I

NASA TM 84489

NASA Technical Memorandum 8 4 8 9

c.

Charles G. Miller 111

SEPTEMBER 1982

"

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

NASA Technical Memorandum8489

Measured PressureDistributions, Aerodynamic Coefficients, and Shock Shapes on Blunt Bodiesat Incidence in HypersonicAir and CF,

Charles G. Miller 111 Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical Information Office

1982

INTRODUCTION

Over t h e l a s t two decades, c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t h a s been d i r e c t e d towardunderstanding the supersonic-hypersonic aerothermodynamic phenomena a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a v e h i c l ee n t e r i n gt h ea t m o s p h e r e of E a r t h or anotherplanet.Duringthe Apollo period ofthe1960's, a mostlyexperimentaldatabase w a s used to design, or v e r i f y t h e performanceof,anEarthentryvehicle. Ground-based f a c i l i t i e s , eachcapableof s i m u l a t i n g t h e Mach number andReynolds number of a p o r t i o n of t h e e n t r y t r a j e c t o r y , c o l l e c t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s data base. A s i n t e r e s t expanded beyond E a r t h e n t r y t o entryintothe atmosphereof Mars i n t h e l a t e 1960's,ground-based f a c i l i t i e s cont i n u e d t o c o n t r i b u t e d i r e c t l y toward u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s encount e r e d by a b l u n t p r o b e e n t e r i n g a n a t m o s p h e r e o t h e r t h a n t h a t of Earth. However, a s this interest in scientific exploration expandedtoward Venus and t h e o u t e r p l a n e t s , d e s i g n e r s of a e r o s h e l l s f o r t h e p r o b e s r e l i e d more on flow f i e l d s p r e d i c t e d w i t h a n a l y t i c a l methods. T h i s r e l i a n c e on p r e d i c t i o n w a s necessarybecauseexisting f a c i l i t i e s were not capable of s i m u l a t i n g o r duplicating the severe environment encountered by a v e h i c l e e n t e r i n g t h e a t m o s p h e r e of Venus o r a n o u t e r p l a n e t . Even so, ground-based f a c i l i t i e s p l a y e d a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a data base f o r E a r t h and p l a n e t a r y e n t r y d u r i n g t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s , f o r example, duringthe Space S h u t t l e development. Often,thesupportprovided by ground-based f a c i l i t i e s i s i n d i r e c t . A s analyti c a l methods emerge from thedevelopmentalstage,theirpredictions are o f t e n comparedwith measurements. Consider t h eh y p o t h e t i c a l development of a numerical method f o r computingsupersonicandhypersonicflowcharacteristicsabout a b l u n t body. The f i r s t phase of t h i s development may be t o compute t h e i n v i s c i d f l o w f i e l d a b o u t t h e b l u n t body a t zeroincidencewithideal-gasbehavior assumed. These p r e d i c t i o n s may be compared w i t h measuredshockdetachment d i s t a n c e and s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on t h e b l u n t body. A f t e r v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h i s i n v i s c i d i d e a l - g a s method, t h e e f f e c t s of v i s c o s i t y may be incorporated, and p r e d i c t e d andmeasured convectiveheatt r a n s f e r rates may be compared t o v a l i d a t e t h e method. Next, t h e c a p a b i l i t y of pred i c t i n g flow conditions about the body a t incidence may be included, and predictions again compared w i t h measurement. As development of t h e code continues, complex phenomena such as turbulence,massiveblowingsimulatingsurface material l o s t due t o ablation, and real-gas chemistry including nonequilibrium effects and radiation are added. A t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e development, ground-based f a c i l i t i e sb e g i n t o f a l l s h o r t of p r o v i d i n g a c r e d i b l ee x p e r i m e n t a ld a t ab a s ef o r comparison. The s c a r c i t yo f experimental data on r e a l - g a s f l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a b o u t b l u n t bodies a t incidence motivated, i n p a r t , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . Synonymous w i t h r e a l - g a s e f f e c t s are l a r g e v a l u e s of t h e normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o , which i s the primary parameter governing the flow about a b l u n t body a t hypers o n i cs p e e d s( r e f s . 1 and 2 ) . T h i sh i g hd e n s i t y r a t i o i s due t o e x c i t a t i o n of vibration,dissociation,andionizationenergy modes of the atmospheric gas passing throughthe bow shock. To i l l u s t r a t e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n d e n s i t y ratios e x i s t i n g between conventional wind t u n n e l s a n d f l i g h t , a r a t i o of only 5 t o 6 i s produced i n a conventional hypersonic tunnel using a i r or n i t r o g e n a s t h e test medium, whereas a vehicle encounters r a t i o s 3 times larger on entering the atmosphere of Earth and 4 times l a r g e r on enteringthepredominantly C02 atmosphere of Venus. D u p l i c a t i o n of

real-gas phenomena i n hypersonic flow i n a ground-based f a c i l i t y i s a formidable task. A few o p e r a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s can generate v e r y h i g h v e l o c i t i e s a t hypersonic c o n d i t i o n s ,b u tf o re x t r e m e l ys h o r tr u n times ( f o r example, see r e f s . 2 t o 6 ) . Although t h e s e impulse-type f a c i l i t i e s are v a l u a b l e t o o l s i n t h e s t u d y of r e a l - g a s effects,theylack many of the a d v a n t a g e s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e area of d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n ) of a conventional wind tunnel. A a l t e r n a t i v e method n of g e n e r a t i n gh i g h normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o s i s t o use a t e s t g a s w i t h a o r a t i o of specific h e a t s l w i n a conventional wind t u n n e l( r e f s . 1, 7, and 8). With such a test medium, high d e n s i t y r a t i o s can be generated a t r e l a t i v e l y law e n t h a l p i e s , a n d t h u s complex realgaschemistrycanbeavoided.Forexample, the LangleyHypersonic CF4 Tunnel ( r e f . 9 ) g e n e r a t e s a d e n s i t y r a t i o of 12 a t a Mach number of 6 , whereastheLangley 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel ( r e f s . 10 and 1 1 ) g e n e r a t e s a d e n s i t y r a t i o of 5.3 i n a i r .
The Langley Research Center has been developing sophisticated computer programs t o predict t h e f l a w c o n d i t i o n s a b o u t p l a n e t a r y probes. BecauseofLangley'shypers o n i c f a c i l i t y complex ( r e f s . 12 and 1 3 ) ,i n c l u d i n gt h eo n l yh i g h - d e n s i t y - r a t i o conv e n t i o n a l wind tunnel (CF4 t u n n e l ) o p e r a t i n g i n t h e U n i t e d States, researchershave the opportunity to validate their numerical techniques with data from t h e s e f a c i l i ties. Thus, a study w a s conducted on s e v e r a l b l u n t b o d i e s a t incidencein a number of hypersonic f a c i l i t i e s o v e r a range of Mach number, Reynolds number, and density r a t i o , and v a r i o u s p r e d i c t i o n s were compared w i t h t h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l data base. The purpose of t h i s report i s t o p r e s e n t s h o c k s h a p e s , p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , andaerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s measuredon a n a l y t i c a l s h a p e s ( h y p e r b o l o i d w i t h a n asymptotic angle of450, "sonic-corner" paraboloid, and paraboloid with an angle of 27.60 a t t h e b a s e ) , a V i k i n g a e r o s h e l l g e n e r a t e d i n a generalized orthogonal coordin a t es y s t e m( r e f . 141,and a family of coneshaving a 45O h a l f - a n g l e a n d d i f f e r e n t n o s es h a p e s( s p h e r i c a l ,f l a t t e n e d , concave,andcusp)corresponding t o p r e d i c t e dh e a t s h i e l dl o s s e sd u r i n gJ o v i a ne n t r y .T h e s ed a t a ,o b t a i n e di nt h eL a n g l e y ContinuousFlow HypersonicTunnel,20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel,andHypersonic CF4 Tunnel,cover a Mach number rangefrom 6 t o 10, a free-stream unit Reynolds number range from 2 x 106 t o 27 X 1O6 m-' , a d e n s i t y r a t i o r a n g e from 5.3 t o 12, and an angle of a t t a c k r a n g e from Oo t o 2 0 . L i m i t e d heat-transferdataobtained on thehyperboloidand par&* l o i d i n Mach 6 a i r are p r e s e n t e d i n t h e appendix. Also p r e s e n t e d are comparisons betweenmeasurementsand p r e d i c t i o n s f r o m simple t h e o r i e s andnumericalflaw field programs.

SYMBOLS
A
CA

model ba rse a , a e

axial-force oefficient, xial c A d r a gc o e f f i c i e n t , l i f c o e f f i c i e n tc o s t , pitching-moment normal-force diameter , m

CN s i n a

force/q-A

cD

CA c o s
CA s i n

a
a
mornent/q-A%

CL
Cm

c o e f f i c i e nitt,c h i n g P

CN
d
9

coefficient,

Normal force/q-A

a c c e l e r a t i o n due t o g r a v i t y , 9.8 m/sec

L/D M
!

l i f t - d rra g i o , at Mach number

s/CD

NRe
'A

u n i t Reynolds number , m p r e s s u r e , Pa dynamic p r e s s u r e , Pa heat-transfer rat , r a d i u rr d i u s oa s s u r f a cle n g t h e temperature, K v e l o c i t y , m/sec

-1

4
r
S

w/m

of curvature of o u t e r r f a c e , su from g e o m e t r is t a g n a t i op o i n t c n

m
a t zero incidence, m

U
X8

r e c t a n g uc a r r d i n a t e s l oo angle of a t t a c k , deg coordinate i n generalized orthogonal coordinate system, to equal nose r a t i o of s p e c hf ia t s iec acute angle between a x i s of symmetry and tangent to surface outer of a n a l y t i c a l model, deg
180 a t the

B
Y
tl

e
P
7

cone half-angle or asymptotic angle d e n s i t y , kg/m 3

s k i n thickness, m

c i r c u m f e r e n ta a l l e i ng

(Oo leeward, 180 windward)

Subscripts: b ca l c ef f model corner base or calculated

eff ec.tive

measured nose 'surface sphere

n
S

SPh

FACILITIES AND TEST METHODS

Langley Hypersonic

CF4 Tunnel

The LangleyHypersonic CF4 Tunnel i s a conventional blowdown wind t u n n e l t h a t u s e s Dupont Freon 14 ( t e t r a f l u o r o m e t h a n e ( C F 4 ) ) a s t h e t e s t gas. T h i s f a c i l i t y , shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n f i g u r e l ( a ) , i s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n r e f e r e n c e 9. Two leadbath h e a t e r s c o n n e c t e d i n parallel, e a c h c o n t a i n i n g 9.1 M g of lead and440-volt r e s i s t a n c e h e a t e r s , a r e used t o h e a t t h e CF4 t o t h e desired temperature. The highp r e s s u r e h e a t e d CF4 i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the s e t t l i n g chamber andsubsequently expanded throughanaxisymmetriccontourednozzle.Approximately 3 seconds are r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h s t e a d y f l o w a t t h en o z z l ee x i t ,a n d f o r t h e p r e s e n t tests, the t o t a l run t i m e w a s 10 seconds. A f t e r t e s t i n g , the c o n t e n t s of t h e vacuum sphere a r ee x h a u s t e d i n t o a CF4 reclaimer system t h a t l i q u e f i e s the CF4, e x h a u s t s g a s e o u s i m p u r i t i e s to t h e atmosphere, passes t h e compressed l i q u i d t h r o u g h a v a p o r i z e r , a n d stores t h e high-pressure gaseous CF4 i n b o t t l e s .

The model i s p o s i t i o n e d a t t h e n o z z l e e x i t by a p n e u m a t i c a l l y d r i v e n i n j e c t i o n mechanism w i t h t h e c e n t e r o f p i t c h r o t a t i o n f i x e d on t h e n o z z l e c e n t e r l i n e . The a n g l e of a t t a c k may be v a r i e do v e r f 2 0 w i t h a s t r a i g h t s t i n g . The i n j e c t i o n time ( time r e q u i r e d f o r the model t o move from t h e p r e r u n p o s i t i o n t o the nozzle center l i n e ) i s approximately 1.5 s e c o n d sa n dr e t r a c t i o n t i m e i s approximately 2 seconds. Pitot-pressuresurveys measured a t t h e n o z z l e e x i t a n d downstreamof the exit f o r nominal r e s e r v o i r t e m p e r a t u r e s of 608, 717, and815 K and a range of r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e from 6.9 t o 17.6 M a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n r e f e r e n c e 9 . P These surveys demons t r a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of a uniform t e s t core having a diameter of approximately 2 8 c m (0.55 times the n o z z l e e x i t diameter) a t t h e maximum test v a l u e s of r e s e r v o i r pressureandtemperature. The contouredaxisymmetricnozzle w a s d e s i g n e df o r a r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e of 17.6 M a and a temperatureof P 81 1 K. When the f a c i l i t y i s o p e r a t e d a t off-designreservoirconditions,spikesand dips i n t h e p i t o t - p r e s s u r e p r o f i l e s occur n e a r the n o z z l ec e n t e rl i n e( r e f . 9 ) . The average p i t o t pressure across the t e s t core decreased 3 t o 4 p e r c e n t w i t h a n a x i a l v a r i a t i o n of 20.3 cm downstream of t h e n o z z l e e x i t ( r e f . 91, w i t h the corresponding free-stream Mach number v a r i a t i o n b e i n g a b o u t 0.3 p e r c e n t . Flow c o n d i t i o n sv a r yn e g l i g i b l yo v e rt h ea x i a ld i s t a n c eo c c u p i e d by the p r e s e n t models.

Langley20-Ilich

Mach 6 Tunnel

The Langley20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel (refs. 10 and 1 1 ) is a bl.owdown wind t u n n e l t h a t u s e s dry a i r a s the t e s t gas- Air 1s s u p p l i e d a t 4.14 MPa andheated t o a maximum temperature of 560 K by a n electrical r e s i s t a n c e heater. The maximum reservoir p.ressufe .,is - 5 3 ~h~ general arrangement of this f a c i l i t y i s shown schematically i n f i g u r e l ( b 1 . A fixed-geometry two-dimensional contoured nozzle i s used. The p a r a l l e l sidewalls form a 0.86-cm by 50.8-cm t h r o a t s e c t i o n a n d 52.1-cm by 50.8-cm t e s t s e c t i o n , a n d the l e n g t h from the n o z z l e t h r o a t t o the t e s t s e c t i o n window c e n t e r l i n e i s 2.27 m. T h i s t u n n e l i s equippedwith a movablesecond minimum and exhausts either i n t o a vacuum, sphere o r t o the atmospherethroughanannular a i r ejector. The maximum r u n time i s 2 minutes with the sphere and 20 m i n u t e s w i t h t h e ejector.
Models were mountedon the i n j e c t i o n system located below the t e s t s e c t i o n . T h i s s y s t e m i n c l u d e s a remote-controlled sting support system capable of moving t h e model through an angle of attack rangefrom -50 t o +550; -the sideslip anglerange i s from O o t o - l o o . For the p r e s s u r e tests, the model w a s p o s i t i o n e d i n t h e t e s t sect i o n a t the d e s i r e d a n g l e of a t t a c k d u r i n g t u n n e l start because of i n s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h of p r e s s u r e t u b i n g . . For force and moment tests, t h e model w a s i n j e c t e d i n t o t h e t e s t s e c t i o n a f t e r s t e a d y flow hadbeenachieved. I n j e c t i o n time over the l a s t 24.9 c m w a s about0.9secondwith a maximum 2 9 a c c e l e r a t i o n . Angleof attack f o r t h e f o r c e and moment tests and f o r some of t h e p r e s s u r e tests w a s varied d u r i n g the run. Angleof a t t a c k was s e t o p t i c a l l y by u s i n g a p o i n t l i g h t s o u r c e a d j a c e n t t o the test s e c t i o n a n d a small l e n s - p r i m mounted on t h e t a p e r e d c y l i n d r i c a l s e c t i o n e x t e n d i n g behind the force models o r mounted p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e b a s e o f t h e p r e s s u r e models. The image of t h e source was reflected by the p r i m and focused by t h e l e n s o n t o a c a l i b r a t i o n b o a r d , which w a s viewed w i t h a c l o s e d - c i r c u i t v i d e o system. The accuracy of determiningangle of a t t a c k i n t h i s manner i s estimated t o be f0.25O. For force tests, measurements were made a t e i g h t a n g l e s of a t t a c k ( O O , 2 0 , 16O, 12O, 8 O , 4O, O o , -4O 1 d u r i n g each test.
A s i n g l e p i t o t - p r e s s u r e probe w a s i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e t u n n e l from t h e top of t h e t e s t s e c t i o n and positioned 6.35 mm downstream of t h e c e n t e r of the s c h l i e r e n window and 10.2 c m above and t o t h er i g h t( l o o k i n gu p s t r e a m ) of t h e n o z z l ec e n t e rl i n e . The l e a d i n g edges of t h e p r e s s u r e models a t z e r o i n c i d e n c e were p o s i t i o n e d i n t h e same p l a n e a s t h e p i t o t probe; the leading edges of t h e f o r c e models were approximately 3.8 a n upstream of t h i s plane,because of the more a f t l o c a t i o n of the s al lensml p r i m mounted on t h et a p e r e dc y l i n d r i c a ls e c t i o nb e h i n d t h e force models. Pitotp r e s s u r e s u r v e y s a t the c e n t e r of t h e s c h l i e r e n winduw show t h e e x i s t e n c e of a 27-cm by 33-cm t e s t c o r e f o r r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e s from 0.5 t o 3 M a ( r e f . 1 0 ) . F o r t h i s P range of p r e s s u r e , the Mach number v a r i a t i o n across t h e core w a s less than0.03, corresponding t o a p i t o t - p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n of about 2 p e r c e n t . The flow c o n d i t i o n s change n e g l i g i b l y o v e r t h e a x i a l space occupied by t h e p r e s e n t models.

LangleyContinuous-FlawHypersonicTunnel
The LangleyContinuous-FlowHypersonicTunnel ( r e f . 12) w a s o p e r a t e d i n the b l k d o w n mode f o r t h e p r e s e n t tests. The CFHT, s h w n s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n f i g u r e l ( c ) , u s e s a water-cooled three-dimensionalcontourednozzle t o g e n e r a t e a nominal Mach number of 10 w i t h dry a i r a s t h e t e s t gas. The nozzle t h r o a t i s 2.54 c m squareand the t e s t s e c t i o n is 78.7 c m square. A i r f o r the s e t t l i n g chamber i s s u p p l i e d a t 34.5 MPa, a n dt h e maximum o p e r a t i n g r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e i s 15.2 MPa. The maximum r e s e r v o i rs t a g n a t i o nt e m p e r a t u r e of the a i r , heated by a 1 - W e l e c t r i c r e s i s t a n c e 5M tube heater, i s 1060 K. A low-pressure preheat of t h e n o z z l e w a l l s i s performed

p r i o r t o a r ~ n - The ~ X i m U m run time i n t h e blowdown mode, diameter vacuum Spheres, i s 60 t o 80 seconds.

tunnel.

u s i n g two, 12.2-m-

Before a run, the model i s p o s i t i o n e d i n a n injection chamber on t h e s i d e of t h e This chamber allows a c c e s s t o t h e model withoutopening the t e s t s e c t d o n to t h ea t m o s p h e r eo rs h u t t i n g t h e t u n n e l down d u r i n g ' the continuous operatinq-m&3. Thc i n j e c t i o n systemcanrapidly(about 0.5 sec) i n s e r t a model f o r h e a t - t r a n s f e r t e s t s o r i n s e r t amodel a t low a c c e l e r a t i o n f o r f o r c e tests. T h i s system i s capable of changing the angle of a t t a c k of a model So p e r second f o r a range of 'f90.

MODELS

Expressionsdescribingthesurfacecoordinates of t h e m o d e l s t e s t e d are a s f o l l o w s ( b e c a u s e these models were f a b r i c a t e d from e x p r e s s i o n s i n which the quantit i e s x and y were i n n c h e s , i x and y are a l s o i n i n c h e s n h e o l l o w i n g it f equations;he ngle t a $ is in egrees): d Model 1

Hyperboloid

y =

J2, ,+
(x = 0,

(1a)

where t h e model nose i s l o c a t e d a t t h e o r i g i n Model 2

y = 0).

Sonic-corner paraboloid

Forebody: Afterbody:

y = 2.0466

y = 47.647535

(lb) 3.81968~

Model 3

Paraboloid

y = 1.4472fi

(IC)

Model 4 Vikingaeroshell ( r e f . 14))

( i n g e n e r a l i z e do r t h o g o n a lc o o r d i n a t e

system

x = 0,90021326 cos $

0.07515984 c o s 2 8

0.07121531 c o s 3 8

0.05382820

COS

48

y = 1.90412851 s i n $

0.07515984 s i n 2 $

0.07121531

sin 38

0.05382820 s i n 48

where $ = l 8 O o c o r r e s p o n d s t o the no'se and $ varies f r o m Oo to 180 over t h e body. ( T h e s e x p r e s s i o n s f o r x and y approximate a s p h e r i c a l l y blunted cone forebody with a h a l f - a n g l e of 70O.)

x = l - d l - y 2

(X

<

0.29289 i n . )

7
J

= y

0.41421

(x

> o -29289

in.

( c o n es e c t i o n )

Model 6

45O c o n e w i t h f l a t t e n e d n o s e

x= r
b

0.07352

0.05983

rb

1.56443(tr

13.37559(k)3

= y

0.41421

(X

>

0.29289 i n . ) J

Model 7

45O conewithconcavenose

"

X r

- 0.14512 + 0.03171

5b

6.80355(t)

39.22126(t)

7 8 . 1 2 7 9 9 5 ( k 7 l g+ 5 9 . 7 7 1 0 9 ( k r ( )

( x < 0.29289 i n . ,

rb = 2.0 i n .

