Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:41:44.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A sizing-based approach to evaluate hypersonic demonstrators: demonstrator-carrier constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

J.G. Haley Open the ORCID record for J.G. Haley [Opens in a new window] ,
T.P. McCall Open the ORCID record for T.P. McCall [Opens in a new window] ,
I.W. Maynard Open the ORCID record for I.W. Maynard [Opens in a new window]  and
B. Chudoba
J.G. Haley*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX76019, USA
T.P. McCall
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX76019, USA
I.W. Maynard
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX76019, USA
B. Chudoba
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX76019, USA
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study is to identify, evaluate, and provide recommendations towards the realisation of near-term hypersonic flight hardware through the consideration of carrier vehicle constraints. The current rush of available funds for hypersonic research cannot cause a program to ignore growth potential for future missions. The prior NB-52 carrier vehicles, famous for the X-15 and X-43A missions, are retired. Next generation hypersonic demonstrator requirements will necessitate a substitution of carrier vehicle capability. Flight vehicle configuration, technology requirements, and recommendations are arrived at by constructing and evaluating a hypersonic technology demonstrator design matrix. This multi-disciplinary parametric sizing investigation of hypersonic vehicle demonstrators focuses on the evaluation of the combined carrier platform, booster, and hypersonic cruiser solution space topography. Promising baseline configurations are evaluated against operational requirements by trading fuel type, endurance cruise time, and payload weight. The multi-disciplinary study results are constrained with carrier payload mass and geometry limitations. The multi-disciplinary results provide physical insights into near-term hypersonic demonstrator payload and cruise time requirements that will stretch the capability of existing carrier aircraft. Any growth in hypersonic research aircraft size or capability will require new carrier vehicle investments.

Keywords

Aerospace designAircraft designHypersonicDemonstrator vehicleCarrier vehicleSizingScramjetModel 176Generic hypersonic vehicleGHVFDL-7Air-breathingRocketX-15X-43X-51
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1279 , September 2020 , pp. 1318 - 1349
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

