are thin and shock layer immediately behind the normal portion of the bow shock wave. From
viscous. Appendix B, we find that the static temperature ratio across a normal shock wave
is responsible for the “communications blackout” experienced over portions of

the trajectory of a reentry vehicle.
One consequence of these high-temperature effects is that all our equations
and tables obtained in Chapters 7 to 13 that depended on a constant γ = 1.4 are no
longer valid. Indeed, the governing equations for the high-temperature, chemically
reacting shock layer in Figure 14.5 must be solved numerically, taking into account
the proper physics and chemistry of the gas itself. The analysis of aerodynamic
flows with such real physical effects is discussed in detail in Chapters 16 and 17
of Reference 21; such matters are beyond the scope of this book.
Associated with the high-temperature shock layers is a large amount of heat
transfer to the surface of a hypersonic vehicle. Indeed, for reentry velocities, aero-
dynamic heating dominates the design of the vehicle, as explained at the end of
Figure 14.5 High-temperature shock layer.
Section 1.1. (Recall that the third historical example discussed in Section 1.1 was
the evolution of the blunt-body concept to reduce aerodynamic heating; review
with M∞ = 36 is 252.9; this is denoted by Ts /T∞ in Figure 14.5. Moreover, at a this material before progressing further.) The usual mode of aerodynamic heating
standard altitude of 59 km, T∞ = 258 K. Hence, we obtain Ts = 65,248 K—an is the transfer of energy from the hot shock layer to the surface by means of thermal
incredibly high temperature, which is more than six times hotter than the surface conduction at the surface; that is, if ∂ T /∂n represents the temperature gradient in
of the sun! This is, in reality, an incorrect value, because we have used Appendix B the gas normal to the surface, then qc = −k(∂ T /∂n) is the heat transfer into the
which is good only for a calorically perfect gas with γ = 1.4. However, at high surface. Because ∂ T /∂n is a flow-field property generated by the flow of the gas
temperatures, the gas will become chemically reacting; γ will no longer equal over the body, qc is called convective heating. For reentry velocities associated
1.4 and will no longer be constant. Nevertheless, we get the impression from with ICBMs (about 28,000 ft/s), this is the only meaningful mode of heat transfer
this calculation that the temperature in the shock layer will be very high, albeit to the body. However, at higher velocities, the shock-layer temperature becomes
something less than 65,248 K. Indeed, if a proper calculation of Ts is made taking even hotter. From experience, we know that all bodies emit thermal radiation, and
into account the chemically reacting gas, we would find that Ts ≈ 11,000 K— from physics you know that blackbody radiation varies as T 4 ; hence, radiation
still a very high value. Clearly, high-temperature effects are very important in becomes a dominant mode of heat transfer at high temperatures. (For example, the
hypersonic flow. heat you feel by standing beside a fire in a fireplace is radiative heating from the
Let us examine these high-temperature effects in more detail. If we consider flames and the hot walls.) When the shock layer reaches temperatures on the order
air at p = 1 atm and T = 288 K (standard sea level), the chemical composition of 11,000 K, as for the case given in Figure 14.5, thermal radiation from the hot
is essentially 20 percent O2 and 80 percent N2 by volume. The temperature is too gas becomes a substantial portion of the total heat transfer to the body surface.
low for any significant chemical reaction to take place. However, if we were to Denoting radiative heating by qr , we can express the total aerodynamic heating q
increase T to 2000 K, we would observe that the O2 begins to dissociate; that is, as the sum of convective and radiative heating; q = qc + qr . For Apollo reentry,
O2 → 2O 2000 K < T < 4000 K qr /q ≈ 0.3, and hence radiative heating was an important consideration in the
design of the Apollo heat shield. For the entry of a space probe into the atmosphere
If the temperature were increased to 4000 K, most of the O2 would be dissociated, of Jupiter, the velocities will be so high and the shock-layer temperatures so
and N2 dissociation would commence: large that the convective heating is negligible, and in this case q ≈ qr . For such a
vehicle, radiative heating becomes the dominant aspect in its design. Figure 14.6
N2 → 2N 4000 K < T < 9000 K
illustrates the relative importance of qc and qr for a typical manned reentry vehicle
If the temperature were increased to 9000 K, most of the N2 would be dissociated, in the earth’s atmosphere; note how rapidly qr dominates the aerodynamic heating
and ionization would commence: of the body as velocities increase above 36,000 ft/s. The details of shock-layer
N → N+ + e− radiative heating are interesting and important; however, they are beyond the
T > 9000 K scope of this book. For a thorough survey of the engineering aspects of shock-
O → O+ + e− layer radiative heat transfer, see Reference 34.
Hence, returning to Figure 14.5, the shock layer in the nose region of the body is In summary, the aspects of thin shock-layer viscous interaction and high-
a partially ionized plasma, consisting of the atoms N and O, the ions N+ and O+ , temperature, chemically reacting and radiative effects distinguish hypersonic flow
and electrons, e− . Indeed, the presence of these free electrons in the shock layer from the more moderate supersonic regime. Hypersonic flow has been the subject
ck
Sho
Body
Figure 14.7 Streamlines in a hypersonic flow.
Figure 14.6 Convective and radiative heating rates of a

blunt reentry vehicle as a function of flight velocity.
(Source: Anderson, J. D., Jr.: “An Engineering Survey of
Radiating Shock Layers,” AIAA J., vol. 7, no. 9,
September 1969, pp. 1665–1675). Figure 14.8 Schematic for newtonian impact theory.
of several complete books; see, for example, References 35 to 39. In particular, Figure 14.8. The component of the freestream velocity normal to the surface is
see Reference 52 for a modern textbook on the subject. V∞ sin θ. If the area of the surface is A, the mass flow incident on the surface is
ρ∞ (A sin θ )V∞ . Hence, the time rate of change of momentum is
14.3 NEWTONIAN THEORY Mass flow × change in normal component of velocity
Return to Figure 14.3; note how close the shock wave lies to the body surface. or (ρ∞ V∞ A sin θ)(V∞ sin θ) = ρ∞ V∞
2
A sin2 θ
This figure is redrawn in Figure 14.7 with the streamlines added to the sketch. In turn, from Newton’s second law, the force on the surface is
When viewed from afar, the straight, horizontal streamlines in the freestream
appear to almost impact the body, and then move tangentially along the body. N = ρ∞ V∞
2
A sin2 θ (14.1)
Return to Figure 1.6, which illustrates Isaac Newton’s model for fluid flow, and This force acts along the same line as the time rate of change of momentum (i.e.,
compare it with the hypersonic flow field shown in Figure 14.7; they have certain normal to the surface), as sketched in Figure 14.8. From Equation (14.1), the
distinct similarities. (Also, review the discussion surrounding Figure 1.6 before normal force per unit area is
progressing further.) Indeed, the thin shock layers around hypersonic bodies are
the closest example in fluid mechanics to Newton’s model. Therefore, we might N
= ρ∞ V∞ 2
sin2 θ (14.2)
expect that results based on Newton’s model would have some applicability in A
hypersonic flows. This is indeed the case; newtonian theory is used frequently Let us now interpret the physical meaning of the normal force per unit area
to estimate the pressure distribution over the surface of a hypersonic body. The in Equation (14.2), N /A, in terms of our modern knowledge of aerodynamics.
purpose of this section is to derive the famous newtonian sine-squared law first Newton’s model assumes a stream of individual particles all moving in straight,
mentioned in Section 1.1 and to show how it is applied to hypersonic flows. parallel paths toward the surface; that is, the particles have a completely directed,
Consider a surface inclined at the angle θ to the freestream, as sketched in rectilinear motion. There is no random motion of the particles—it is simply a
Figure 14.8. According to the newtonian model, the flow consists of a large number stream of particles such as pellets from a shotgun. In terms of our modern concepts,
of individual particles which impact the surface and then move tangentially to we know that a moving gas has molecular motion that is a composite of random
the surface. During collision with the surface, the particles lose their component motion of the molecules as well as a directed motion. Moreover, we know that the
of momentum normal to the surface, but the tangential component is preserved. freestream static pressure p∞ is simply a measure of the purely random motion
The time rate of change of the normal component of momentum equals the force of the molecules. Therefore, when the purely directed motion of the particles in
exerted on the surface by the particle impacts. To quantify this model, examine Newton’s model results in the normal force per unit area, N /A in Equation (14.2),
Figure 14.10 Hypersonic flow across a

normal shock wave.
Figure 14.9 Definition of angles for newtonian theory.
sketched in Figure 14.10. For this flow, Equation (8.6) gives
this normal force per unit area must be construed as the pressure difference above
p∞ , namely, p − p∞ on the surface. Hence, Equation (14.2) becomes p∞ + ρ∞ V∞
2
= p2 + ρ2 V22 (14.6)
p − p∞ = ρ∞ V∞
2
sin2 θ (14.3) Recall that across a normal shock wave the flow velocity decreases, V2 < V∞ ;
indeed, the flow behind the normal shock is subsonic. This change becomes
Equation (14.3) can be written in terms of the pressure coefficient C p = ( p− p∞ )/ more severe as M∞ increases. Hence, at hypersonic speeds, we can assume that
1
ρ V 2 , as follows
2 ∞ ∞ (ρ∞ V∞2
) (ρ2 V22 ), and we can neglect the latter term in Equation (14.6). As
p − p∞ a result, Equation (14.6) becomes, at hypersonic speeds in the limiting case as
= 2 sin2 θ M∞ → ∞,
1
ρ V2
2 ∞ ∞
p2 − p∞ = ρ∞ V∞
2
or C p = 2 sin2 θ (14.4) p2 − p∞
or Cp = =2
Equation (14.4) is Newton’s sine-squared law; it states that the pressure coefficient
1
ρ V2
2 ∞ ∞
is proportional to the sine square of the angle between a tangent to the surface thus confirming the newtonian results from Equation (14.4).
and the direction of the freestream. This angle θ is illustrated in Figure 14.9. As stated above, the result that C p = 2 at a stagnation point is a limiting
Frequently, the results of newtonian theory are expressed in terms of the angle value as M∞ → ∞. For large but finite Mach numbers, the value of C p at a
between a normal to the surface and the freestream direction, denoted by φ as stagnation point is less than 2. Return again to the blunt body shown in Figure 14.9.
shown in Figure 14.9. In terms of φ, Equation (14.4) becomes Considering the distribution of C p as a function of distance s along the surface,
the largest value of C p will occur at the stagnation point. Denote the stagnation
C p = 2 cos2 φ (14.5)
point value of C p by C p,max , as shown in Figure 14.9. C p,max for a given M∞ can
which is an equally valid expression of newtonian theory. be readily calculated from normal shock-wave theory. [If γ = 1.4, then C p,max
Consider the blunt body sketched in Figure 14.9. Clearly, the maximum can be obtained from p0,2 / p1 = p0,2 / p∞ , tabulated in Appendix B. Recall from
pressure, hence the maximum value of C p , occurs at the stagnation point, where Equation (11.22) that C p,max = (2/γ M∞ 2
)( p0,2 / p∞ − 1).] Downstream of the
θ = π/2 and φ = 0. Equation (14.4) predicts C p = 2 at the stagnation point. stagnation point, C p can be assumed to follow the sine-squared variation predicted
Contrast this hypersonic result with the result obtained for incompressible flow by newtonian theory; that is,
theory in Chapter 3, where C p = 1 at a stagnation point. Indeed, the stagnation
pressure coefficient increases continuously from 1.0 at M∞ = 0 to 1.28 at M∞ = C p = C p,max sin2 θ (14.7)
1.0 to 1.86 for γ = 1.4 as M∞ → ∞. (Prove this to yourself.)
The result that the maximum pressure coefficient approaches 2 at M∞ → ∞ Equation (14.7) is called the modified newtonian law. For the calculation of the
can be obtained independently from the one-dimensional momentum equation, C p distribution around blunt bodies, Equation (14.7) is more accurate than Equa-
namely, Equation (8.6). Consider a normal shock wave at hypersonic speeds, as tion (14.4).
2. The drag coefficient is given by the drag polar, as expressed in