X =

0.41421

(X

>

0.29289 i n . )

Model 8

45O cone withcusp

nos'e

= -2.28402

2.08333

10-1

$- -

1.25246 x l o 1

rb)l

2.56585

lo2

(.)I

1.71023

103(kr

5.153355

7.182985

lo3

3.73900

X.

lo3

(x < 0.29289 i n . ,
X

rb = 2.0 i n . )

= y

0.41421

(x

>

0.29289 i n . )
d

The base diameter f o r a l l models i s 10.16 cm. Models were mounted on 2.54-cmd i a m e t e rs t i n g s , whose r a t i o of l e n g t h t o diameteralwaysexceeded 3. Planform views of t h e models a r e shown i n f i g u r e 2. P r e s s u r e models were f a b r i c a t e d f o r t h e e i g h t s h a p e s , a n d f o r c e models were f a b r i c a t e d f o r models1,3, 5, 6 , 7 , and 8. The force models were machined from type 347 s t a i n l e s s s t e e l , a s w a s p r e s s u r e model 1. P r e s s u r e models 2 t o 8 were c a s t o u t of aluminum. A wooden p a t t e r n , 1.52 mm o v e r s i z e t o allow f o r shrinkageand machini n g , w a s made w i t h t h e o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d on i t ( f i g . 3 ( a ) ) . A sand mold w a s made from this pattern, stainless steel t u b i n g w a s i n s t a l l e d i n t h e mold cavityandconnected to theorificelocations(fig.3(b)), and t h e c a v i t y w a s f i l l e d w i t h aluminum 355-T6. A f t e r solidifying,the c a s t model w a s removed f r o m thesand mold a n d t h e s u r f a c e machined t o t h er e q u i r e dc o n t o u r .P r e s s u r e o r i f i c e s on theforebody were d i s t r i b u t e d a l o n g 4 r a y s ( $ = O o , 60, 1 2 0 , and 180O); t h e s t a i n l e s s s t e e l p r e s s u r et u b i n gh a d a ni n s i d ed i a m e t e r of 1.02 I n g e n e r a l ,t h es u r f a c ec o o r d i n a t e s of t h e s e models measured t ow i t h i n 0.1 mm of t h e e q u e s t e d a l u e s r v of x and y. The s u r f a c ef i n i s h f o r a l l models was 0 . 8 pm.

m. m

P r i o r t o t h e f a b r i c a t i o n of t h e s e f o r c e a n d p r e s s u r e models, a p r e s s u r e model and a h e a t - t r a n s f e r model (seetheappendix) were f a b r i c a t e d f o r t h e h y p e r b o l o i d a n d paraboloidshapes.Thesemodels were spunfromtype 347 s t a i n l e s s steel w i t h a d i e machined t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and t h e i r s u r f a c e s p o l i s h e d t o a 0.8 p f i n i s h . The base p l a t e w a s welded t o t h e s h e l l a f t e r i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e p r e s s u r e tubes o r thermocouple.wires.Unfortunately,the model s u r f a c ec o o r d i n a t e s were n o t measured a f t e r t h e b a s e - p l a t e s were welded i n place. After the initial tests i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l , d i s c r e p a n c i e s were observed between shock shapes measured on the pressure and the h e a t - t r a n s f e r model of t h e same shape a t t h e same flawconditions.Subsequent 'measurements of t h e s u r f a c e c o o r d i n a t e s of t h e m o d e l s r e v e a l e d d e v i a t i o n s from t h e requestedshape by as much a s 2.16. N e v e r t h e l e s s ,p r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n sa n d shockshapes are p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e s e spunmodels,sincethey were theonlymodels testedinboththe Mach 6 tunnelandthe CF4 tunnel. To d i f f e r e n t i a t e betweenthese models and the more a c c u r a t e machinedmodelsof the hyperboloid and paraboloid s h a p e s , t h e spunmodels a r e d e s i g n a t e d a s series 1 andthe machinedmodels as series 2.

nn u.

"

"_

._ .

.. ..

Pressure distributions along various rays on t h e model s u r f a c e a r e p r e s e n t e d i n terms of s, t h es u r f a c el e n g t h from t h eg e o m e t r i cs t a g n a t i o np o i n t a t zero i n c i dence,nondimensionalized by %, t h e s u r f a c e l e n g t h f r o m t h e ' s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t t o t h e c o r n e r . T h i s l e n g t h i s given i n terms of x and y . by

R
i

:\

Thus, f o r the a n a l y t i c a l models,

where

Model

dy/dx

xb,

in.

1 2 3

(x

05/= .){1.0 233/fi 0.7236/p

1.56 .955 19 .1

For t h e conemodels(models

5 to 8

where yb

is. e q u a l o t

2 in.

Although a closed-form solution i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e p a r a b o l o i d andcones (models 3 and 5 t o 81, s/% o r the hyperboloid (model 1 ) must be obtained numerically. Values of s/sb p r e s e n t e d e r e i n were h determined from numerical i n t e g r a t i o n( S i m p s o n ' sr u l e ) o r all models. Because p r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n sa r e sometimes p l o t t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e as a f u n c t i o n of s/rn, v a l u e s of both % rn are p r e s e n t e d :

and

.-

- . . ........ - .

. . . . .._ - , .

. ._"."-.

".".." ---

~~

6.5352 ( 2 . 5 7 2 9 ) 5.7716 ( 2 . 2 7 2 3 ) 7.3442 ( 2 . 8 9 1 4 ) 6 . 6 4 0 32 . 6 1 4 3 ) ( 6.5308 (2.5712) 6.5682 (2.5859 1 6 . 6 4 2( 2 . 6 1 5 0 ) 1

1.2700 5.3195 2.6599 2.5400

(0.5000) (2.0943) (1.0472) (1 .OOOO)

."

The e q u i v a l e n t nn----.*.=u rrom

f o rt h eh y p e r b o l o i d

(model 1) andtheparaboloid(model

3)

1:

INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA A C Q U I S I T I O N

Pressure Model s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s weremeasured i n t h e Mach 6 tunnel and the CFHT w i t h variable-capacitancediaphragmtransducershavingsevenranges of pressure,the maximum being 133 kea. Each f a c i l i t y had 20 suchtransducersavailable. The s i g n a l f r o m a transducer was recorded on amagnetictape by an analog-to-digital recording syst m For t e s t s i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l ,t h eo u t p u ts i g n a l s e . from 8 of the 20 p r e s s u r e transducers were d i s p l a y e d on an oscillograph, and data were taken a t s e l e c t e d t i m e s . T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the system a l l o w e d d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n f o r a s t e a d y - s t a t e f l o w condition (pt , Tt, 1 , and P t , 2 c o n s t a n t w i t h t i m e ) ;a l s o ,p r e s s u r el a g due t o t h e l o n g l e n g t h o# tublng (approximately 3 m ) could be observed and data taken after the p r e s s u r e became c o n s t a n t . Each d a t ap o i n tr e p r e s e n t e dt h ea v e r a g e of 20 samples made persecond f o r eachchannel. To reducetheresponsetime of thepressuremeasuring system, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r b a s e p r e s s u r e andafterbodypressuremeasurements,the t r a n s d u c e r s and reference manifold were subjected before the run to a pressure that was c l o s e t o t h a te x p e c t e d on the model s u r f a c ed u r i n g the run. With aswitching device referred to as a pinch bar, the 2 0 pressure transducers could be used to measure i n excess of 40 s u r f a c ep r e s s u r e sd u r i n ga run. Again, t o improve theresponse of t h e system, the pinch bar was hooked up so t h a t p r e s s u r e l e v e l s changed r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e when the transducers were switchedfromonegroup of 20 o r i f i c e s t o a n o t h e r . I n the CFHT, e a c h o r i f i c e was connecteddirectlytoapressuretransducer;hence, two r u n s were r e q u i r e d f o r e a c h model a t a given condition to obtain 40 s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e . measurements.

I n the CF4 tunnel, 42 p r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r s were a v a i l a b l e : 10 v a r i a b l e capacitancetype and 32 strain-gagetype.Outputsfromthesepressuretransducers wererecorded on magnetictape a t a r a t e of 400 samplespersecondforeachchannel.

10

Shock Shapes During t h e p r e s s u r e and f o r c e tests i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l , shock shapes were measured w i t h a Z-pattern,single-passschlierensystem. A xenon l i g h t s o u r c e w a s operated i n a continuous mode duringtunnelstartup. Once steady flaw w a s o b t a i n e d over the model, a m i r r o r w a s i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e s c h l i e r e n system t o r e f l e c t a shortd u r a t i o n l i g h t p u l s e from t h e lamp i n t o a camera equipped with a f a s t openingshutt e r .R e p r e s e n t a t i v es c h l i e r e np h o t o g r a p h s are shown i n f i g u r e 4 f o r models 5 and 8. Shock shapes were n o t o b t a i n e d i n t h e CFHT because t h i s f a c i l i t y i s n o t equipped with a f l a w v i s u a l i z a t i o n system. Shock shapes were measured i n t h e CF4 t u n n e l w i t h a dual-plate holographic i n t e r f e r o m e t e rs y s t e m( r e f . 15). Holograms, recordedusing a pulsedruby laser t h a t provided a 50 mJ p u l s e f o r 20 nsec, w e r e used t o produce schlieren photographs and interferograms.

Forces and

Moments

Forces and moments were measured i n the Mach 6 tunnel and the C H w i t h t h e same F T sting-supported, six-component strain-gagebalance.Thisbalance was water cooled and s h i e l d e d from t h e f l a w t o minimize t h e e f f e c t of heating (aerodynamic heating and conductionwithinthe model and s t i n g ) on t h e s t r a i n gages. The s t r a i n - g a g ee x c i t a t i o nv o l t a g e was 5 volts.Outputforthenormal-force,axial-force,andpitchingmoment components w a s recorded by t h e a n a l o g - t o - d i g i t a l system a t 40 samples p e r second.

DATA REDUCTION AND UNCERTAINTY

Pressure Measured s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e n o n d i m e n s i o n a l i z e d by t h e p r e s s u r e a t t h es t a g n a t i o np o i n t of t h e model a t zeroincidence. The p i t o t p r e s s u r e was measured o r a l l t e s t s performed i n t h e Mach 6 tunnelandthe CF4 tunnel. The r a t i o of t h e p i t o t pressure t o t h e model s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t p r e s s u r e a t zero incidence w a s computed a s a c o r r e c t i o nf a c t o r .F o r tests a t i n c i d e n c e , t h e r a t i o of model s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e t o p i t o t pressure was m u l t i p l i e d by t h i s c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r , which w a s less than 3 p e r c e n t from u n i t y f o r b o t h t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l ( r e f . 16) andthe CF4 t u n n e l tests. For tests i n t h e CFHT, t h e p i t o t p r e s s u r e w a s c a l c u l a t e d from t h e c a l i b r a t e d free-stream Mach number, t h e r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e , and c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s a c c o u n t i n g f o ri m p e r f e c t - g a se f f e c t si nt h e reservoir. The p r o c e d u r ef o ro b t a i n i n g nondimens i o n a l i z e d s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s w a s t h e same e x c e p t t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t e d p i t o t p r e s s u r e w a s u s e d i n s t e a d of a measured value.
A t low d e n s i t i e s , t h e h e a t - t r a n s f e r rate and o r i f i c e diameter may a f f e c t presSure measurements ( r e f . 1 7 ) . T h i s phenomenon, caused by unequal speed d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r incomingandoutgoingmoleculesnearthe o r i f i c e e n t r a n c e , i s evidenced by a decrease i n the measured pressure w i t h a decrease i n t h e o r i f i c e diameter f o r a given d e n s i t y and h e a t - t r a n s f e r rate. F o rt h ec o n d i t i o n s of t h ep r e s e n ts t u d y , orifice e f f e c t s are n e g l i g i b l e ( r e f . 1 7 ) . Considering errors r e s u l t i n g from c a l i b r a t i o n of t h ep r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r s ,t r a n s d u c e ru n c e r t a i n t i e s , systemresponse time, outgassing, andthermal creep, the p r e s e n t pressure measurements are b e l i e v e d t o b e accurate t o w i t h i n 3 percent. Data scatter i n s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s measured on t h e models a t z e r o incidence indicates an overall uncertainty of 3 t o 5 percent.
11

PREDICTION OF

FLOW CONDITIONS

Free-stream conditions and conditions behind the normalshock were determined f o r each run i n t h e Mach 6 tunnel and CF4 t u n n e l by assuming an isentropic expansion of t h e t e s t gasthroughthenozzle.Reservoir thermodynamic p r o p e r t i e s were determined from t h e measured r e s e r v o i r r e s s u r e p pt, and temperature Tt 1. For t h e range of test c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e Mach 6 tunnel, a i r behavesideally. '$he t a b u l a t e d data of r e f e r e n c e 18 were c u r v e f i t t e d f o r 5.7 < M < 6.3 , t oy i e l dt h ef o l l o w i n g e x p r e s s i o no r f M, i n terms of measured pt, and

M,

= 8.30067582

106.1638176

(?:::)
- +

963.5096163

and post-normal-shock c o n d i t i o n s were The corresponding free-stream conditions obtained f r o m t h e i d e a l - a i r r e l a t i o n s and t a b l e s of r e f e r e n c e 18.
Imperfect-gas (intermolecular-force) ef Eects m s be accounted or a t t h e reserut v o i rc o n d i t i o n s of t h e CF4 t u n n e l( r e f s . 1 and 9 ) . T e s t s e c t i o nf l a wc o n d i t i o n si n CF4 were c a l c u l a t e d from t h e i m p e r f e c t CF4 e x p r e s s i o n s of r e f e r e n c e 19 andmeasured v a l u e s of P t , l I T t , l and From measured a n d c a l c u l a t erd s e r v o i r e conditions, an isentropic nozzle expansion w a s performed t o a n i n i t i a l e s t i m a t e of t h e f r e e - s t r e a ms t a t i ct e m p e r a t u r e T,. A normal-shock c r o s s i n g w a s performed and a value of pt w a s c a l c u l a t e d by assuming the between gas the shock and the stagnat i o nr e g i o n Lo b ei s e n t r o p i c .I ft h ec a l c u l a t e dv a l u e of p t ? w a s n o tw i t h i n 0 . 0 5 p e r c e n t of t h e measured value, T, w a s i t e r a t e d u n t i l t h l s t o l e r a n c e was achieved.
A parameter of i n t e r e s t f o r t h e CF4 t u n n e l i s t h e e f f e c t i v e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s .I d e a l - g a sf l o wf i e l d programscan a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t inviscidflowabout a b l u n t body a t hypersonic speeds andhigh normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o s p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e d e n s i t y r a t i o i s accounted f o r by u s i n g a n e f f e c t i v e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s ( r e f . 2 ) . T h i se f f e c t i v ev a l u e i s determinedfromtheideal-gas normal-shock relat i o n( r e f .1 8 ) ,

+p_(l-k)
p2

For Mach 6 and 10 a i r ,

yeff

y,

= 1.4,

and f o r CF4,

yef

1.12.

I m p e r f e c t - g a s e f f e c t s m s t also be considered i n determining flow conditions f o r t h e CFHT ( r e f . 20). Because the p i t o t p r e s s u r e a t t h e t e s t s e c t i o n w a s n o t measured i n t h e CFHT, free-stream Mach number andReynolds number f o r measured r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e s and temperatures were o b t a i n e d f r o m a c a l i b r a t i o n s t u d y perEormed p r i o r t o t h e present tudy. See ig. .) s ( f 7 Along w i t h h e s e a l u e s t v of M, were supplied correct i o n f a c t o r s ( r a t i o s of imperfect-gas t o i d e a l - g a s q u a n t i t i e s , re. 20 a n d f i g . 7 ( c ) ) 13

nozzledesignconditions,inanticipation of p o s s i b l e tests of t h e p r e s e n t models i n t h e CF4 tunnel. ( A s d i s c u s s e dp r e v i o u s l y ,t h e CF4 tunnel must be run a t nozzle d e s i g nc o n d i t i o n s (pt, = 17.6 MPa, Tt, , 81 1 K) t o avoid a degradation of Z the flow q u a l i t y . A t n o z z l ed e s i g nc o n d i t i o n s ,t h eu n i t R e nolds number immediately behind a normalshock NRe,2 i s approximately 6.5 x lo5 m)

's' .

P r e s s u r e models were t e s t e d o v e r a range of angle of a t t a c k from O o t o e i t h e r 1 6 O o r 20 i n increments of 4O. To o b t a i n a more d e t a i l e d c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l mapping of the surface pressure in the Mach 6 t u n n e l , t h e models were r o l l e d 30 a t a n g l e s of attack of 4 and 8 O . O T h i sp r o v i d e dp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n sa l o n gr a y s of $ = O o , I 30, 60, goo, 120, 150, and 180O. Force models were t e s t e do v e r a rangeofangle of a t t a c k from -4O t o 20.
I t should be noted t h a t models t e s t e d i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l a t t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e of r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e i n t h e f i r s t s e r i e s of tests were sandblasted. The source of t h e s o l i d flow contaminants w a s a t t r i b u t e d t o d e t e r i o r a t i o n of a n a c o u s t i c a l m u f f l e r installedinthe system. A f i n eg r a d e of sandpaper w a s used t o r e s t o r e a smooth f i n i s h t o t h e model s u r f a c e a f t e r e a c h r u n a t h i g h r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e . These s o l i d contaminants i n t h e flow were not expected t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e measurements. The f i r s t model t e s t e d i n t h e C H (hyperboloidpressure model) F T was also sandblasted and the source of thesesolidflowcontaminants was t r a c e d t o r u s t r e s u l t i n g from a leakinthewater-coolednozzlenearthethroat.Thissituat i o n w a s c o r r e c t e d andmodels t e s t e d t h e r e a f t e r r e c e i v e d l i t t l e s a n d b l a s t i n g .

PREDICTIONS The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s f o r models 1, 3, and 5 a t zero incidence are compared w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s from a modified version of t h e computercode p r e s e n t e d i n r e f e r e n c e 21. The method of reference 21 rapidly(inregardto computer t i m e ) p r e d i c t s i d e a l - g a s i n v i s c i d s u p e r s o n i c andhypersonicflowconditionsaboutspheres,ellipsoids,parabol o i d s , and hyperboloidsthat may have c o n i c a la f t e r b o d i e s . A approximation t h a t n allows an independent evaluation of the pressure throughout the shock l a y e r i s made t o t h e normal momentum equation.Thisapproximation removes many of t h eu s u a l mathem a t i c a l problems a s s o c i a t e dw i t hs u b s o n i c and supersonicregions. A i t e r a t i v e techn n i q u et h a ts c a l e st h e shock t o t h e s p e c i f i e d body i n t h e s u b s o n i c and low supersonic region of t h e f l o w f i e l d i s used.Sincethepublication of r e f e r e n c e 21, a v i s c o u s package,providingthecapability of p r e d i c t i n g h e a t - t r a n s f e r rates, hasbeenadded t o t h e program. A l i s t i n g of t h e o r i g i n a l program and u s e r i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e pres e n t e di nr e f e r e n c e 21 a l o n gw i t h a d e t a i l e dd i s c u s s i o n of thetheory.Pressure distributions,heat-transferdistributions, and shock s h a p e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n and designated a s being from r e f e r e n c e 21 were generated by E r n e s t V. Zoby. P r e d i c t i o n s from two o t h e r f l o w f i e l d computerprograms are compared with measurement. One i s a time-dependent i n v i s c i d i d e a l - g a s program f o r axisymmetricblunt bodies.This program doesnot appear i n t h e open l i t e r a t u r e . R e s u l t s from i t were generated by Harris H. Hamilton of t h e LangleyResearchCenterand are designated "unpublished" on t h ef i g u r e s . The o t h e r code ( r e f . 22) i s a time-dependent secondo r d e r - a c c u r a t e f i n i t e - d i f f e r e n c e method which u s e s t h e v i s c o u s shock l a y e r e q u a t i o n s i n body-orientedcoordinates t o d e s c r i b et h ef l o wf i e l d . The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d from t h i s method were generated by e i t h e r Ajay K u m a r of the Langley Research Center or R. N. Gupta, NRC SeniorResearchAssociate.

15

S u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r a l l e i g h t model shapes w e r e p r e d i c t e d w i t h modified Newtonian t h e o r y ( r e f s . 23 and 2 4 ) , r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e e x p r e s s i o n f o r t h e pressure c o e f f i c i e n t

where C i s t h e pressure c o e f f i c i e n t a t t h e t a g n a t i o n o i nb e h i n d s p t a normal shock a n s ' s y g i s t h e a n g l e of i n c l i n a t i o n of t h e model s u r f a c e t o t h e a x i s ofrevolut i o n ( 7 = 90 when perpendicular t o t h e a x i s of r e v o l u t i o n ) For 5.7 < M m < 10.2, the alue v of C f o r a i r i s 1.8235 w i t h n n c e r t a i n t y f au o 0.5 p e r c e n tf o r ; fLs%16. Thus, t h e r a t i o of s u r f a c ep r e s s u r e t o model s t a g n a t i o n CF4 cp, s t a g pointpressure(pitotpressure) i s g i v e n( r e f . 16) f o r a i r by

"

PS

- 0.985 s i n2 7

p, +-

Pt,2

Pt,2

and f o r CF4 by

"

PS

- 0.978 s i n q

P m + Pt,2

Pt,2 where leeward

q = t a n- 1 3 dx
and windward

-1 q = tan

3+
dx

(1Ob)

S u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s on t h e cone s e c t i o n s ofmodels 5 t o 8 a t i n c i d e n c e were a l s o predictedwiththe semiempirical r e s u l t s of r e f e r e n c e 25 andtheequivalent-cone methodof r e f e r e n c e 26.

ReSULTS AND DISCUSSION The p r e s e n ts t u d y w a s performed i n two series of tests. Inthefirst series, the hyperboloid and paraboloid spun p r e s s u r e modelsand h e a t - t r a n s f e r models (see t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "Models") were tested i n t h e Langley20-Inch Mach 6 Tunneland t h e LangleyHypersonic CF4 Tunnel. Shock shapesmeasured on t h e s e models a r e shown i n Eigure For 8. a few tests, t h e shock shape w a s o b t a i n e di n two ways: ( 1 ) by r e a d i n g

16

t h e shock detachment distance from p r i n t s , a s discussed i n t h e s e c t i o n on d a t a reduction(denotedinfig. 8 by open symbols) and ( 2 ) by u s i n g a n e n l a r g e r which displayed t h e model overtwice i t s s i z e on t h e s u r f a c e of a d i g i t i z e r table. The general agreementbetween t h e shockdetachment d i s t a n c e s measured w i t h t h e s e two methods l e n d s c r e d i b i l i t y t o t h e measuredvalues. The shock s h a p e sf o rt h e two hyperboloid models a g r e e ( f i g . 8 ( a ) ) , whereasthedetachmentdistanceforthepressureparaboloid model exceeds t h a t f o r t h e h e a t - t r a n s f e r p a r a b o l o i d model ( f i g . 8 ( b ) ) . D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e model shapespossiblycausedthisdiscrepancy. The second set of s u r f a c e c o o r d i n a t e measurements, discussed i n t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "Models," revealed deviat i o n s from t h e r e q u e s t e d a n a l y t i c a l s h a p e by a s much a s 2.16

nn u.

