This study describes the aerodynamic efficiency of a forebody–inlet configuration and computational investigation of a drone system, capable of sustainable supersonic cruising at Mach 1.60. Because the whole drone configuration is formed around the induction system and the design is highly interrelated to the flow structure of forebody and inlet efficiency, analysis of this section and understanding its flow pattern is necessary before any progress in design phases. The compression surface is designed analytically using oblique shock patterns, which results in a low drag forebody. To study the concept, two inlet–forebody geometries are considered for Computational Fluid Dynamic simulation using ANSYS Fluent code. The supersonic and subsonic performance, effects of angle of attack, sideslip, and duct geometries on the propulsive efficiency of the concept are studied by solving the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations in structured cell domains. Comparing the results with the available data from other sources indicates that the aerodynamic efficiency of the concept is acceptable at supersonic and transonic regimes.
Goetzendorf-GrabowskiT, FrydrychewiczT, GorajZ, et al.MALE UAV design of an increased reliability level. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol2006; 78: 226–235. DOI: 10.1108/17488840610663693
3.
PanagiotouPYakinthosK. Aerodynamic efficiency and performance enhancement of fixed-wing. Aerosp Sci Technol2019; 99: 105575. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.105575
4.
de MattosBSSeccoNRSallesEF. Optimal design of a high-altitude solar-powered unmanned airplane. J Aerosp Technol Manag2013; 5: 349–361. DOI: 10.5028/jatm.v5i3.223
5.
CarterD, BurrisP, BrandtS, et al.Fifth-generation target drone project initial development. In: 11th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference, Virginia Beach, 20–22 September 2011.
6.
RajN, GhoreyshiM, MichelP, et al. Aerodynamic design assessment and comparisons of the MULDICON UCAV concept. Aerospace Sci Technology2019; 93: 105–321, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2019.105321.
7.
MurakamiA. Silent supersonic technology demonstration program. In: Proceedings on 25th International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Hamburg, 2006, ICAS Paper 2006-1.4.2.
8.
ChibaKMakinoYTakatoyaT. Design-informatics approach for intimate configuration of silent supersonic technology demonstrator. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Orlando Florida, 05-08 January 2009.
9.
WalterSRyanS. GoJett: design and optimization of a supersonic unmanned aerial flight system. In: 12th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference, Indianapolis, IN, 17–19 September 2012.
10.
SepulvedaESmithH. Conceptual design of a fifth generation unmanned strike fighter. In: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA, 7–11 January 2019.
11.
UedaY, YoshidaK, MatsushimaK, et al.Supersonic natural-laminar-flow wing-design concept at high-reynolds-number conditions, AIAA J, 2014; 52: 1294–1306. DOI: 10.2514/1.J052555
12.
RaymerDP. Aircraft design: a conceptual approach. Washington DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1992.
13.
SóbesterA. Tradeoffs in jet inlet design: a historical perspective. J Aircraft2007; 44: , 705–717. DOI: 10.2514/1.26830.
14.
CampbellRC. Performance of a supersonic ramp inlet with internal boundary-layer scoop, NACA RM E54I01. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1954.
SahaKSinghSNSeshadriV. Effect of yaw angle on the performance characteristics of twin intake duct. J Aircraft2017; 54(3): 1211–1216. DOI: 10.2514/1.C033947
17.
MacManusDG, ChiereghinN, Gil PrietoD, et al.Complex aeroengine intake ducts and dynamic distortion. AIAA J2017; 55(7): 2395–2409. DOI: 10.2514/1.J054905
18.
SeddonJGoldsmithEL. Intake aerodynamics. 2nd ed. New York: AIAA Education Series, 1999, pp. 338–340.
19.
MossmanEAPfylFAFrankA. Lazzeroni “Fuselage side inlets - a study of some factors affecting their performance and a comparison with nose inlets”, NACA RM A55F29. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1956.
20.
RoskamJ. Airplane design: Part I-Viii. Lawrence, KS: DAR Corporation, 1985. ISBN 1884885551, 9781884885556.
21.
NicolaiLMCarichnerG. Fundamentals of aircraft and airship design, AIAA, 2010, Vol. 1.
22.
