Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:41:20.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and operational sensitivity assessment for hypersonic endurance flight vehicles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

B. Chudoba ,
G. Coleman ,
A. Oza ,
L. Gonzalez  and
P.A. Czysz
G. Coleman
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
A. Oza
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
L. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
P.A. Czysz
Affiliation:
Hypertech Concepts, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an effort to increase the air-breathing endurance capability of current hypersonic research aircraft (i.e. X-43, 7 seconds; X-51, 5 minutes), the authors have explored the technical and operational solution space for a 30 minute cruise endurance demonstrator operating in the Mach 6 to Mach 8 speed regime. The focus of this activity has been on exploration of the available solution space through a unique screening process to assess the implication and interplay between the (a) mission, (b) baseline vehicle, and (c) operational scenarios. This study concludes that an air-launched, liquid hydrogen fuelled, 30 minute duration Mach 6 demonstrator (with 10 min Mach 8 capability) provides the largest feasible solution space of the trades examined (i.e. largest design margins, lowest technical risk) when compared to a kerosene-powered equivalent.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1213 , March 2015 , pp. 365 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

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

1.Chudoba, B., Coleman, G., Oza, A., Gonzalez, L. and Czysz, P.A. Solution Space Screening of a Hypersonic Endurance Demonstrator, National Institute of Aerospace, NIA- contract NNL09AA00A, Task Order No. NIA Activity C10-2800-UTA for NASA LaRC, August 2010; published as NASA-CR-2012-217774, NASA, October 2012.Google Scholar
2.Chudoba, B. Stability and Control of Conventional and Unconventional Aircraft Configurations -A Generic Approach, First Edition, Books on Demand GmbH, January 2002 (ISBN 3-8311-2982-7).Google Scholar
3.Chudoba, B.Stability and Control Characteristics of Subsonic, Supersonic, and Hypersonic Aircraft Configurations, CoA Report NFP0103, Department of Aerospace Technology, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, April 2001.Google Scholar
4.Pirrello, C.J. and Czysz, P.A.Hypersonic Research Facilities Study - Summary, Volume 1, OART -Advanced Concepts and Missions Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA CR 114322, Moffett Field, California, USA, 1970.Google Scholar
5.Brewer, G.D.Hydrogen Aircraft Technology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
6.Coleman, G.Aircraft Conceptual Design - An Adaptable Parametric Sizing Methodology, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA, 2010.Google Scholar
7.Czysz, P.A. Hypersonic Convergence, Volume 1, AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2004-3114, December 2004.Google Scholar
8.Pirrello, C.J. and Czysz, P.A.Hypersonic Research Facilities Study - Flight Vehicle Synthesis, Volume 2, Part 2, Phase I, Preliminary Studies, OART - Advanced Concepts and Missions Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA CR 114324, Moffett Field, California, USA, 1970.Google Scholar
9.Pike, J.Minimum drag bodies of a given length and base using newtonian theory, AIAA J, 15, (6), pp 769–770, June 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Warneke, C.H. and Kinroth, G.D.Lifting Reentry Vehicle Preliminary Designs for FLD-7MC and FLD-5MA Configurations, Volume IV Configuration Evolution, Design Approach Investigation and Supporting Analyses, Technical Report, AFFDL-TR-68-97, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA, 1969.Google Scholar
11.Combs, H.G.Configuration Development Study of the X-24C Hypersonic Research Airplane, Executive Summary, NASA CR 145274, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA, 1977.Google Scholar
12.Klijin, M.S.et al, Selection of Carrier Aircraft and a Launch Method for Air Launching Space Vehicles, AIAA 2008-7835, AIAA Space 2008 Conference and Exposition, San Diego, California, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
13.Isakowitz, S.J., Hopkins, J.B. and Hopkins, J.P.International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, 4th Edition, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2004.Google Scholar