A second series of tests were performed with more accurate hyperboloid and paraboloid models, a l o n g w i t h two o t h e r a n a l y t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a n d a family of 45O coneshavingdifferentnoseshapes. A l l t h e models t e s t e d i n t h e second series were pressure o r f o r c e modelsand were t e s t e d i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l and t h e CFHT. Although the data obtained in the first series correspond t o somewhat i r r e g u l a r model contours, they are presented nevertheless because they represent the onlycomparisons a t two d e n s i t y r a t i o s i n Mach 6 flow. 1

Shock Shapes Shock shapesmeasured on a 10.16-cm-diameter s p h e r e a r e shown i n f i g u r e 9 and t h o s e measuredon thehyperboloid(model1)andparaboloid(model3) a t various a n g l e s of a t t a c k are shown i n f i g u r e s 10 and 11. The d a t a of t h e s ef i g u r e s ,o b t a i n e d i n Mach 6 a i r and CF4, i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t of normal-shock densityratio p /pm, or e f f e c t i v er a t i o of s p e c i f i ch e a t s y e f f , on shock detachment distance. For t$e s p h e r e ( f i g . 91, theagreementbetweenthe shock detachment distances for the two a i r tests a t d i f f e r e n t r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e s (Reynoldsnumbers) i n d i c a t e s t h e a b s e n c e of viscous effects over the operating range of r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l .I n c r e a s i n g the d e n s i t y r a t i o from 5.2 f o r a i r t o 12.1 f o r CF4 moves t h e shock c l o s e r t o t h e s u r f a c e of t h e s p h e r e ; i n t h e s t a g n a t i o n r e g i o n , t h i s i n c r e a s e in d e n s i t yr a t i od e c r e a s e st h ed e t a c h m e n td i s t a n c e by a f a c t o r of about 2. The shock = 1.123)withthe method of detachment distances predicted f o r a i r and CF4 (Ye f r e f e r e n c e 2 1 a g r e e w e l l w i t h measurements i n t h e s L g n a t i o n r e g i o n of thesphere. P r e d i c t e d( r e f .2 1 ) and measured shock shapes a t a = O o i n a i r and CF4 are i n good agreement f o r t h e h y p e r b o l o i d ( f i g . l O ( a ) ) ; f a i r a g r e e m e n t i s o b s e r v e df o rt h e paraboloid (fig. 11 ( a )), w i t h p r e d i c t i o n u n d e r e s t i m a t i n g t h e shockdetachment d i s tance. The shock shapesoverthesurface of t h e s e two a n a l y t i c a l models a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k a r e f r e e of i n f l e c t i o n s i n b o t h test gases. Density r a t i o has a pronounced e f f e c t onshockdetachment d i s t a n c e f o r t h e s e two models f o r t h e p r e s e n t range of a n g l e of a t t a c k . The e f f e c t of a n g l e of a t t a c k onshock shape i n a i r and CF4 i s shown f o r t h e hyperboloid i n f i g u r e 12 a n dt h ep a r a b o l o i di nf i g u r e 13. The shock detachment distanceoverthe windward (- 1 < y/rb < 0 ) s u r f a c e of the hyperboloid i s r e l a t i v e l y independent of a n g l e of a t t a c k , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n CF4 ( f i g . 1 2 ( b ) ) . The e f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k onshockdetachment d i s t a n c e i s a l s o small on t h e windward surface of t h e p a r a b o l o i d ( f i g . 13) i n both test gases, whereas on t h e leeward side,detachment

'The r e s u l t s of t h e f i r s t

series are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s

10 t o 13 and 23 t o 30.

17

distancesignificantlyincreaseswithincreasingangle o fa t t a c k . The e f f e c t of t h e flowexpansionaround the c o r n e r on the windward shock shape occurs closer t o both models a t t h e h i g h e r v a l u e ofnormal-shock d e n s i t y ratio. Shock s h a p e s o b t a i n e d i n t h e Mach 6 t u n n e l d u r i n g the second series of tests a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 14 t o 20 f o r a rangeofangle of a t t a c k . The shockshapeoverthe forebody of t h e sonic-corner paraboloid (model 2 ) i s shown i n f i g u r e 14, o v e rt h e p a r a b o l o i d (model 3) i n f i g u r e 15, o v e rt h eV i k i n ga e r o s h e l l (model 4 ) i n f i g u r e 16, andoverthecone models w i t h d i f f e r e n t noseshapes(models 5 t o 8 ) i n f i g u r e s 17 t o 20. Note t h a t t h e cone s e c t i o n of t h e cone models remains fixed inthe x,y coordinatesystem a s t h e nose changes shape. The p r e d i c t e d( r e f . 21) measured and shockdetachment d i s t a n c e from t h e more a c c u r a t e p a r a b o l o i d model used i n t h i s second series a g r e e w e l l a t a = O o ( f i g .1 5 ( a ) 1 .
An i n f l e c t i o n i n t h e shockmeasured o v e rt h es u r f a c e of thespherical-nose cone (model 5 ) i s observed a t y/rb = f 0 . 6 and a = O o (fig. 7(a)). his nflection, 1 T i due t o overexpansionoftheflow from t h e s p h e r i c a l n o s e t o t h e cone s e c t i o n , i s d i s cussed i n r e f e r e n c e 27 and i l l u s t r a t e ds u b s e q u e n t l y . Shock shapesmeasuredandpred i c t e d ( r e f s. 21 and 22 andtheunpublishedtime-dependentblunt-bodyprogram) for the spherical-nose cone a t a = O o ( f i g .1 7 ( a ) ) a r e i n good agreement.

The e f f e c t ofangle of a t t a c k on t h e shockshape for the four conemodels is shown i n f i g u r e 21. The i n f l e c t i o n i n t h e shock shapeson models 5, 6 , and 7 observed a t t h e lower a n g l e s of a t t a c k d o e s n o t appear a t t h e h i g h e s t a n g l e of a t t a c k on e i t h e r t h e windward or leewardsides. The shockdetachmentdistancenearthenose and i n t h e p l a n e of the base on t h e windward s i d e i s r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o a n g l e of a t t a c k f o r a l l f o u r cone models. I n f i g u r e 2 2 , t h e shock shapesonthefour cone models are compared w i t h one a n o t h e r a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k of Oo, 4 O , and20. As in f i g u r e s 17 to 21, t h e cone section of t h e models is f i x e d i n t h e x,y c o o r d i n a t e system.Varyingthenoseshapefromsphericalhas a small i n f l u e n c e on t h e shock shape i n t h e nose region a t the lower angles of a t t a c k ( f i g s . 2 2 ( a ) and 2 2 ( b ) 1, b u t l i t t l e e f f e c t away from thenoseregion.This i s a l s o t h e case a t a = 200 ( f i g . 2 2 ( c ) ) on t h e windward side; however, changingthenosefromspherical i n c r e a s e s t h e shockdetachment d i s t a n c e on theleewardside. A embedded shock w i t h i n t h e leeward shock l a y e r w a s observed f o r t h e cusp-nose n cone (model 8 ) a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k of 1 6 O and 2 0 . T h i s embedded shock may be observed from the schlieren photographs of f i g u r e 4 and w a s a l s o observed f o r t h e f l a t t e n e d - n o s e cone (model 6 ) and concave-nose cone (model 7 ) a t t h eh i g h e s ta n g l e of attack (a = 20O). T h i s embedded shock, which w a s n o to b s e r v e df o rt h es p h e r i c a l - n o s e cone(model 5) a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k up t o 20, o r i g i n a t e s on t h e cone s u r f a c e j u s t downstream of t h e nose-cone junction.

Pressure Comparisonsbetween a i r and CF4 r e s u l t s (series 11.- P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measuredon the hyperboloid a t v a r i o u s a n g l e s of a t t a c k a n d Reynolds numbers i n a i r and CF4 are shown i n f i g u r e s 23 and 26. The measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a i r at a = 00 ( f i g . 2 3 ( a ) ) exhibitsanunexpectedoverexpansion of theflow similar t o t h a t observedonsphericallybluntedcones ( r e f . 2 7 ) . A l s o shown i n f i g u r e 2 3 ( a ) are the p r e d i c t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e s 21 and 22 and modified Newtonian theory. Newtonian theory u n d e r p r e d i c t s t h e measured s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s a t a = Oo, w h e r e a s t h e p r e d i c t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e s 21 and 22 a r e i n r e a s o n a b l y good ( a b o u t 6 percent) agreement with measurement. The s u r f a c e r e s s u r e r a t i o s p/pt,2 p orhe yperboloid evealhat t h r t 18

theflaw i s subsonicovertheforebody a t a = Oo and 4 O and becomes supersonicon t h el e e w a r ds i d ef o r a > 4O. ( I ft h ef l a ww i t h i nt h e shock l a y e r expands isent r o p i c a l l y from thestagnationregion,theflow becomes supersonic when p/pt,2 < 0.528 f o r a i r and p/pt,2 < 0.575 f o r C F 4 . ) Newtonian theory u n d e r p r e d i c t s t h e windward s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k , b u t i s i n f a i r l y good agreementwithmeasuredleewardsurfacepressuresfor a > 12O. An influenceof flowexpansion a t t h e c o r n e r i s observed j u s t upstream of t h e c o r n e r on t h e windward ray ( I$ = 180) f o r a > 12O. P r e s s u r e s measured on a 45O hyperboloid a t Mach 10, b u t a t a lower Reynolds number than i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , a l s o e x c e e d e d Newtonian theory a t a = O o ( r e f . 2 8 ) . I t w a s s p e c u l a t e di nr e f e r e n c e 28 t h a t a n a l y t i c a l b o d i e s having a s o n i c p o i n t a t t h e endof the forebody surface wouldhave experimental p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s d i f f e r e n t from Newtonian theory. The r e s u l t s of f i g u r e 23 f o r t h e most windward (Q = 180O) andleeward (I$ O o ) rays tend t o s u p p o r t t h i s = speculation. The d a t a of f i g u r e 24 show t h a tt h ef a c t o r of 17 v a r i a t i o n i n Reynolds number has no e f f e c t on s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e on the hyperboloid a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k . anoverexpansion of t h e CF4 flow i s observed f o r t h e h y p e r b o l o i d at ( f i g .2 5 ( a ) ) .I ng e n e r a l , Newtonian theory the and method of r e f e r e n c e 21 u n d e r p r e d i c tt h es u r f a c ep r e s s u r e a t a = Oo; Newtonian theoryunderpredictsthe windward s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e , which corresponds t o aninviscidsubsonic shock l a y e r , and a g r e e sf a i r l y w e l l with measurement on t h el e e w a r ds i d ef o r a > 8O. The C F results 46 f o rt h eh y p e r b o l o i d a r e compared w i t ht h e a i r r e s u l t s a t N R ~ , = 0.2 ~ x ~ 10 i n ~ , f i g u r e 26. I ng e n e r a l ,t h ep r e s s u r e r a t i o s f o r t h e CF4, w i t h a d e n s i t y r a t i o approximately twice t h a t of a i r , are less t h a nt h o s ef o ra i r .T h i st r e n d of a lowersurf a c e p r e s s u r e r a t i o f o r CF4 is a l s o p r e d i c t e d by t h e method of r e f e r e n c e 21 a t a = O o ( f i g .2 6 ( a ) ) . The d i f f e r e n c e between measured s u r f a c ep r e s s u r er a t i o sf o r t h e two g a s e s i n c r e a s e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g a n g l e of a t t a c k and i s about 30 p e r c e n t on theleewardside a t a = 20. Unlike a i r , theflawovertheforebody of t h e hyperb o l o i d i n CF4 may be bothsubsonicandsupersonic a t a = Oo. A l s o , t h e CF4 p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on t h e most windward r a y do n o t e x h i b i t a n u p s t r e a m i n f l u e n c e of t h e flawexpansion a t thecorner, a s do t h e a i r r e s u l t s f o r a > 12O.
A s i n air,

a = Oo

Pressuredistributionsfortheparaboloid (model 3 ) a r e Shawn i n f i g u r e s 27 t o 30 f o rv a r i o u sa n g l e s of a t t a c k , Reynolds numbers, and t e s t gases. A t a = O o i n a i r (fig.27(a)),thepredictions of r e f e r e n c e 21 and Newtonian theoryagree reasonably w e l l ( 6 t o 7 percent) with measurement. AS observed f o rt h eh y p e r b o l o i d , Newtonian theory tends to underpredict the windward s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k , b u t i s i n good agreementwiththeleewardpressuredistribution.This is a l s o observed i n CF4 ( f i g . 2 9 ) . The windward shock layerflow becomes subsonicalong the ntire e Q = 180 r a y o r f a > 12O i na i r and a > 16O i n CF4. A s expected, t h e r e i s n o s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ofReynolds number on t h e s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e distributionforthisrelativelyblunt body i n Mach 6 a i r ( f i g . 2 8 ) . The method of r e f e r e n c e 21 p r e d i c t s a n e f f e c t of d e n s i t y r a t i o on s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e a t a = Oo ( f i g . 30 ( a ) ) Althoughan e f f e c t of d e n s i t y r a t i o on t h e l e e w a r d s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e distributionfortheparaboloid may e x i s t ( f i g . 301, i t i s n o t a s s i g n i f i c a n t a s t h a t observed i n f i g u r e 26 for the hyperboloid.

Mach 6 a i r r e s u l t s ( s e r i e s 21.- P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on the sonic-corner paraboloid (model 2 ) i n Mach 5.9 a i r are shown i n f i g u r e 31 a t v a r i o u s a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on theforebody i s p r e d i c t e d q u i t e w e l l by Newtonian t h e o r yf o r a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s of f i g u r e 31 i l l u s t r a t et h er a p i de x p a n s i o n of theflowaroundthe corner. Except a t a = 8O, t h e p r e s s u r e s on t h e windward (6 = 180 ) andleeward ( I$ = O o ) r a y s of the afterbody are r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t w i t h S/Sb# are e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same value,and do n o t change a p p r e c i a b l yw i t hi n c r e a s i n ga n g l e of a t t a c k . The a f t e r b o d yp r e s s u r e i s close t o t h e 19

f r e e - s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e . The r e a s o nt h a tt h ea f t e r b o d yp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s along @ = 0" and 180 a r e d i f f e r e n t a t a = 8 O from those of t h eo t h e rr a y s ( f i g . 3 1 ( c ) ) i s unknown. Pressuredistributions on the more a c c u r a t e (series 2) paraboloid (model 3 ) a r e shown i n f i g u r e 32 or Mach 5.9 a i r . The s u r f a cp r e s s u rre t i ofs r e a o this model a r e somewhat lower than values measured on t h e model t e s t e d i n t h e f i r s t series and a r e i n good agreementwithprediction(ref. 21 andNewtoniantheory) a t a = Oo. Newtonian theory p r e d i c t s t h e windward andleeward p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s q u i t e well a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k . Figure 33 shaws measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on t h e V i k i n g a e r o s h e l l (model 4 ) i n Mach 5.9 a i r . As w i t h thesonic-cornerparaboloid(fig. 3 1 ) , theflow expandsrapidlyaroundthecorner and t h e p r e s s u r e becomes nearly constant over the afterbodysurface. The a f t e r b o d y p r e s s u r e r a t i o i s aboutthe same a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k and i s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n the free-streamstaticpressure. Measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e c o n e s ( m o d e l s 5 t o 8 ) i n Mach 5.9 a i r a r e s h m n i n f i g u r e s 34 t o 37 a t v a r i o u s a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The p r e d i c t i o n s of r e f e r ences 21 and 22, theunpublishedtime-dependentblunt-bodyprogram,and Newtonian theory are compared w i t h measurement i n f i g u r e 3 4 ( a ) f o r t h e s p h e r i c a l - n o s e cone a t a = 00; a l s o shown f o r s/sbl > 0.3 a r ep r e d i c t i o n s from t h e cone t h e o r i e s of r e f erences 25 and 26. The p r e d i c t i o n s of reference 2 2 and theunpublished program agree with measurement; t h e p r e d i c t i o n of reference 21 agrees with measurement on t h e s p h e r i c a l s e c t i o n and a f t p o r t i o n of the cone s e c t i o n , b u t u n d e r p r e d i c t s t h e overexpansion of theflaw from t h es p h e r i c a l nose by about 10 percent. The flow a t t h e s u r f a c e of t h i s cone a t a = Oo becomes supersonic on t h e s p h e r i c a ls e c t i o n just upstream of thesphere-conejunction and, a s observed i n f i g u r e 3 4 ( a ) , becomes subsonic on t h er e a r of the cone s e c t i o n . The t h e o r i e s of r e f e r e n c e s 25 and 2 6 , n a t u r a l l y , do n o t p r e d i c t t h e o v e r e x p a n s i o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t cone models. Newtonian theory predictsthesurfacepressuredistribution on thesphericalnose,butunderpredicts t h ep r e s s u r e on the cone section. The theory of High andBlick(ref. 26) p r e d i c t s theasymptotic cone p r e s s u r e q u i t e w e l l , whereasthesemiempirical method of Amick ( r e f . 25) o v e r p r e d i c t s t h i s pressure. The method of r e f e r e n c e 25 was included h e r e i n because of i t s success when a p p l i e d t o l a r g e r cone a n g l e s andhigher Mach numbers thanthose from which t h e semiempiricalrelations were d e r i v e d( r e f .2 9 ) . For a l l four cone models ( f i g s . 34 t o 371, Newtonian theoryunderpredictsthe cone surface p r e s s u r e on the windward s i d e a t a l l a n g l e s of a t t a c k , and agrees reasonably well w i t h measuredleeward-sidepressures a t thehigherangles of a t t a c k ( a > 1 2 O 1. As forthespherical-nosecone, Newtonian t h e o r y a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t s t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e f l a t t e n e d nose of model 6 ( f i g . 3 5 ) ; however, i t d o e s n o t p r e d i c t thepressuredistributions on theconcaveandcuspnoses of models7and8 ( f i g s . 36 and 37).

The e f f e c t of noseshape of thecones on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Mach 5.9 a i r i s shown i n f i g u r e 38 a t s e v e r a la n g l e s of a t t a c k . The data of f i g u r e 38 correspond t o t h e mostwindward ( @ = 180" ) and leeward ( Q = 0" ) rays. The noseshape does not influence the windward o r t h e l e e w a r d p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e cone s e c t i o nf o r 0" < a < 16"; a t a = 2O0, some e f f e c t of the nose shape i s apparent on t h el e e w a r dp r e s s u r e sc l o s et ot h e nose-cone junction.For all f o u r noseshapes,an overexpansion of theflow from the nose to the cone s e c t i o n i s observed on the windward s i d e a t t h e lower a n g l e s of a t t a c k ( a < 1 O ); t h i s overexpansion also occurs 2 on t h el e e w a r ds i d ef o ra l la n g l e s of a t t a c k . The p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on thenose of theflattened-nose cone (model 6 ) and concave-nose cone (model 7 ) areapproximately t h e same a t t h e lower a n g l e s of a t t a c k , b u t d e p a r t fromone another on the leeward
20

s i d ea tt h eh i g h e ra n g l e s of a t t a c k . The p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on thecusp-nose cone i s i n d i c a t i v e of flowseparation and reattachment. The shock generated by r e a t t a c h ment was observed i n the schlieren photographs (fig. 4). The e f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k on measured windward andleeward p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n sf o rt h ef o u r cone models i n Mach 5.9 a i r i s shown i n f i g u r e 39. The overexpansion on the windward s i d e of thespherical-nose cone ( f i g . 3 9 ( a ) ) o c c u r s f o r e f f e c t i v e cone angles ( 8 + a ) l e s s thanorequalto 57O. Note t h a ti n c r e a s i n gt h e cone half-angle beyond thedetachmentangle, which i s about 55O f o r Mach 6 a i r , causesthe bow wave over the conical portion of aspherecone t o changefrom c o n i c a l tospherical, and theflowchanges from supersonictocompletelysubsonicalongthe cone ( r e f . 3 0 ) . For a > 12O, t h e windward s u r f a c ep r e s s u r ef o ra l lf o u r cone models decreasesasthe flowapproachesthebase. C i r c u m f e r e n t i a lp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s on the cone s e c t i o n of thespherical-nose cone i n Mach 5.9 a i r a r e shown i n f i g u r e 40 a t variousangles of a t t a c k . These d i s t r i b u t i o n sc o r r e s p o n dt os / s b = f0.88. P r e d i c t e dd i s t r i b u t i o n s from Newtonian theory and the methods of references 25 and 26 a r e compared with measurement. A t t h e lower angles of a t t a c k , t h e method of High and Blick(ref. 26) providesthe most a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n of the measured p r e s s u r e s , whereasNewtonian theory i s more accurateatthehigherangles of a t t a c k . Mach 10 a i r r e s u l t s ( s e r i e s 21.- P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measured on the hyperbol o i d (model 11, thesonic-cornerparaboloid (model 21, theparaboloid (model 31, t h e Vikingaeroshell (model 41, and thefourcones(models 5 t o 8 ) i n the Langley Continuous-Flow Hypersonic Tunnel i n Mach 10 a i r a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 41 t o 48. The angle of a t t a c k was v a r i e d from O o t o 1 6 O i n 4 O incrementsforthese Mach 10 t e s t s . I n f i g u r e 41 ( a ), t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on the more a c c u r a t e ( s e r i e s 2) hyperbol o i d i s f r e e of an overexpansion a t a = Oo. Unfortunately,thishyperboloid model was n o t t e s t e d i n the Mach 6 tunnel; however, t h e r e s u l t s of f i g u r e 41(a) c a s t doubt on t h e v a l i d i t y of theoverexpansionobserved a t Mach 6 ( f i g . 2 3 ( a ) ) on t h e l e s s accurate series ( 1) hyperboloid model. A t a = O o ( f i g . 41(a)), the measured surfacepressure i s p r e d i c t e d q u i t e w e l l by the method of reference 21. A s observed p r e v i o u s l y f o r Mach 6 a i r , Newtonian theory underpredicts the windward pressure distribution for the hyperboloid, but agreement betweenNewtonian theory and measurement improves on theleewardside w i t h increasing angle of a t t a c k . The p r e s s u r e r a t i o on theafterbody of thesonic-cornerparaboloid(fig. 42) i s r e l a t i v e l yc o n s t a n ta sa n g l e of a t t a c kv a r i e s from Oo t o 1 6 O . The pressure on the afterbody i s about 1.75 t o 2.5 t i m e st h a t of t h ef r e e - s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e . As observed i n f i g u r e 3 1 , the afterbody pressure was nearly the same a s t h e f ree-stream s t a t i c p r e s s u r e a t Mach 5.9. Hence, Mach number a f f e c t st h ea f t e r b o d yp r e s s u r e . Whereas theafterbodypressure was r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t w i t h s / s bf o r Mach 5.9 a i r ( f i g . 3 1 ) , t h e afterbodypressure a t Mach 10 increaseswith S/sbl i n t h ed i r e c t i o n of thesting.

