详情

原文传递 Experimental and Computational Sonic Boom Assessment of Boeing N+2 Low Boom Models.

题名：	Experimental and Computational Sonic Boom Assessment of Boeing N+2 Low Boom Models.
作者：	A., Elmiligui; C. S., Winski; D. A., Durston; E. L., Walker; M. B., Carter; S. E., Cliff
关键词：	Aerodynamic Drag; Aircraft Models; Calibrating; Computational Fluid Dynamics; Computer Programs; Data Acquisition; Error Analysis; Flow Measurement; Flow Visualization; Grid Generation (mathematics);
摘要：	Near-field pressure signatures were measured and computational predictions made for several sonic boom models representing Boeing's Quiet Experimental Validation Concept (QEVC) supersonic transport, as well as three axisymmetric calibration models. Boeing developed the QEVC under a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) contract for Experimental Systems Validations for N+2 Supersonic Commercial Transport Aircraft, which was led by the NASA High Speed Project under the Fundamental Aeronautics Program. The concept was designed to address environmental and performance goals given in the NRA, specifically for low sonic boom loudness levels and high cruise efficiency, for an aircraft anticipated to enter service in the 2020 timeframe. Wind tunnel tests were conducted on the aircraft and calibration models during Phases I and II of the NRA contract from 2011 to 2013 in the NASA Ames 9- by 7-Foot and NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnels. Sonic boom pressure signatures were acquired primarily at Mach 1.6 and 1.8, and force and moment data were acquired from Mach 0.8 to 1.8. The sonic boom test data were obtained using a 2-in. flat-top pressure rail and a 14-in. round-top tapered "reflection factor 1" (RF1) pressure rail. Both rails capture an entire pressure signature in one data point, and successive signatures at varying positions along or above the rail were used to improve data quality through spatial averaging. The sonic boom data obtained by the rails were validated with high-fidelity numerical simulations of off-body pressures using the CFD codes USM3D, Cart3D, and OVERFLOW. The test results from the RF1 rail showed good agreement between the computational and experimental data when a variety of testing techniques including spatial averaging of a series of pressure signatures were employed, however, reflections off the 2-in. flat-top rail caused distortions in the signatures that did not agree with the CFD predictions. The 9 x 7 and 8 x 6 wind tunnels generally
报告类型：	科技报告