Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:17:24.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shock-induced separated flows on the lee surface of delta wings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

S. N. Seshadri  and
K. Y. Narayan
S. N. Seshadri
Affiliation:
National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore, India
K. Y. Narayan
Affiliation:
National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments were conducted to study shock-induced separated flows on the lee surface of delta wings with sharp leading edge at supersonic speeds. Two sets of delta wings of different thickness (10° and 25° normal angle), each with leading edge sweep angles varying from 45° to 70°, were tested. The measurements, carried out in a Mach number range from 1.4 to 3.0, included oil flow visualisations (on both sets of wings) and static pressure distributions (on the thicker wings only). Using the test results, some features of shock-induced separated flows, including in particular the boundary between this type of flow and fully attached flow, have been determined. The experimental results indicate that this boundary does not seem to show any significant dependence on wing thickness within the limit of thicknesses tested. It is shown that this boundary can be predicted for thin delta wings using a well known criterion for incipient separation in a glancing shock wave boundary layer interaction, namely that a pressure rise of 1.5 is required across the shock. Comparison of the predicted boundary with experimental results (from oil flow visualisations) shows good agreement.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 91 , Issue 903 , March 1987 , pp. 128 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1987 

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. Stanbrook, A. and Squire, L. C. Possible types of flow at swept leading edges. Part I, February 1964, The Aeronautical Quarterly, 15, 72–82.Google Scholar
2. Squire, L. C. Leading edge separations and cross-flow shocks on delta wings. AIAA Journal, March 1985, 23, 3, 321–325.Google Scholar
3. Szodruch, J. G. Leeseiten-Stromung bei schlanken Deltaflugeln endlicher Dicke. Institut fur Luft-und-Raumfahrt Technische Universitat, Berlin, ILR, Report 23, 1977.Google Scholar
4. Miller, D. S. and Wood, R. M. Leeside flows over delta wings at supersonic speeds. J. Aircraft, September 1984, 21, 9, 680–686.Google Scholar
5. Squire, L. C. Flow Regimes over delta wings at supersonic and hypersonic speeds. The Aeronautical Quarterly, February 1976, 27, 1–14.Google Scholar
6. Szodruch, J. G. and Peake, D. J. Leeward flow over delta wings at supersonic speeds. NASA TM 81187, April 1980.Google Scholar
7. Maskell, E. C. Flow separation in three dimensions. Royal ircraft Establishment, England, Rept Aero 2565, November 1955.Google Scholar
8. Rein, J. A. Flow over the suction surface of sharp edge delta wings with detached leading edge shock waves. Weapons Research Establishment, Australia, TN HSA 102, 1964.Google Scholar
9. Dunavant, J. C., Narayan, K. Y. and Walberg, G. D. A survey of leeside flow and heat transfer on delta planform configurations. 1976, Paper No 76-118, AIAA 14th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10. Freeman, L. M. and Korkegi, R. H. Experiments on the interaction with a turbulent boundary layer of a skewed shock wave of variable strength at Mach 2-5. June 1975. ARL Report 75-0182.Google Scholar
11. Korkegi, R. H. A simple correlation for incipient turbulent boundary layer separation due to a skewed shock wave. AIAA Journal, November 1973, 11, 11, 1578–1579.Google Scholar
12. Squire, L. C. The independence of upper and lower wing flows at supersonic speeds. The Aeronautical Quarterly, October 1976, Paper No 389, 452–456.Google Scholar