The methods of r e f e r e n c e s 21 and 22 a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t t h e measured pressure d i s t r i b u t i o nf o rt h ep a r a b o l o i da t a = Oo ( f i g .4 3 ( a ) 1 . As observed a t Mach 5.9 ( f i g . 321, t h e measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e p a r a b o l o i d a r e p r e d i c t e d q u i t e well by Newtonian theory a t Mach 10 ( f i g . 4 3 ) for the present range of angle of attack. I n f i g u r e 44, t h e afterbodypressure on theVikingaeroshell is essentially constantwith s/% and i s the same on the windward and leewardrays ((I = 180 and O o ) a t a < 12O. This was a l s ot h ec a s ef o r Mach 5.9 a i r( f i g .3 3 ) . However, the afterbody pressure i s about twice t h e f r e e - s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e a t Mach 10, whereas it was approximately equal to the free-stream pressure a t Mach 5.9.

21

The e f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on the hyperboloid, paraboloid, Viking aeroshell, and f o u r conemodels i s shown i n f i g u r e s 49 t o 55 a t a = O o and 16O. A s expected, Reynolds number d o e sn o ta f f e c tt h e f o r e b o d yp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s on t h e s er e l a t i v e l yb l u n tb o d i e s . However, Reynolds number does influence afterbody pressure on t h e V i k i n g a e r o s h e l l ( f i g . 5 1 ) , the press u r e d e c r e a s i n gw i t hi n c r e a s i n g Reynolds number a t t h e s e two a n g l e s of a t t a c k . T h i s trend i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Reynolds number e f f e c t on base pressure observed for laminar flow (ref. 3 1) S u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s measured a t Mach 10 on thehyperboloid ( f i g . 4 9 ) a g r e e q u i t e w e l l withthose measured on thehyperboloidtested i n reference28,which had t h e same e q u i v a l e n t noseradius.

Pressuredistributionsillustratingtheeffect of noseshape of the cone models a t Mach 10 a r e s h m n i n f i g u r e 56 a t variousangles of a t t a c k . A s expected,these r e s u l t sa r en e a r l yt h e same asthoseobserved a t Mach 5.9 ( f i g . 3 8 ) . The e f f e c t of Mach number on thepressuredistributions on the spherical-nose cone i s s h a m i n f i g u r e 57 a t a = O o and 1 6 O . Again, a se x p e c t e d( r e f s . 23 and 2 4 ) , no e f f e c t of Mach number i s apparent. Forces and Moments Aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s ( n o r m a l , a x i a l , and p i t c h i n g moment) a r e shown a s a f u n c t i o n of angle of a t t a c k i n f i g u r e 58 forthehyperboloid (model 11, paraboloid (model 3 ) , and spherical-nose cone (model 5 ) i n Mach 10 a i r . Also shown i n f i g u r e 58 arepredicted(ref. 3 2 ) aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s b a s e d on Newtoniantheory, where the maximum p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t i s assumed t o e q u a l 2 , f o r t h e spherical-nose cone (model 5 ) . The normal-force coefficients the for paraboloid and match cone each o t h e rc l o s e l y up t o a = 1 6 O , whereas % forthehyperboloid i s somewhat l e s st h a n t h a tf o rt h eo t h e r two models a t agivenangle of a t t a c k . The geometricsimilarity of thehyperboloidand cone i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e v a r i a t i o n of a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t CA ( f i g .5 8 ( b ) ) , w i t h CA for paraboloid the being much l e s st h a nt h a tf o r the other two configurations. The pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t s Cm f o ra l lt h r e e models agree up t o a = 8O. A t thehighestangle of a t t a c k ( a = 2 0 ) , t h e p i t c h i n g moments f o r t h e p a r a b o l o i d andcone a r e i n good agreement and t h a t f o r t h e hyperbol o i d i s higherthanfortheother two models. Newtonian t h e o r yf o rt h e cone ( r e f . 32) underpredicts C& a t a > 4 O , underpredicts CA a t a < 1 6 O , and pred i c t s Cm w i t h f a i r accuracy. Aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s measured on t h e f o u r conemodels i n the Mach 6 tunnel and the CFHT a r e compared i n f i g u r e s 59 t o 6 2 . The aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s measured i n t h e s e two f a c i l i t i e s a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same for the present range of angle of attack;that is, no e f f e c t of Mach number o r Reynolds number on the aerodynamiccoeff i c i e n t s i s observed.Normal-force and pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t s measured on a 4 O s p h e r i c a l l y b l u n t e d cone (rn/rb= 0 . 5 ) i n reference 33 agreewiththepresent 5 r e s u l t s , whereas the axial-force coefficients measured i n r e f e r e n c e 33 are about 4 t o 5 percentlower. ( A s i n thepresentstudy, no c o r r e c t i o nf o rt h eb a s ep r e s s u r e was a p p l i e dt ot h er e s u l t s of r e f . 33. Base p r e s s u r e s measured on thespherical-nose cone i n Mach 5.9 a i r i n the present study were approximately equal to the free-stream s t a t i cp r e s s u r ef o r O o < a < 20 . I
The e f f e c t of noseshape of thecones on aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s i s shown i n f i g u r e 63 f o r Mach 1 0 a i r . Normal-force pitching-moment and coefficients ( f i g s . 6 3 ( a ) and 6 3 ( c ) ) a r e t h e same f o rt h ef l a t t e n e d , concave, cusp and nose shapes ( thenormal-force coefficient for these three shapes is slightly less than that for thespherical-nose cone a t thehighestangle of a t t a c k ( f i g . 6 3 ( a ) 1. There may be a -11 decrease i n a x i a l f o r c e a s t h e noseshape i s changedfroma sphere,but this

22

change i s withintheexperimentaluncertainty. The drag and l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s and lift-dragratiosforthehyperboloid andconemodels a r e shown i n f i g u r e 64 f o r Mach 5.9-and 10.1 a i r . The- Reynolds number i s t h e same f o r t h e two Mach NRe,w,% numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

P r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s , aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s , andshockshapes were measured on blunt bodies of r e v o l u t i o n i n hypersonic flaw a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k from O o t o 20 i n 4 O increments.Configurationstested were a hyperboloidwithanasymptoticangle of 45O, a sonic-corner paraboloid, a paraboloid with an angle of 27.6O a t t h e base, a Viking aeroshell generated i n a generalizedorthogonalcoordinatesystem, and a family of 4 O half-angleconeshavingspherical,flattened,concave, 5 and cuspnose shapes.Real-gas e f f e c t s were simulatedforthehyperboloid and paraboloid by t e s t i n g t h e s e models a t Mach 6 i n a i r and CF4. The normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o was 5.3 f o r a i r and 12 f o r CF4. T e s t s were a l s o performed i n Mach 1 0 a i r .P r e d i c t i o n s from Newtoniantheory,simpletheories, andnumericalflaw f i e l d programs a r e compared with measurement. The results of t h i s studyledtothefollowingconclusions:
1. A pronounced e f f e c t of d e n s i t y r a t i o on shock shape was observed for a sphere and forthehyperboloid and paraboloid, t h e shock detachment distance decreasing with increasing density ratio. The detachment d i s t a n c e on the windward s i d e of thehyperboloid was relativelyindependent of angle of a t t a c k up t o 20. Shock shapesforthe sphere and hyperboloid a t zero incidence i n Mach 6 a i r and CF4 were predicted reasonablywell by the ideal-gas method of Zoby and Graves (NASA TM X-2843, r e f . 2 1 ) where a n e f f e c t i v e v a l u e of t h e r a t i o of s p e c i f i c h e a t s f o r CF4 was i n p u t t o t h i s method. A n embedded shock w i t h i n the bow shock l a y e r on theleewardside was observed f o r t h e 4 O conemodelshaving 5 f l a t t e n e d , concave, and cuspnoseshapes at an angle of a t t a c k of 2 0 , b u t was notobservedorthespherical-nose cone.

2. S u r f a c e p r e s s u r e r a t i o s on the most windward ray and e s p e c i a l l y t h e most leewardray of thehyperboloiddecreased w i t h increasingdensityratio; this effect OE d e n s i t y r a t i o i n c r e a s e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g a n g l e of a t t a c k . A s m a l l e r e f f e c t of d e n s i t y r a t i o on s u r f a c ep r e s s u r e was observed fortheparaboloid. The decrease of surface pressure ratio with increasing density ratio for these two a n a l y t i c a l models a t zero incidence was p r e d i c t e d by the Zoby-Graves method.
3 . The f o r e b o d y p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on a l l models was independent oE Mach number between 6 and 10 andofReynolds number, which was v a r i e d by a f a c t o r of 17 Mach 6. However, theafterbodypressure on the Viking aeroshell increased with i n c r e a s i n g Mach number and decreasing Reynolds number. A t Mach 6, theafterbody p r e s s u r e s on the mostwindwardand leeward rays of the sonic-corner paraboloid and Viking aeroshell wereapproximatelyequal to the free-stream static pressure at all a n g l e s of a t t a c k .

at

4. The method of Zoby andGraves and the method of Kumar andGraves(AIMPaper No. 77-172, r e f . 2 2 ) a c c u r a t e l yp r e d i c t e dt h e measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on the hyperboloidandparaboloid i n Mach 6 and Mach 10 a i r . Forthe 4 O spherical-nose 5 cone, the Zoby-Graves method underpredicted the surface pressure just downstream of thesphere-conejunction. The s u r f a c ep r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n on t h i s cone a t zero incidence i n Mach 6 a i r was a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by an unpublished time-dependent blunt-bodyprogram of H a r r i s H. Hamilton of theLangleyResearch C e n t e r and by t h e Kumar-Graves method. The windward and leewardpressures on theparaboloid were a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by Newtoniantheory forthepresentrange of angle of a t t a c k , a s

23

was the leeward pressure on the hyperboloid a t t h e h i g h e r a n g l e s of a t t a c k . Newtoniantheory underpredictsthepressure on the windward s i d e of the hyperboloid, which does not have a natural sonic point on the surface.
5. Changing nose shape of the 45O c o n e sf r o ms p h e r i c a lt of l a t t e n e d , concave, o r cusp d i d n o t a p p r e c i a b l y a f f e c t t h e a e r o d y n a m i c c o e f f i c i e n t s i n Mach 10 a i r . The 450 hyperboloid, which geometricallyresemblesthe 45O spherical-nosecone,hasa s l i g h t l y s n a l l e r normal-f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t , a b o u t t h e same a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t , and a s l i g h t l y l a r g e r pitching-momentcoefficientthandoesthe 45O cone. Newtonian theory for the spherical-nose cone underpredicted the normal-and axial-force coeff i c i e n t s and predicted the pitching-moment coefficient reasonably well.

Langley Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Hampton, VA 23665 June 22, 6982

24

APPENDIX

MEASURED HEAT-TRANSFER DISTRIBUTIONS

ON HYPERBOLOID AND PARABOLOID

Convective heat-transfer rates were measuredon the hyperboloid (model 1)and the p a r a b o l o i d (model 3 ) i n the Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel. The convectiveheatt r a n s f e r rate t o t h e model s u r f a c e w a s obtained by u s i n g t h e t r a n s i e n t c a l o r i m e t r y technique t o measure t h e rate of h e a t s t o r a g e i n t h e model s k i n . These h e a t - t r a n s f e r models w e r e spunfromtype 347 s t a i n l e s s steel andhad a w a l l t h i c k n e s s of0.61 mm t o 0.76 Chromel-alumel thermocouples (30-gage w i r e , 0.25 mm i nd i a m e t e r ) were welded t o t h e i n s i d e s u r f a c e of t h e s h e l l ; 44 thermocouples were d i s t r i b u t e d a l o n g 5 rays.

m m .

Themodels, o r i g i n a l l y a t o r below room temperature, were suddenlyexposed t o s t e a d y - s t a t e a i r flow by q u i c k i n j e c t i o n from a s h e l t e r e d p o s i t i o n below t h e f l o o r o f t h et u n n e l t e s t s e c t i o n .I n j e c t i o n w a s accomplished i n 0.5 t o 0.55 second, a sd e t e r mined from a 3 - p o s i t i o n s w i t c h a t t a c h e d t o t h e i n j e c t i o n mechanism, and t h e model remained i n t h e flow f o r approximately5secondsbeforebeingretracted. The o u t p u t s i g n a l from eachthermocouple w a s recorded by t h e a n a l o g - t o - d i g i t a l system a t 20 samples per second. A f t e r a test, theangle of a t t a c k w a s changed and t h e model was cooled by a j e t of a i r . The model thermocouple o u t p u t s were scannedbeforethenext test to verify that the model s h e l l had r e t u r n e d t o a n i s o t h e r m a l state. The data reduction procedure used for these continuous thin-skin models i s d i s cussed i n d e t a i l i n r e f e r e n c e 34. Because of t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n s u r f a c e area between t h e i n n e r and o u t e r s u r f a c e s of thethin-skin model ( r e f s . 35 and 361, a geometric c o r r e c t i o nf a c t o r w must applied be t o t h e measured s k i n h i c k n e s s t T,,,. The produ c t T ~ W ,r e f e r r e dt oa st h ee f f e c t i v es k i nt h i c k n e s s z ~ i s ~defined ,a s t h e r a t i o ~ ofthe volume of theskinelement t o t h e a r e a of theskinelementsubjectedtoaerodynamic h e a t i n g . The c u r v a t u r e c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r i s given i n r e f e r e n c e 35 a s

L) 2r
where

q = tan

-1

*
dx

and

25

APPENDIX Values of

a t thethermocouplelocationsforthe

two h e a t - t r a n s f e r models a r e

Hyperboloid (model

1)

(model Paraboloid

3)

