Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T15:05:38.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hole Size Effect on Hemisphere Pressure Distributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

D. F. Morrison,
L. M. Sheppard and
M. J. Williams
D. F. Morrison
Affiliation:
Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury, South Australia
L. M. Sheppard
Affiliation:
Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury, South Australia
M. J. Williams
Affiliation:
Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Victoria
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 1961 preliminary consideration was given by the Weapons Research Establishment to the possibility of measuring the structure of the upper atmosphere by pressure probes on sounding rockets. A similar technique had been used with success in the USA. It was proposed that velocity be measured and that an incidence meter be used to measure pitot and static pressures, from which atmospheric pressure and density could be calculated. There was available at the time comprehensive calibration information on hemispherical-headed incidence meters at Mach numbers below 3. Since the sounding rocket would be flying within the Mach number range 3 to 6 there was a need to extend the existing calibrations to higher Mach numbers. At first it seemed that the results of Baer would do this, but a closer examination showed that his results did not agree with the incidence meter calibrations.

Information

Type
Technical Notes
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 71 , Issue 676 , April 1967, pp. 317 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1967

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Ainsworth, J. E., Fox, D. F. and Lagow, H. E.J Geophys Res, Vol. 66, 10, po 3191-3212, October 1961 (also NASA Tech Note D-670. February 1961).Google Scholar
2.Beecham, L. J. ARC R & M No. 3237, 1961 (also RAE Tech Note Aero 2687. June 1960).Google Scholar
3.Roberts, B. G. WRE Tech Note HSA 43, November 1959.Google Scholar
4.Roberts, B. G. WRE Tech Note HSA 72, January 1961.Google Scholar
5.Baer, A. L. AEDC TN-61-96, August 1961.Google Scholar
6.Morrison, D. F. Unpublished WRE Note, 1964.Google Scholar
7.Williams, M. J. ARL Tech Note A227, Aprl 1964.Google Scholar
8.Chauvin, L. T. NACA RM L52K06, December 1952.Google Scholar
9.Beecham, L. J. and Collins, S. J. RAE Report GW 19, February 1954.Google Scholar
10.Hunt, G. K. RAE Report Aero 2606, May 1958.Google Scholar
11.Beckwith, I. E. and Gallagher, J. J. NACA Tech Note 4125, December 1957.Google Scholar
12.Stalder, J. R. and Nielsen, H. V. NACA Tech Note 3287, September 1954.Google Scholar
13.Perkins, E. W. and Jorgensen, L. H. NACA RM A52H28. November 1952.Google Scholar
14.Julius, J. D. NASA Tech Note D157, Seotember 1959.Google Scholar
15.Crawford, D. H. and McCauley, W. D. NACA Tech Note 3706, July 1956.Google Scholar
16.Livesey, J. L., Jackson, J. D. and Southern, C. J.Aircraft Engineering XXXIV, 396, pp. 43–47, February 1962.Google Scholar
17.Rainbird, W. J. Unpublished NAE Note, 1964.Google Scholar