Future Aerospace Ground Test Facility Requirements for the Arnold Engineering Development Center (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Pages 22-42
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 22... ...
as a development too} during this period has resulted in the wind tunnel and CFD playing complementary roles In configuration development work. Years ago, conf~gurabon development ~ For the sake of simplicity and ~nifor~ty throughout the report, the following terms are used to characterize two classes of ground facilities: Research facilities.
|
From page 23... ...
As a result of a 1987 update to flow quality, the 16T wind tunnel's capabilities as an aerodynamic test facility approach the state of the art in many important areas. The wind tunnels provide the quantity of test data needed to support aircraft development by a combination of relatively good productivity and long hours of operation (up to 24 hours per day and seven days per week)
|
From page 24... ...
A single main dnve system supports both the 16T and the 16S wind tunnels, but it lacks the capacity to dnve both tunnels at their high-power conditions at the same time. This shared-dnve approach has been successful in the past because of the relatively low demand for the supersonic tunnel.
|
From page 25... ...
In many aerodynamic development tests, the simulation of the propulsion flow field effects is an important capability. As a result of a 1987 flow quality upgrade, 16T's capabilities as an aerodynamic test facility were improved significantly.
|
From page 26... ...
As wing design technology continues to advance, it appears evident that the wind tunnel boundary layer simulation must be improved, which will require an even higher test Reynolds number. Another requirement for a high-flow-quality, high-Reynolds-number test capability comes from the need to develop and test cruise laminar flow control (LFC)
|
From page 27... ...
Thus, AEDC did not construct low-speed aerodynamic test facilities. Such testing supports the design and development of high-lift systems for transonic and supersonic aircraft, controllability tests for the development of post-stall fighter agility, and landing configuration tests for transatmospheric systems.
|
From page 28... ...
The lower portion of Figure 3-3 shows the loaded roll capability of today's fighter aircraft. The region labeled "Lateral Agility Expansiont' represents increases in the desired roll controllability and roll authority up to the angle of attack corresponding to maximum lift coefficient.
|
From page 29... ...
29 cr.
|
From page 30... ...
Supersonic Cruise Vehicles Military and Commercial The 16S wind tunnel is a unique national asset that finds infrequent but essential use in support of military programs. No other supersonic wind tunnels provide the same highproduc~vity, high-quality, and large-scale test environment available in the AEDC 16S tunnel.
|
From page 31... ...
performance is the key to developing improved a~r-breathing engines for both military and commercial applications. Figure 3-4 shows the relationship between specific core gas power and turbine rotor inlet temperature, which illustrates that improved performance is indeed possible (Koff, 19919.
|
From page 32... ...
geared drive turbofans with reversing pitch blades for thrust reverse, using slimline nacelles to minimize interference drag with the wing/pylon installation (size to 120000-pound thrust) ; and ~ ultrahigh bypass ratio (40:60)
|
From page 33... ...
; · direct lift coupled with lift fans; · higher thrust-to-weight ratio; ratios; and · supersonic cruise using ache higher-energy core engines to drive higher fan pressure · producing derivatives by using the technology base.
|
From page 34... ...
Testing of these larger engines is already being planned. The Pratt & Whitney demonstrator engine will be sea-level tested at the NASA Ames Research Center in 1993-1994.
|
From page 35... ...
Up to about Mach 8, the conventional ground testing approach can be utilized for the X-30 type of design and scale. However, many of the existing hypersonic facilities were designed primarily for research and lack some of the characteristics -- such as large size and rapid model change capability -- that are so valuable for development testing.
|
From page 36... ...
, it seems likely that full simulation of all conditions throughout the hypersonic flight regime may not be possible. A combination of carefully designed partial-simulation ground test facilities, computational fluid dynamics including chemical reactions, and some flight tests will be needed to provide the design, development, and certification for hypersonic vehicles.
|
From page 37... ...
With only partial simulation, a complete hypersonic development test capability probably requires several facilities, flight tests, a strong computational development program, and a high level of risk for Be development of advanced vehicles. Building a hypersonic development facility is reasonable only if the facility will provide a unique capability in a range of key importance to hypersonic flight.
|
From page 38... ...
The involved with active cooling and questions of boundary layer problems here are probably control, which may be key to quiet tunnel development. NASA's experiences in the development of quiet wind tunnels at Mach numbers of 6 and ~ should be closely monitored since new research efforts In this area could have a major effect on development facilities of the future.
|
From page 39... ...
With the results of the research on new concepts and the advances in present techniques from Phase One, Phase Two could provide the base with framework for the long-term development facility construction. There should be no major development facility commitment made above the Mach number of 10 until facility research and a prototype can demonstrate capabilities satisfying the requirements for development testing.
|
From page 40... ...
AEDC has developed several unique national resources relevant and necessary for the continued development of ballistic missiles, as well as space and launch vehicle technology. Particularly noteworthy are the AEDC capabilities to test rocket motors of considerable size in a vacuum environment, to perform appropriate diagnostics of burning rocket motors, and to characterize the properties of the rocket plumes.
|
From page 41... ...
Although only a fraction of these options may be realized, the very process of option development may sharpen technical insights and develop the advocacy needed to keep AEDC at the cutting edge of development testing technology and facilities. Space System Testing Another issue involves the use by program offices of contractor-owned test facilities rather than the use of central Air Force facilities located at AEDC for space system testing.
|
From page 42... ...
The previously mentioned system-planning organization at the Air Force Materiel Command headquarters, which is responsible for the idend~Sca~cion of tools needed for the development of new systems, would be an invaluable forum where AEDC could learn of new space system requirements and participate in the test planning in a timely way. The committee recommends t7= AEDC continue to provide unique capabi~es as a n~iona!
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.