Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:44:03.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passive control of pre-entry shock in supersonic intakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

S.C. Rolston  and
S. Raghunathan
S.C. Rolston
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical EngineeringThe Queen's University of Belfast
S. Raghunathan
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical EngineeringThe Queen's University of Belfast
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Passive boundary layer control experiments were conducted on a small supersonic sidewall intake at a Mach number of 1·46 to study the possibility of controlling and improving the intake performance by such a control. The passive control configurations tested included a suction slot in the intake duct located down stream of the shock system (1) connected by a breather passage to a narrow tangential injection slot upstream of the intake and (2) vented to a location where the pressure is free stream static pressure and well away from the inlet of the intake. The results of the experiments showed, that for a supersonic intake, passive control can control the pre-entry shock position, reduce the shock interaction losses and improve the overall pressure recovery.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 98 , Issue 971 , January 1994 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1994 

Access options

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

References

1. Seddon, J. and Goldsmith, E.L. Intake Aerodynamics. Collins Publishers, 1985.Google Scholar
2. Seddon, J. and Haverty, L. Experiments at Mach numbers from 0·5 to 1·8 on side intakes of normal shock type without boundary-layer control. Pt. I: The nature of pre-entry flow and its effect on pressure recovery. RAE TN Aero 2329, ARC 17398, 1954.Google Scholar
3. Leynaert, J. Fonctionnement du piège à couche limite interne d'une prise d'air à compression supersonique externe. ONERA TP No. 288, 1965.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, R.C. Performance of a supersonic ramp type side inlet with combinations of fuselage and inlet throat boundary-layer removal. NASA RM E56 A17, 1957.Google Scholar
5. Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S. Tests with a variable ramp intake having combined external/internal compression and a design Mach number of 2·2. NGTE, M358, 1962.Google Scholar
6. Obery, L.J. and Cubbison, R.W. Effectiveness of boundary-layer removal near throat of ramp-type side inlet at free stream Mach number of 2·0. NASA RM E54114, 1954.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, H.W. and Piercy, T.G. Effect of wedge type boundary-layer diverters on performance of half-conical side inlets at Mach 2·96. NASA RM E54E20, 1954.Google Scholar
8. Wong, W.F. and Hall, G.R. Suppression of strong shock boundary-layer interaction in supersonic inlets by boundary-layer blowing. AIAA 75-1209, 1975.Google Scholar
9. Raghunathan, S. Passive control of shock boundary-layer interaction. Prog Aerospace Sci, 25, 1988.Google Scholar
10. Raghunathan, S. and Rolston, S. Passive boundary layer bleed for supersonic intakes, Proc ICAS, Peking, 1992.Google Scholar
11. Seddon, J. Boundary-layer interaction effects in intakes with particular reference to those designed for dual subsonic and supersonic performance. ARC R & M. No. 3565, 1966.Google Scholar
12. Goldsmith, E.L. Private communication.Google Scholar