Equation (5.63), repeated below:
C L2
C D = cd + (5.63)
πeAR
Since C L is proportional to α, then C D varies as the square of α.
Question: At supersonic speeds, how do C L and C D for a wing vary with α?
Answer: In Chapter 12, we demonstrated for an airfoil at supersonic speeds
that:
Figure 14.11 Surface pressure distribution, paraboloid,

1. Lift coefficient varies linearly with α, as seen from Equation (12.23),
M∞ = 4. Comparison of modified newtonian theory repeated below:
and time-dependent finite-difference calculations. 4α
cl = 2 −1
(12.23)
M∞
Return to Figure 13.14, which gives the numerical results for the pressure 2. Drag coefficient varies as the square of α, as seen from Equation (12.24) for
distributions around a blunt, parabolic cylinder at M∞ = 4 and 8. The open the flat plate, repeated below:
symbols in this figure represent the results of modified newtonian theory, namely, 4α 2
Equation (14.7). For this two-dimensional body, modified newtonian theory is cd = 2 −1
(12.24)
reasonably accurate only in the nose region, although the comparison improves M∞
at the higher Mach numbers. It is generally true that newtonian theory is more The characteristics of a finite wing at supersonic speeds follow essentially the
accurate at larger values of both M∞ and θ . The case for an axisymmetric body, a same functional variation with the angle of attack, namely, C L is proportional to
paraboloid at M∞ = 4, is given in Figure 14.11. Here, although M∞ is relatively α and C D is proportional to α 2 .
low, the agreement between the time-dependent numerical solution (see Chap- Question: At hypersonic speeds, how do C L and C D for a wing vary with
ter 13) and newtonian theory is much better. It is generally true that newtonian α? We have shown that C L is proportional to α for both subsonic and supersonic
theory works better for three-dimensional bodies. In general, the modified newto- speeds—does the same proportionality hold for hypersonic speeds? We have
nian law, Equation (14.7), is sufficiently accurate that it is used very frequently in shown that C D is proportional to α 2 for both subsonic and supersonic speeds—
the preliminary design of hypersonic vehicles. Indeed, extensive computer codes does the same proportionality hold for hypersonic speeds? The purpose of the
have been developed to apply Equation (14.7) to three-dimensional hypersonic present section is to address these questions.
bodies of general shape. Therefore, we can be thankful to Isaac Newton for sup- In an approximate fashion, the lift and drag characteristics of a wing in hy-
plying us with a law which holds reasonably well at hypersonic speeds, although personic flow can be modeled by a flat plate at an angle of attack, as sketched in
such an application most likely never crossed his mind. Nevertheless, it is fitting Figure 14.12. The exact flow field over the flat plate involves a series of expansion
that three centuries later, Newton’s fluid mechanics has finally found a reasonable
application.
14.4 THE LIFT AND DRAG OF WINGS AT

HYPERSONIC SPEEDS: NEWTONIAN RESULTS
FOR A FLAT PLATE AT ANGLE OF ATTACK
Question: At subsonic speeds, how do the lift coefficient C L and drag coefficient
C D for a wing vary with angle of attack α?
Answer: As shown in Chapter 5, we know that:
1. The lift coefficient varies linearly with angle of attack, at least up to the
stall; see, for example, Figure 5.24. Figure 14.12 Wave system on a flat plate in hypersonic flow.
where x is the distance along the chord from the leading edge. (Please note: In
this section, we treat a flat plate as an airfoil section; hence, we will use lowercase
letters to denote the force coefficients, as first described in Chapter 1.) Substituting
Equations (14.8) and (14.9) into (14.10), we obtain
1
cn = (2 sin2 α)c
c
or = 2 sin2 α (14.11)
From the geometry of Figure 14.13, we see that the lift and drag coefficients,
defined as cl = L/q∞ S and cd = D/q∞ S, respectively, where S = (c)(l), are
given by
cl = cn cos α (14.12)
Figure 14.13 Flat plate at angle of attack. Illustration of
aerodynamic forces. and cd = cn sin α (14.13)
Substituting Equation (14.11) into Equations (14.12) and (14.13), we obtain
and shock waves as shown in Figure 14.12; the exact lift- and wave-drag coef- cl = 2 sin2 α cos α (14.14)
ficients can be obtained from the shock-expansion method as described in Sec-
tion 9.7. However, for hypersonic speeds, the lift- and wave-drag coefficients cd = 2 sin3 α (14.15)
can be further approximated by the use of newtonian theory, as described in this Finally, from the geometry of Figure 14.13, the lift-to-drag ratio is given by
equation.
Consider Figure 14.13. Here, a two-dimensional flat plate with chord length c L
= cot α (14.16)
is at an angle of attack α to the freestream. Since we are not including friction, D
and because surface pressure always acts normal to the surface, the resultant [Note: Equation (14.16) is a general result for inviscid supersonic or hypersonic
aerodynamic force is perpendicular to the plate; that is, in this case, the normal flow over a flat plate. For such flows, the resultant aerodynamic force is the nor-
force N is the resultant aerodynamic force. (For an infinitely thin flat plate, this mal force N . From the geometry shown in Figure 14.13, the resultant aerodynamic
is a general result that is not limited to newtonian theory, or even to hypersonic force makes the angle α with respect to lift, and clearly, from the right triangle
flow.) In turn, N is resolved into lift and drag, denoted by L and D, respectively, between L, D, and N , we have L/D = cot α. Hence, Equation (14.16) is not
as shown in Figure 14.13. According to newtonian theory, the pressure coefficient limited to newtonian theory.]
on the lower surface is The aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate based on newtonian theory
are shown in Figure 14.14. Although an infinitely thin flat plate, by itself, is not
C p,l = 2 sin2 α (14.8)
a practical aerodynamic configuration, its aerodynamic behavior at hypersonic
The upper surface of the flat plate shown in Figure 14.13, in the spirit of newtonian speeds is consistent with some of the basic characteristics of other hypersonic
theory, receives no direct “impact” of the freestream particles; the upper surface shapes. For example, consider the variation of cl shown in Figure 14.14. First,
is said to be in the “shadow” of the flow. Hence, consistent with the basic model note that, at a small angle of attack, say, in the range of α from 0 to 15◦ , cl varies
of newtonian flow, only freestream pressure acts on the upper surface, and we in a nonlinear fashion; that is, the slope of the lift curve is not constant. This is
have in direct contrast to the subsonic case we studied in Chapters 4 and 5, where the
lift coefficient for an airfoil or a finite wing was shown to vary linearly with α at
C p,u = 0 (14.9) small angles of attack, up to the stalling angle. This is also in contrast with the
results from linearized supersonic theory as itemized in Section 12.3, leading to
Returning to the discussion of aerodynamic force coefficients in Section 1.5, Equation (12.23) where a linear variation of cl with α for a flat plate is indicated.
we note that the normal force coefficient is given by Equation (1.15). Neglecting However, the nonlinear lift curve shown in Figure 14.14 is totally consistent with
friction, this becomes the results discussed in Section 11.3, where hypersonic flow was shown to be

1 c governed by the nonlinear velocity potential equation, not by the linear equation
cn = (C p,l − C p,u ) d x (14.10) expressed by Equation (11.18). In that section, we noted that both transonic and
c 0
component of the aerodynamic force, namely, the lift, is given by
L = N cos α (14.17)
◦
Hence, as α increases to 90 , although N continues to increase monotonically, the
value of L reaches a maximum value around α = 55◦ , and then begins to decrease
at higher α due to the effect of the cosine variation shown in Equation (14.17)—
strictly a geometric effect. In other words, in Figure 14.13, although N is increas-
ing with α, it eventually becomes inclined enough relative to the vertical that its
vertical component (lift) begins to decrease gradually. It is interesting to note that
a large number of practical hypersonic configurations achieve a maximum C L at
an angle of attack in the neighborhood of that shown in Figure 14.14, namely,
around 55◦ .
The maximum lift coefficient for a hypersonic flat plate, and the angle at
which it occurs, is easily quantified using newtonian theory. Differentiating Equa-
tion (14.14) with respect to α, and setting the derivative equal to zero (for the
condition of maximum cl ), we have
dcl
= (2 sin2 2)(− sin α) + 4 cos2 α sin α = 0
dα
or sin2 α = 2 cos2 α = 2(1 − sin2 α)
or sin2 α = 2
3
Hence, α = 54.7◦
Figure 14.14 Aerodynamic properties of a flat plate based on This is the angle of attack at which cl is a maximum. The maximum value of cl
newtonian theory. is obtained by substituting the above result for α into Equation (14.14):
cl,max = 2 sin2 (54.7◦ ) cos(54.7◦ ) = 0.77

hypersonic flow cannot be described by a linear theory—both these flows are
inherently nonlinear regimes, even for low angles of attack. Once again, the flat- Note, although cl increases over a wide latitude in the angle of attack (cl increases
plate lift curve shown in Figure 14.14 certainly demonstrates the nonlinearity of in the range from α = 0 to α = 54.7◦ ), its rate of increase is small (that is, the
hypersonic flow. effective lift slope is small). In turn, the resulting value for the maximum lift
Also, note from the lift curve in Figure 14.14 that cl first increases as α in- coefficient is relatively small—at least in comparison to the much higher cl,max
creases, reaches a maximum value at an angle of attack of about 55◦ (54.7◦ to be values associated with low-speed flows (see Figures 4.25 and 4.28). Returning to
exact), and then decreases, reaching zero at α = 90◦ . However, the attainment Figure 14.14, we now note the precise values associated with the peak of the lift
of cl,max (point A) in Figure 14.14 is not due to any viscous, separated flow phe- curve (point A), namely, the peak value of cl is 0.77, and it occurs at an angle of
nomenon analogous to that which occurs in subsonic flow. Rather, in Figure 14.14, attack of 54.7◦ .
the attainment of a maximum cl is purely a geometric effect. To understand this Examining the variation of drag coefficient cd in Figure 14.14, we note that it
better, return to Figure 14.13. Note that, as α increases, C p continues to increase monotonically increases from zero at α = 0 to a maximum of 2 at α = 90◦ . The
via the newtonian expression newtonian result for drag is essentially wave drag at hypersonic speeds because
C p = 2 sin2 α we are dealing with an inviscid flow, hence no friction drag. The variation of cd
with α for the low angle of attack in Figure 14.14 is essentially a cubic variation, in
That is, C p reaches a maximum value at α = 90◦ . In turn, the normal force N contrast to the result from linearized supersonic flow, namely, Equation (12.24),
shown in Figure 14.13 continues to increase as α increases, also reaching a max- which shows that cd varies as the square angle of attack. The hypersonic re-
imum value at α = 90◦ . However, recall from Equation (14.12) that the vertical sult that cd varies as α 3 is easily obtained from Equation (14.15), which for

