NASA Sonic Boom Wind Tunnel Testing
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Low-Boom Technology↗
Engineering topics
Courtney S Winski
Publications and source records attributed to Courtney S Winski.
X-59 Sonic Boom Test Results from the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel
A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for being mounted by a swept blade strut that attached at top of model ahead of the inlet, or by a rear-entry sting that held the model at the location of the nacelle. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made on a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the wind tunnel strut and the balance. Spatial averaging of model pressure signatures acquired over a range of longitudinal positions reduced the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for representative variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.
Sonic boom↗
Aeroacoustic Computations of a Generic Low Boom Concept in Landing Configuration: Part 3 - Aerodynamic Validation and Noise Source Identification
Wind tunnel test data were used to validate the predicted aerodynamic behavior of a 15%-scale version of a generic, low-boom aircraft. The test was conducted in the NASA Langley 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel to determine the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of the model. Measured steady surface pressures and global forces were used to validate predicted aerodynamic results obtained from high-fidelity simulations of the model as installed in the tunnel. Very good agreement between predicted and measured aerodynamic trends was demonstrated, providing the impetus to proceed with companion airframe noise simulations that were conducted in a free-air setting. Computed near-field flow variables acquired on a permeable data surface were used to generate synthetic pressure records for two 800-element phased microphone arrays positioned overhead and to the side of the model. The array data were beamformed to generate noise source localization maps for the clean model and several landing configurations. Primary and secondary airframe sources were identified and their relative strengths were determined. Far-field integrated noise spectra for the full aircraft, as well as individual components, were obtained from the source maps via integration of tailored regions. The analysis showed that noise produced by the landing gear was the dominant contributor to the far-field acoustic signature of the model, followed by flap noise. The effects of permeable data surface end caps, spatial resolution, array orientation, angle of attack, component interaction, velocity scaling, and numerical precision on synthetic far-field spectra were also evaluated.
low boom↗
Aeroacoustic Computations of a Generic Low Boom Concept in Landing Configuration: Part 3 - Aerodynamic Validation and Noise Source Identification
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
low boom↗
Reynolds Number Effects on a 5.2%-Scale High Lift Common Research Model
A 5.2%-scale High Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) semispan wind tunnel model was tested at the National Transonic Facility (NTF) wind tunnel in Hampton, VA. One of the primary objectives of the NTF test was to determine the effect of varying Reynolds number on the configuration. The test used a combination of air and cryogenic nitrogen testing to obtain up to flight-like Reynolds numbers. The landing and takeoff configurations of the model were tested at speeds ranging from Mach 0.2 to 0.35. The Reynolds numbers based on the mean aerodynamic chord of the model ranged from 1.6 to 30 million. Overall, the lift increased and drag decreased with increasing Reynolds number for chord Reynolds numbers less than 16 million, following well-established trends. However, some anomalies in the force and moment data were observed in the linear region of the angle of attack range that did not follow expected trends. The force and moment results for both the landing and takeoff configurations are presented, along with surface pressure data for the landing configuration. Incremental effects from the landing gear, nacelle, and horizontal tail on the landing configuration are also presented.
CRM-HL↗
NASA 5.2%-Scale Semispan High Lift Common Research Model Wind Tunnel Test at the 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel
A wind tunnel test of the NASA 5.2%-scale Semispan High Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) was conducted at the 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14x22) in the fall of 2022. The main purpose of the test was a model checkout before shipping it overseas. The model was shipped to Germany in the spring of 2023, and the team wanted to be sure that instrumentation in the model was working, all of the model parts fit together well, and model changes could be done smoothly, as designed while installed in a wind tunnel. Force and moment and pressure data were collected during the test, and while these data were a secondary objective, they can be used for for tunnel-to-tunnel verification of the model, and for database supplementation for the NASA CRM-HL ecosystem. The test was run from August 15, 2022 through September 8, 2022. Eight configurations were tested at Mach 0.2 and 0.26, over an alpha range from -4deg to +24deg. All of the configurations that were tested accomplished testing of all model parts. This test campaign was a unique opportunity to test a complicated model design in a wind tunnel that is less expensive to test in and has easier model access than the tunnel that it was designed to run in. The test was invaluable in providing lessons learned about building up and running the model, and the model was returned to the model manufacturer from December 2022 to February 2023 for updates to make model changes easier, to make design fixes on the model, and to do clean up work on the model.
CRM-HL↗
Reynolds Number Effects on a 5.2%-Scale High Lift Common Research Model
A 5.2%-scale High Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) semispan wind tunnel model was tested at the National Transonic Facility (NTF) wind tunnel in Hampton, VA. One of the primary objectives of the NTF test was to determine the effect of varying Reynolds number on the configuration. The test used a combination of air and cryogenic nitrogen testing to obtain up to flight-like Reynolds numbers. The landing and takeoff configurations of the model were tested at speeds ranging from Mach 0.2 to 0.35. The Reynolds numbers based on the mean aerodynamic chord of the model ranged from 1.6 to 30 million. Overall, the lift increased and drag decreased with increasing Reynolds number for chord Reynolds numbers less than 16 million, following well-established trends. However, some anomalies in the force and moment data were observed in the linear region of the angle of attack range that did not follow expected trends. The force and moment results for both the landing and takeoff configurations are presented, along with surface pressure data for the landing configuration. Incremental effects from the landing gear, nacelle, and horizontal tail on the landing configuration are also presented.
CRM-HL↗