s/ Sb

s/ Sb

0
.046 .O 965 .2075 .324 .4555 .584 .7215 .849 .91a5

0.945 .951 .961 .978 ,985 .989 .992 .993 .994 .995

0
.046 .089 .183 .280 .390 .517 .650 .807 .891

.988

.992

H e a t - t r a n s f e r d i s t r i b u t i o n s measured on the hyperboloid and paraboloid models arenondimensionalized by t h ep r e d i c t e d( r e f . 3 7 ) value of h e a tt r a n s f e rt ot h es t a g n a t i o np o i n t of asphere. The sphereradius i s e q u a lt ot h ee q u i v a l e n t nose r a d i u s of the model ( s e es e c t i o ne n t i t l e d" M o d e l s " ) . The value of walltemperaturerequired i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n of t h e s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t h e a t - t r a n s f e r r a t e was s e l e c t e d t o f o r c e asreementbetweenthemeasuredheat-transferrate a t thenose ( s = 0) of the model a t zeroincidence and t h e p r e d i c t e d h e a t - t r a n s f e r r a t e t o asphere(that is, a t s/sb = 0 and a = 00). The r e s u l t i n g a l u e v of T , / T ~ , ~ was used t o f o rt e s t sa t a > Oo The values of Tw/Tt,2 used f o r t h e t h r e e predict p SPh r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e s i n the Mach 6 tunnel are

~~~ ~~

"

.~

T J T ~ , ~ for

"

Nominal

Ma P Hyperboloid (model
~ ~~~

1)

Paraboloid(model
. .
~

"~ " " ~~

_ _ ~
~

3)

0.16 .70

0.1805 .258 .325 3.41

-

0.158 .262 .323

i n Mach 6 a i r a r e shown i n f i g Heat-transferdistributionsforthehyperboloid ure 65 a t various angles of a t t a c k and the highest value of free-streamReynolds number. A l s o s h a m i n f i g u r e 6 5 ( a ) a r e h e a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s p r e d i c t e d w i t h the methods of r e f e r e n c e s 21 and 22 a t a = Oo. These p r e d i c t i o n sa g r e er e a s o n a b l yw e l l w i t h measurement, except along @ = 180O. The i n c r e a s e i n h e a t - t r a n s f e rr a t eo c c u r ringarounds/sb = -0.5 on t h i s r a y i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t r a n s i t i o n of t h e boundary

26

APPENDIX l a y e r from laminar t o t u r b u l e n tf l a w due t o surfaceroughness.(Althoughthesurface of t h i s model w a s p o l i s h e d prior t o any t e s t i n g , i t became somewhat rough d u r i n g t h e tests because of s a n d b l a s t i n g by s o l i d c o n t a m i n a n t s i n the flow. ) T r a n s i t i o n w a s alsoobserved a t a = 4 O ( f i g . 65 ( b )) and may have occurred a t a = 8 O ( f i g .6 5 ( c ) ) . Near the base,thewindward-surfaceheating rate increasesonlyabout 30 p e r c e n t as a n g l e of a t t a c k i s increased from O o t o 20, whereas the leeward heati n g r a t e decreases by a f a c t o r of 2.5 o r so. The c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l h e a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s imply t h a t t h e f l o w remained a t t a c h e d on t h e leeward s i d e a s t h e a n g l e of a t t a c k w a s i n c r e a s e d t o 200 ( t h a t i s , no minima i n t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l h e a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s were observed. ) The e f f e c t of free-streamReynolds number on t h e h e a t - t r a n s f e r d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r thehyperboloid i s shown i n f i g u r e 66 f o r a = Oo. The h e a t - t r a n s f e rr a t et e n d s to i n c r e a s e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g Reynolds number i n t h e r e g i o n j u s t downstreamof t h e model S t a g n a t i o np o i n t ,b u t i s e s s e n t i a l l yi n d e p e n d e n t of Reynolds number f o r s / s b > 0.4. (Because the sandblasting effect worsens with increasing reservoir pressure (Reynolds number) and t h i s e f f e c t i s expected t o i n c r e a s e t h e h e a t i n g rate on t h e model s u r f a c e ( r e f . 381, no d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e increase i n h e a t i n g w i t h i n c r e a s i n g Reynolds number i s made.) Heat-transfer distributions for the paraboloid in Mach 6 a i r are shown i n f i g ure 67 a t v a r i o u sa n g l e s of a t t a c k .L i k et h eh y p e r b o l o i dd a t ai nf i g u r e 65, t h e s e datacorrespond t o t h eh i g h e s tv a l u e of free-streamReynolds number. Unlikethedata forthehyperboloid, no evidence of boundary l a y e r t a n s i t i o n i s observedforthe paraboloid. The methods of r e f e r e n c e s 21 and 22 o v e r p r e d i c tt h eh e a t i n g rate i n the nose region a t a = O o ( f i g . 6 7 ( a ) 1; t h ep r e d i c t i o n of r e f e r e n c e 21 a g r e e sw i t h measurement t ow i t h i n 15 p e r c e n tf o r s/sb] > 0.5. The c i r c u m f e r e n t i a lh e a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n g i v e s no evidence of leeward flow s e p a r a t i o n a t the higher angles of a t t a c k . The r e s u l t s of f i g u r e 68 i l l u s t r a t e t h e a b s e n c e of a Reynolds number e f f e c t on t h e h e a t i n g a t a = 0 O

'1,

27

ReFERENCES 1. Jones, Robert A.; and Hunt, James L. (appendix A by James L. Hunt,Kathryn A. Smith,and Robert B. Reynolds,andappendix B by James L. Huntand L i l l i a n R. Boney): U s e of Tetrafluoromethane To Simulate R e a l - G a s E f f e c t s o n t h e Hypers o n i c Aerodynamics of BluntVehicles. NASA T R R-312, 1969.
2. Miller, Charles G., 1 1 Shock ShapesonBluntBodies 1 : i n HypersonicHypervelocity H e l i u m , A i r , and C02 Flows,and C a l i b r a t i o n R e s u l t s i n Langley 6-Inch Expansion Tube. N S TN D-7800, 1975. AA

3. T r i m p i , Robert L. : A PreliminaryTheoreticalStudy of theExpansion Tube, A N e w Device f o rP r o d u c i n g High-EnthalpyShort-DurationHypersonic G a s Flows. N S AA T R R-133, 1962. 4. Miller, C h a r l e s G.: OperationalExperience i n t h e LangleyExpansion Various Test Gases. N S TM-78637, 1977. AA
Tube With

5. Clemens, P. L., compiler: The Von K & & n G a s Dynamics F a c i l i t y 1000-f t Hyperv e l o c i t y Range Description,Capabilities,andEarly Test Results. AEDC-TR-66-197, U.S. A i r Force, Nov. 1966. ( A v a i l a b l e from DTIC a s AD 801 906.)

6. Hypersonic 1975.

Shock Tunnel

Descriptionand

Capabilities.

Calspan Corp.,

Sept.

7. Chapman, Dean R.: Some P o s s i b i l i t i e s ofUsing Aerodynamic Research. NACA R e p . 1259, 1956.

G a s MixturesOther

Than A i r i n (Supersedes NACA TN 3226.)

8. Hunt, James L. ; Jones, Robert A.; andSmith,Kathryn A. : U s e ofHexafluoroethane To S i m u l a t e t h e I n v i s c i d R e a l - G a s E f f e c t s onBluntEntryVehicles. N S TN AA D-7701, 1974.

9. Midden, R. E.; and Miller, C. G.: ResultsfortheLangleyHypersonic

DescriptionandPreliminaryCalibration CF4 Tunnel. NASA TM-78800, 1978.

10. Goldberg, Theodore J.; and Hefner, Jerry N. (appendix by James C. Emery): S t a r t i n g Phenomena f o r Hypersonic I n l e t s With Thick Turbulent Boundary Layers a t Mach 6. N S TN D-6280, 1971. AA

11. Keyes, J. Wayne: F o r c eT e s t i n g N S TM-74026, 1977. AA

12. Schaefer, William T . , Jr.: Langley Research Center.

Manual f o rt h eL a n g l e y

20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel.

NASA T X-1130, M

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Major Active Wind Tunnels a t t h e 1965.

13. P i r r e l l o , C. J. ; Hardin, R. D.; Heckart, M. V. ; andBrwn, K. R. : A n Inventory of Aeronautical Ground R e s e a r c hF a c i l i t i e s . Volume 1 Wind Tunnels. NASA CR-1874, 1971.

14. Gnoffo, P e t e r A.: ForebodyandAfterbodySolutions of theNavier-Stokes Equat i o n s f o r S u p e r s o n i c Flow Over Blunt Bodies i n a Generalized Orthogonal Coordinate ytm. S NASA TP-1075, 1978.

28

15. Burner,Alpheus W.; and Midden, Raymond E. : Holographic Flow V i s u a l i z a t i o n a t the Langley CF4 Tunnel. NASA TM-74051, 1977. 16. Miller, C h a r l e s G., 1 1 and 1 ; Gnoffo, P e t e r A.: P r e s s u r eD i s t r i b u t i o n sa n d Shock Shapes f o r 12.84O/7O On-Axis and Bent-Nose Eiconics i n A i r a t Mach 6. NASA TM-83222, 1981. 17. Guy, R. W.; and Winebarger, R. M.: E f f e c t of OrificeSizeandHeat-Transfer Rate onMeasured S t a t i c P r e s s u r e s i n a Low-Density Arc-Heated Wind Tunnel. NASA T N D-3829, 1967. 18. A e Research mS Staff: Fquations, Tables, a n dC h a r t sf o r Rep. 1135, 1953. (Supersedes NACA TN 1428.) 19. P r o p e r t i e s andApplicationsofthe E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
Compressible Flow.
NACA

"Freon" Fluorocarbons. Tech. Bull. X - 8 8 F , Sept. 3, 1968. (Revised Feb. 3, 1969.)

20. Erickson, Wayne D.; and Creekmore, Helen S.: A StudyofEquilibrium Real-Gas E f f e c t s i n Hypersonic A i r Nozzles, Including Charts of Thermodynamic Properties f o rE q u i l i b r i u m Air. N S TN D-231, 1960. AA

2 1. Zoby, E r n e s t V.; andGraves,Randolph A. Jr. : A Computer Program f o r C a l c u l a t i n g t h e P e r f e c t G a s I n v i s c i d Flaw F i e l d About Blunt Axisymmetric Bodies a t a n Angle O Attack of O o . f N S T X-2843, 1973. AA M 22. K u m a r , Ajay; Graves, and R. A . , Jr.: NumericalSolution of theViscous Hypersonic Flow P a s t Blunted Cones a t Angle ofAttack. A I A A Paper N o . 77-172, Jan. 1977. 23. T r u i t t , Robert Wesley: Hypersonic Aerodynamics. The Ronald Press Co.,

c. 1959.
Volume I

24. Hayes, Wallace D ; andProbstein, . Ronald F. : Hypersonic Flow Theory. I n v i s c i d Flows, Second ed. Academic Press, Inc., 1966. 25. Amick, James L.: P r e s s u r e Measurements on Sharp andBlunt Cones a t Mach Number 3.86 andAnglesofAttack to looo.

NASA T N D-753,

5O- and 15O-Half-Angle 1961.

26. High, M. D.; andBlick, E. F.: Cone Pressure D i s t r i b u t i o n a t Largeand Angles of Attack. A I A A J . , vol. 2, no. 11, Nov. 1964, pp. 2054-2055.

Small

27. Cleary,Joseph W. : E f f e c t s of Angle of Attackand Nose Bluntness on t h e H y p e r s o n i c Flow Over Cones. A I A A Paper N o . 66-414, June 1966. 28. L i t t l e , Herbert R.: A ExperimentalInvestigationofSurfaceConditionson n HyperboloidsandParaboloids a t a Mach Number of 10. AEDC-TR-69-225, Force, Jan. 1970. (Available from DTIC as AD 698 755.)

U.S.

Air

29. Bushnell,Dennis M.; Jones, Robert A.; and Huffman, J a r r e t t K. : Heat-Transfer and Pressure D i s t r i b u t i o n s on Spherically Blunted 25O Half-Angle Cone a t Mach 8 andAngles of Attack up t o goo. N S T N D-4792, 1968. AA 30. Stewart, David A.; and Marvin, Joseph G.: Convective Heat-Transfer Large-Angle Conical Bodies a t HypersonicSpeeds. NASA TN D-5526,
Rates on 1969.

29

31. Miller, Charles G., 1 1 Experimental Base P r e s s u r e s on 1 : Cones a t Mach N u m b e r s From 10.5 t o 20. N S rn D-4800, AA

9 O

SphericallyBlunted 1968.

32. Wells, William R.; and Armstrong, William 0.: Tables of Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t s Obtained From DevelopedNewtonian Expressions f o r Complete and P a r t i a l Conic and Spheric Bodies a t Combined Angles of Attack and Sideslip With Some Comparisons With HypersonicExperimental Data. N S TR R-127, 1962. AA 33. Calloway, Robert L.; and White, Nancy H.: and Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r B l u n t e d 5.9. NASA TP-1652, 1980. Measured and Predicted Shock Shapes Cones a t Incidence i n Air a t Mach

34. Miller, Charles G . , 1 1 Comparison 1 : of Thin-FilqResistanceHeat-TransferGages With Thin-Skin T r a n s i e n t Calorimeter Gages i n Conventional-Hypersonic Wind Tunnels. NASA TM-83197, 1981. 35. Cooper, Morton; and Mayo, Edward E.: Measurements Local of Heat Transferand P r e s s u r e on Six 2-Inch-Diameter Blunt Bodies a t a Mach N u m b e r of 4.95and a t Reynolds Numbers P e r Foot up t o 81 x IO6. N S MEMO 1-3-59L, AA 1959. 36. Conti,Raul J.: ApproximateTemperature DistributionsandStreamwise Heat Conduction Effects in the Transient Aerodynamic Heating of Thin-skinned Bodies. NASA T N D-895, 1961. 37. Fay,
J. A.; andRiddell, F. R. : Theory of S t a g n a t i o nP o i n t Heat T r a n s f e r i n Dissociated A i r . J. Aeronaut. Sci., vol. 2 5 , no. 2, Feb. 1958, pp. 73-85,

121.

38. Grabau, Martin; Smithson, H. K . , Jr.; and L i t t l e , Wanda J. : A Data Reduction Program for Hotshot Tunnels Based on the Fay-Riddell Heat-Tansfer Rate Using Nitrogen a t StagnationTemperatures From 1500 t o 5000OK. AEDC-TDR-64-50, U . S . Air Force,June 1964.

30

-spheresVacuum cooler Lead-bath After Storage field chamber heaters

cF4

Settling

;In

) Compressor

I
Reclaimer
I
( a ) LangleyHypersonic
CF4 Tunnel [taken from ref. 9)

CF4 trailer

Figure 1

.- Schematics of wind

tunnels used

i n the present study.

Upper model injection system Settling Annular a i r

ejector

7 .

P e r f o r a t e d cone Variablesecond minimum

Gacuum s p h e r e

(b) Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel (takenfrom

Figure 1

ref. IO).

.- Continued.

( c ) LangleyContinuous-FlowHypersonicTunnel(takenfrom.ref. Figure 1
W W

34).

.- Concluded.

( a ) Hyperboloid (model

1).

(b) Sonic-cornerparaboloid

(model 2 ) .

> 4

27.6'

(c) Paraboloid (model 3).

Figure 2.Planformviews

( d l Vikingaeroshell
of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t e s t e d .

(model 4).

34

( e ) 45O cone with spherical nose (model 5 ) .

( f ) 45O cone withflattened nose (model 6 ) .

(9) 45O cone with concave nose (model 7 ) .

(h) 45O cone with cusp nose (model 8 ) .

Figure 2

.- Concluded.
35

L-79-869
( a ) Wooden p a t t e r n (model 4 ) .

L-79-2891 ( b ) Sand mold (model 6).

Figure 3. Photographs illustrating steps in casting of aluminum p r e s s u r e models.

36

"

( a ) Spherical-nose cone (model 5)

L-82- 158

(b) Cusp-nose cone (model 8).

Figure 4.- Representative schlieren photographs for the spherical-nose cone (model 5) and cusp-nose cone (model 8 ) i n Mach 5.92 a i r .

3
I

Figure 5.-

Sketchillustratinglocation of t h e moment r e f e r e n c e c e n t e r f o r t h i s study.

38

0 Pitot probe in flow

during entire run Pitot probe out when model is i flow n

2 -

,1 -

0 -

0
,1
-8

I
I

16

i 24

(a) Normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t , model 5 .

Figure 6 . - Effect of thepresence of a pitot-pressure probe on measured aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s or models 5 and 7 i n the M c 6 tunnel. ah

39

.4

0 Pitot probe in flow

during entire mn 0 Pitot probe out when model is in flow

17
.3

8
.2

cN

.1

-.l
-8

8
Q,

16

24

deg

(b) Normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t , model 7 .

Figure 6.

Continued.

40

2
ZI

Pitot probe in flow during entire run Pitot probe out when model i s i n flow
I
I

I
24

-8

0
0,

8 deg

16

( c ) Axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t , model 5.

0
0

0
3
Pitot probe in flow during entire run C Pitot probe out when model is i flow n
.90 I -8

a, deg

( d l Axial-forcecoefficient,
Figure 6.- Continued.

model 7 .

41

0Pitot

probe in flow during entire run Cl Pitot probe out when model is in flow

-8

8
Q,

16

24

deg

( e ) Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , model 5.
Figure 6

.- Continued.

.Of

.Of

-04

0 Pitotprobein

flow during entire run 0 Pitot probe out when model i s inflow

.02
(

-.Oi

-.04

c,

-.OE

- .OE
-.1c

-.li

-1 .4

-.16

0
0

-.18

0 0
I

-.20 -8

8
Q,

I 16

I
24

deg

(f1 P i tching-moment

c o e f f i c i e n t , model 7 .

Figure 6

.- Concluded.
43

10.4

6
PtJ
9

14 10

12

MPa

( a ) Flow conditions.
Figure 7.- C a l i b r a t i o n r e s u l t s

for CFHT.

44

38

Core height, 34 cm

30

300

200 .pco,

Pa

100 .-

0"

20

qm,

10

kPa

I 8

I
14

10

12

(a) Flow c o n d i t i o n s
Figure 7.

concluded.

- Continued.
45

0Vertical profile
0 Horizontal profile

pt,2
Pt,12

pt,l = 1.77MPa
Tt,l = lo1O

pt,l

5.22 MPa

Tt,l = 995 K
OJ

Tt,l = 995 K
0 -30

1 -20

- 10

I 0

1
10
cm
a t an a x i a l

20

30

Distancefromcenterline,

(b) Vertical and horizontalpitot-pressuresurveys station equal t o zero. Figure 7 . - Continued.

46

1.04

1.02

1.00

Correction factor (imperfect/ideal)

.98

.96

(c) Imperfect-aircorrectionfactorsfor
Figure 7 .

Tt,,

= 1005 R.

Concluded.

16 .

0 Pressuremodel 0 Heat-transfermodel

00
12 .

.a

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

m
-1.6

I
0

- .4

I .4

I
16 .

( a ) Hyperboloid (model

1).

a = 16O;

M ,

= 5.73.

Figure 8 . - Shock shapesmeasuredonthepressure and heat-transferhyperboloid and paraboloid (models 1 and 3, series 1) i n Mach 6 a i r . Open symbols denote readings from p r i n t s ; c l o s e d symbols denotereadings made w i t h a n e n l a r g e r .

48

16 .

0 0

Pressure model Heat-transfer model

e m

1.2

.8

.4

- o y
' b

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

-.4

1
0
.4
.8

16 .

(b) Paraboloid (model

3).

a =

Oo;

M ,

= 5.73.

Figure 8

.- Continued.
49

16 .

0 Pressure model 0 Heat-transfer model

ot3
O D

1.2

00

.8

.4

- o y
rb

-.4

-8 .

-1.2

i
I

OD

0 0
-1.6 L
I I n
n
L.J

- -4

.4

. 8

12 .

16 .

x/rb
(c) Paraboloid (model 3 ) .
Figure 8
a = 8O;

M ,

= 5.73.

.- Concluded.

50

Test
gas

M ,
5.85 5.98 6.18 5.2 5.3 12.0

0 Air 0 Air

0C
1.6

-----

Prediction (ref. 21 ) Air, M = 5.98, y, = 1.4 , CF4, M = 6.18, Yeff = 1.123 ,

1.2

.8

.4

Y n '
0

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

Figure 9 - Shock shapesmeasured on a10.16-cm-diametersphere . i n Mach 6 a i r and CF4.

51

"_
1.(
gas

Prediction (ref. 21 ) Air, M, = 5.93, y, = 1.4 CF4, M, = 6.13,yeff = 1.123

n
0 Air 5.21 5.73 0 Air 5.93 0 Air 5.27 6.01 A CF4

(0 A
5.25

1.2

.E

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6 -.4

1.2

Figure 1 0 . -

Shock shapesmeasured on thehyperboloidpressure (model 1 , series 1 ) i n Mach 6 a i r and CF4.

model

52

1.6

0 Air 0 Air

n c

5.73 6.01 6.13

5.21
5.27

12.06

1.2

.8

.4
4

y
l'b

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

-1.6

-.4

I .4 X/'b

1.6 . 8

/R I

1.2

Figure 1 0 . - Continued.

53

0 Air
1.f

0 Air
A C1

5.73 6.01 6.13

5.21 5.27 12.06

0
1.2

@ A

.8

.4

y
' b

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

O A

0
-1.6

- .4

I .4
x/rb
(c)
Figure 1 0 .

I .1.6 8

rn

A
I
1.2
Ir u

a =

8 O .

- Continued.

54

Test
gas

M ,
5.73 6.13

p2/p~ 5.21 12.06

1.6

0 Air 0 cq

0
0

1.2

O A

.8

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

o r \
0

A
-

-1.6 -.4

.4

.8

1.2

1.6

X/rb

Figure 10.

- Continued.
55

p-

Test
gas

M ,
5.73 6.13

p2/pm 5.21 12.06

16 .

0 Air 0 CQ

1.2

.8

.4

- o y rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

A
0

-1.6 L -.4

(e)
Figure 10

= 16O.

.- Continued.

56

Test

M ,
5.73 6.13

'2/', 5.21

1.E

12.06

O
1.2

.a

.4

y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

A
0

-1.6 .4

(f)

a = 200.

Figure 1 0 .

Concluded.

57

"_
16 .
1.2

Prediction (ref. 21 ) Air, M, = 5.93, 7, = 1.4 CF4, M = 6.13, reff = 1.123 ,

* ,
5.73 5.93

P2/Pw 5.21 5.25

G B

a
0

.8

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6 - .4

(a)

a = Oo.

Figure 1 1 . -

Shock shapes measured on t h e paraboloidpressure (model 3, series 1 ) in Mach 6 a i r and CF4.

model

58

1.6

0 Air 0 Air

A CF4

5.73 6.01 6.13

5.21 5.27 12.06

4 3

A
1.2

.8

.4

y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

-.4
X/l'b

(b) a = 4 O .
Figure 1 1.

Continued.

59

Test
gas

M ,

p2/pm

1.6

0 Air

A Cq

5.73 5.21 6.13 12.06

0
0
A

1.2

. 8

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

A
0

-1.6 -.4

x/rb
(c) a
Figure 1 1
= 8O.

.- Continued.

60

1.6

0 Air 0 Air A CF4

5.73 6.01 6.13

5.21 5.27 12.06

1.2

.8

.4

y
' b

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

x/rb
(dl

a = 120.

Figure 1 1.

- Continued.
61

Test
gas

M ,
5.73 6.13

p2/p, 5.21 12.06

1.6

- 0 Air
A C%

O
1.2

.8

.4

y
' b

- .4

-.8

-1.2

A
0
A
1.2
1.6

-1.6
-.4

.4

.8

2 .o

2.4

(e)

a = 16O.

Figure 1 1

.- Continued.

62

Test
gas

Mw p2/pw

1.6

5.73 6.13

5.21 12.06

O
1.2

.8

.4

b'

- .4

-.8

-1.2

A
0

A
I
n
LI

-1.6 -.4

I .4

I .8

1.2

1.6

x/rb
(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 1 1.

- Concluded.
63

1.r

1.:

.I

.4

-a '
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

m
I I

-1.6

-.4

I
.8

.4

"

(a) A i r ; Figure 12.

Mm = 5.73;

p2/p,

= 5.21.