small α becomes L cl
or = = 0.67/(cd,0 )1/3 (14.24)
cd = 2α 3 (14.18) D max cd max
Equations (14.23) and (14.24) are important results. They clearly state that the
The variation of the lift-to-drag ratio as predicted by newtonian theory is also coordinates of the maximum L/D point in Figure 14.14, when friction is included
shown in Figure 14.14. The solid curve is the pure newtonian result; it shows that (point B in Figure 14.14), are strictly a function of cd,0 . In particular, note the
L/D is infinitely large at α = 0 and monotonically decreases to zero at α = 90◦ . expected trend that (L/D)max decreases as cd,0 increases—the higher the friction
The infinite value of L/D at α = 0 is purely fictional—it is due to the neglect of drag, the lower is L/D. Also, the angle of attack at which maximum L/D occurs
skin friction. When skin friction is added to the picture, denoted by the dashed increases as cd,0 increases. There is yet another interesting aerodynamic condition
curve in Figure 14.14, L/D reaches a maximum value at a small angle of attack that holds at (L/D)max , derived as follows. Substituting Equation (14.23) into
(point B in Figure 14.14) and is equal to zero at α = 0. (At α = 0, no lift is (14.21), we have
produced, but there is a finite drag due to friction; hence, L/D = 0 at α = 0.)
cd = 2cd,0 + cd,0 = 3cd,0 (14.25)
Let us examine the conditions associated with (L/D)max more closely. The
value of (L/D)max and the angle of attack at which it occurs (i.e., the coordinates Since the total drag coefficient is the sum of the wave-drag coefficient cd,w and
of point B in Figure 14.14) are strictly a function of the zero-lift drag coefficient, the friction-drag coefficient cd,0 we can write
denoted by cd,0 . The zero-lift drag coefficient is simply due to the integrated
effect of skin friction over the plate surface at zero angle of attack. At small cd = cd,w + cd,0 (14.26)
angles of attack, the skin friction exerted on the plate should be essentially that However, at the point of maximum L/D (point B in Figure 14.14), we know from
at zero angle of attack; hence, we can write the total drag coefficient [referring to Equation (14.25) that cd = 3cd,0 . Substituting this result into Equation (14.26),
Equation (14.15)] as we obtain
cd = 2 sin3 α + cd,0 (14.19) 3cd,0 = cd,w + cd,0
Furthermore, when α is small, we can write Equations (14.14) and (14.19) as or cd,w = 2cd,0 (14.27)
cl = 2α 2
(14.20) This clearly shows that, for the hypersonic flat plate using newtonian theory, at the
and cd = 2α 3 + cd,0 (14.21) flight condition associated with maximum lift-to-drag ratio, wave drag is twice
the friction drag.
Dividing Equation (14.20) by (14.21), we have This brings to an end our short discussion of the lift and drag of wings at
hypersonic speeds as modeled by the newtonian flat-plate problem. The quan-
cl 2α 2
= (14.22) titative and qualitative results presented here are reasonable representations of
cd 2α 3 + cd,0 the hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics of a number of practical hypersonic
The conditions associated with maximum lift-to-drag ratio can be found by dif- vehicles; the flat-plate problem is simply a straightforward way of demonstrating
ferentiating Equation (14.22) and setting the result equal to zero: these characteristics.
d(cl /cd ) (2α 3 + cd,0 )4α − 2α 2 (6α 2 ) 14.4.1 Accuracy Considerations
= =0
dα (2α 3 + cd,0 )
How accurate is newtonian theory in the prediction of pressure distributions over
or 8α 4 + 4αcd,0 − 12α 4 = 0 hypersonic bodies? The comparison shown in Figure 14.11 indicates that Equa-
4α 3 = 4cd,0 tion (14.7) leads to a reasonably accurate pressure distribution over the surface
of a blunt body. Indeed, for “back-of-the-envelope” estimates of the pressure dis-
Hence, α = (cd,0 )1/3 (14.23) tributions over blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds, modified newtonian is quite
satisfactory. However, what about relatively thin bodies at small angles of attack?
Substituting Equation (14.23) into Equation (14.21), we obtain We can provide an answer by using the newtonian flat-plate relations derived in
the present section, and compare these results with exact shock-expansion theory
cl 2(cd,0 )2/3 2/3 (Section 9.7), for flat plates at small angles of attack. This is the purpose of the
= =
cd max 2cd,0 + cd,0 (cd,0 )1/3 following worked example.
EXAMPLE 14.1 From Equation (1.19),
Consider an infinitely thin flat plate at an angle of attack of 15◦

in a Mach 8 flow. Calculate
cd = cn sin α = 0.2104 sin 15◦ = 0.0545
the pressure coefficients on the top and bottom surface, the lift and drag coefficients, and
the lift-to-drag ratio using (a) exact shock-expansion theory, and (b) newtonian theory. L c 0.2032
Compare the results. Hence, = = = 3.73
D cd 0.0545
■ Solution
(b) From newtonian theory, the pressure coefficient is given by Equation (14.4), where
(a) Using the diagram in Figure 9.35 showing a flat plate at angle of attack, and following θ ≡ α. This is the pressure coefficient on the lower surface, hence
the shock-expansion technique given in Example 9.11, we have for the upper surface, for
M1 = 8 and ν1 = 95.62◦ ,
C p3 = 2 sin2 α = 2 sin2 15◦ = 0.134
ν2 = ν1 + θ = 95.62 + 15 = 110.62◦
From Equation (14.9), we have for the upper surface
From Appendix C, interpolating between entries,
M2 = 14.32 C p2 = 0
From Appendix A, for M1 = 8, p01 / p1 = 0.9763 × 104 , and for M2 = 14.32, p02 / p2 = Hence, c = (C p3 − C p2 ) cos α = 0.134 cos 15◦ = 0.1294
0.4808 × 106 . Since p01 = p02 ,

p2 p0 p 02 0.9763 × 104 and cd = (C p3 − C p2 ) sin α = 0.134 sin 15◦ = 0.03468
= 1 = = 0.0203
p1 p1 p2 0.4808 × 106
L c 0.1294
The pressure coefficient is given by Equation (11.22), and the freestream static pressure and = = = 3.73
D cd 0.3468
in Figure 9.28 is denoted by p1 . Hence

2 p2 2
C p2 = −1 = (0.0203 − 1) = −0.0219
γ M12 p1 (1.4)(8)2 Discussion. From the above worked example, we see that newtonian theory
underpredicts the pressure coefficient on the bottom surface by 29 percent, and
To obtain the pressure coefficient on the bottom surface from the oblique shock theory,
of course predicts a value of zero for the pressure coefficient on the upper surface
we have from the θ -β-M for M1 = 8 and θ = 15◦ , β = 21◦ :
in comparison to −0.0219 from exact theory—an error of 100 percent. Also,
Mn,1 = M1 sin β = 8 sin 21◦ = 2.87 newtonian theory underpredicts c and cd by 36.6 percent. However, the value of
L/D from newtonian theory is exactly correct. This is no surprise, for two reasons.
Interpolating from Appendix B, for Mn,1 = 2.87, p3 / p1 = 9.443. Hence the pressure First, the newtonian values of c and cd are both underpredicted by the same
coefficient on the bottom surface is amount, hence their ratio is not affected. Second, the value of L/D for supersonic

2 p3 2 or hypersonic inviscid flow over a flat plate, no matter what theory is used to obtain
C p3 = −1 = (9.443 − 1) = 0.1885
γ M12 p2 (1.4)(8)2 the pressures on the top and bottom surfaces, is simply a matter of geometry.
Because the pressure acts normal to the surface, the resultant aerodynamic force
The lift coefficient can be obtained from the pressure coefficients via Equations (1.15), is perpendicular to the plate (i.e., the resultant force is the normal force N ).
(1.16), and (1.18). Examining Figure 1.16, we see that when this is the case, the vectors R and N are
c
1 the same vectors, and L/D is geometrically given by
cn = (C p, − C p,u ) d x = C p3 − C p2 = 0.1885 − (−0.0219) = 0.2104
c 0 L
The axial force on the plate is zero, because the pressure acts only perpendicular to the = cot α
D
plate. On a formal basis, dy/d x in Equation (1.16) is zero for a flat plate. Hence, from
For the above worked example, where α = 15◦ , we have
Equation (1.18),
L
c = cn cos α = 0.2104 cos 15◦ = 0.2032 = cot 15◦ = 3.73
D
which agrees with the above calculations where c and cd were first obtained, and 14.5 HYPERSONIC SHOCK-WAVE RELATIONS AND
L/D is found from the ratio, L/D = c /cd . So, Equation (14.16), derived in our ANOTHER LOOK AT NEWTONIAN THEORY
discussion of newtonian theory applied to a flat plate, is not unique to newtonian
theory; it is a general result when the resultant aerodynamic force is perpendicular The basic oblique shock relations are derived and discussed in Chapter 9. These are
to the plate. exact shock relations and hold for all Mach numbers greater than unity, supersonic
We induce from Example 14.1 the general fact that the newtonian sine- or hypersonic (assuming a calorically perfect gas). However, some interesting
squared law, Equation (14.4), does not accurately predict the hypersonic pressure approximate and simplified forms of these shock relations are obtained in the
distribution on the surface of two-dimensional bodies with local tangent lines that limit of a high Mach number. These limiting forms are called the hypersonic
are at small or moderate angles to the flow, such as the bi-convex airfoil shape shock relations; they are obtained below.
shown in Figure 12.3. On the other hand, it generally turns out that the newtonian Consider the flow through a straight oblique shock wave. (See, e.g., Fig-
prediction of the lift-to-drag ratio for slender shapes at small to moderate angles ure 9.2.) Upstream and downstream conditions are denoted by subscripts 1 and
of attack is reasonably accurate. These statements apply to a gas with the ratio of 2, respectively. For a calorically perfect gas, the classical results for changes
specific heats substantially greater than one, such as the case of air with γ = 1.4 across the shock are given in Chapter 9. To begin with, the exact oblique shock
treated in Example 14.1. In the next section, we will see that newtonian theory relation for pressure ratio across the wave is given by Equation (9.16). Since
becomes more accurate as M∞ → ∞ and γ → 1. For more information on Mn,1 = M1 sin β, this equation becomes
the accuracy of newtonian theory applied to two-dimensional slender shapes, see p2 2γ 2 2
Reference 73 which is a study of this specific matter. Exact: =1+ M sin β − 1 (14.28)
p1 γ +1 1
Finally, we note that newtonian theory does a better job of predicting the
pressure on axisymmetric slender bodies, such as the 15◦ half-angle cone shown where β is the wave angle. In the limit as M1 goes to infinity, the term M12 sin2 β
in Figure 14.15. 1, and hence Equation (14.28) becomes
p2 2γ
as M1 → ∞: = M 2 sin2 β (14.29)
p1 γ +1 1
In a similar vein, the density and temperature ratios are given by Equations (9.15)
and (9.17), respectively. These can be written as follows:
ρ2 (γ + 1)M12 sin2 β
Exact: = (14.30)
ρ1 (γ − 1)M12 sin2 β + 2
as M1 → ∞: ρ2 γ +1
= (14.31)
ρ1 γ −1
T2 ( p2 / p1 )
= (from the equation of state: p = ρ RT )
T1 (ρ2 /ρ1 )
as M1 → ∞: T2 2γ (γ − 1) 2 2
= M sin β (14.32)
T1 (γ + 1)2 1
The relationship among Mach number M1 , shock angle β, and deflection angle θ
is expressed by the so-called θ -β-M relation given by Equation (9.23), repeated
below:
Figure 14.15 Comparison between newtonian and exact results for

