Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:04:57.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimum forebody drag in hypersonic continuum and rarefied flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

J. Pike
J. Pike*
Affiliation:
Bedfordshire, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Minimum drag shapes of given length and base area are investigated for hypersonic flow using both Newtonian impact theory and free molecular flow theory. The drag of Newton’s minimum drag body, which has previously been evaluated by numerical means, is derived as an analytic expression. The analytical results are applicable to a range of local pressure laws allowing minimum drag shapes obtained using impact theory to be directly compared with low density flow equivalents using free molecular flow. The low density shapes are found to have larger blunt regions at the nose and significantly larger drag coefficients. For free molecular flow the drag varies with the surface reflection characteristics. As the fraction of diffuse reflection at the surface increases, the drag increases and the sensitivity of the drag to changes in the minimum drag shape is reduced.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1108 , June 2006 , pp. 369 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

References

1. Newton, I., Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, A. MOTTE’S translation revised by Caljori, F., University of California Press, 1934, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
2. Eggers, A.J. Jn, Resnikoff, M.M. and Dennis, D.H., Bodies of revolution having minimum drag at high supersonic airspeeds. NACA-TR-1306, 1 January 1957.Google Scholar
3. Pike, J., Minimum drag bodies of given length and base using Newtonian theory, 1977, AIAA J, 15, (6).Google Scholar
4. Carter, W.J., Optimum nose shapes for missiles in the superaerody-namic region, J Aeronautical Sciences, July 1957, 7, pp 527–532.Google Scholar
5. Tan, H.S., On optimum nose curves for superaerodynamic missiles. J Aeronautical Sciences, 1958, 25, (4), pp 263–264.Google Scholar
6. Pike, J., Forces on convex bodies in free molecular flow. AIAA J, November 1975, 13, (11), pp 1454–1459.Google Scholar
7. Bowman, D.S. and Lewis, M.J., Minimum drag power-law shapes for rarefied flow. AIAA J, 40, (5), p 1013.Google Scholar
8. Bowman, D.S. and Lewis, M.J., Optimization of low-perigee spacecraft aerodynamics. J Spacecraft and Rockets, 40, (1), January-February 2003, pp 56–63.Google Scholar
9. Dennis, D.H., On optimum nose shapes for missiles in the superaerody-namic region, J Aeronaut Sciences, Readers Forum, 25, (3), p 216, March 1958.Google Scholar
10. Rasmussen, M., Hypersonic flow. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA, 1994, p 297.Google Scholar
11. Hayes, W.F. and Probstein, R.F., Hypersonic Flow Theory, 2nd ed, Academic Press, 1966, Chapter III, pp 152.Google Scholar
12. Goodman, F.O. and Wachman, H.Y., Dynamics of Gas-Surface Scattering, Academic Press, New York, USA, 1976, pp 23, 24.Google Scholar
13. Anderson, J.D. Jr, Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1989, pp 472.Google Scholar