E f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k on shock shapemeasured on the hyperboloid pressure model (model 1, s e r i e s 1 ) i n Mach 6 a i r and CF4.

64

1.6

1.2

. 8

.4

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

-1.6 -.4

.4

.8

1,2

".v

1.6

A L.

1 l

1
20 .

(b) CFq;

MaD = 6.13;

p,/p,

= 12.06.

Figure 12.-

Concluded.

65

:i
0 0 0 4
.8

- .4

.4

.8

16 .

(a) Air: Figure 13.-

Mm = 5.73;

p,/p,

= 5.2 1.

E f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k on shockshapemeasured on the paraboloid pressure model (model 3, s e r i e s 1) in Mach 6 a i r and CF4.

66

1.6

1.2

. 8

.4

y
rb

"

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

I
0

I
.8

I
1.2 2.4

A >

I
2.0

h
Y

.4

x/ rb
( b ) CFq;

Ma = 6 . 1 3 ;

p2/p,

= 12-06.

F i g u r e 13.

- Concluded.

67

2.0

16 .

12 .

.a

.4

y
rb

- .4

-.a

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.a

- .4

.4

.a

b ' / x
(a)
Figure 14.-

x/b '
(b)

a = 00.

a =

4 O .

Shock shapesmeasuredonthesonic-cornerparaboloid i n a i r . Mc+, 5.915. =

(model 2)

68

2 .o

16 .

12 .

. 8

.4

- .4

-8 .

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

. 8

- .4

0
drb (d)

.4

. 8

x/ rb
(c)

a = 8".
Figure 14

a = 16O.

.- Concluded.
69

1.f

0 Prediction,ref.

21

12 .

.e

.4

Y ' b
0

- .4

-.a

-1.2

-1.6 - .4

.4

.8

1.2

-.4

.4

.a

1.2

x/rb

X/rb

(a)
Figure 15

a = 00.
shapesmeasured i n air.

(b) on the paraboloid (model M = 5.915. ,

a =
3,

4O.

.- Shock

series 2 )

70

20 .

16 .

1.2

.8

.4

Y rb

- .4 - .8

-1.2

-1.6

.4

.8

12 .

.4

. 8

12 .

x/rb

x/ rb

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 15

(dl

a = 120

.- Continued.

71

2.0

16 .

12 .

.8

.4

Y rb

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

I
0
.4

. 8

12 .

- .4

.4

1 . 8

I 12 .

x/rb

(e) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 15.- Concluded.

a = 200.

72

20 .

16 .

1.2

.8

.4

Y -

i
I

- .4

- .8
\
-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.E

12 .

-.4

12 .

x/rb

(a) a = 00.
Figure 16.-

Shock shapesmeasured on t h e V i k i n g a e r o s h e l l i n a i r . M = 5.915. ,

(model 4 )

73

I \
1
- .4
. 8

I
.4

I
.8

1.2

1 12 .

x/rb

(d)
Figure 16

a = 12O.

.- Continued.

74

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

. 8

12 .

x/rb

(e) a = 1 6 O .

Figure 16.

Concluded.

75

2 .a

Prediction

1.6

0 Reference 21 0 Unpublished
eference 22

1.2

.8

.4

b '

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.8

1.2

- .4

.4

.8

1.2

x/rb

x/ rb

(a)

a =

00.

(b)

a = 4O.

76

2.o

16 .

1.2

.8

.4

ri

,
"

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.8

I 12 .

- .4

.4

.8

1.2

x/ ' b

(c)

a = 8".
Figure 17

(d)

a = 12".

.- Continued.

77

2.0

1.6

12 .

.8

.4

- o y
rb

- .4

-.8

- 12 .

-1.6
0

.4
x/rb

. 8

I
12 .
0

1 .4

I .8

I 12 .

(e) a

= 16O.

(f)
Figure 17

a = 200.

.- Concluded.

78

2.0

16 .

12 .

.a

.4

y
rb

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6
-.4

.4

.8

1.2

- .4

.4

. 8

12 .

drb
(a)
Figure 18

X/rb
0 0 .

a =

(b)

a = 40.
6)

.- Shock

shapesmeasured i na i r .

on theflattened-nosecone(model M = 5.915. ,

79

1.t

1; .

.E

.4

- a y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4
X/rb

.8

12 .

- .4

I
0
.4
X/rb

I
.8

J
1.2

( c ) a = 80.
F i g u r e 18.Continued.

(dl

a = 120.

80

20 .

16 .

12 .

.8

.4

b '

- o y

I
I

-.4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

I .4

1 . 8

1
12 .

- .4

.4

. 8

1.2

x/ ' b

x/ rb

(e) a = 1 6 O . Figure 1 . Concluded. 8-

(f)

a = 20.

2 . C

1.t

1.2

.a

.4

- o y
b

- .4
un r

- .8

-1.2

-1.6
-.4
0

.4

. 8

12 .

- .4

I .4

I
.8

I
1.2

x/ b

(a) Figure 19.-

a =

0 0 .

(b) a = 4 0 .
7)

Shock shapesmeasured on theconcave-nosecone(model i n a i r . MoD = 5.9 15.

20 .

16 .

1.2

.a

.4

y
rb

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.8

12 .

- .4

.4

12 .
x/rb

x/rb

(c) a =

8 O .

(dl

a = 120.

Figure 19

.- Continued.

83

20 .

16 .

: I

1.2

.a

.4

y
rb

-.4

-.a

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

I .4

I
.8

1.2

.4

.a

12 .

x/'b

x/'b
(f)

a = 200.

Figure 19

.- Concluded.

84

20 .

1.6

12 .

.a

.4

- a y rb

- L

..
urn

-.t

- 1: .

-1.

I
.8

- .4

.4

I 1.2

..4

x/rb

I .4 X/rb

I
.8

I 1.2

Figure 2 0 . -

shock shapes measured

M ,

on the cusp-nose cone (model

= 5.915.

8 ) i n air.

85

20 .

16 .

12 .

.a

.4

- o y
rb

____I

- .4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6
-.4

I
.4

. 8

12 .

x/rb

.4 x/ rb

I . 8

I
1.2

(c)

a = 8O.

(dl Figure 20

a = 12O.

.- Continued.

86

- .4

.4

.8

12 .

- .4

.4

.8

12 .

x/rb

x/rb

(e)

a = 16O.
Figure 20

(f)

200.

.- Concluded.

87

2.0

1. .6

1.2

.8

.4

Y b'

f
\

- .4

- .8

-1.2

.4

,8

12 .

16 .

(a) Spherical-nose Figure 2 1

cone (model 5)

.
on t h e

.- E f f e c t

of angle of a t t a c k on shock shapesmeasured cones (models 5 t o 8) i n a i r . Ma, = 5.915.

88

2.0

1.6

1.2

.8

.4

Y b '
0

- .4

- .8

-1.2

.4

. 8

12 .

16 .

(b) Flattened-nosecone
Figure 2 1.

(model 6).

Continued.

89

l . E

1.2

.8

.4

- .4

-.a

-1.2

-1.6

- .4
(c)

.4
X/'b

.8

1.2

1.6

Concave-nosecone(model Figure 21

71

.- Continued.

90

2.a

1.6

1.2

.8

.4

Y ,

rb

- .4

-.a

-1.2

-1.6

.4
X/q)

.8

1.2

1.6

Cusp-nose cone (model Figure 2 1 .

8)

Concluded.

91

2.0

Model
1.6
-

Nose
Spherical

5 6 7

Flattened Concave

1.2

.8

.4

Y rb
0

- .4

- .8

-1.2

-1.6 -.4

.4

.8

1.2

1.6

X/rb
(a)
Figure 2 2 . -

a = Oo.
shock

Effect of noseshape(models 5 to 8 ) on measured shape i n air. MOD = 5 . 9 1 5 .

92

2.0
Model Nose 5 Spherical Flattened 6 7 Concave
8

16 .

" -""

"

1.2

.8

.4

- .4 - .8

4
"

UO C

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4
x/rb

1.8 . 6

12 .

Figure 22.

Continued. 93

20 .
Model Nose 5 Spherical Flattened 6 7 Concave

1.6

"--

"_

1.2

.8

.4

- .4

g
I
I

- .8

-1.2

-1.6

- .4

.4

.8. 16

12 .

x/ rb

Figure 2 2

.- Concluded.

94

1.2

1.o

0,deg
0 0,180 0 45

.8

90

135

P pt,2

. 6
onic.
.4

--.2 Windward
0 I -1 0

"_

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21 Reference22

Leeward

- .8

1
-6 .

- .4

I -.2

0
s/sb

I
.2

I
.4

I .6

I . 8

I
1.0

Figure23.-pressuredistributions measured on thehyperboloid Mach 5 . a i r 93 a t various angles of attack.

(model 1,5Series 1 ) in = 7 x 1 0 .

12 .
$9

deg

10 .

0 0,'180 0 45

0
.8

90

fl 135

P - . 6
pt, 2

.4

Prediction Newtonian theory

.2

Windward

Leeward
I

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2

I
.8

1
1.0

0
s/sb
(b)
a = 4O.

.2

.4

,6

Figure 23

.- Continued.

@, deg
0 0,180 0 45

90

135

Prediction Newtonian theory

Windward
-.8

Leeward -.2
0
s/sb
(c) a =
Figure 23
8 O .

-. 10

- -6

- .4

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

.- Continued.

- Sonic

"

\ o

Windward

(:I

., ". ; i

"\ ,
'x

I ,

'~
I

..4
I

- .8

-.6

- .4

J q
-2 .

,. :

Leeward
I

"\.,

(:l, .

'

"

0 .; !->, ,

.2

1. .4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0

Figure 2 3

.- Continued.

1.2

1.o

0 0,180 0 45

0
.8

90 135

P Pt,2

.6

.4

.2 Windward
0 -1.0

Prediction Newtonian theory

- .8

- .6

- .4

-.2

0
S/%

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

(e)

a = 16O.

Figure 2 3 . - Continued.

-L

0 0

12 .

#, deg
1.o

0 0,180 0 45

0
A

90

.8

4
0
0 0
Q 0

135

P Pt,2

.6

- Sonic

.4

13

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward

0 0

Leeward

0
-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

1 1
3
5/53

.2

1 1 .4

1 1
.6

1 1 .8

1 1
1.0

Figure 23

.- Concluded.

1.:

Ma NRe,m, db
1.(

0 5.13 0 5.93

Q
.e

0 6.00

0.17 x .75 2.95

lo6

P Pt,2 . 6

-Sonic

.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

(a)
Figure 24.-

a = Oo.

E f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n a i r for the most windward and leeward r a y s of the hyperboloid (model 1, series 1 ) .

1.2
Ma

NRe,

a db ,

1.0

0 5.74 0 5.92

0 5.99
.8

0.18 X lo6 .67 3.07

4,2

.6

- Sonic
.4

.2

Windward

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

0 s/sb
(b) a = 4 O .

Leeward

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
1.0

Figure 2 4

.- Continued.

Mm

NRe, " db ,

0 0

5.74 0.18 x lo6 5.92 .67 5.99 3.07

8
Sonic

.4 "

.2

Windward

0 -1.0

- .8

1
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
8O.

Leeward

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

I,
1.0

(c)

a =

Figure 24.-

Continued.

-L

1.2

Mm

NRe,

m ,

d,,

1.0

QQ

0 5.73 0.19 x lo6 0 5.92 .67 0 6.00 2.92

*a-@

f3

e62

P Pt, 2

.6

Sonic

.4

Windward

.2

0.

-1.0

-.a

-6 .

- .4

-2 .

0
S/%

Leeward .2

.4

.6

.a

10 .

Figure 24.-

Continued.

M m NRe,

m ,

d,,

0 5.740.22 x 106 0 5.92 .70

0 5.992.93

P
Sonic
.4

.2

Windward Leeward

0
-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2
(e)

0
s/sb

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

a = 16O.

Figure 24

.- Continued.

Mw

NRe,

a db ,

-Sonic
Q

Windward
I

Leeward

S/%

(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 2 4 .

Concluded.

Figure 2 5 . - Pressuredistributions

measured on thehyperboloid(model
.-A

1, series 1 )

03

1.2

0, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 45

0
.8

90 135

Pt, 2

. 6

0 6
-Sonic

.4

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward,

I

Leeward
.2 .4

- .8

-6 .

- .4

-.2

0
S/Sb

. 6

.8

1.0

(b) a =

4 O .

Figure 25.- Continued.

1.2

4, deg
1.o

0 0,180 0 45

0
.8
A

90 135

P Pt,2

.6

- Sonic

.4

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward

I

Leeward

(c) a =
Figure 2 5

8 O .

.- Continued.

"

l*O

rt
F

9, deg 0 0,180
0 0 -45

0 9 J

90 135

P
Pt,2

.4

Sonic

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward

I

-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
. 1.0 6

I
.8

I .

Figure 25.-

Continued.

1.2

0,
1.0

deg

.8

A
P pt,2

.6

- Sonic

.4

a
- .4

0 0,180 0 45

0 90
135

0 0

.2

Prediction

Newtonian theory
Windward

a
-1.0

- .8

I
-.6

I
-.2

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0

(e) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 25

.- Continued.

-L -L

1.2

+, deg
0 0,180
0 45

1.o -

0
.8

90

135

P Pt,2

. 6-

.4

.2

Prediction Newtoniantheory Windward

D n 0

Leeward

0 -1.0

-.a

-.6

- .4

I.

- .2

0
s/sb
(f) a = 200.

.2

.4

.6 1.0

.8

Figure 25.

Concluded.

1.:

1.(

o Air
0 CF4

5.73 6.17

0.17 x 106

.09

5.21 12.01

.t

P -

6 Pt, 2 .

.4

Prediction (ref. 21 ) Air, yW = 1 . 4 CF4 9 Yeff = 1.123

.2

Windward

Leeward

Figure 26.- E f f e c t ofnormal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o on p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g t h e 1, series 1 ) . most windward and leeward r a y s of thehyperboloid(model

1 .c

0 Air

5.73 0.17 0 CF412.18 .08 6.07

x lo6

52 .1

.f

0
0 0

P - .( -Sonic , CF4 pt,2

- Sonic, air

Windward

Leeward

I
-8 .

- .6

-.4

- .2

0
s/sb

I
.2

.4 .8

.6

10 .

Figure 26

.- Continued.

1.2

@
Test

1.0

(pa
@
Q
ElD 0

gas 0 Air

5.74 0 CF4 6.05

NRe, o , db 2/o 0.18 x lo6 5.21 e08 12.20

.8

0 a

P - .6 Pt,2

Sonic , CF4 Sonic, air

.4

Windward Leeward

.2

0. -1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

I
-.2

0
s/sb
(c)

I
.2

I
.4

I
1.0 .6

I
.8

a = 80.

Figure 26.

- Continued.

1.2-

1.0

El @ 0

Test NRe, 00, db '2/'m gas Mca 0 Air 5.73 0.19 x lo6 5.21 0 CF4 6.05 .08 12.21

.8-

8 0

f3
0 El

Pt,2

.6-

Sonic, CF4 Sonic, air

.4
~

I I

.2 i-

- 1.0

I 0 1

Windward

Leeward

- .8

I
-.6

I -. 4

- .2
(dl
Figure 26

I
0
s/sb

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1
1.0

= 12O.

.- Continued.

1.2

l . a

.a

0 D
CF4

P -

Pt, 2 .6

-Sonic,

-Sonic, air

0 3
0

.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

0
-1

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2
(e)

0
s/sb
a = 16O.

.6 .2

.4

.8

1.0

Figure 26

.- Continued.

1.2

1.0

0
0 . 8

P -

0 E l

Pt,2 .6

1 , CF4 Sonic
Sonic, air

0
0

.4

0
E l 0

.2

Windward

Leeward

- 1.0

C1

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

0
SI%

I
.2

1
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(f) a = 200.
Figure 26

.- Concluded.

1.2

1.a -

( ,deg b

--.a

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 2 1

0 OJ80 0 45

P -

Pt,2

. 6

d
Windward

e $

90 135

.4

.2

Leeward

c
-1 1

- .8

I
-.26 .

- .4

I
0
SI%

I
.2

I
.4

I
. 6

1 .8

1
1.0

Figure 27.-

Pressure distributions measured on theparaboloid i n Mach 5.93 a i r . NRe,m,db = 7 x 1 05.

(model 3 , series 1 )

1.2 1I

10 .

@, deg
Prediction Newtonian theory

0 0,180 0 45

.8 -

%j
Sonic

0 90
135

P Pt,2

-6-.

.2

Windward Leeward

-6 -1.0 .

I -8 .

- .4

I
-.2

I
0
S/%

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1
10 .

(b) a

= 4O.

Figure 27.- Continued.

@, deg
0 0,'180 0 45

90

135

Windward

Leeward

0 -1.0

-.a

- .6

- .4

- .2
(c) a =
Figure 27

I
0

I
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
10 .

s/sb
8 O .

.- Continued.

1.2

@, deg
1 .o

0 0,180
Prediction Newtonian theory

0 45

90 135

.8

P pt,2

.6

<

.4

.2II !I

I_
\

Windward

c)I - 1.0

- .8

-. 6

- .4

- .2

I
0 s/sb

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
. 6

1
.8

I
1.0

Figure 27

.- Continued.

1.2-

1.0

Prediction Newtonian theory

0, deg 0 0,180
0 45

0
. 8

90

135

.4

.2

Windward

-1.0

- .8

I
-6 .

- .4

I
-.2

0
S/Sb

I
.2

I
.4

1
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(e)
Figure 27

a = 16O.

.- Continued.

1*2r
1 .o

Prediction

@, deg
0 0,180 0 45

0
.8

90

135

P .6 Pt,2

I
.4

.2

Windward

0,
-1.0

- .8

1
-.6

- .4

1
-.2

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
10 .

(f) a = 200.
F i g u r e 27.

Concluded.

1.2

1.0

0
.8

0 5.76 0 5.93

0 6.00

0.20 X lo6 .70 2.70

0
P - .6

Pt,2

- Sonic

@
.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

Figure 28.- E f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n a i r along the most windward andleeward r a y s of the paraboloid (model 3 , series 1 ) .

1.2

Mm

1.0 -

NRe, 0 , d b 0 0.17 x lo6 .67 2.93

0 5.76 0 5.88

0 5.99
.8 -

.6
Sonic

.4-

B 63

.2

Windward Leeward
I

8
I

-1.0

-.a

- .6

- .4

- .2

0
9/93

I
.2

1
.4

1
.6

.a

1
10 .

Figure 28.

Continued.

.z
Mal

NRe, 00, db 0.19 x lo6

.70

1.c

0 5.76 0 5.89

0 6.00
.a

2.90

0
pt,2

.6

-Sonic
.4

Q Q
.2

O @
Windward Leeward

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2

0
s/sb
(c) a = 8 O .

.2

.4

.6

. 8

1.0

Figure 28.- Continued.

1.2

Moo

NRe, 0 db 0 ,

10 .

0 5.77 0 5.87

0 5.99
.8

0.19 x 106 .70 3.00

Q
@ e ?

l .8 L *

Pt,2

.6-

Sonic
.4

.2

Q
0
Windward Leeward

- .8
I

0 0
- .6
I

- 1.0

0-

- .4

1 -.2

I
0
s/sb
(dl
a = 12O.

I .2

1
.4

1 . 6

I
.8

I
1.0

Figure 28

.- Continued.

1.2

Mm

NRe, 00, db
0.21 x lo6 .70 2.93

1.0

0 5.75 0 5.87

0 6.00
.8

P Pt,2

- Sonic
.4

.2

Q
Windward Leeward

(e)

a = 16O.

Figure 28.- Continued.

1.2

M ,
10 .

NRe, 0 db 0 ,

0 5.75 0 5.92

0.20 x
.67

lo6

0 6.01
.e

29 .3

P - .

pt,2

-sonic

..
1

0
I
.1

0
Windward Leeward

@
1
.6

-. 10

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

I
.2

I
.4

@ @ I
.8

I
10 .

(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 28.Concluded.

1.2

1.o -

(, bdeg

----.8
P -

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21

0 0,180

a
0

45
90

135

Pt,2

.6

.4

.2

Windward Leeward

0 -1 1

- .8

I -6 .

- .4

- .2

I
0
s/sb

I
.4

I
.6 1.0

.2

I .8

Figure 29.-

P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measured on t h e paraboloid (model 3, series 1) i n Mach 6 13 CF4. NRe, = 7.8 x l o 4 ; p2/pw = 12.06.

w
N

1.2

4, deg 0 0,180 0 45

1.aI Prediction Newtonian theory

90

fl 135
.a1 -

P Pt,2

.f i-

L/

2-

Windward

, 0
-1.0

-.

. . .. . .

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

1
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(b) a = 4 O .
Figure 29

.- Continued.

1.2

10 .
I

@, deg
0 0,180
0 45

.8

a 135

90

P - . 6
pt,2

.4

.2

Windward

-a

I
-8 .

I
-6 .

- .4

- .2

1
0
s/sb (c)
= 8O.

Leeward

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
10 .

01

Figure 29
-L

.- Continued.

W W

.
W

1.2

1.0

Prediction Newtonian theory

0,deg
0
0 0,'180 0 45

.a

. p
P Pt, 2 .6

\\

90 135

.4

.A

-1.0

- .8

Windward I

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
s/sb

Leeward

1
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

Figure 29

.- Continued.

1.2

Prediction

1.0

Newtonian theory

.8

9,deg
0 0,180 0 45

$ 0

90 135

pt,2

.6

0
.4

.2

Windward
0

(e) Figure 29

a = 16O.

.- Continued.

1.2

Prediction Newtoniantheory

10 .

0 0,180 0 45

90

135

.8

.4

.2 1-

Windward

-1.0

-.8

-. 6

- .4

- .2
(f)
Figure 29

0
s/sb
a = 200.

.2

.4

.6

.8

10 .

.- Concluded.

c.

M~
0 5.76 0 6.08

NRe, 00, db

/a 2 52 .1 12.16

0.20 X lo6 .08

.8

P pt,2

. 6

.4

.2
_

CF4, yeff = 1.123

Windward
0 -3 0

Leeward

- .8

- .6

I - .4

- .2

1
0
S/%

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
10 .

Figure 30.- E f f e c t of normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o on pressure distributions along the most windward and leeward rays of theparaboloid (model 3, series 1 ) .

8-

z g

w w p: 9
m w

00

m
D
F
I

0 0
?

138

1.2
NRe, Q), db

Ma

bIPa
5.21 12.20

1.0

0 5.76

0 6.06

0.19 X lo6 .08

.8

- Sonic,

CF4 - Sonic. air

.4

8
.2 Windward Leeward

0 El

a m
0

0 0

(c)

a = 8O.

Figure 3 0 . -

Continued.

.
h
0

1.2

M~

NRe,
.08

0 5.77
1.a

00, db 0.19 x lo6

p2/pw

5.22
12.22

0 6.05

.a

P - .e
Pt,2

L-Sonic,

CF4

" l E
.4

Sonic, air

c .1

Windward

Leeward

- .8

I
-6 .

- .4

I
-.2

I
0

I
.2

I
.4

I
,6

I
.8

I
1.0

s/sb
(dl
Figure 30
I X

= 12O.

.- Continued.

1.2

Mw

NRe, O0, db
0.21 X .08

p2 / p a 5.21 12.23

1.o

0 5.75 0 6.05

lo6

.8

P Pt,2

.6
Sonic, air
.4

-.

.2 Windward

0
-3

- .8

I -.6

- .4

1
-.2

I
0
S/Sb

Leewarc

1
.2

I
.4

1
.6

I
.8

1
1.0

(e) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 3 0 .

Continued.

1.2
Mw

NRe, 0 db 0 ,
0.20 X lo6 .08

'2/'a 5.21 12.16

1 .o

0 5.75 0 6.05

.8

rs)

P - .6

pt,2

-Sonic , CF4 -Sonic, air

.4

Windward

I
-.8

- .6

- .4

I
-.2

1
0
s/sb

Leeward

1 .2

1
.4

1
.6

I
.8

!
1.0

Figure 3 0 . -

Concluded.

-Newtoniantheory

Prediction

Corner Windward
.01 -1.2 -2.0

Corner

I
-1.6

1
-.8

I
-A

1.6

Leeward

1
1.2 .4

I
.8

2.0

S/Sb

Figure 3 1 . - P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measuredon thesonic-cornerparaboloid (model 2 ) i n Mach 5 . 9 a i r .

143

1.rD -

4, deg

-Sonic

0 0,180 0 30

60

A 90 h120

b 150

n 210

P Pt,2

.'

Prediction Newtoniantheory

- 0

g I3 o g o
Corner

D D
0

@ @

Corner Windward

Leeward

.o
-1.6 -2.0

I
-.8

I
-.4
0

I
.4

I
.8

I
1.2

I
1.6

1 J
2.0

Figure 3 1.

Continued.

144

L. u

n
I L

$ deg 5

0 0,180 0 30

60

A 90
b120
ill50

n 210

-Newtoniantheory

Prediction

-2.0

-1.2

-.8

-.4

0
S/Sb

.4

1.6 .8

1.2

2.0

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 3 1.

- Continued.

145

1.0

-Sonic -

P pt,2

. 1

Prediction Newtoniantheory

.PJPt6

o O o

0 0

Corner
Windward

Corner
Leeward

.01 -1.6 -2.0

I
-1.2

I
-.8

- .4

I
0
S/Sb

I
1.2 1.6
2.0

.4

.8

(dl

a = 12O.

Figure 3 1

.- Continued.

146

10 .

3
0
h

P Pt,2

-Newtonian theory

Prediction

.o
-2.0
-1.6

-1.2

-.8

-.4

0
S/Sb

.4

.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

(e) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 3 1

.- Concluded.

147

P
0)

1.2 Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21

1.0

-0-

0 0,180

0
.8

60 b 120

P -

Pt, 2 .6

.4

.2

Windward
0
-.8

Leeward .2
.4

- .6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb
(a)

.6

.8

1.0

a = Oo.

Figure 3 2 . - Pressure distributions measured on the paraboloid (model 3 , s e r i e s 2 ) in Mach 5 . 9 a i r .

1.2 Prediction Newtonian theory 1.0

0 0,180 0 30

0
. 8

60

A 90' h120 b 150

n 210

.4

.2 Windward Leeward

-1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

-.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

4%

Figure 32.

Continued.

VI 0

$9

deg

Prediction

1.o

0 0,180 0 30

0
.8

60 A 90 h120 f 150 h 0 210

.4

.2

0 -1.0

I
-.8

Windward

- -6

- .4

- .2

1
.2

Leeward

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
1.0

s/sb

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 32.