M12 sin2 β − 1
the pressure coefficient on a sharp wedge and a sharp cone. Also, an Exact: tan θ = 2 cot β (9.23)
illustration of Mach number independence at high Mach numbers. M1 (γ + cos 2β) + 2
2
This relation is plotted in Figure 9.9, which is a standard plot of the wave angle In the hypersonic limit,
versus the deflection angle, with the Mach number as a parameter. Returning
as M1 → ∞: Cp =
4
sin2 β
to Figure 9.9, we note that, in the hypersonic limit, where θ is small, β is also (14.39)
γ +1
small. Hence, in this limit, we can insert the usual small-angle approximation into
Equation (9.23): Pause for a moment, and review our results. We have obtained limiting forms
sin β ≈ β of the oblique shock equations, valid for the case when the upstream Mach number
cos 2β ≈ 1 becomes very large. These limiting forms, called the hypersonic shock-wave rela-
tions, are given by Equations (14.29), (14.31), and (14.32), which yield the pres-
tan θ ≈ sin θ ≈ θ
sure ratio, density ratio, and temperature ratio across the shock when M1 → ∞.
resulting in Furthermore, in the limit of both M1 → ∞ and small θ (such as the hypersonic

2 M12 β 2 −1 flow over a slender airfoil shape), the limiting relation for the wave angle as a
θ= (14.33) function of the deflection angle is given by Equation (14.35). Finally, the form of
β M12 (γ + 1) + 2
the pressure coefficient behind an oblique shock is given in the limit of hypersonic
Applying the high Mach number limit to Equation (14.33), we have Mach numbers by Equation (14.39). Note that the limiting forms of the equations

2 M12 β 2 are always simpler than their corresponding exact counterparts.
θ= (14.34) In terms of actual quantitative results, it is always recommended that the exact
β M12 (γ + 1)
oblique shock equations be used, even for hypersonic flow. This is particularly
In Equation (14.34), M1 cancels, and we finally obtain in both the small-angle convenient because the exact results are tabulated in Appendix B. The value
and hypersonic limits, of the relations obtained in the hypersonic limit (as described above) is more
for theoretical analysis rather than for the calculation of actual numbers. For
as M1 → ∞ and θ, hence β is small: β γ +1
= (14.35) example, in this section, we use the hypersonic shock relations to shed additional
θ 2 understanding of the significance of newtonian theory. In the next section, we
will examine the same hypersonic shock relations to demonstrate the principle of
Note that, for γ = 1.4,
Mach number independence.
β = 1.2θ (14.36) Newtonian theory was discussed at length in Sections 14.3 and 14.4. For our
purposes here, temporarily discard any thoughts of newtonian theory, and simply
It is interesting to observe that, in the hypersonic limit for a slender wedge, the recall the exact oblique shock relation for C p as given by Equation (14.38),
wave angle is only 20 percent larger than the wedge angle—a graphic demon- repeated below (with freestream conditions now denoted by a subscript ∞ rather
stration of a thin shock layer in hypersonic flow. than a subscript 1, as used earlier):
In aerodynamics, pressure distributions are usually quoted in terms of the
4 1
nondimensional pressure coefficient C p , rather than the pressure itself. The pres- Cp = sin2 β − 2 (14.38)
sure coefficient is defined as γ +1 M∞
p2 − p1 Equation (14.39) gave the limiting value of C p as M∞ → ∞, repeated below:
Cp = (14.37)
q1 4
as M∞ → ∞: Cp → sin2 β (14.39)
where p1 and q1 are the upstream (freestream) static pressure and dynamic pres- γ +1
sure, respectively. Recall from Section 11.3 that Equation (14.37) can also be Now take the additional limit of γ → 1.0. From Equation (14.39), in both limits
written as Equation (11.22), repeated below: as M∞ → ∞ and γ → 1.0, we have

2 p2 C p → 2 sin2 β (14.40)
Cp = −1 (11.22)
γ M 1 p1
2
Equation (14.40) is a result from exact oblique shock theory; it has nothing to do
Combining Equations (11.22) and (14.28), we obtain an exact relation for C p with newtonian theory (as yet). Keep in mind that β in Equation (14.40) is the
behind an oblique shock wave as follows: wave angle, not the deflection angle.

4 1 Let us go further. Consider the exact oblique shock relation for the density
Exact: Cp = sin2 β − 2 (14.38) ratio, ρ/ρ∞ , given by Equation (14.30), repeated below (again with a subscript ∞
γ +1 M1
replacing the subscript 1): 14.6 MACH NUMBER INDEPENDENCE

ρ2 (γ + 1)M∞2
sin2 β Examine again the hypersonic shock-wave relation for pressure ratio as given
= (14.41) by Equation (14.29); note that, as the freestream Mach number approaches in-
ρ∞ (γ − 1)M∞ sin2 β + 2
2
finity, the pressure ratio itself also becomes infinitely large. On the other hand,
Equation (14.31) was obtained as the limit where M∞ → ∞, namely, the pressure coefficient behind the shock, given in the hypersonic limit by Equa-
tion (14.39), is a constant value at high values of the Mach number. This hints
ρ2 γ +1 strongly of a situation where certain aspects of a hypersonic flow do not depend
as M∞ → ∞: → (14.42)
ρ∞ γ −1 on Mach number, as long as the Mach number is sufficiently high. This is a type
of “independence” from the Mach number, formally called the hypersonic Mach
In the additional limit as γ → 1, we find
number independence principle. From the above argument, C p clearly demon-
strates Mach number independence. In turn, recall that the lift- and wave-drag
as γ → 1 and M∞ → ∞: ρ2
→∞ (14.43) coefficients for a body shape are obtained by integrating the local C p , as shown
ρ∞ by Equations (1.15), (1.16), (1.18), and (1.19). These equations demonstrate that,
since C p is independent of the Mach number at high values of M∞ , the lift and drag
that is, the density behind the shock is infinitely large. In turn, mass flow con- coefficients are also Mach number independent. Keep in mind that these conclu-
siderations then dictate that the shock wave is coincident with the body surface. sions are theoretical, based on the limiting form of the hypersonic shock relations.
This is further substantiated by Equation (14.35), which is good for M∞ → ∞ Let us examine an example that clearly illustrates the Mach number inde-
and small deflection angles: pendence principle. In Figure 14.15, the pressure coefficients for a 15◦ half-angle
wedge and a 15◦ half-angle cone are plotted versus freestream Mach number for
β γ +1
→ (14.35) γ = 1.4. The exact wedge results are obtained from Equation (14.38), and the
θ 2 exact cone results are obtained from the solution of the classical Taylor-Maccoll
In the additional limit as γ → 1, we have equation. (See Reference 21 for a detailed discussion of the solution of the su-
personic flow over a cone. There, you will find that the governing continuity,
as γ → 1 and M∞ → ∞ and θ and β are small: β=θ momentum, and energy equations for a conical flow cascade into a single differ-
ential equation called the Taylor-Maccoll equation. In turn, this equation allows
that is, the shock wave lies on the body. In light of this result, Equation (14.40) the exact solution of this conical flow field.) Both sets of results are compared
is written as with newtonian theory, C p = 2 sin2 θ, shown as the dashed line in Figure 14.15.
This comparison demonstrates two general aspects of newtonian results:
C p = 2 sin2 θ (14.44)
1. The accuracy of the newtonian results improves as M∞ increases. This is
to be expected from our discussion in Section 14.5. Note from Figure 14.15
Examine Equation (14.44). It is a result from exact oblique shock theory, taken that below M∞ = 5 the newtonian results are not even close, but the
in the combined limit of M∞ → ∞ and γ → 1. However, it is also precisely comparison becomes much closer as M∞ increases above 5.
the newtonian results given by Equation (14.4). Therefore, we make the follow- 2. Newtonian theory is usually more accurate for three-dimensional bodies
ing conclusion. The closer the actual hypersonic flow problem is to the limits (e.g., the cone) than for two-dimensional bodies (e.g., the wedge). This is
M∞ → ∞ and γ → 1, the closer it should be physically described by newto- clearly evident in Figure 14.15 where the newtonian result is much closer
nian flow. In this regard, we gain a better appreciation of the true significance to the cone results than to the wedge results.
of newtonian theory. We can also state that the application of newtonian theory
to practical hypersonic flow problems, where γ is always greater than unity, is However, more to the point of Mach number independence, Figure 14.15 also
theoretically not proper, and the agreement that is frequently obtained with exper- shows the following trends. For both the wedge and the cone, the exact results
imental data has to be viewed as somewhat fortuitous. Nevertheless, the simplicity show that, at low supersonic Mach numbers, C p decreases rapidly as M∞ is
of newtonian theory along with its (sometimes) reasonable results (no matter how increased. However, at hypersonic speeds, the rate of decrease diminishes con-
fortuitous) has made it a widely used and popular engineering method for the es- siderably, and C p appears to reach a plateau as M∞ becomes large; that is, C p
timation of surface pressure distributions, hence lift- and wave-drag coefficients, becomes relatively independent of M∞ at high values of the Mach number. This is
for hypersonic bodies. the essence of the Mach number independence principle; at high Mach numbers,
for the limiting hypersonic case, do not have the Mach number appearing in
them—hence, by definition, the solution to these equations is independent of the
Mach number. See References 21 and 52 for more details.
14.7 HYPERSONICS AND COMPUTATIONAL

FLUID DYNAMICS
The design of hypersonic vehicles today is greatly dependent on the use of com-
putational fluid dynamics, much more so than the design of vehicles for any other
flight regime. The primary reason for this is the lack of experimental ground test
facilities that can simultaneously simulate the Mach numbers, Reynolds num-
bers, and high-temperature levels associated with hypersonic flight. For such
56
55 simulation, CFD is the primary tool. Reflecting once again on the philosophy
57
illustrated in Figure 2.46, in the realm of hypersonic flow the three partners are
not quite equal. Pure experimental work in hypersonics usually involves tests at
either the desired Mach number, the desired Reynolds number, or the desired
Figure 14.16 Drag coefficient for a sphere and a cone cylinder from temperature level, but not all at the same time nor in the same test facilities. As
ballistic range measurements; an example of Mach number a result, experimental data for the design of hypersonic vehicles is a patchwork
independence at hypersonic speeds. (Data Source: Cox, R. N., and of different data taken in different facilities under different conditions. Moreover,
L. F. Crabtree: Elements of Hypersonic Aerodynamics, Academic the data are usually incomplete, especially for the high-temperature effects, which
Press, New York, 1965).
are difficult to simulate in a wind tunnel. The designer must then do his or her best
to piece together the information for the specified design conditions. The next
certain aerodynamic quantities such as pressure coefficient, lift- and wave-drag partner shown in Figure 2.46, pure theory, is greatly hampered by the nonlinear
coefficients, and flow-field structure (such as shock-wave shapes and Mach wave nature of hypersonic flow, hence making mathematical solutions intractable. In
patterns) become essentially independent of the Mach number. Indeed, newtonian addition, the proper inclusion of high-temperature chemically reacting flows in
theory gives results that are totally independent of the Mach number, as clearly any pure theory is extremely difficult. For these reasons, the third partner shown
demonstrated by Equation (14.4). in Figure 2.46, computational fluid dynamics, takes on a dominant role. The nu-
Another example of Mach number independence is shown in Figure 14.16. merical calculation of both inviscid and viscous hypersonic flows, including all
Here, the measured drag coefficients for spheres and for a large-angle cone cylin- the high-temperature effects discussed in Section 14.2, has been a major thrust
der are plotted versus the Mach number, cutting across the subsonic, supersonic, of CFD research and design application since the 1960s. Indeed, hypersonics has
and hypersonic regimes. Note the large drag rise in the subsonic regime associated paced the development of CFD since its beginning.
with the drag-divergence phenomenon near Mach 1 and the decrease in C D in As an example of CFD applied to a hypersonic flight vehicle appropriate to
the supersonic regime beyond Mach 1. Both of these variations are expected and this chapter, consider the space shuttle shown in Figure 14.17. A numerical solu-
well understood. For our purposes in the present section, note, in particular, the tion of the three-dimensional inviscid flow field around the shuttle was carried out
variation of C D in the hypersonic regime; for both the sphere and cone cylinder, by Maus et al. in Reference 74. They made two sets of calculations, one for a per-
C D approaches a plateau and becomes relatively independent of the Mach number fect gas with γ = 1.4, and one assuming chemically reacting air in local chemical
as M∞ becomes large. Note also that the sphere data appear to achieve “Mach equilibrium. The freestream Mach number was 23 in both cases. The CFD tech-
number independence” at lower Mach numbers than the cone cylinder. nique used for these calculations involved a time-dependent solution of the flow in
Keep in mind from the above analysis that it is the nondimensional variables the blunt nose region, patterned after our discussion in Section 13.5, and starting
that become Mach number independent. Some of the dimensional variables, such beyond the sonic line a downstream marching approach patterned after our discus-
as p, are not Mach number independent; indeed, p → ∞ and M∞ → ∞. sion in Section 13.4. The calculated surface pressure distributions along the wind-
Finally, the Mach number independence principle is well grounded mathe- ward centerline of the space shuttle for both the perfect gas case (the circles) and
matically. The governing inviscid flow equations (the Euler equations) expressed the chemically reacting case (the triangles) are shown in Figure 14.18. The expan-
in terms of suitable nondimensional quantities, along with the boundary conditions sion around the nose, the pressure plateau over the relatively flat bottom surface,
0.04
45
0.02 M = 23
y
Equilibrium air
xc
0
x Cm
–0.02 Perfect gas

