ALBERT

Description: Airplane design studies have developed configuration concepts that may produce lower sonic boom annoyance levels. Since lower noise designs differ significantly from other HSCT designs, it is necessary to accurately assess their potential before HSCT final configuration decisions are made. Flight tests to demonstrate lower noise design capability by modifying an existing airframe have been proposed for the Mach 3 SR-71 reconnaissance airplane. To support the modified SR-71 proposal, baseline in-flight measurements were made of the unmodified aircraft. These measurements of SR-71 near-field sonic boom signatures were obtained by an F-16XL probe airplane at flightpath separation distances ranging from approximately 740 to 40 ft. This paper discusses the methods used to gather and analyze the flight data, and makes comparisons of these flight data with CFD results from Douglas Aircraft Corporation and NASA Langley Research Center. The CFD solutions were obtained for the near-field flow about the SR-71, and then propagated to the flight test measurement location using the program MDBOOM.

Description: Two F-18 aircraft were flown, one above the other, in two formations, in order for the shock systems of the two aircraft to merge and propagate to the ground. The first formation had the canopy of the lower F-18 in the tail shock of the upper F-18 (called tail-canopy). The second formation had the canopy of the lower F- 18 in the inlet shock of the upper F-18 (called inlet-canopy). The flight conditions were Mach 1.22 and an altitude of 23,500 ft . An array of five sonic boom recorders was used on the ground to record the sonic boom signatures. This paper describes the flight test technique and the ground level sonic boom signatures. The tail-canopy formation resulted in two, separated, N-wave signatures. Such signatures probably resulted from aircraft positioning error. The inlet-canopy formation yielded a single modified signature; two recorders measured an approximate flattop signature. Loudness calculations indicated that the single inlet-canopy signatures were quieter than the two, separated tail-canopy signatures. Significant loudness occurs after a sonic boom signature. Such loudness probably comes from the aircraft engines.

Description: This paper describes ground-level measurements of sonic boom signatures made as part of the SR-71 sonic boom propagation experiment recently completed at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. Ground-level measurements were the final stage of this experiment which also included airborne measurements at near and intermediate distances from an SR-71 research aircraft. The types of sensors were deployed to three station locations near the aircraft ground track. Pressure data collected for flight conditions from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.60 at altitudes from 30,000 to 48,000 ft. Ground-level measurement techniques, comparisons of data sets from different ground sensors, and sensor system strengths and weaknesses are discussed. The well-known N-wave structure dominated r sonic boom signatures generated by the SR-71 aircraft at most of these conditions. Variations in boom shape caused by atmospheric turbulence, focusing effects, or both, were observed for several flights. Peak pressure and boom event duration showed some dependence on aircraft gross weight. The sonic boom signatures collected in this experiment are being compiled in a data base for distribution in support of the High Speed Research Program.

Description: A schlieren imaging system that uses the sun as a light source was developed it) obtain direct flow-field images of shock waves of aircraft in flight. This system was used to study how shock waves evolve to form sonic booms. The image quality obtained was limited by several optical and mechanical factors. Converting the photographs to digital images and applying digital image-processing techniques greatly improved the final quality of the images and more clearly showed the shock structures.

Description: This Section provides a brief introduction to airdata measurement and calibration. Readers will learn about typical test objectives, quantities to measure, and flight maneuvers and operations for calibration. The Section informs readers about tower-flyby, trailing cone, pacer, radar-tracking, and dynamic airdata calibration maneuvers. Readers will also begin to understand how some data analysis considerations and special airdata cases, including high-angle-of-attack flight, high-speed flight, and nonobtrusive sensors are handled. This section is not intended to be all inclusive; readers should review AGARDograph 300, Volume 1, "Calibration of Airdata Systems and Flow Direction Sensors" for more detailed information. [11-1] References 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 also supply pertinent information to better understand airdata measurement and calibration and related terminology. Airdata are vital to successfully complete an aircraft's mission and are derived from the air surrounding the aircraft. These airdata encompass indicated and true airspeed, pressure altitude, ambient air temperature, angles of attack and sideslip, Mach number, and rate of climb. Typically, pitot and static pressures are sensed and converted (by mechanical means in the instruments themselves) into indications on the altimeter, vertical speed indicator, airspeed indicator, and Machmeter. Similarly, measured local flow angles establish angles of attack and sideslip, and the outside air temperature is measured and indicated in the cockpit. (Instruments that can perform the conversion, such as airspeed indicators, altimeters, and Machmeters, do not correct for errors in the input values.) These measured parameters are commonly input to the airdata computer which, using appropriate algorithms and correction factors (or calibrations, as discussed later), can provide other parameters, such as true airspeed, required by the aircraft's avionics or flight control system. The presence of the aircraft in the airstream causes input errors to the measuring instruments - the aircraft disturbs the air that it flies through, thereby also disturbing the airdata measurements. Figure 11-1 shows the airflow around an airplane wing. The air above the wing has lower pressure than the ambient air, while the pressure below the wing is higher than the ambient air. Compressibility and shock waves also disturb the air and affect the measurements. Compressibility effects become important above approximately Mach number 0.3. As a result the static pressure around an airplane varies considerably with location. Local flow angles also differ from the free-stream flow direction. In straight-and-level flight the airflow rises to the wing leading edge and falls below the trailing edge, causing errors in flow direction measurements. To some extent these errors can be studied in wind tunnels, but wind-tunnel measurements cannot replace in-flight measurements.