- Continued.

1.2

Prediction Newtonian theory 1.o

.8

P Pt,2

.6

.4

.2 Windward
0

(dl

a = 12O.

Figure 32.

- Continued.

-L

lJl
h ,

Prediction Newtonian theory

0 0,180 .O 60

0 120

P pt,2

Windward

Leeward

0
-1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(e)

a = 16O.

Figure 3 2 .

Continued.

Prediction Newtonian theory

0, deg
0 0,180 0 60 0 120

tO2

Sonic

- 1.0

Windward

i
-.8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
.2

I
.4
.6

1
.8 1.0

S/%

(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 32.

- Concluded.

lmOL
Sonic
[ 1

06 0

I .
160

Windward

Corner
I

Corner
I

Leeward

01 -160 0

1
-120 -40

I
-80

I
0, deg

I
40

I
0

154

1.0

Sonic

.P Pt,2

.1

8
08
P4)/Pt,2
@

@@

Windward 160 .01 -160 0

Corner
.

Corner
80

I
-120 -40

.I

-80

Leeward
40 0

- I

P, deg
(b) a =
F i g u r e 33

4 O .

.- C o n t i n u e d .

155

1.0

@, deg
0 0,180
0 30
Sonic

60

A 90 h120 0 150

n 210

P Pt,2

.1

- QO
00
Q

0
QO@ 0

P../Pt,2

Windward .01

corner

Corner Leeward

I -120 -40

I -80

1 80

-160 120

I 160

40

1 0

B, deg
(c)

a =

8 O .

Figure 3 3 . - Continued.

156

: . .. &

120 0

160 -40 -120 -80 . -160

80

40 .
-

P, deg

.-.

(dl
Figure 33

a = 12O.

.- Continued.

157

1.0

r-

L
P Pt,2

Sonic

0 ,
0
,2

Windward

Corner

.o

Corner

Leeward

Figure 3 3

.- Concluded.

158

1.2

1.o

""_
"

.8

- ----- Reference 22
"

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25 Reference 21 Unpublished

" " " "

P Pt,2
.6

" " " "

" " "

.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

I
-.8

I -.6

- .4

- .2

I
0

.2

.4

.6

I .8

I
1.0

9 , aeg
0 0,180

-1.0

-1
.2
0

- -- - -

"Windward
I

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 2 5 Leeward

I

-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

1
0
s/sb

.2

.4

.6

I .8

I
1.0

Figure 34.

- Continued.

h.

1.2

ir
+, deg
0 0,180 0 30
I

1.0

" " " " "

.8

60 A 90 120 b 150 n 210

P pt,2

.6

A.4

""

"A " A

" " "

.2

""-- Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25 Leeward

-1.0

- .8

-.6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb
(c)

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

a =

8 O .

Figure 3 4 . - Continued.

1.2,

1.0.

.4.
n

.2 -

""_
Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

Leeward
I

-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2
(dl
Figure 34.

I
0
s/sb
a = 12O.

I .2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I 1.0

Continued.

la2

r
I
" " " " " "

@, deg
0 0,180 0 60 0 120

.6

Sonic
.4

Windward
1

.2

"_
-8 .

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26

-- - Reference 25
- .2
(e)
1

0 -1.0

- .6

- .4

1 0
s/sb
a = 16O.

Leeward
1.

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 34.-

Continued.

1 .o

" . """
0

.8

"""""""""0

P - .6
Pt,2

0
Sonic

""_
Windward
0

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

1

" " " " "

0

-1.0

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2
(f)

1
0
S/Sb

Leeward
1

.2

1 .4

1
. 6

1 .8

1
1.0

a = 200.

Figure 34.

Concluded.

$9

deg

0 0,180

0 60

0 120

O4

t
Windward

"_"
" 7

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

.2

0 -1.0

I
-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

Leeward

1
.2

I .4

I
.6

.8

1.0

s/s,

Figure 35

.- P r e s s u r e d (modelu t i o n s istrib

measured on t h e f lattened-nose cone 6 ) i n Mach 5.9 a i r .

1.2

1.0

0 0,180 0 30

0
.E

60

" " " "

A 90 h120 b 150

n 210

P Pt ,2

.f

" " " "

-Sonic

""_
Windward

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2
(b) a =
Figure 35

I
0
S/Sb
4 O .

Leeward
1 .2

1
.4

1
.6

1 .8

1
1.0

.- Continued.

P.

(, P deg
0 0.180 0 30
loot
."""""

60

A 90 h120 b 150

n 210

t-1.0

Sonic

""_
-.8

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

Leeward

- .6

- .4

- .2

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.-0

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 35

.- Continued.

1.2

" "

" " " " " " " " "

/ O

0
Sonic

""_
.21Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

- 1.0

0 1

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2
(dl
Figure 35

1
0
s/sb
a = 120.

Leeward
1
1

1
1.0

.2

.4

. 6

.8

.- Continued.

1.2

@, deg
1.0 !-

" " " "

0 0,180 (3 60 0120

P - .6
Pt,2

-Sonic
.4

"-"
.2

"-

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

Windward

0 -1.0

I
-.8

- -6

- .4

- .2

0
S/%

Leeward

I
.2

1
.4

1 .6

I .8

1.0

(e)
Figure 35

a = 16O.

.- Continued.

1.2

10 .

" " " "

p \ O

.8

Pt,2

.6

-0
.4

"\
""_
Windward Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25

Sonic

\
Leeward
.4
.6

.2

c
-1

- .8

- .6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb

.2

.8

1.0

(f) a = 200.
Figure 35

.- Concluded.

1.2

1.a

.8

" " " "

P Pt,2 .6
" + + "

" I " " "

""-

- Sonic
.4

". "

"""_
@
Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

~"Q3-a"-

.2 Windward

"_" "- .8
I

Leeward
I
I

-3

-.6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb

1 .2

1
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
1.0

(a) a = O o .

1.2

1.o

4 8 Elg
" " P

0 0,180 0 30

60 A 90

.8
" "

h120 b 150
D 210

P Pt,2

.6

-Sonic
.4

\---

y-z-

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25

.2

"_" "Windward
I

a
D

-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/%

Leeward
I

I
.4

I
.6

.2

I .8

t
1.0

Figure 36

.- Continued.

1.2

+, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 30

0
. 8

60 A 90 k120 b 150 n 210

pt,2

.6

- Sonic
.4

.2 Leeward
0

"_" "- .8
I , . . !
, , . , ,

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25 Windward

-3

- .6

- .4

I
-.2

I
0
s/sb

.2

.4

1 .6

1,.
.8

j
1.0

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 3 6 .

Continued.

1.2

0 0,180
1.o

.a 60
O O Q
"

0 120

" I .8 : & ""_""" O

IO

P pt,2

.6

.4

c;,
.2

"-"
Windward
-.8

"- .2

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25 Leeward

0
s/sb

-1.0

-.6

- .4

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 3 6 . -

Continued.

Sonic

"-&"e"a"R"O",

"-"
"e

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

"-------0 0
CJ

n -

Windward

Leeward

- 1.0

0,

-.a

-.6

- .4

- .2
.

. . .

I .2

I .4

I
.6

I
.a

I
1.0

s4J
(e)

a = 16O.

Figure 36.- Continued.

1.2

1.o

" " " " " " " " "

.8

P pt,2

.6

- Sonic
.4

" " c .

.2 Windward
0

"-

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference26 Reference 25

" " " "

"

a- - - - - - 0
fi

a - -- - - -" n
A

0
Leeward

0
U

"1%
(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 36.

Concluded.

1.2

I
h

"i
.8t
!
1

0 30
60

A 90

-" "

I \

L 120 . l b 150 0 210

" " " "

""_@

"""_

@"-e---

.I
.2

"""e

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25 Leeward

Windward

-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 37.- Pressure distributions measured on thecusp-nosecone(model i n Mach 5 . 9 a i r .

8)

9, deg
1 .o 0 0,180 0 30

0
.a

60 A 90 h120 b 150 n 210

P Pt,2

e "

. 6

.4

.1 c

"""Windward

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25 Leeward

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
s/sb

I
.2

I
.4

I .6

I
1.0

.8

(b) a = 4 O .
Figure 37

.- Continued.

c.

.o

" " " "

""_
Windward
-1.0

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25

Leeward

- .8

- .6

- .4

I
-.2

I ,

I .2

I
.4

I
.6

1
.8

2 1.0

s/sb

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 37

.- Continued.

.
W
0

1.2 1

10 .

.a
" " " " " " " I "

Sonic

.4

-\ a "

""_

-D--TF"- "

""Windward

"-

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 26 Reference 25 Leeward

Figure 37

.- Continued.

1.2

@, deg

1.0

" " " "

0 0,180 0 60

0 120

. 8

'
Sonic

0
" " " " "

.6

= E" -a"a =t "

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25
n
U

.4

, "

*2 .2 " 0 " -9-

0 -1.0

tJ

kJ

n
v

Windward

Leeward
1

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

1 .2

1
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0

(e)
Figure 37

a = 16O.

.- Continued.

1.2-

10 .

0 0,180 0 60
" " " "

0 120

.4

-m"a a

" "

J&Ll-A"d
fi
W

" " " "

"_
I

Windward

"- .2
I

Prediction Newtoniantheory Reference 26 Reference 25

n
v

L J

f 3
v

fi
v

Leeward
I .2

-. 10

- .8

- .6

- .4

I
0
S/Sb

I .4

I .6

I
.8

1 10 .

(f) a = 200.
Figure 37

.- Concluded.

1.2

1.0

Model Nose 0 5 'Spherical 0 6 Flattened 0 7 Concave

A a
.8

CUSP

0
P - . 6 4,2 onic @Q9

El 0

.4

.2

Windward
0 -1

Leeward

- .8

-. 6

- .4

I
-.2

I
.2

I
.6

1
.8

L
1.0

.4

s/sb

Figure 3 8 . -

E f f e c t of nose shape of thecones(models 5 to 8 ) on pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g t h e most windward ( @ = 180O) and leeward ( @ = O o ) r a y s i n Mach 5 . 9 a i r .

1.0

Model 0 5 0 6 0 7 A 8

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave

Cusp

.a

B
P Pt,2 .6

Sonic

0 0

Windward
D

Leeward

I
-8 .

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
.2

I .4

I .6

I .8

1
1.0

S/%

(b) a = 4 O .
Figure 38.- Continued.

1.2 Model
1.0

Nose
Spherical Flattened Concave

0 0
A

0 A

6 7 8

Cusp

.8

P -

Pt,2

.6

Sonic -

0
El 0

.4

.2

Windward
0
S/Sb

Leeward

(c) a = 8 O .
Figure 38.

Continued.

1.2 Model 0 5 0 6 0 7 A 8 Nose Spherical Flattened Concave Cusp

1.0

.8
A

pt,2

.6

Sonic -

.4

.2

Windward

-c

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

Leeward
I .2

I
.4

I .6

I .8

1
1.0

S/Sb

Figure 38.- Continued.

1.2 ,-

Model
1.0 -

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave

0 0
A

El
& (J -

6 7

Cusp

.8'

- a

& e

@6 I3

&lo

0 %

A A
P "2 9
.6

0
Sonic

.4

Windward

8 0
Leeward

.2

-1.0

0,

I
-.8

- .6

- .4

-.2I
(e)

I
.4

.2

i .6

1
.8

1
1.0

91%
a = 16O.

Figure 38.

Continued.

1.2 Nose Model 0 5 Spherical Flattened 0 6 0 7 Concave 8 Cusp

1.0

A
.8

P -

d
0

pt,2 .6 Sonic

.4

.2

Windward

Leeward
I

c
-3
1

- .8

- .6

- .4

-.2 -

I
.2

I .4

I
.6

I
.8

L
1.0

s/sb
(f) a = 2 0 .
Figure 38.

Concluded.

1.2

10 .

n
I3 b
h

.a

0
El

0
0 0 0

P Pt,2

.e

- Sonic

.. 1

I3

0
h

0
B

F3
1
.I

h D

Windward

Leeward

s/sb
( a ) Spherical-nose cone (model
5).

Figure 39.- E f f e c t of angle of a t t a c k on p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g the most windward ( 4 = 180 1 and leeward (I$ Oo 1 r a y s of the cones (models 5 t o 8) with = various nose shapes i n Mach 5.9 a i r .

1.o

n
h

8 0
h

.8

0
P pt,2

n
0
El

.6

0
A
.4

b
b

0
A

.f ! Windward
(I ,

h b
Leeward

-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0

I
.2

I
.4

1
.6

1
.8

1
1.0

(b) Flattened-nose cone (model

Figure 39

6).

.- Continued.

1.2

1c .
I

.e

P Pt,2

.e
0
.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

-1.0

- .8

-.6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

( c ) Concave-nose cone (model

Figure 39

7).

.- Continued.

1.2-

1.0

.8 -

n a
B
0

n h
A

n
h

I3 h

a
0
0

A
B

0
Q 0
0

D E I

0
El

0
El

pt,2

n
0
0

.6-

0
Q

Sonic

0
0

.4

0
A

0
A h

O2

t
- .8
I

Windward

- 1.0

0.

- .6

- .4

- .2

1
0
s/so

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I ,
.8

,_

4
1.0

( d l Cusp-nosecone(model Figure 39.Concluded.

8)

1.0

.8

0
.6

-8

Q- -

P pt, 2
.4

-Sonic
-

7Y- - -

-0

Measured

0
.2

S/%

0.88

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 25 Reference 26

0 0

I
20

I
40

I
120 80 100

1
140

I
160

1
180

60

@, deg

Figure 4 0 . - Circumferential pressure distributions on cone section of the sphericalnose cone (model 5) i n M c 5.9 air. ah

/ /

Sonic

>/-
/

Measured

S/%

* 0.88

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 25 Reference 26

0
140 120 0

I
100 20 80 40 60

I
@, deg
(b) a =
Figure 4 0 .
8 O .

Continued.

1.0

Measured

0
.8
I

S/%

* 0.88

--- -.6

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 25 Reference 26

/0
-

I
160

-Sonic

P Pt, 2
.4
.(

.2

0 0

I
100 20

I
80 40

I
60

I
4, deg
(c) a = 1 2 0 .
Figure 40.

I
120

I
180 140

- Continued.

1.0

Measured 0 S/% = * 0.88

/ "
0
"

.8

".6

--'Sonic

"_"

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 25 Reference 26

"

/ ,

+-"

.4

.P

.2

0
0

I
20

I
40

I
60

I
80
+?

I
160 120

I
140

180100

deg

Figure 4 0

.- Continued.

1.0

.8

Sonic

.6

.4

Measured
S/%

* 0.88

""

"

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 25 Reference 26

0 0

I
20

I
40

1
60

I
80

I
140 100

I
120

I
160

1
180

( ,deg P
(e)

a = 20.

Figure 40

.- Concluded.

1.2
$9

deg

1 .o

0 0,180 0 60

0 90 A 120
.8

P Pt,2

.6

.4

.1

"_
Windward
-.8

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21 Leeward

-. 6

- .4

- .2

0
S/%

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 41.- P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measured on thehyperboloid(model i n Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRe,-,db = 3 . 6 5 x 10 5

1 , series 2 )

1.2

@, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0
.8

90

A 120

pt,2

.6

- Sonic
.4

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward Leeward

-.6

0
-.8

- .4

- .2

0
S/%

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

(b) a =
Figure 41.

4 O .

- Continued.

h)

0
0

12 .

( ,deg P
10 .

0 0,180 0 60

0
.8

-90

A 120

P - . 6 pt,2

.4

.1 r

.
Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory Leeward

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2

I
. 2

I
.4

I
,6

I
.8

1.0

s/%
(c) a =
Figure 4 1.
8 O .

Continued.

1.2

@, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0 90 A 120
. 8

P -

pt, 2 .6

.4

.2

Prediction Newtonian theory Windward Leeward

. ... . .

-1.0

I - .8
..

,,

I -6 .

- .4

I
-.2

I
0

I
.2

I .4

I
.6. 10

I . 8

Figure 41.

- Continued.

h ,

0
h ,

1.2

+,deg
0 0,180 0 60

1.0 l -

0
.a I -

90

A 120

0
0

P -

pt,2

.f i -

.IL

c;

d .I

1 --

Prediction Newtoniantheory Windward Leeward

-1.0

- .8

-.6

- .4

- .2
(e)

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

a = 16O.

Figure 41.

- Concluded.

1.0

P - .1 4,2

Prediction Newtonian theory

.1 0 -2.0

-1.6

-1.2

-.8

- .4

0
S/sb

.4

1.2

1.6

2.0

Figure 4 2 . - Pressure distributions measured on thesonic-cornerparaboloid (model 2 ) i n Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRe,m,ab = 3 . 8 x 10 5

1.0

P Pt,2 -l

Prediction Newtonian theory

0
0 0 0
Corner 0

Windward
.01I,

Corner Leeward

I
-1.6 -1.2

I
-.8

I
-.4
0

I
.4

I
.8

1
1.2

I
1.6

I
2.0

-2.0

s/sb

(b) a =

4 O .

Figure 42.

Continued.

204

sonic

Prediction Newtonian theory

0 0
0
0 0
Corner

0 0

Leeward

(c) a =

8 O .

Figure 42.-

Continued.

205

Prediction Newtonian theory

0
0

0
Windwn rrl

0
Corner

0
Corner

0
Leeward

I
-1.2 -.8

-2.0

-1.6

- .4

0
S/Sb

.4

.a

1.2

1.6

2.0

Figure 42.

- Continued.

206

-Newtonian theory

Prediction

s/sb

(e) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 42.

- Concluded.

207

h)

0
0)

1.2

4% deg
10 .

0 0,180 0 60

0 120

.a

P - .e
pt,2

-Sonic
.4

r .1

--Windward

--- - I

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21 Reference 22

Leeward

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

I
0

I
.2

-.2

.4

.6

I
.8

1
1.0

Figure 43.-

Pressuredistributions measured on theparaboloid i n Mach 9 . 9 a i r . = 1.9 x 105 NRe,m,%

(model 3, series 2)

1.2
$9

deg

1.a

0 0,180 0 60 0 120

.a

P Pt,2 .6

.4

.2 Windward
0
-1

Prediction Newtonian theory Leeward

- .8

- .6

- .4

I
-.2

I
0
s/sb
(b) a = 4 O .

I
.2

I
.4

1
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

Figure 43.J . t 0 u)

Continued.

1.2

l . a

.E

P pt,2

.(

- .8

- .6

- .4

-.2

I
0
s/s,

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0.

(c) a =
Figure 43.

8 O .

- Continued.

1.2

@, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0 120
.8

P pt,2

.6

1
Prediction

.4

0
.2

Windward

Newtonian theory
I

<
Leeward

(dl
Figure 43.

a = 12O.

Continued.

N
A. .

1.2

1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0 120
.a

P -

6 Pt, 2 .

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

- .8

-.6

- .4

-.2

0
5/53

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 43.

- Concluded.

10 .

Sonic

.1

0
0

0
o b
0

o m
0
Corner
~

Windward
.01 -160 0

I
-120 -40

~.~
~

.~ .

Corner Leeward

I
P, del3

I
80 160

I
120

1
40

1
0

-80

Figure 44.- P r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s measuredon the Vikin? aeroshell (model i n Mach 9 . 9 a i r . NRe,=,db = 1 . 9 X 10

4)

213

10 .

-Sonic

P __ pt,2

. 1

0
Corner

0
Corner Corner

0000
Leeward Leeward

Windward

.01 0

I
120-40

I
160 -80 -160

I
-120 120 160 P, deg

1
(b) a = 40.

I
80

-~

40

I I 0

Figure 44.

Continued.

214

P Pt,2

-I

co000
0
Windward Corner

00 0

.01
0

I
120 -40 160

I
-80 -160

I
-120

I
P, deg

Corner Leeward

I
ao

I
0

40

(c) a =
Figure 44.

8 O .

Continued.

215

120 -40 160

-80 -160

-120

80

40

P, deg
(dl

a = 12O.

Figure 44.

- Continued.

2 16

1.0

-Sonic -

.1

0
0 0
Corner

00 0 Corner
0
0

0
Windward 0 .1 0 0

0 00

I
-40 -120

n .-

~-

I
160

I
-160

I
80

I
120

Leeward

I
40

1
0

-80

P, deg
( e ) a = 16O.
Figure 44.-

Concluded.

217

P Pt,2

""Windward
0

Prediction Newtonian theory Reference 21 Leeward

-1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
(a)

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

1
.8

1.0

s/sb
a = 00.

Figure 45.-

Pressure distributions measured on thespherical-nosecone(model in Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRe,-,db = 3 . 6 5 X 105

5)

Figure 45.

Continued.

h)
, h )

1.0

A deg
0 0,180 0 60

.8

0 120

.6

Sonic

/c

.4

.2

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward Leeward

-1.0

- .8

-.6

- .4

-.2

I
(c) a =

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

s/sb
8 O .

Figure 45.

- Continued.

1.2

1.0

A deg
0 0,180 0 60

.8

0 120

P -

Pt, 2 .6

-Sonic

\
Windward Prediction Newtonian theory Leeward

.4

.2

0 -1

I
-.8

-.6

-.4

I
-.2

.2

.4

.6

I
.8

1.0

s/sb

Figure 45

.- Continued.

tu

N
tu

1.2-

1.0

0
0

.8 -

0
0 0,180 0 60

0 120
Pt, 2

0
.6-

>

Sonic

.4

Windward Prediction Newtonian theory

0
A

c-

L.:J

.2

Leeward

- 1.0
0 3

I - .8

I
-.6

I - .4

-.2

1
(e)

I
.2

I
.4

1
.6

I
.8

1.0

s/sb
a = 160.

Figure 45.

Concluded.

+,deg
l w 2 r

0 0,180 0 60

Q 120

* ' F .2

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward

0 -

. ... ..

. .I

-1.0

-.8

-.6

- .4

- .2

I
0 s/sb

I
.2

I
.4

1.0

I
.6

.8

Figure 46.- Pressure distributions measured on the flattened-nose i n Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRe,oo,db = 3 . 6 5 x 10 5

cone (model 6)

h) h)

1.2

1 .

1.a

.a

P Pt, 2

. 6

1 ..

4 .I

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward

- .8

I
-6 .

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

I
.2

1
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(b) a = 40.
Figure 46.

- Continued.

1.2

1.o

.8

P Pt,2

.6

-Sonic
.4

.2

Windward Prediction Newtoniantheory Leeward

-1

I - .8

- .6

- .4

-.2

.2

.4

.6

I -

.8

1-

1.0

s/sb

(c) a = 8 0 .
Figure 46.- Continued.

9, deg
0 0,180 0 60

0 120

.2

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward

-1.0

-.8

- -6

- .4

- .2

I
(dl

.2

.4

I . . , ! , , . , ,
. 6
.8

1.0

a = 12O.

Figure 46.

- Continued.

0 0,180 0 60 0 120

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward

-1.0

-.8

- .6

- .4

-.2

0
s/sb
(e)

.2

.4

.6

.8

10 .

a = 16O.

Figure 46.

Concluded.

1.2

1.0

.8

pt ,2

.6

.4

Prediction Newtoniantheory

01 -1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

I
-.2

I
0
92

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1
1.0

s/sb

Figure 4 7 . - Pressure distributions measured on the concave-nose cone (model in Mach 10 .O a i r . NRelmldb = 3 . 6 5 X lo5.

7)

1.2

1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0 120
.8

P Pt,2

. 6

.4

Prediction Newtonian theory

.2
I-

Windward
OI

Leeward

- 1.0

-.8

I
-.6

- .4

I
-.2

I
0
.2
(b) a = 4 O .

I
.4

I
. 6

I
.8

I
1.0

Figure 47.N N

Continued.

rD

I\)

12 .

0,deg
1.a 0 0,180 0 60

0 120

.a

P - .E
pt,2

-Sonic
L ..

Prediction Newtonian theory

4 .1

v - .8 - .6
.4 .2
0 s/s,

Windward

Leeward
.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

(c) a =
Figure 47.

8 O .

- Continued.

Sonic