Plan area = 560,000 in2
xc = x 0 = 840.7 in
L = 1293 in (measured from nose to
body flap hinge line) –0.04
100
15 20 25 30 35 40
, degree
z Figure 14.19 Predicted pitching moment coefficient for the space
shuttle; comparison between a calorically perfect gas and equilibrium air
calculations. (Data Source: Maus, J. R., Griffith, B. J., Szema, K. Y., and
Best, J. T.: “Hypersonic Mach Number and Real Gas Effects on Space
Shuttle Orbiter Aerodynamics,” J. Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 21, no. 2,
Figure 14.17 Space shuttle geometry. March–April 1984, pp. 136–141).
300 and the further expansion over the slightly inclined back portion of the body, are
all quite evident. Also note that there is little difference in the pressure distribu-
tions between the two cases; this is an example of the more general result that
pressure is usually the flow variable least affected by chemically reacting effects.
It is interesting to note, however, that a flight characteristic as mundane as
200
the vehicle pitching moment coefficient is affected by chemically reacting flow
p effects. Close examination of Figure 14.18 shows that, for the chemically reacting
p M• = 23, = 30 flow, the pressures are slightly higher on the forward part of the shuttle, and slightly
Perfect gas, = 1.4 lower on the rearward part. This results in a more positive pitching moment. Since
Equilibrium air
100 the moment is the integral of the pressure through a moment arm, a slight change
in pressure can substantially affect the moment. This is indeed the case here,
as shown in Figure 14.19, which is a plot of the resulting calculated pitching
moment as a function of angle of attack for the space shuttle. Clearly, the pitching
moment is substantially greater for the chemically reacting case. The work by
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Maus et al. was the first to point out this effect on pitching moment, and it serves to
x/L reinforce the importance of high-temperature flows on hypersonic aerodynamics.
It also serves to reinforce the importance of CFD in the analysis of hypersonic
Figure 14.18 Pressure distribution along the windward centerline
of the space shuttle; comparison between a calorically perfect gas
flows. The predicted pitching moment used for the space shuttle design came
and chemically reacting equilibrium air calculations. (Data Source: from “cold-flow” wind tunnel tests which did not simulate the high-temperature
Maus, J. R., Griffith, B. J., Szema, K. Y., and Best, J. T.: “Hypersonic effects, that is, the designers used data for a perfect gas with γ = 1.4 obtained
Mach Number and Real Gas Effects on Space Shuttle Orbiter in the wind tunnel. This is represented by the lower curve in Figure 14.19. The
Aerodynamics,” J. Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 21, no. 2, early flight experience with the shuttle indicated a much higher pitching moment
March–April 1984, pp. 136–141). at hypersonic speeds than predicted, which required that the body flap deflection
for trim to be more than twice that predicted—an alarming situation. The reason
for this is now known; the actual flight environment encountered by the shuttle at wall, and h aw is the adiabatic wall enthalpy defined as the enthalpy of the gas at
high Mach numbers was that of a high-temperature chemically reacting flow— the wall when the wall temperature is the adiabatic wall temperature—the wall
the situation reflected in the upper curve in Figure 14.19. The difference in the temperature when the wall becomes so hot that no more energy is conducted into
pitching moment between the two curves in Figure 14.19 is enough to account for the wall from the gas adjacent to the wall.
the unexpected extra body flap deflection required to trim the shuttle. Although Consider the hypersonic flow over a flat plate at zero angle of attack, where
these CFD results were obtained well after the design of the shuttle, they serve ρe = ρ∞ and u e = V∞ (ignoring any viscous interaction effect as described in
to underscore the importance of CFD to present and future hypersonic vehicle Section 14.2). For high Mach number laminar flow over a flat plate, Taw is about
designs. 12 percent less than the total temperature in the freestream. For our purposes here,
we make the approximation that Taw ≈ To , and hence in Equation (14.45)
14.8 HYPERSONIC VISCOUS FLOW: h aw ≈ h o (14.46)
AERODYNAMIC HEATING where h o is the total enthalpy of the freestream. From Equation (7.54), we can
Aerodynamic heating can become so severe at hypersonic speeds that it is the write
dominant design consideration for hypersonic vehicles. Indeed, for the reason V2
ho = h∞ + ∞ (14.47)
discussed at the end of Section 1.1 and sketched in Figures 1.8 and 1.9, the nose 2
and wing leading edges of hypersonic vehicles must be blunt rather than sharp, At hypersonic speeds, V∞ is very large. Also the ambient air far ahead of the
or else the vehicle will be destroyed by aerodynamic heating. In the history of vehicle is relatively cool; hence h ∞ = c p T∞ is relatively small. Thus, at high
flight, the most unfortunate example of such destruction occurred on February 1, speeds, from Equation (14.47),
2003, when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during entry into 2
the earth’s atmosphere. Several of the thermal protection tiles near the leading V∞
ho ≈ (14.48)
edge of the left wing had been damaged by debris during launch. This allowed 2
hot gases to penetrate the surface and destroy the internal wing structure. The surface temperature of the plate, although it may be hot by normal standards,
The physical mechanisms that create atmospheric heating, both thermal con- still must be maintained at below the melting or decomposition temperature of the
duction and radiation, are briefly discussed at the end of Section 14.2. In the surface, which is usually much smaller than the total temperature at high Mach
present section we will present some engineering methods for predicting aerody- numbers. Thus we can easily make the assumption that
namic heating, and apply them to some hypersonic flow examples. Aerodynamic
ho hw (14.49)
heating is a major subject in its own right, and is well beyond the scope of this
book. (See Reference 52 for an in-depth discussion of aerodynamic heating ap- It follows from Equations (14.46), (14.48), and (14.49) that
plied to hypersonic flows.) However, its importance to the design of hypersonic V∞2
vehicles demands that we examine a few aspects in the present chapter. h aw − h w ≈ h o − h w ≈ h o ≈ (14.50)
2
Equation (14.45), written for a flat plate, is
14.8.1 Aerodynamic Heating and Hypersonic Flow—The Connection
q̇w
What is it about hypersonic flight that makes aerodynamic heating so severe? CH =
We address this question by reaching ahead to Chapter 16 and Equation (16.55), ρ∞ V∞ (h aw − h w )
which introduces a dimensionless heat transfer coefficient called the Stanton Invoking the approximation given by Equation (14.50), we have
number C H , defined as q̇w
CH ≈
ρ∞ V∞ (V∞ 2 /2)
q̇w or
CH ≡ (14.45)
ρe u e (h aw − h w ) 1
q̇w ≈ ρ∞ V∞ 3
CH (14.51)
In Equation (14.45), q̇w is the heat transfer rate per unit area at a given point on the 2
body surface. In the English engineering system the units of q̇w are ft-lb/(s · ft2 ); Equation (14.51) states that the aerodynamic heating rate varies as the cube of the
in the international system the units are W/m2 . Also in Equation (14.45), ρe is the velocity. This is in contrast to aerodynamic drag, which varies only as the square
local density at the edge of the boundary layer at the given point, u e is the local of the velocity. For this reason, at very high velocities, aerodynamic heating
velocity at the edge of the boundary layer, h w is the enthalpy of the gas at the
becomes a dominant aspect of hypersonic vehicle design. This is the connection during entry is aerodynamic drag. From Newton’s second law, we have
between aerodynamic heating and hypersonic flow. d V∞
F = D = −m (14.56)
dt
14.8.2 Blunt Versus Slender Bodies in Hypersonic Flow
where m is the mass of the vehicle and the minus sign is necessary because
We have made the claim that the nose and wing leading edges of hypersonic dV∞ /dt is negative; i.e., the vehicle is decelerating. From Equation (14.56),
vehicles must be blunt rather than sharp in order to reduce the aerodynamic
dV∞ D 1
heating in those regions. In this section we will begin to demonstrate this fact = − = − ρ∞ V∞ 2
S CD (14.57)
quantitatively. dt m 2m
In Section 14.8.1 we focused on the local heat transfer rate per unit area where CD is the drag coefficient of the vehicle. Mathematically, we can write
at a point on the surface of the vehicle, q̇w . Here we expand our view to the dQ/dt as (dQ/dV∞ )(dV∞ /dt), where dV∞ /dt is given by Equation (14.57).
total heat transferred to the vehicle per unit time, dQ/dt, which is equal to the
dQ dQ 1
local heat transfer rate integrated over the whole surface area of the vehicle. We = − ρ∞ V∞
2
S CD (14.58)
dt dV∞ 2m
can define an integrated overall Stanton number C H by an equation similar to
Equation (14.45), Equating Equations (14.55) and (14.58),

dQ/dt dQ 1 1
CH ≡ (14.52) − ρ∞ V∞2
S CD = ρ∞ V∞ 3
S Cf
ρ∞ V∞ (h o − h w )S dV∞ 2m 4
where S is a reference area (planform area of a wing, cross-sectional area of or
a spherical entry vehicle, or the like) in the same spirit as in the definition of dQ 1 Cf
= − m V∞
the lift or drag coefficients for a vehicle. Using the approximations made in dV∞ 2 CD
Section 14.8.1, Equation (14.52) can be approximated by an expression similar or
to Equation (14.51); i.e., 1 C f d V∞ 2
dQ 1 dQ = − m (14.59)
= ρ∞ V∞ 3
S CH (14.53) 2 CD 2
dt 2 Integrate Equation (14.59) from the beginning of entry to the atmosphere, where
Again we borrow a result from Chapters 16 and 18, namely that there exists Q = 0 and V∞ = VE , to the end of entry where Q = Q total and V∞ = 0:
an analogy between skin friction and aerodynamic heating, called Reynolds’ Q total
1 Cf 0 V2
analogy, expressed for a laminar flow by Equation (18.50), repeated below: dQ = − d m ∞
0 2 CD VE 2
CH 1
= Pr−2/3 (18.50) or
Cf 2

