High Altitude Aerodynamics

B

bigte89

Well-Known Member
Hi I am doing some research on high altitude aerodynamics(above 100,000 ft) for a project. I am having a hard time finding much infromation and was wondering if anybody knew where i could find some information.
Thanks
 
bigte89 said:
Hi I am doing some research on high altitude aerodynamics(above 100,000 ft) for a project. I am having a hard time finding much infromation and was wondering if anybody knew where i could find some information.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Take a look at the X-15 and NASA lifting body programs. Those paved the way for the shuttle, and are the baseline of empirical data on the subject.
 
You might have better luck looking up compressible (transonic and supersonic) aerodynamics. At 100,000 ft Mach 1 is 72 knots indicated airspeed so almost any anything will be flying trans- or supersonic. Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" and Hoerner (both "Lift" and "Drag") are good places to start.

Forgive me if you're already up to speed with those guys :)
 
pericynthion said:
You might have better luck looking up compressible (transonic and supersonic) aerodynamics. At 100,000 ft Mach 1 is 72 knots indicated airspeed so almost any anything will be flying trans- or supersonic. Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" and Hoerner (both "Lift" and "Drag") are good places to start.

Forgive me if you're already up to speed with those guys :)
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Also, it might help if you could narrow down or further let us know what topic you are interested in, or a little more background detail. .
 
Thanks for the replys. I am doing research for a presentation about airplane aerodynamics above 100,000ft. I have been trying to find some information about wing design, aircraft control, etc. There isn't a whole lot of information that I have been able to find because very few aircraft go that high.
 
I agree about the X-15 being key. The x-15 pioneered high altitude flight, and there are good books written about it.
 
I read a book about the X-15, "x-15 diary... Richard Tregaski" written by a reporter who had access to the program at the time. I recall that above 60,000ft mini-thrusters were used for directional control similar to a space ship. The thrust was what was keeping the x-15 in the air more than the aerodynamic properties of the wing.
 
Adrock said:
I read a book about the X-15, "x-15 diary... Richard Tregaski" written by a reporter who had access to the program at the time. I recall that above 60,000ft mini-thrusters were used for directional control similar to a space ship. The thrust was what was keeping the x-15 in the air more than the aerodynamic properties of the wing.
Click to expand...

The thrusters were used for attitude control across the 3 axis of motion.....not for keeping it in the air. It was basically on a ballistic flight path after engine burn out, with the pilot being able to control the way the nose was pointed as it came back down into the atmosphere.
 
Yes the mini thrusters were for attitude control. The main rocket engine(s) got that puppy up there in the first place.
 
pericynthion said:
You might have better luck looking up compressible (transonic and supersonic) aerodynamics. At 100,000 ft Mach 1 is 72 knots indicated airspeed so almost any anything will be flying trans- or supersonic. Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" and Hoerner (both "Lift" and "Drag") are good places to start.

Forgive me if you're already up to speed with those guys :)
Click to expand...

Really? Wow
 
Also at high altitudes on SR-71 Difference between Vne and Stall speed is somewhere around 10 knots...
 
pericynthion said:
. At 100,000 ft Mach 1 is 72 knots indicated airspeed so almost any anything will be flying trans- or supersonic. Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" and Hoerner (both "Lift" and "Drag") are good places to start.

Forgive me if you're already up to speed with those guys :)
Click to expand...

Agree with the book, but where did you get the idea that Mach 1 is 72 kts at 100,000? It is closer to 600 kts at that altitude.
 
seagull said:
Agree with the book, but where did you get the idea that Mach 1 is 72 kts at 100,000? It is closer to 600 kts at that altitude.
Click to expand...
One thing I have always had a very very difficult time understanding is the fact that the speed of sound is dependent on temperature but not pressure. The intuitive understanding of the concept of a sound wave travelling through air would make it seem as if number of molecules per cubic foot of air (effected by both pressure and temperature) would be the determining factor for the speed of sound in an air mass. Since, as I understand it, the speed of sound is NOT effected by pressure, it would seem that the intuitive understanding is, as is so often the case, wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top