Description: Two F-18 aircraft were flown, one above the other, in two formations, in order for the shock systems of the two aircraft to merge and propagate to the ground. The first formation had the canopy of the lower F-18 in the inlet shock of the upper F-18 (called inlet-canopy). The flight conditions were Mach 1.22 and an altitude of 23,500 ft. An array of five sonic boom recorders was used on the ground to record the sonic boom signatures. This paper describes the flight test technique and the ground level sonic boom signatures. The tail-canopy formation resulted in two, separated, N-wave signatures. Such signatures probably resulted from aircraft positioning error. The inlet-canopy formation yielded a single modified signature; two recorders measured an approximate flattop signature. Loudness calculations indicated that the single inlet-canopy signatures were quieter than the two, separated tail-canopy signatures. Significant loudness occurs after a sonic boom signature. Such loudness probably comes from the aircraft engines.

Description: A postflight FORTRAN program called 'radar' reads and analyzes ground-based radar data. The output includes position, velocity, and acceleration parameters. Air data parameters are also provided if atmospheric characteristics are input. This program can read data from any radar in three formats. Geocentric Cartesian position can also be used as input, which may be from an inertial navigation or Global Positioning System. Options include spike removal, data filtering, and atmospheric refraction corrections. Atmospheric refraction can be corrected using the quick White Sands method or the gradient refraction method, which allows accurate analysis of very low elevation angle and long-range data. Refraction properties are extrapolated from surface conditions, or a measured profile may be input. Velocity is determined by differentiating position. Accelerations are determined by differentiating velocity. This paper describes the algorithms used, gives the operational details, and discusses the limitations and errors of the program. Appendices A through E contain the derivations for these algorithms. These derivations include an improvement in speed to the exact solution for geodetic altitude, an improved algorithm over earlier versions for determining scale height, a truncation algorithm for speeding up the gradient refraction method, and a refinement of the coefficients used in the White Sands method for Edwards AFB, California. Appendix G contains the nomenclature.

Description: In-flight airdata calibrations are used to determine the aerodynamic influence of an airplane on pitot-static pressure measurements of altitude and speed. Conventional flight-test calibration techniques are briefly reviewed and meteorological analysis methods for estimating calibration reference values of atmospheric conditions are described. There are cases where some conventional in-flight techniques are not entirely satisfactory for research aircraft because of added equipment requirements or flight envelope and location limitations. In these cases, atmospheric wind and pressure information can be used to complement conventional techniques. Accuracy of the atmospheric measurements and the variability of upper-air winds and pressure values are discussed. Results from several flight research aircraft show that wind reference calibration is generally less accurate than calibration accuracy standards for civil and research aircraft. Examples of pressure reference altimetry derived from meteorological analyses are also presented for a variety of flight research programs. These flight data show that the reference pressure accuracy provided by meteorological analyses is usually within civil aircraft and flight research airdata calibration accuracy standards. Meteorological analyses altimetry is particularly useful when it is not feasible to restrict the test airplane altitude, location, or maneuver envelope.

Description: This viewgraph presentation reviews NASA's project to demonstrate that careful design of aircraft contour the resultant sonic boom can maintain a tailored shape, propagating through a real atmosphere down to ground level. The areas in covered in this presentation are: (1) Past airborne shock measurement efforts, (2) SR-71 Sonic Boom Propagation Experiment (3) F-5E Inlet Spillage Shock Measurement (4) Flight test approach (5) GPS data (6) Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration (SSBD) Mach calibration (7) Super Blanik L-23 sailplane (8) Near-field probing (8a)Maneuvers (8b) Control Room Displays (8c) Pressure Instrumentation (8d) Signatures.

Description: A survey of temperature, heat-flux, and pressure measurements was obtained at speeds through Mach 8.0 on the second flight of the Pegasus air-launched space booster system. All sensors were distributed on the wing-body fairing or fillet. Sensors included thin foil-gauge thermocouples installed near the surface within the thermal protection system. Thermocouples were also installed on the surface of nonablating plugs. The resulting temperature time history allowed derivation of convective heat flux. In addition, commercially available calorimeters were installed on the fillet at selected locations. Calorimeters exhibited a larger change in measured heat flux than collocated nonablating plugs in response to particular events. Similar proportional variations in heat flux across different regions of the fillet were detected by both the calorimeters and nonablating plugs. Pressure ports were installed on some nonablating plugs to explore the effects of port protrusion and high-frequency noise on pressure requirements. The effect of port protrusion on static-pressure measurements was found to decrease with increasing Mach number. High-frequency noise suppression was found to be desirable but not required on any future flight.