where C f is the local skin friction coefficient as first defined in Section 1.5, and 1 Cf 1
Q total = mVE2 (14.60)
Pr is the Prandtl number defined in Section 15.6. For our analysis here, it is safe 2 CD 2
to assume that Pr = 1. Also, Reynolds analogy expressed by Eq. (18.50) can be
written in terms of the integrated heat transfer and skin friction coefficients, C H Equation (14.60) gives the total heat input Q total to the vehicle. It reflects two vital
and C f , respectively. Hence, we have conclusions:
CH 1 1. The quantity 12 mVE2 is the initial kinetic energy of the vehicle as it first
= (14.54) enters the atmosphere. Equation (14.60) says that the total heat input is
Cf 2
directly proportional to this initial kinetic energy.
Inserting Equation (14.54) into (14.53) gives 2. Total heat input is directly proportional to the ratio of skin friction drag to
dQ 1 the total drag, C f /CD .
= ρ∞ V∞ 3
S Cf (14.55)
dt 4 The second of these conclusions is of direct relevance to our discussion.
Let us consider the case of a hypersonic vehicle entering the atmosphere at Recall from Section 1.5 that the aerodynamic drag on a vehicle is the sum of
very high Mach number from a mission in space. The force that slows this vehicle drag due to the pressure distribution exerted over its surface, called pressure drag
Dp , and the drag due to shear stress exerted over its surface, called skin friction In light of Equation (14.60), this leads to the following vital conclusion:
drag Df . In terms of the pressure drag coefficient CD p and the skin friction drag
coefficient C f we have: To minimize aerodynamic heating, the vehicle must be a
blunt body, i.e., have a blunt nose.
CD = CD p + C f
For this reason, all successful entry vehicles in practice, from intercontinental
From Equation (14.60), to minimize the total aerodynamic heating, we need to ballistic missiles (ICBMs), to the Apollo lunar return capsule, to the space shuttle,
minimize the ratio have utilized rounded noses and rounded leading edges. Even vehicles designed
Cf for sustained hypersonic atmospheric flight such as the X-43 shown in Figures 14.1
CD p + C f and 14.2 have rounded noses and leading edges, although the radii of curvature
is small because the minimization of drag, hence the maximization of lift-to-drag
Now consider two extremes of aerodynamic configurations: a sharp-nosed slender ratio, also becomes important in the design of such vehicles.
body such as the cone shown in Figure 14.20a and the blunt body shown in
Figure 14.20b. For a slender body, the skin friction drag is large in comparison 14.8.3 Aerodynamic Heating to a Blunt Body
to the pressure drag, hence C D ≈ C f and
The concept that a blunt body would reduce aerodynamic heating in comparison
Cf
≈1 slender body to a slender body was first advanced by H. Julian “Harvey” Allen in 1951, as
CD discussed in Section 1.1. From that time on, the calculation of blunt body aero-
On the other hand, for a blunt body the pressure drag is large in comparison to dynamic heating has been of paramount importance in the design of hypersonic
the skin friction drag, hence C D ≈ CD p and vehicles. In this section we examine the calculation of aerodynamic heating to
the stagnation point of a blunt body because the stagnation point is frequently
Cf
1 blunt body (but not always) the point of maximum heat transfer rate to a hypersonic vehicle.
CD The boundary layer in the region of a stagnation point is laminar, and lends
itself to the exact solution discussed in Section 18.5. When you read Chapter 18 as
you progress through this book, you will have the opportunity to enjoy this rather
elegant solution. In the present section, however, we wish to highlight only one
result from Section 18.5, namely that given by Equation (18.83), repeated below.
1
q̇w ∝ √ (18.83)
R
where R is the nose radius at the stagnation point. This states that stagnation point
heating varies inversely with the square root of the nose radius; hence to reduce
the heating, increase the nose radius. Here we have absolute mathematical proof
that a blunt body reduces aerodynamic heating.
The laminar boundary layer solution for the stagnation point case is described
in Section 18.5. This solution yields a detailed result for stagnation point aerody-
namic heating, namely Equations (18.65) for a circular cylinder and (18.70) for a
Slender Body Blunt Body sphere, that gives the aerodynamic heating as a function of the detailed flow field
Large Cf Large CDp properties at the stagnation point. A much simpler engineering formula for aero-
dynamic heating is given by Tauber and Meneses (Reference 97) in a generalized
Small CDp Small Cf
form of Equation (14.51) as
CD ⬇ Cf CD ⬇ CDp
Drag mainly Drag mainly
q̇w ρ∞
N
V∞M C (14.61)
friction drag pressure drag
where, for the stagnation point,
(a) (b)
hw
M = 3, N = 0.5, C = 1.83 × 10−8 R −1/2 1 −
Figure 14.20 Comparison of blunt and slender bodies. ho
when the units for q̇w , V∞ , and ρ∞ and R are respectively, W/cm2 , m/s, kg/m3 , Thus,
and m. Thus, for the stagnation point, using Equation (14.61), we have h w = c p Tw = (1004.5)(1110) = 1.115 × 106 J/(kg · K)

hw
q̇w = ρ∞ V∞ (1.83 × 10−8 R −0.5 ) 1 −
0.5 3
(14.62) Thus,
ho
hw 1.115 × 106
In Equation (14.62) we see the now familiar result that aerodynamic heating = = 0.051
ho 2.185 × 107
varies with the cube of the velocity, and that the stagnation point heating varies
The stagnation point heat transfer is, from Equation (14.62),
inversely with the square root of the nose radius. Equation (14.62) also shows
that q̇w varies with the square root of the density, which at first glance appears hw
V∞ (1.83 × 10−8 R −0.5 ) 1 −
0.5 3
q̇w = ρ∞
not to be consistent with Equation (14.51), repeated below h0
1 = (1.075 × 10−4 )0.5 (6610)3 (1.83 × 10−8 ) × (1.29)−0.5 (1 − 0.051)
q̇w = ρ∞ V∞ 3
CH (14.51)
2
= 45.78 W/cm2
This relation appears to show that q̇w is proportional to density to the first power.
However, once again drawing on results from Chapter 18, and specifically from
Zoby (Reference 98) quotes a maximum stagnation point heating of 45 W/cm2 based on
Equation (18.54), we see that the Stanton number itself for laminar flow is in-
experimental data obtained for the space shuttle at the given altitude and velocity on the
versely proportional to the square root of the Reynolds number. Since the Reynolds
entry trajectory. Our calculated result from Equation (14.62) agrees very well with the
number by definition is in turn proportional to ρ∞ , we can state that
experimental data.
1 1
CH ∝ √ ∝√
Re ρ∞ In Example 14.2 we calculated the heat transfer rate to the stagnation point.
and then from Equation (14.51), This is the point on the body of maximum aerodynamic heating rate. Along
√ the windward centerline (on the bottom surface), the heating rate rapidly de-
q̇w ∝ ρ∞ creases with distance downstream from the stagnation point. Figure 14.21 gives
This is consistent with Equation (14.62). experimental data for the local aerodynamic heating rate as reported in Refer-
ence 98. Note the qualitative similarity between the variation of q̇w with distance
as shown in Figure 14.21 and the variation of pressure with distance as shown in
EXAMPLE 14.2 Figure 14.18. Although the results shown in these two figures are for slightly
During the entry of the space shuttle into the earth’s atmosphere, maximum stagnation different angles of attack, this comparison illustrates a qualitative trend that is
point heating occurs at the trajectory point corresponding to an altitude of 68.9 km, where frequently seen in hypersonic aerodynamics, namely that the distribution of the
ρ∞ = 1.075 × 10−4 kg/m3 , and a flight velocity of 6.61 km/s. At this point on its entry aerodynamic heating rate over a surface tends to qualitatively follow the distri-
trajectory, the shuttle is at a 40.2 degree angle of attack, which presents an effective nose bution of pressure over the surface.
radius at the stagnation point of 1.29 m. If the wall temperature is Tw = 1110 K, calculate
the stagnation point heating rate.
14.9 APPLIED HYPERSONIC AERODYNAMICS:
■ Solution HYPERSONIC WAVERIDERS
Equation (14.62), repeated here, is
The maximum lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)max for a flight vehicle is a measure of
hw its aerodynamic efficiency. Unfortunately, for supersonic and hypersonic flight
V∞ (1.83 × 10−8 R −0.5 ) 1 −
0.5 3
q̇w = ρ∞
ho vehicles, as the freestream Mach number increases, (L/D)max decreases rather
To evaluate the ratio h w / h o , we have from Equation (14.48) dramatically. This is just a fact of nature, brought about by the rapidly increasing
shock-wave strength as Mach number increases, with consequent large increases
V∞2 (6610)2 in wave drag. Return to the variation of L/D versus angle of attack for a flat plate
ho ≈ = = 2.185 × 107 J/(kg · K)
2 2 shown in Figure 14.14. The solid curve is from the newtonian analysis discussed
For h w , when the wall temperature is 1110 K, we can reasonably assume a calorically per- in Section 14.4. This is an inviscid flow result, and shows that L/D theoretically
fect gas. As calculated in Example 7.1, for calorically perfect air, C p = 1004.5 J/(kg · K). approaches infinity as the angle of attack α approaches zero. In reality, the vis-
cous shear stress acting on the plate surface causes L/D to peak at a low value
V
L
M
Shock attached
along the leading edge
x
50
Shock wave
40
Heat transfer rate, W/cm2
Altitude = 68.8 km
V = 6.61 km/s
= 1.075 104 kg/m3 (a) Waverider
30 = 40.2
RN = 1.29 m
20
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Detached