REFERENCES

Borrie, J., Dowler, A. and Podvig, P.Hypersonic Weapons: A Challenge and Opportunity for Strategic Arms Control, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, United Nations, 2019, New York, NY, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudoba, B., Coleman, G., Oza, A., Gonzalez, L. and Czysz, P.A. Solution-space screening of a hypersonic endurance demonstrator, NF1676L-14425, NASA/CR-2012-217774, NASA, Scottsdale, AZ, 2012.Google Scholar
Lockett, B.Balls Eight: History of the Boeing Nb-52b Stratofortress Mothership, LockettBooks, Scottsdale, AZ, 2015.Google Scholar
Defense Science Board Washington DC. Defense Science Board Task Force on B-52h Re-Engining, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense, 2004, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Corda, S., Longo, C. and Krevor, Z. Stratolaunch air-launched hypersonic testbed, 22nd AIAA Int Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference, AIAA 2018-5257, AIAA, Orlando, FL, 2018. doi: 10.2514/6.2018-5257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolotta, P., Wilhite, A., Schaffer, M., Huebner, L., Voland, R. and Voracek, D. Near-term horizontal launch for flexible operations: Results of the Darpa/Nasa horizontal launch study, AIAA SPACE 2012 Conference & Exposition, AIAA 2012-5157, AIAA, Pasadena, CA, 2012. doi: 10.2514/6.2012-5157Google Scholar
Sarigul-Klijn, M., Sarigul-Klijn, N., Hudson, G., McKinney, B., Voss, J., Chapman, P., Morgan, B., Tighe, J., Kramb, J., Doyle, K., Quayle, M. and Brown, C. Selection of a carrier aircraft and a launch method for air launching space vehicles, AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference & Exposition, AIAA 2008-7835, AIAA, San Diego, CA, 2008. doi: 10.2514/6.2008-7835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarigul-Klijn, M. and Sarigul-Klijn, N. A study of air launch methods for RLVs, AIAA Space 2001 Conference and Exposition, AIAA 2001-4619, AIAA, Albuquerque, NM, 2001. doi: 10.2514/6.2001-4619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Airbus S.A.S. A350: Aircraft characteristics - airport planning and maintenance planning, Revision Number 4, 2018. URL https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support-services/airport-operations-and-technical-data/aircraft-characteristics.html.Google Scholar
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 787 Airplane characteristics for airport planning, D6-58333, Rev. M, 2018. URL https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page.Google Scholar
Dryden Flight Research Center. Space shuttle mated to 747 shuttle carrier aircraft (SCA) 3-View,” [Image], NASA, 1998, Retrieved: 10 March 2019. URL https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Graphics/B-747-SCA/Large/EG-0012-01.gif.Google Scholar
Combs, H.G., Campbell, D.H., Cassidy, M.D., Sumpter, C.D., Seitz, E., Kachel, B.J., James, R.P., Walters, J., Love, J. and Passon, R.T. Configuration development study of the X-24c hypersonic research airplane - executive summary, NASA-CR-145274, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 1977.Google Scholar
Trevithick, J. The air force wants its B-52s to carry mysterious 20,000lb weapons under their wings, The War Zone, The Drive, 2018, URL https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21700/the-air-force-wants-its-b-52s-to-carry-mysterious-20000lb-weapons-under-their-wings.Google Scholar
Ruttle, B., Stork, J. and Liston, G. Generic hypersonic vehicles for conceptual design analyses, AFRL Technical Note, 2012.Google Scholar
Rana, L., McCall, T., Haley, J., Gonzalez, L., Omoragbon, A., Oza, A. and Chudoba, B. A paradigm-shift in aerospace vehicle design synthesis and technology forecasting, 2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, AIAA 2018-5210, AIAA, Orlando, FL, 2018. doi: 10.2514/6.2018-5210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, J. Nasa hypersonics overview, NASA Advisory Council’s Aeronautics Committee Meeting, HQ-E-DAA-TN48981, Palmdale, CA, 2017.Google Scholar
Blackhurst, J.Addressing Air Force Capability Requirements with Emerging Technology Options, Air Force Research Laboratory, U.S. Air Force, Dayton, OH, 2015.Google Scholar
Dolvin, D. High Speed Flight Research Insight Briefing, USAF AFOSR RTA Program Review, Air Force Research Laboratory, US Air Force, 2015, Tullahoma, TN.Google Scholar
Goetsch, G.F.Lifting Reentry Test Vehicle Preliminary Designs for Fdl-7mc and Fdl-5ma Configurations, Vol. 1, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1981, Ohio.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. Complex multidisciplinary system composition for aerospace vehicle conceptual design, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department. The University of Texas at Arlington, PhD Thesis, Arlington, TX, 2016.Google Scholar
Czysz, P.A.Hypersonic convergence Volume 1, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2004-3114, Dayton, OH, 2004.Google Scholar
Chudoba, B. and Gonzalez, L. Air-launched hypersonic demonstrator solution space screening, mathematical optimization in multidisciplinary design, Air Force Summer Faculty Fellowship Program (SFFP), AFRL-RQ-WP-TR-2015-0000, AFRL, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, 2015.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. Aircraft conceptual design: An adaptable parametric sizing methodology, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. The University of Texas at Arlington, PhD Thesis, Arlington TX, 2010.Google Scholar
Omoragbon, A. Complex multidisciplinary systems decomposition for aerospace vehicle conceptual design and technology acquisition, PhD Dissertation, Aerospace Vehicle Design (AVD) Laboratory, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 2016.Google Scholar
Mutzman, R. and Murphy, S. X-51 development: A chief engineer’s perspective, 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2011.Google Scholar
Steelant, J., Langener, T., Hannemann, K., Marini, M., Serre, L., Bouchez, M. and Falempin, F. Conceptual design of the high-speed propelled experimental flight test vehicle Hexafly, 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, AIAA 2015-3539, AIAA, Glasgow, Scotland, 2015. doi: 10.2514/6.2015-3539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, J., McCall, T., Maynard, I. and Chudoba, B. A SIZING-based approach to Evaluate near term hypersonic demonstrators: demonstrator-carrier constraints and sensitivities, JANNAF 37th Air-Breathing Propulsion Meeting, Hypersonic Airbreathing Vehicle Designs and Methods - I, JANNAF, Dayton, OH, 2019.Google Scholar