Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Vs. Velocity For An SST...?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10802 times:

I made up this general graph based on pure theory. I need someone to criticize this mainly because I have never actually seen an L/D ratio graph for supersonic transports -- this type of graph doesn't exist in any of my aerodynamics' texts, but the formulas to make it do.

From this graph below, an (L/D) max exists for the two different speed ranges before and after Mach 1. I think the dip in the middle is due to the sound barrier and the second lift-to-drag max is due to compressed density that increases lift and drag to a point where it drops-off on the left due to wave drag overtaking compressed lift.

If something doesn't exist on the picture below, please tell me A.S.A.P, otherwise I will assume it to be a general approximation of what really happens.



note: if there is a second L/D max, i don't think it is that much higher than the one for subsonic flight. On the otherhand, an SST isn't designed to fly subsonically.


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10757 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Well, I am not sure about the drop of the curve at M1.00!

What I learnt at flight school about supersonic aerodynamic is: the closer you get to Mach 1, the higher the drag is. THats why the concorde needed the afterburner to accelerate to cross the sound barrier and then switched the afternurner off again and accelerated to M 2. Without the afterburner she wouldnt have gone to M 1 or more!

WILCO737
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8849 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10754 times:




[Edited 2005-10-04 10:31:19]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10722 times:

Out of curiosity, could you plot ML/D?

mrocktor


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10674 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
Zeke

I've seen that picture before, it was from a NASA website. What I got from that/it was that it showed the variances between zero-swept wings and higher swept back angles and their related L/D ratios through the speed of sound, concluding that the variable-sweep design, at the time, was the best of both worlds.

Concorde has a fixed variable sweep that curves from 70-degrees to 55-degrees; the data doesn't add up. I'm not claiming that a graph from a NASA website is wrong, just it was meant to describe a specific condition.

As of the second graph, I wish there were more points available for Concorde. I could conceivably come to the same conclusion with my plot if I gave 3 points. Also, which Boeing HCST was that? Though the one from 1969 and 1999 looked similar, I doubt they were.

Besides, density to stagnation increases with Mach, rho2/rho1 = (1+0.2M2)2.5 in air. If density affects lift and drag, why the drag drop after M1.0? Even wave drag depends on velocity (mach-wise) and angle of attack of surface. What equations/methods am I missing?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 3):
Out of curiosity, could you plot ML/D?

It was. If I took out the Mach factor, the max points would be higher but occur at slower velocities. Plus I don't know the real TSFC, e and CD,0 of Concorde, that data I cannot find online anywhere.

I had to average the fuel consumption by dividing the total fuel used for a 3 hour flight; I get 0.5 lb/lb/hr, average. I took as much as I could into account to minimize what I don't know. The resulting CL1/2/CD needs to be 12.3588 to have the range of 3600 Nmi, using Burguet eqns for range. So I made a formula estimating CD,0 as a function of the wing's efficiency factor, e. Concorde has a delta wing and having that vortex kills off any elliptical load distribution, so I know it’s shotty. I came up with having e = 0.60 and CD,0 = 0.0253 which gave the highest (L/D) max subsonic. But this max value was still smaller than the data I found on Concorde at the same speed.

No doubt, this is dirty math, it isn't accurate because it makes many assumptions -- which might account for it being different than the NASA graph. I'd like an explanation.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

I'm not an aerodynamicist, but I very much doubt the second (supersonic) peak will be higher than the subsonic peak. Even the best SST designs I've seen have supersonic L/Ds in the order of 10-12, which even Concorde could beat at Mach 0.95 (L/D = 12.5); it course, it was killed by subsonic SFC.

This chart shows the L/D for an F-111D with increasing sweep values (and implicitly higher Mach numbers). It's the only specific reference I could find that directly associates L/D with Mach number.



Some NASA publications might have these sorts of charts for fighters or supersonic research planes. I would imagine the bombers are still classified (I've never been able to find the XB-70's cruise L/D, let alone the B-1's).

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8849 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10636 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 4):
What equations/methods am I missing?

Considering super computers have trouble doing this sort of calculation I am not surprised.

Compressability, wave drag, shocks, bow wave etc..transonics is a black art.

This may help http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt6.htm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 4):
It was. If I took out the Mach factor, the max points would be higher but occur at slower velocities. Plus I don't know the real TSFC, e and CD,0 of Concorde, that data I cannot find online anywhere.

This site http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html has Concorde CL and CL/CD, should be able to derive some data from whats given.

Nasa did some work with a TU-144, a bit of info on the internet about that.

This is a good link also for the sonic cruiser http://www.dlr.de/as/institut/abteil...s/hepperle-sonic-cruiser-paper.pdf

Also have a look at http://books.nap.edu/html/commercial_supersonic/ch3.html for the Boeing graph above.

Enjoy !



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10629 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 5):
would imagine the bombers are still classified (I've never been able to find the XB-70's cruise L/D, let alone the B-1's).

I don't know about the B-1, but from some of the flight test data I have seen (unclassified) the L/Dmax of XB-70 at Mach 3 is above 8.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lift-to-Drag Ratio Vs. Velocity For An SST...?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
DC-10 Towbar For An L1011 posted Thu Jul 13 2006 06:40:17 by B52murph
Go-around Costs For An Airline? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 06:36:33 by FLY2HMO
Longest Non-stop Flight For An A310 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:56:28 by CYEGsTankers
Looking For An Engine Exceedance Page Photo posted Tue Jan 31 2006 18:03:38 by Cramos
Best Power To Weight Ratio? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 09:44:37 by Springbok139
Types Of Fabric For An Ultralight? posted Fri Aug 27 2004 06:37:06 by N707jt
Looking For An Overwing Exit & Structure posted Wed Oct 1 2003 06:04:02 by MidnightMike
Need Suggestions For An Aviation Wristwatch posted Sat Apr 12 2003 07:00:41 by Jmacias34
Power-to-weight Ratio... posted Mon Sep 16 2002 19:54:36 by Greeneyes53787
Aerospace Engineering Vs. Aerospace (for Major) posted Mon Sep 16 2002 03:28:13 by FSPilot747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format