x/L shock
Figure 14.21 Experimental data for the local aerodynamic heating rate
along the windward centerline of the space shuttle. (Data from Zoby, (b) Generic vehicle
E. V., “Approximate Heating Analysis for the Windward Symmetry Plane
Figure 14.22 Comparison of waverider and generic hypersonic
of Shuttlelike Bodies at Angle of Attack,” in Thermodynamics of
configurations.
Atmospheric Entry, T. E. Horton (ed.), Vol. 82, Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1982, pp. 229–247). bothersome for future hypersonic vehicles designed for sustained flight in the
atmosphere. Current design practice for such vehicles is illustrated by the X-43
of α and to go to zero as α → 0. This is illustrated by the dashed curve in Fig- shown in Figures 14.1 and 14.2.
ure 14.14, which shows the variation of L/D modified by skin friction as predicted There is a class of hypersonic vehicle shapes, however, that generates higher
by the reference temperature method discussed in Section 18.4. The skin-friction value of L/D than other shapes—waveriders. A waverider is a supersonic or hy-
calculation is for laminar flow at Mach 10 and a Reynolds number of 3 × 106 . personic vehicle that has an attached shock wave all along its leading edge, as
Note that (L/D)max for the flat plate is about 6.5. By comparison, (L/D)max for a sketched in Figure 14.22a. Because of this, the vehicle appears to be riding on
Boeing 747 at normal cruising conditions near Mach 1 is about 20. So the (L/D)max top of its shock wave, hence the term “waverider.” This is in contrast to a more
for a hypersonic flat plate, as shown in Figure 14.14, is a low value, reflecting the conventional hypersonic vehicle, where the shock wave is usually detached from
characteristically low lift-to-drag ratios generated by hypersonic vehicles. And the leading edge, as sketched in Figure 14.22b. The aerodynamic advantage of the
the infinitely thin flat plate is the most efficient lifting surface aerodynamically waverider in Figure 14.22a is that the high pressure behind the shock wave under
compared to other hypersonic shapes with finite thickness. Conclusion: The the vehicle does not “leak” around the leading edge to the top surface; the flow
L/D value of vehicles at hypersonic Mach numbers is low. This is particularly field over the bottom surface is contained, and the high pressure is preserved, and
Leading edges
Lwaverider Wedge defining defined arbitrarily
M flow field on shock
1a 1b
Lgeneric vehicle
1aa
L
D waverider Flow
1bb L Freestream flow behind
D shock
generic vehicle
Plane shock
Angle of attack,
Construction from known flow field
Figure 14.23 Comparison of lift and L/D curves
between waverider and a generic hypersonic vehicle.
therefore more lift is generated on the vehicle. In contrast, for the vehicle shown Wing shape
in Figure 14.22b, there is communication between the flows over the bottom and
top surfaces; the pressure tends to leak around the leading edge, and the general
integrated pressure level on the bottom surface is reduced, resulting in less lift.
Because of this, the generic vehicle in Figure 14.22b must fly at a larger angle
of attack α to produce the same lift as the waverider in Figure 14.22a. This is
illustrated in Figure 14.23, where the lift curves (L versus α) are sketched for the
two vehicles shown in Figure 14.22. Note that the lift curve for the waverider is
Shock
considerably higher because of the pressure containment compared to that for the
Resulting wing and shock
generic vehicle. At the same lift, points 1a and 1b in Figure 14.23 represent the
waverider and generic vehicles, respectively. Also shown in Figure 14.23 are typ- Figure 14.24 Nonweiler or “caret” wing.
ical variations of L/D versus α, which for slender hypersonic vehicles are not too
different for the shapes in Figures 14.22a and b. (Although the lift of the waverider arbitrarily traced lines. Taken together, these streamlines form a stream surface
at a given angle of attack is increased by the pressure containment on the bottom that can be considered the surface of a vehicle with its leading edges defined by
surface, so is the wave drag; hence, the L/D ratio at a given angle of attack for the the two arbitrarily traced lines on the shock wave. Because the flow field behind
waverider is better, but not greatly so, than that for the generic vehicle.) However, a planar shock wave is uniform with parallel streamlines, these stream surfaces
note that because the waverider generates the same lift at a smaller α (point 1a in are flat surfaces that trace out a vehicle shape with a caret cross section as shown
Figure 14.23) than does the generic vehicle, which must fly at a large α (point 1b in in Figure 14.24, named after the caret symbol ∧. If you now mentally strip away
Figure 14.23), the L/D for the waverider is considerably higher (point 1aa) than the imaginary generating flow field shown at the top of Figure 14.24, you have
that for the generic shape point (1bb). Therefore, for sustained hypersonic cruising left the caret-shaped vehicle shown at the bottom of Figure 14.24. Concentrating
flight in the atmosphere the waverider configuration has a definite advantage. on the vehicle shape at the bottom of Figure 14.24, the planar surfaces on the
Question: How do you design a vehicle shape such that the shock wave is bottom of the vehicle are stream surfaces that exist behind a planar oblique shock
attached all along its leading edge; that is, how do you design a waverider? wave—stream surfaces that are generated by streamlines that begin on the shock
One answer is as follows. Consider the simple flow field generated by a wedge surface itself. Hence, the shock wave is, by definition, attached to the leading
in a supersonic or hypersonic freestream as discussed in Section 9.3. Imagine that edge of the vehicle; this planar attached shock is shown stretching between the
the top surface of the wedge is parallel to the freestream, and hence the only wave two straight leading edges of the vehicle sketched at the bottom of Figure 14.24.
in the flow is the planar shock wave propagating below the wedge, as sketched By definition, therefore, this vehicle is a waverider. Caution: The waverider is in
at the top of Figure 14.24. Now imagine two straight lines arbitrarily traced on principle a point-designed vehicle. The generating oblique shock sketched at the
the surface of the shock wave, coming to a point at the front of the shock. Con- top of Figure 14.24 pertains to a given freestream Mach number M∞ and a given
sider all of the streamlines of the flow behind the shock that emanate from these
flow deflection angle of the imaginary wedge that generates the oblique shock.
Freestream Cone defining
Nevertheless, if you construct the vehicle shape shown at the bottom of Fig- flow field
ure 14.24 and put it in a freestream at the given M∞ and at an angle of attack
such that the flow deflection angle of the vehicle bottom surface is the same as
that of the imaginary generating wedge, then nature will make certain that the
shock wave is attached all along the vehicle’s leading edge; that is, the vehicle will Leading edges
be a waverider. Note that in Figure 14.24 we have oriented the imaginary gener- defined arbitrarily
ating wedge such that its top surface is parallel to the freestream; hence, there is on shock
no wave over the top surface of the wedge. Consequently, the top surfaces of the Stream surface
resulting caret waverider shown at the bottom of Figure 14.24 are aligned with (shape used as wing Shock
lower surface)
the freestream, and there is no wave above the waverider.
In principle any shape can be used for the imaginary body producing the Construction from known flow field
flow field from which a waverider shape is carved. The simplest case is to use
a wedge for the imaginary body as just described. This has the advantage that a Wing shape
wedge produces a simple known flow field that is easily calculated, as treated in
Chapter 9. You do not need a CFD solution for this flow. The flow over a cone
at zero angle of attack in a supersonic or hypersonic flow is similarly a known
flow field that can be used to generate waverider shapes. Because this conical
flow field is quasi-three-dimensional, it provides more flexibility in the generation Shock
of waverider shapes. The idea is the same. Consider the supersonic or hypersonic
conical flow field over a right-circular cone at zero angle of attack as sketched at Resulting wing and shock
the top of Figure 14.25. The exact numerical solution of this flow field is discussed Figure 14.25 Cone flow wing.
in Section 13.6. The flow field is obtained from a solution of the Taylor-Maccoll
Equation, Equation (13.78), and tabulated results given in References 95 and 96.
Townend in (Reference 102). In the early 1980s Rasmussen and his colleagues
In short, this is a known flow field. At the top of Figure 14.25, we see a conical
at the University of Oklahoma (for example, see References 103–105) utilized
shock wave attached at the vertex of the right-circular cone. This cone is simply
hypersonic small-disturbance theory to design waveriders from flow fields over
the imaginary body generating the flow field.
right-circular cones as well as elliptic cones. In a manner consistent with his use
Consider the dashed curve drawn on the bottom surface of the conical shock
of analytical solutions of the waverider flows, Rasmussen was also able to use
wave as sketched at the top of Figure 14.25. All of the streamlines flowing through
the classic calculus of variations to optimize the waverider shapes utilizing the
this dashed curve constitute a stream surface. In turn this stream surface defines
inviscid properties of the flow.
the bottom surface of a waverider with a leading edge traced out by the dashed
curve, as sketched at the bottom of Figure 14.25. Any curve can be traced on the
14.9.1 Viscous-Optimized Waveriders
conical shock; hence, any stream surface of the conical flow field downstream of
the shock can be used as the surface of a waverider. When this is done, the shock In the work just described, the waverider configurations were designed (and some-
wave will be attached all along the leading edge of the waverider, as shown in times optimized) on the basis of inviscid flow fields, not including the effect of
Figure 14.25. Moreover, the attached shock wave on this resulting waverider will, skin-friction drag. In turn, the drag predicted by such inviscid analyses was sim-
of course, be a segment of the conical shock wave shown at the top of Figure 14.25. ply wave drag, and the resulting values of the inviscid L/D looked promising.
The waverider concept was first introduced by Nonweiler (Reference 99) in However, waveriders tend to have large wetted surface areas, and the skin-friction
1959, who generated caret-shaped waveriders from the two-dimensional flow field drag, always added to the waverider aerodynamics after the fact, tended to greatly
behind a planar oblique shock wave generated by a wedge, as described earlier. decrease the predicted inviscid lift-to-drag ratio. This made the waverider a less
Nonweiler was interested in such waveriders as lifting atmospheric entry bodies. interesting prospect and led to a temporary lack of interest, indeed outright skepti-
The first extension of Nonweiler’s concept to the use of a conical flow as gener- cism by researchers and vehicle designers in the waverider as a viable hypersonic
ating flow field by Jones (Reference 100) in 1963, and further extensions to other configuration. Beginning in 1987, the author and his students at the University
axisymmetric generating flows are discussed by Jones et al. in Reference 101. An of Maryland took a different tack. New families of waveriders were generated
excellent and authoritative survey of waverider research up to 1979 is given by wherein the skin-friction drag was included within an optimization routine to
calculate waveriders with maximum L/D. In this fashion, the trade-offs between
wave drag and friction drag were accounted for during the optimization process, now trace a curve on the surface of the shock wave. The stream surface generated
and the resulting family of waveriders had a shape and wetted surface area so as from this curve is a bottom surface of a waverider, and the curve itself forms
to optimize L/D. This family of waveriders is called viscous-optimization hyper- the leading edge of the waverider. An infinite number of such curves can be
sonic waveriders, and subsequent CFD calculations and wind-tunnel tests have traced on the conical shock wave, generating an infinite number of waverider
proven their viability, thus greatly enhancing modern interest in the waverider shapes using the conical shock with θs = 11 deg. at M∞ = 6. Indeed, some of
concept. these leading-edge curves are shown in Figure 14.26. The optimization procedure
The design process for viscous-optimized waveriders was first published in progresses through a series of these leading-edge shapes, each one generating a
References 106 and 107. This work, beginning in the late 1980s, led to a new new waverider with a certain lift-to-drag ratio, and finally settling on that particular
class of waveriders where the optimization process is trying to reduce the wetted leading-edge shape that yields the maximum value of L/D. This is the optimum
surface area, hence reducing skin-friction drag, while maximizing L/D. Because waverider for the given generating conical shock wave angle of θs = 11 deg. This
detailed viscous effects cannot be couched in simple analytical forms, the formal resulting (L/D)max is then plotted as a point in Figure 14.27 for the conical shock
optimization methods based on the calculus of variations cannot be used. Instead, wave angle θs = 11 deg. Figure 14.27 also gives the corresponding value of lift
a numerical optimization technique was used based on the simplex method of coefficient C L and volumetric efficiency η = V 2/3 /S p , where V is the vehicle
Nelder and Mead (Reference 108). By using a numerical optimization technique, volume and S p is the planform area. Now choose another conical shock angle for
other real configuration aspects could be included in the analysis in addition to generating the flow field, say, θs = 12 deg., and repeat the preceding procedure,
viscous effects, such as blunted leading edges and an expansion upper surface (in finding that leading-edge shape that yields the waverider shape that produces the
contrast to the standard assumption of a freestream upper surface, i.e., an upper highest L/D. This result is now plotted in Figure 14.27 for θs = 12 deg. Then
surface with all generators parallel to the freestream direction). The results of the another conical shock wave angle, say θs = 13 deg., is chosen, and the process is
study by Bowcutt et al. led to a new class of waveriders, namely, viscous-optimized repeated again, finding that particular waverider shape that produces the highest
waveriders. Moreover, these waveriders produced relatively high values of L/D, L/D. This point is now plotted in Figure 14.27 for θs = 13 deg. And so forth.
as will be discussed later. The front views of these optimized waverider shapes are shown in Figure 14.28,
For the viscous-optimized waverider configurations, the following philoso- each one labeled according to its generating conical shock-wave angle. These
phy was followed: same optimized waveriders are shown in perspective in Figure 14.29. Returning
to Figure 14.27, note that the curve of L/D versus θs itself has a maximum value
1. The lower (compression) surface was generated by a stream surface behind
a conical shock wave. The inviscid conical flow field was obtained from the
numerical solution of the Taylor-Maccoll equation, derived in Section 13.6.
2. The upper surface was treated as an expansion surface, generated in a
manner similar to that for the inviscid flow about a tapered, axisymmetric
cylinder at zero angle of attack, and calculated by means of the
axisymmetric method of characteristics.
3. The viscous effects were calculated by means of an integral boundary-layer
analysis following surface streamlines, including transition from laminar to
turbulent flow.
x
4. Blunt leading edges were included to the extent of determining the
maximum leading-edge radius required to yield acceptable leading-edge
surface temperatures, and then the leading-edge drag was estimated by
modified newtonian theory.
5. The final waverider configuration, optimized for maximum L/D at a given
Mach number and Reynolds number with body fineness ratio as a constraint,
was obtained from the numerical simplex method taking into account all of
the effects itemized in steps 1–4 within the optimization process itself.
The following discussion provides some insight into the optimization process. y
First, assume a given conical shock wave in a flow at a given Mach number, say, Figure 14.26 Examples of initial and optimized waverider
a conical shock wave angle of θs = 11 deg. at Mach 6. As discussed previously, leading-edge shapes.
9.0
.14
s = 12
s = 11
.06
.13 CL
.05
s = 14
Volumetric efficiency, = V2/3/Sp
s = 13

.12
Coefficient of lift
Figure 14.28 Results for a series of optimized waveriders at Mach 6.