BoelensOJ. Flow analysis of the F-16XL aircraft at transonic flow conditions. J Aircraft2017, 54(2), 388–394. DOI: 10.2514/1.C033211
SchütteA, BoelensOJ, OehlkeM, et al.Prediction of the flow around the X-31 aircraft using three different CFD methods. Aerosp Sci Technol2012; 20(1): 21–37.
25.
BoelensOJ. CFD analysis of the flow around the X-31 aircraft at high angle of attack. Aerosp Sci Technol2012; 20(1): 38–51.
26.
TakahashiTTKadyCT. Planform selection for an efficient supersonic air vehicle. In: 14th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations conference, Atlanta, GA, 16-20 June 2014.
27.
SahebyEBHuangGPHaysA. Design of top mounted supersonic inlets for a cylindrical fuselage. Proc Imeche, G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 233(8): 095441001879017. DOI: 10.1177/0954410018790173
28.
LothE, BabinskyH, TitchenerN, et al.A canonical normal SBLI flow relevant to external compression inlets. In: 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, Grapevine, TX, 7–10 January 2013.
29.
LothE, TitchenerN, BabinskyH, et al.Canonical normal shock wave/boundary-layer interaction flows relevant to external compression inlets. AIAA J2013; 51: 9. DOI: 10.2514/1.J052175
30.
BerraLMSlaterJWOlcmenSM. Conceptual redesign of the B-1B bomber inlets for improved supersonic performance. Aerospace Sci Technology, 2015; 45: 476–483. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.06.017
31.
HeathCMSlaterJWRallabhandiSK. Inlet trade study for a low-boom aircraft demonstrator. J Aircraft, 2016; 54(4). DOI: 10.2514/1.C034036
32.
EmanuelG. Gasdynamics theory and applications. New York: AIAA, 1986, 399–414.
33.
SahebyEBHuangGHaysA. Design of hypersonic forebody with submerged bump. Proc Imeche, G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 233; (9): 3153–3169. DOI: 10.1177/0954410018793288
GillenTLothE. Simulations and experiments of a dual-stream low-boom supersonic inlet. J Propulsion Power2015; 31: 1567–1577. DOI: 10.2514/1.B35610
36.
HusseinHKSureshA. Effect of side gust on performance of external compression supersonic inlet. J Aircraft2019; 56(2): 569–582. DOI: 10.2514/1.C035093
37.
BaydarELuFKSlaterJW. Vortex generators in a two-dimensional external-compression supersonic inlet. J Propulsion Power, 2018, 34, 2. DOI: 10.2514/1.B36414
38.
SahebyEB, ShenX and HaysAP. Design and performance study of a parametric diverterless supersonic inlet. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering2020; 234(2): 470–489, doi:10.1177/0954410019875384.
39.
DavidsJGeorgeAWiseGA. Investigation at Mach numbers 1.5 and 1. 7 of twin-duct side intakesystem with two-dimensional 6o compression ramps mounted on a supersonic airplane, NACA Report NACA-RM-E53H19, 12 October 1953. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC.
40.
AndersonBH, PaoS, HuangP, et al. Study on vortex flow control of inlet distortion. J Propulsion Power2012; 8(6): 1266–1272, doi:10.2514/3.11472.
41.
MacManusDG, ChiereghinN, Gil PrietoD, et al. Complex aeroengine intake ducts and dynamic distortion. AIAA J2017; 55(7): 2395–2409, doi:10.2514/1.J054905.
42.
PaulH. F-16 modular common inlet design concept. In: 23rd joint propulsion conference, San Diego, CA, 29 June 1987–02 July 1987.
43.
Bravo-MosqueraPD, AbdallaAM, Cerón-MuñozHD, et al.Integration assessment of conceptual design and intake aerodynamics of a non-conventional air-to-ground fighter aircraft. Aerospace Sci Technology2019; 86: 497–519. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.059
44.
WatanabeYUenoAMurakamiA. Design of top mounted supersonic inlet for silent supersonic technology demonstrator S3TD. In: 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France, 2010, 2764–2772.
45.
ChimaRVConnersTRWaymanTR. Coupled analysis of an inlet and fan for a quiet supersonic jet, NASA/TM—2010-216350.
46.
WebbTSKentDRWebbJB. Correlation of F-16 aerodynamics and performance predictions with early flight test results. In: Agard conference proceedings. N 242. Oct 11-13, 1977.