Prediction Newtonian theory

Windward

Leeward

0 -1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(dl
Figure 47.

a = 12O.

- Continued.

N W N

12 .

$9

deg

1.0

Sonic

0 0,180

0 60

0 120
0
0 0 0 0 0

.8

0
.6

.4

Prediction Newtonian theory

Windward

D
C'J

m u
VI

.2 -

O L -J

Leeward

0
-1.0

-.8

- .6

-.4

- .2
(e)

0
s/sb
a = 16O.
,

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.o

Figure 47.-

Concluded.

1.2

1.0

.8

Prediction Newtonian theory Leeward

0,
-1.0 -.8
-.6

- .4

I
-.2 0 s/sb

I
.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 48.- Pressure distributions measured on thecusp-nose i n Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRe,m,db = 3 . 6 5 x 105

N
W W

cone (model 8 )

10 .

9, deg
0 0,180 0 60

0 120
.8

P Pt,2 .6

\
0 0

g
_._.

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theory Leeward

L -8 . 0
.6

- .4

-.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 48.

Continued.

1.2

10 .

.8

o o o ( - J o
/I\

.6

Sonic

0
0
El 0
0
I 3

D E I
0 0

.4 -

F I 0
Prediction Newtonian theory Windward

.2

Leeward

0, -1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
.2

.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

S/Sb

Figure 48.-

Continued.

1.2 7

1.0

+,deg
0 0,'180 0 60

0 120
.8-

0
P -

Pt,2

.6

0
Sonic

( 9

El

.4

E l

.2

Windward

Prediction Newtonian theon Leeward

0 -1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

I
-.2
0
SI%

I
.2
a = 12O.

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

(dl

Figure 48.- Continued.

1.2

@, deg
1.0

0 0,180 0 60

0 120
.8

"7

0
- .6 4,2

- Sonic

.4

.2

Windward
0

Prediction Newtonian theory

Leeward

(e)

a = 16O.
Concluded.

Figure 48.-

h)

03

1.2

1.o

.8

P - .6
Pt,2 Source
Mm

NRe,

0 db 0 ,
lo5

.4

.2

0 Present data 9.90 1 8 x .0 0 Present data 3.65 10.04 0 Present data 10.17 7.72 A Reference 28 9.92 1.03 LReference 28 5.10 10.12 d b = 10.16 Cm
Windward
I

Leeward

Figure 4 9 . - Effect of free-stream Reynolds number on the pressure distributions alongthe most windward (41 = 1 8 0 O ) and leeward ( 41 = O o ) rays of the hyperboloid (model 1 , series 2) i n M c 10 a i r . a = O o . ah

1.2

pt,a

Q
Mm
NRe, a, db
1.80 X 105 3.65 7.00

9.90 0 10.04

0 10.17
Windward
0 -1.0

Leeward

I
-.8

-. 6

-.4

- .2

1
0

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

=/%I
Figure 50.- Effect of free-stream Reynolds number on the pressure, distributions along the most windward ( 0 = 180 1 and leeward ( 0 = O o ) rays of the paraboloid (model 3 , series 2 ) i n Mach 10 a i r . a = 00.

N
W

NRe,

00, db

0 9.90

1.80 X lo5
7.00

0 10.17

00
0

0
0 -

0
Corner
Windward Corner

0 ooo 0 0 0

.1 0, 0

I
-40

-80 120

Leeward

I
-120 160

1
-160

I
P, deg

1
80

1
40

Figure 51.-

Effect of free-stream Reynolds number on the pressure distributions along the most windward ($I = 180O) and leeward ( $ I = O o ) raysoftheViking aeroshell (model 4) i n Mach 10 a i r .

240

10 .

Sonic

NRe,m, db

9.90

18 .0
70 .0

105

0 10.17

.1

0 0 0
0

0
0 0 00 0 0 0

8
0

0 0
.01
0

0
0
A

0 0
Corner

ooO00 0
Leeward

Windward

I
120 -40

160 v-80 -160

I
-120

1
80

I
40

(b) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 5 1.

- Concluded.
24 1

N
1p

1.2

1.0

9.90 0 10.04

0 10.17
.8 -

1.80 X 105 3.65 7.72

P -

Pt,2 e6-

6 @
Sonic

.4

.2

Windward Leeward

- 1.0

1
- .8

I
- .6

I
- .4

- .2

I
0
s/sb

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

.8

1.0

Figure 52.- E f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g the most windward (4) = 1 8 0 O ) andleeward ( 4) = O o ) r a y s for the spherical-nose cone (model 5) i n Mach 10 a i r .

1.2

NRe, m, db

o
1.o

9.90

0 10.04

0 10.17
.8

1.80 X 105 3.65 7.72

P - .6
Pt,2

@
- Sonic

.4

.2

Windward

Leeward

- .8

-6 .

- .4

- .2

0
S/%

.2

.4

. 6

.8

1.0

(b) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 5 2 .

- Concluded.

e e

NRe, 0 , db 0

9.90 0 10.04

1.80 X 105 3.65

0 10.17

7.72

Windward
0 -1.0

Leeward

I
-.8

I
-.6

- .4

I
-.2
(a)
a =

1
0
0 0 .

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0

Figure 5 3 . - Effect of free-streamReynolds number on the p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g the most windward (41 = 1 8 0 O ) and leeward ( I = O o ) rays of the flattened-nose $ cone (model 6) i n Mach 10 a i r .

NRe, a , J db
le2 1.0
'

9.90 0 10.04

1.80 X 105

0 10.17

3.65 7.72

pt,2

.6j'

Sonic
.4

e
6
Windward

.2

0 0

Leeward

0 -1.0

I - .8

-.6

- .4

- .2

1
0
s/sb

.2

.4

I
.6

I
.8

1.0

Figure 53.-

Concluded.

h)
I p

Q,

1.2

o
10 .

9.90 0 10.04

0 10.17
.e

1.80 X 105 3.65 7.72

P pt, 2

.f

..
1

iWindward Leeward

"1 .o

I
-.8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2

I
.2

1
.4

I
.6

I
.8

t
1.0

(a)

a = 00.

1.0
I

.8

Pt, 2

.6Sonic

.4

.2

Windward Leeward

0 -1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
S/Sb

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

.2

(b) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 54.- Concluded.

P 03

h ,

1.2

Mm
1.o

NRe,OO, db
1.80 X 105

6
Q Q B

9.90 0 10.04

0 10.17

3.65 7.72

.8

P -

pt,2

. 6

-e -

Sonic

.4

.2
Windward Leeward

-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

s/sb

F i g u r e 55.- E f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s themost windward (41 = 1 8 0 O ) and leeward ( = 00) r a y s of thecusp-nosecone (model 8 ) i n Mach 10 a i r .
b

along

1.2

NRe, 0 , db 0

10 .

9.90 0 10.04

0 10.17

1.80 X 105 3.65 7.72

6
.8

Sonic

P -

pt,2

.6

.4

.2 Windward
0 -1.0

6 O

Leeward

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

I
- .2
0
SI%

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

.2

(b) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 55.- Concluded.

N
UI 0

1.2

10 .

Model 0 5 0 6 0 7 A 8

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave Cusp

.8

P -

0 a
Sonic

Pt, 2 .6

Windward

Leeward

Figure56.-Effect of nose shape of thecones (models 5 t o 8 ) on thepressure distributionsalongthe most windward ( = 1 8 0 O ) and leeward (I$ O o ) rays = i n Mach 1 0 . 0 a i r . NRelmldb = 3.65 X 10

!. ! !

1.2

10 .

Nose Model 0 5 Spherical Flattened 0 6 0 7 Concave A 8 Cusp

.8

P pt,2

.6

-Sonic
.4

.2

Windward
0

Leeward

-1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

- .2
(b)
( I

I
0
S/%

1
.4

1
.6

I
.8

1
1.0

.2

= 40.

Figure 56.- Continued.

1.2

1.0

0
. 8

Model 0 5 0 6 0 7 8

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave cusp

@ @
pt,2

e l

.6

-Sonic
.4

0
E J

.1

Windward
-1.0 . -6

- .8

- .4

- .2

0
+ b

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
. 6

I
.8

I
10 .

(c)
Figure 56.

a = 8O.

- Continued.

1.2

"

1.0

n 0
*a,~

"@@g
a
0

Model Nose 0 5 Spherical Flattened 0 6 0 7 Concave 8 Cusp

(el

P -

Pt, 2 .6

Sonic

0
El 0

.4 -

.2

Windward

0 -1.0

I
-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

Leeward

I
.2

I
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1.0

SI%

(dl
N VI W

a = 12O.

Figure 56.- Continued.

h)

U I

1.2

10 .

Model 0 5 0 6 0 7
8

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave Cusp

.8

Pt ,2

.6

.4

0
n

Windward
0 -1.0
-.8

-. 6

- .4

-.2
(e)

Leeward
.2 .4
.6

.8

1.0

s/sb
a = 16O.

Figure 56.
c
L .

Concluded.

MaJ

cm

0 5.9 0 10.0

-1.0

-.8

- -6

- .4

- .2

0
s/sb

.2

.4

.6

.8

10 .

Figure 57.- Effect of Mach number on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l o n g t h e most windward (I)= 180 1 and leeward ( = O o 1 r a y s of the spherical-nose cone (model 5 ) i n a i r .

Moo

1.o

lo
0

0 5.9 0 1. 00

.8

8
-Sonic

P Pt,2

. 6

Windward
-1.0

- .8

I
-.6

- .4

I
-.2

1
.2

I
.4

I
.6

Leeward

I
.8

1.0

SI%

(b) a = 1 6 O .
Figure 57.-

Concluded.

0 M

1.21

D 0

3
1.M

Measured

LO(

NRe,

'$
n

03, db

=
\

CA

0 Hyperboloid 0.46 X 0 Hyperboloid .70 0 Paraboloid .46 A Paraboloid .70 hSphere cone .46 b Sphere cone .70
.9c

lo6

f?

- Sphere cone,

Prediction

ref. 32

.8(

.( 7

a , deg
(b) Axial-forcecoefficient.
Figure 58

.- Continued.

258

.02

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

cm -.lo
-.12

-.14
Measured -1 .6
0 Hyperboloid 0 Hyperboloid 0 Paraboloid A Paraboloid hSphere cone b Sphere cone

NRe,

*, db

-.18

0 4 x 106 .6 .70 .46

.70

-.20

.46 .70

-.22

-8
(C)

8 a, deg

16

24

Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 58

.- Concluded.
259

.4

.3

.2

CN
Prediction Reference 32

.1

Measured

M0

NRe, 00, db
0.46 x 106

0 10.09 0 10.18

0
A h

5.87 5.92 5.90

.70 .46 .72 .14

Present study

Ref. 33

B
-.l
-8 16

24

a, deg ( a1 Normal-f orce c o e f f i c i e n t .

Figure 59

.- Aerodynamic coefficients

measured for the spherical-nose cone (model 5 ) i n M c 6 and ah Mach 10 a i r .

260

1.30

1.20

1.10

h h
CA

1.00

Measured NRe, 0.46 .70 0 5.87 .46 A 5.92 .72 f 33 Ref. .14 l 5.90 Prediction Reference 32

-, db
X

0 10.09 0 10.18

lo6
Present study

.go

.8C

a, deg

(b) Axial-forcecoefficient.
Figure 59.

Continued.

26 1

.O:

- .0: - .Od
-.Of

-.Ot

c ,

-.1c

-.12 Prediction -.14 Reference 32 Measured -.16

Mm

NRe,

m,

db

-.18

0 10.09 0.46 x 0 -10.18 .70

lo6
Present study

5.87

.46

-20

.72 A 5.92 Ref. .14 b 5.90

33

-.22

24

I
16

a , deg (c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 59.

Concluded.

262

.4

.3

.2

CN

.1

8
Mm

NRe,

a,

db

0 10.09 0.46 X 0 10.18 .70 0 5.87 .46 A 5.92 .72

lo6

-.l
0

16

24

ff, deg
( a ) Normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t . Figure 6 0

.- Aerodynamic c o6e)f fiinc iMachs measured for ther . lattened-nose ent (model and Mach ai
f

cone

10

263

1.3

1.2(

1,lC

fj
1 .oo

0
B

Mcu

NRe,

0 , db 0

.90

0 10.09 0.46 x 106 0 10.18 .70 .46 0 5.87 A 5.92 .72

.80 0
8
a , deg

16

24

(b) Axial-forcecoefficient. Figure 6 0 . - Continued.

264

.02

B
8

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

c,

-.lo

-.12

-.14

-.16

=O

NRe, 00, db

-.18

0 10.09 0.46 x 106 0 10.18 .70 0 5.87 .46 A 5.92 .72

-.20

-.22
0

16

24

a, deg
( c ) Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 60

.- Concluded.
265

1 ..

.C

.2

CN

.1

Q
Mm
0 10.09 d 10.08 0 10.18 d 10.16
NRe, 00, db
0.46 x .46

lo6

.70 .70
.46 .72

5.87

A 5.92

-.l
-8
0

16

24

a, deg ( a ) N o r m a l - f o r c ec c e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 61

.- Aerodynamic

coefficientsmeasuredfortheconcave-nosecone

(model 7 ) i n Mach 6 and Mach 10 a i r .

266

1.30

1.20

1.10

CA

M,
1.00

NRe,
.46 .70 .70 .46 .72

0 db 0 ,
lo6

0 10.09

0.46 x

d
0
.90

10.08

0 10.18

d 10.16
5.87 5.92

.80
0 8
16

24

a , deg
(b) Axial-forcecoefficient.
Figure 6 1

.- Continued.

.02

-0 .2

- .04
-.06

-.08

c ,

-.lo

-.12

-.14

Ma

NRe,

00,db

0 10.09

a 10.08
-.16

0 10.18

d 10.16
-.18

0 A

5.87 5.92

0.46 x lo6 .46 .70 .70 .46 .72

b
b
8 16 24

-.20

-.22

a, deg ( c ) Pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 6 1

.- Concluded.

268

.4

.3

.2

CN

.1

8
0 10.08 0 10.16
NRe, 00, db

0 4 x lo6 .6 .70

-.l -8

I .1 I 1
0
8
16
Q,

24

deg

( a 1 Normal-f orce c o e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 62.- Aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s measured or the cusp-nose cone (model 8) i n M c 10 a i r . ah

1.3

1.2'

1.1(

CA

1.oc

8
NRe, 0 db 0 ,

.90

0 10.08 0 10.16

0 4 x lo6 .6 .70

.80 -8

0
Q,

8
deg

16

24

(b) A x i a l - f o r c ec o e f f i c i e n t .
Figure 62.

Continued.

270

-0:

- .01
-.04

-0 .6

-.08

c ,

-.lo

-.12

-.14

-.16

M=
-.18

NRe, CQ,db
0.46 x .70

0 10.08 0 10.16

lo6

-.20

-.22 -8

16

24

a, deg (c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 62.

Concluded.

..

.1

cN

.1

Model

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave

0
0

5
7 8

0 6

0
A

Cusp

-.l -8

0
( a ) Normal-force

8 a , deg
coefficient.

16

24

Figure 6 3

.- E f f e c t

of noseshape of thecones(models 5 t o 8 ) on aerodynamic 6 c o e f f i c i e n t s i n Mach 10 a i r . = 0.70 X 10 NRe,m,db

272

1.3(

1.2c

0
1.la

CA

8
1 .oo

@
A

0
Model

Nose
Spherical Flattened Concave

.90

0 0

5
6

@8 .

Cusp

.80

I
16

I
24

(b) Axial-forcecoefficient. Figure 6 3

.- Continued.

.02

-.02

- .04
-.06

- .08

%
c,
-.lo
-.12

-.14

-.16

Model 5 0 6

Nose Spherical Flattened Concave Cusp

0
-.18

7
8

-.20

-.22 -8

1
0

1
8

1
16
24

a, deg
( c ) P i tching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t . Figure 63

.- Concluded.

274

1.14

1.12

0
0

1.10

8
0

1.08

cD

0
1.06
Measured

1.04
0

Model Nose 5
6

0
1.02

Spherical Flattened Concave

Prediction Reference 32 for model 5

1 .oo

(a) Drag coefficient.

M m = 5.9.

Figure 64.- Drag and lift coefficients and lift-drag ratio for the cones (models 5 to 8) and hyperboloid (model 1, series 2) in Mach 5 9 and . Mach 10.1 air. NRe,o,db = 0.46 X l o 6 .

275

I
CL
-.02

8
Measured Model Nose 0 5 Spherical 0 6 Flattened 0 7 Concave Prediction

-.04

Reference 32 for model 5

-0 .6
-8
-4

I
4

1
20

1
24

168

12

a , deg
(b) L i f t coefficient.
M,
= 5.9.

-8

-4

20 4

168

12

24

a , deg
(c) L i f t - d r a gr a t i o .
Figure 64.M,
= 5.9.

Continued.

276

1.16

h
1.14

1.12

0 0

0
h 0

1.10

CD 1.08

0
h

1.06 Measured Spherical 0Flattened 6 0 7 Concave A 8 Cusp

0 5

10 .4

1
1.02

Hyperboloid

Prediction Reference 32 for model 5

1.00

a, de2
( d ) Drag c o e f f i c i e n t .

M ,

= 10.1.

Figure 64.-

Continued.

0-

-.02

Measured Model Nose

0 5

CL -.04

7 A 8 b 1

Spherical Flattened Concave Cusp Hyperboloid

-.06

Prediction Reference 32 for model 5

h
-.08

I
-8
-4

I
0

I
4

I
8

" "

. .

-~

1
16

~~

I
20 24

12

a , deg
( e )L i f tc o e f f i c i e n t .

M ,

= 10.1.

n
0

h
-8

-4

12

16

20

a , deg (f) Lif t - d r a g r a t i o .

Figure 6 4

M ,

= 10.1.

.- Concluded.

278

1.a

@, deg
.8

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
A 315
. 6

qsph, calc
.4

.2
Windward

" " "

Reference 22 Leeward

-3

-.8

- .6
(a)

- .4
a =
00;

- .2
'sph, c a l c

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

s/%
= 140.6 k / W m

. .

Figure 65.- Heat-transferdistributions i n Mach 6 . 0a i r .

measured on hyperboloid (model 1 , series 1 ) NRe,-,db = 2.93 x 10 6

1.0

.8

0
0

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
A 315

.6

-0 -

i
qsph, calc
.4

0
0

o 0

@
8
0

0
Windward

a!il
Leeward

.2

0 1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4
(b) a = 4O;

-.2

0
S/%

.2
2

.4

I
.6

.8

1.0

'sph, calc

= 141.2 kW/m

Figure 65.- Continued.

c.

1.0

"

0
0
.8

-1
I

0 0,180 0 90

El

0 225
A 315

.6

Windward

4
qsph, calc
.4

0
0 0

0 0

e3

8 8
I
-.6

.2

8
I
1
0
s'sb

e
Leeward

g
I
. 8

El

0 0

0 -1.0

- .8

- .4

- .2

I
.2
= 132.7 kW/m
2

I
.4

I
.6

I
1.0

(c) a = 120;

'sph, calc

Figure 65

.- Continued.

@, deg
0 0,180 0 90

8
t
qsph, calc

0 225
A 315

- 1.0

-.8

- .6
(dl

- .4
a = 16O;

- .2
sph,calc

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

s/%
= 134.6 .kW/m

Figure 65

.- Continued.

"c
.8

4, deg

00

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
A 315

0
0

0 -1.0

I
-.8

- .6

- .4

- .2

I
0
e

I
.2
= 136.0

1
.4 2

1
.6

.8

1.0

(e) a = 200;

'sph, calc

kW/m

Figure 65

.- Concluded.

1.o

f p 2
.8

Ma

NRe, 03, %

k p h , calc' kW/m2
53.6 140.6

0
0
.6

0 5.73 0.22 x30.6 106 0 59 .2 .80 2.93 0 5.995

i
qsph, calc
.4

0
0

0
0 8

.2
Windward Leeward

I - .8

- .6

- .4

I - .2

0
S/Sb

1
.2

1
.4

1
.6

1
. 8
for

1.0

Figure 66.- Effect offree-streamReynolds number on h e a t - t r a n s f e r d i s t r i b u t i o n s the most windward and leewardrays of the hyperboloid(model 1 , series 1 ) . a = Oo.

1.a 1 -

0 0,180 0 90

.8

0225
A 315

.6

qsph, calc
.4
Prediction Reference 21 Reference 22 Leeward

.2
Windward

" " "

0 -1.0

-.8

-.6

- .4
(a)

-.2

.2

.4

.6

. 8

1.0

a =

0 0 ;

'sph, calc

= 97.25 kW/m2.

Figure 6 7 . - Heat-transfer distributions measured on the parabo o i d (model 3, series 1) i n Mach 5.985 air. = 2.98 x 10 NRe,w,%

i! .

1.o

0
0

@, deg
0 0,180

.8

0 90

8
.6

0 225
El

A 315

4
qsph, calc
.4

L
I
- .8

0
A

Windward

Leeward

0 -1.0

-6 .

- .4
a = 4O;

- .2
0

I
0
S/Sb

I
. 6

I
.8

I
1.0

.2
z

.4

%ph, calc

= 100.6 kW/m

Figure 67

.- Continued.

1.o

.8

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
A 315
.6

@
0

0
0
A

qsph, calc
.4

0
0

0
8
0

0
Windward

.2

8
1
1
.8

Leeward

- 1.0

- .8

- .6

- .4

I
-.2
0

1
1.0

.2

.4

.6

s/%

(c) a = 8 O ;

'sph, calc

'

= 96.7 kW/m

Figure 67

.- Continued.

0
$ 0

4% deg
0 0,180 0 90

0 225
Q

A 315

8
ti
qsph, calc

0
0

0
.2

0
Windward

8
h

El

I
-.8

0
h

El
Leeward

8
I
.6

El

8 0
.8

0 -1.0

- .6

I
(dl

-.4

I
0

I
-.2
0

I
.2
= 100.25 kW/m

I
.4
2

I.

1.0

a = 12O;

sph,calc

Figure 67

.- Continued.

1.o

0
.8

@I

deg

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
A 315
0
.6

0
0

h qsph, calc
.4

0
.2

0
O
Windward

A
0
Leeward

El

0
.6

a
A

8 0
.8

0 -1

-.8

-.6

I - .4
(e)

-.2

I
0

.2

I
2

.4

1.0

s/sb
a = 16O;

sph,calc

= 96.6 kW/m

Figure 67

.- Continued.

1.o

4, deg
.8

0 0,180 0 90

0 225
0
.6

0
0

A 315

G
qsph, calc
.4

0
0
A

Windward

Leeward

0
.6

-.a

I
-.6

- .4
(f) a = 20;

I
-2 .
e

0
S/Sb

1
.2

1
.4 2

0
,8

1.0

sph, calc

= 104.6

kW/m

Figure 67

.- Concluded.

1.o

M ,
.8

NRe,

0 0 ,

k p h , calc 9 kW/m2

97.25
.6

0 57 .7 0 58 .7 0 5.98

0 1 x 106 .9 .67 3.07

2. 38 39.1

i
qsph, calc
.4

.2

@ e
Windward Leeward

Figure 68.- E f f e c t of free-stream Reynolds number on h e a t - t r a n s f e r d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the most windward and leeward rays of theparaboloid (model 3, s e r i e s 1 ) . a = Oo.

1. Report No.

2. Government Accersion No.

3. Recipient's C t l g No. aao

NASA TM-84489
4. Title and Subtitle

5. Report Date

MEASURED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS, AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS, AND S O K A E H CH P S S ON BLUNT BODIES AT INCIDENCE I N HYPERSONIC A I R AND CF4 Charles G. Miller I 1 1

September 1982
6. Performing Organization Code

506-51-23-01
8. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Author(s1

L-15188
I

10. Wwk Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

I
J A

NASA

Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665

Name and Address

I I

11. Contract or Grant No.

I I

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency

Technical Memorandum
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

Pressure distributions, aerodynamic coefficients, and shock shapes w e r e measured on blunt bodies of revolution i n Mach 6 CF4 and i n Mach 6 and Mach 10 a i r . The angleof attack w a s varied from O o t o 20 i n 4 increments.Configurationstested O were a hyperboloid with an asymptotic angle of 45O, a sonic-corner paraboloid, a paraboloid with an angle of 27.6O a t the base, a Viking aeroshell generated i n a generalized orthogonalcoordinate system, and a family of coneshaving a 4 O half-angle with 5 spherical,flattened, concave, and cusp nose shapes. Real-gas e f f e c t s were simulated for the hyperboloid and paraboloid models a t Mach 6 by t e s t i n g a t a normal-shock d e n s i t y r a t i o of 5.3 i n a i r and 12 i n CF4. Predictions from simple theories and numericalflow f i e l d programs are compared with measurement. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the data presented i n t h i s r e p o r t w i l l be useful for verification of a n a l y t i c a l methods f o r p r e d i c t i n g hypersonic flow f i e l d s about blunt bodies a t incidence.

17.Key

Words (Suggested

by Authorls))

18. Distribution

Statement

Pressure distributions Shock shapes Blunt bodies Hypersonicflow

~~

Unclassified

- Unlimited
Subject Category 02

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

.

Unclassified
"

Unclassified
" "
~~

21. No.

of Pages

292

22. Price

A13
~~

.~

For Sale by the National Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginia

22161

NASA-Langley,

1982

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546

Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300

SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS M A I L and Aeronautics National BOOK

Postage and Fees Paid. Space Administration NASA451

POSTMASTER:

If Undeliverable (Section 1 5 8 Postal Manual) Do Not Return