Lift over drag
8.0
.04
shaping the waverider to adjust both wave drag and skin-friction drag so that the
overall L/D is a maximum. Indeed, it was observed that the best optimum shape at
.11 L/D any given M∞ results in the magnitudes of wave drag and skin-friction drag being
approximately the same, never differing by more than a factor of 2. For conical
.03 shock angles below the best optimum (for example, θs = 11◦ in Figures 14.28
and 14.29), skin-friction drag is greater than wave drag; in contrast, for conical
shock angles above the optimum (for example θs = 13◦ and 14◦ in Figures 14.28
.10
and 14.29), skin-friction drag is less than wave drag. [Note: In Section 14.4,
Flight conditions
M = 6
using newtonian theory for a flat plate at angle of attack, at the flight condition
.02 h = 100,000 ft associated with the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, wave drag is twice the friction
Rel = 122.4 106 drag, as proved by Equation (14.27).]
7.0 Tw = 1100 K
.09 r/l = 0.00005
b/l = 0.06
l = 60 m
10 11 12 13 14 15
Shock semi-vertex angle, degrees
Figure 14.27 Results for a series of optimized waveriders at Mach 6; l =

length of waverider, b/l = body fineness ratio, and r = leading edge radius.
s = 11 s = 12
of L/D, occurring in this case for θs = 12 deg. This yields an “optimum of the
optimums” and defines the final viscous optimized waverider at M∞ = 6 for
the flight conditions shown in Figure 14.27. Noted on Figure 14.27 is the body
fineness ratio, b/l, where b is the wing span and l is the length of the waverider.
Recall that fineness ratio is taken as a constraint in the optimization process. For
this case, b/l = 0.06. Finally, a summary three-view of the best optimum (the
optimum of the optimums) waverider, which here corresponds to θs = 12 deg., is
given in Figure 14.30. Also, in Figures 14.28 to 14.30 the lines on the upper and
lower surfaces of the waveriders are inviscid streamlines. Note in these figures s = 13 s = 14
that the shape of the optimum waverider changes considerably with θs . Moreover,
examining (for example) Figure 14.30, note the rather complex curvature of the Figure 14.29 Perspective views of a series of optimized waveriders at Mach 6.
leading edge in both the planform and front views; the optimization program is
Figure 14.30 Three-view and perspective of the best optimized waverider at Mach 6.
The results in Figures 14.27 to 14.30 pertain to M∞ = 6. Using the same pro-
cedure, the best optimum waverider shape at any supersonic or hypersonic Mach
number can be obtained. For example, the shape of the best optimized waverider
Figure 14.31 Three-view and perspective of the best optimized waverider at Mach 25.
for M∞ = 25 is given in Figure 14.31. Comparing the optimum configuration
of M∞ = 6 (Figure 14.30), note that the Mach 25 shape has more wing sweep.
This pertains to a conical flow field with a smaller wave angle, both of which are
intuitively expected at higher Mach number. However, the body slenderness ratio
at M∞ = 6 is constrained to be b/l = 0.06 (analogous to a supersonic transport
such as the Concorde), but that b/l = 0.09 is the constraint chosen at M∞ = 25
(analogous to a hydrogen-fueled hypersonic airplane). The two different slender- 18
Corda (1/2-power law-flow waverider)
ness ratios are chosen on the basis of reality for two different aircraft with two 16 Bowcutt (cone flow waverider)
different missions at either extreme of the hypersonic flight spectrum. (L/D)max = 6 (M + 2)/M
14 (L/D)max = 4 (M + 3)/M
For supersonic and hypersonic vehicles, L/D markedly decreases as M∞ in-
creases. Indeed, Kuchemann (Reference 66) gives the following general empirical 12
correlation for (L/D)max based on actual flight-vehicle experience:
(L /D)max
10
4(M∞ + 3) 8
(L/D)max =
M∞ 6
This variation is shown as the solid curve in Figure 14.32. This figure is important 4
to our present discussion; it brings home the importance of viscous optimized
waveriders. The Kuchemann curve (the solid curve) in Figure 14.32 represents a 2
type of “L/D barrier” for conventional vehicles, which is difficult to break. The 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
open circles in Figure 14.32, which form an almost shotgun scatter of points,
Mach number
are data for a variety of conventional vehicles representing various wind-tunnel
and flight tests. (Precise identification of the sources for these points is given in Figure 14.32 Maximum lift-to-drag ratio comparison for
various hypersonic configurations.
Reference 109). The solid symbols pertain to the various optimized hypersonic
waveriders discussed here. The solid squares are results for the waveriders based
on conical generating flows as described below. The solid circles are results
for another family of viscous optimized waveriders based on the shock wave
and downstream streamsurfaces generated by a one-half power law ogive-shaped
body, obtained by Corda and Anderson (Reference 110). From Figure 14.32 we
see that the viscous optimized waveriders break the L/D barrier, that is, they give
(L/D)max values that lie above the Kuchemann curve. Indeed, the L/D variation
of the viscous optimized waveriders is more closely given by
6(M∞ + 2)
(L/D)max =
M∞
This variation is shown as the dotted curve in Figure 14.32. The importance of the
Figure 14.33 X51 waverider (U.S. Air Force Photo).
viscous optimized waveriders is established by the results shown in Figure 14.32.
These results have been confirmed by various wind-tunnel tests. They are the
reason for renewed interest in the waverider configuration as a hypersonic vehicle, sine-squared law:
particularly for sustained cruising in the atmosphere. C p = 2 sin2 θ (14.4)
The physical aspects that define the hypersonic flow regime were discussed in and used this result to treat the case of a hypersonic flat plate in Section 14.4.
Section 14.2. The influence of viscous interaction effects, high-temperature flows, We also obtained the limiting form of the oblique shock relations as M∞ → ∞,
and aerodynamic heating on waverider design is discussed at length in the second that is, the hypersonic shock relations. From these relations, we were able to
edition of Reference 52 (see pages 361–374, 409–413, and 644–646 of the sec- examine the significance of newtonian theory more thoroughly, namely, Equa-
ond edition of Reference 52). Also, hypersonic vehicle design is sensitive to the tion (14.4) becomes an exact relation for a hypersonic flow in the combined limit
location of the transition from laminar to turbulent flow, and the design of hyper- of M∞ → ∞ and γ → 1. Finally, these hypersonic shock relations illustrate the
sonic waveriders is no exception. Numerical experiments carried out at M∞ = 10 existence of the Mach number independence principle.
wherein the transition location was varied over a wide latitude, ranging from all-
laminar flow on one hand, to almost all-turbulent flow on the other hand, with vari-
ous cases in between, are discussed in References 52, 107, and 109. Although these 14.11 PROBLEMS
physical phenomena have an effect on the optimized shape of viscous optimized 14.1 Repeat Problem 9.13 using
hypersonic waveriders, the resulting values of (L/D)max are not greatly changed.
a. Newtonian theory
Even with these real physical phenomena included in the optimization pro-
cess, the viscous optimized hypersonic waverider remains a viable configura- b. Modified newtonian theory
tion for future hypersonic vehicle design. Indeed, the Air Force–sponsored and Compare these results with those obtained from exact shock-expansion
Boeing-designed X-51, shown in Figure 14.33, is a viscous-optimized waverider. theory (Problem 9.13). From this comparison, what comments can you
SCRAMjet-powered, and designed for flight at Mach 5 to 6, the X-51 will provide make about the accuracy of newtonian and modified newtonian theories at
the technology for future atmospheric cruise missiles. On May 1, 2013, the X-51 low supersonic Mach numbers?
achieved a flight of over six minutes and reached speeds of over Mach 5 for 210 14.2 Consider a flat plate at α = 20◦ in a Mach 20 freestream. Using straight
seconds. At the time of writing, this is the longest duration SCRAMjet powered newtonian theory, calculate the lift- and wave-drag coefficients. Compare
hypersonic flight. It is only the second SCRAMjet-powered hypersonic vehicle these results with exact shock-expansion theory.
of any type to achieve sustained atmospheric flight, the first being the X-43 in 14.3 Consider a hypersonic vehicle with a spherical nose flying at Mach 20
2004 (Figures 14.1 and 14.2). at a standard altitude of 150,000 ft, where the ambient temperature and
pressure are 500◦ R and 3.06 lb/ft2 , respectively. At the point on the
14.10 SUMMARY surface of the nose located 20◦ away from the stagnation point, estimate
the: (a) pressure, (b) temperature, (c) Mach number, and (d) velocity of
Only a few of the basic elements of hypersonic flow are presented here, with the flow.
special emphasis on newtonian flow results. Useful information on hypersonic
flows can be extracted from such results. We have derived the basic newtonian

C 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C 14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

872 PA RT 3 Inviscid, Compressible Flow

C H A P T E R 14 to Mach 36. So hypersonic aerodynamics has been

Elements of Hypersonic Flow TUFI/AETB

is responsible for the “communications blackout” experienced over portions of

Figure 14.7 Streamlines in a hypersonic flow.

Figure 14.6 Convective and radiative heating rates of a

Figure 14.10 Hypersonic flow across a

2. The drag coefficient is given by the drag polar, as expressed in

Figure 14.11 Surface pressure distribution, paraboloid,

14.4 THE LIFT AND DRAG OF WINGS AT

component of the aerodynamic force, namely, the lift, is given by

cl,max = 2 sin2 (54.7◦ ) cos(54.7◦ ) = 0.77

EXAMPLE 14.1 From Equation (1.19),

Consider an infinitely thin flat plate at an angle of attack of 15◦

Figure 14.15 Comparison between newtonian and exact results for

replacing the subscript 1): 14.6 MACH NUMBER INDEPENDENCE

14.7 HYPERSONICS AND COMPUTATIONAL

–0.02 Perfect gas

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Detached

Figure 14.28 Results for a series of optimized waveriders at Mach 6.

Figure 14.27 Results for a series of optimized waveriders at Mach 6; l =

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.