Damian Curran, Vincent Wheatley, Rowan Gollan, Michael Smart

DOI Number XXX-YYY-ZZZ

Conference Number HiSST-2022-0447

Scramjet engines can revolutionise high speed flight due to their high specific impulse, with applications ranging from access-to-space and transport at cruise conditions. However, a scramjet must be designed in concert with the vehicle for a multitude of reasons, as discussed by Heiser and Pratt [1]. One of the key drivers of this is the superlinear scaling of the capture area of the engine with increasing Mach number [2], [3]. This physical requirement leads to airframe-integrated engines, where the design of the inlet is entwined with the design of the vehicle. This has been a recognised design approach for scramjets since the 1970s, in foundational works such as [4], [5], [6], and [7].

A few approaches for integrated inlet design have emerged. Increasing in complexity, these range from 2D planar and axisymmetric, to sidewall compression and other 3D inward-turning inlets. 2D and side- wall compression inlets are plagued by a range of issues, such as corner effects in their rectangular combustors, and separation due to cowl closure shocks. A discussion on Korkegi’s [8] work on boundary layer separation in [9] details how a swept interaction like those in 3D turning inlets is less likely to cause unstart than a planar 2D shock (examples of which are shown in [10] and [11]). Inward-turning, axisymmetric inlets are poor from a vehicle packing perspective, however, their circular combustors are attractive to an engine designer from the perspective of lowest-wetted-area and structural strength. An elliptical combustor edges in front of a circular one when considering wetted area and penetra- tion/mixing. So, a method of capturing vehicle forebody airflow, compressing it efficiently to desired combustor pressures and temperatures, and matching the combustor entrance shape is required. All this is preferable as a fixed geometry system. This motivates the shape-transition inlet designs. There are currently few proven design techniques to build a vehicle-integrated compression system.

Read the full paper here>

Email
Print
LinkedIn
The paper above was part of  proceedings of a CEAS event and as such the author has signed a publication agreement to have their paper published in the repository. In the case this paper is found somewhere else CEAS always links to the other source.  CEAS takes great care in making the correct content available to the reader. If any mistakes are found  in the listings please contact us directly at papers@aerospacerepository.org and we will correct the listing promptly.  CEAS cannot be held liable either for mistakes in editorial or technical aspects, nor for omissions, nor for the correctness of the content. In particular, CEAS does not guarantee completeness or correctness of information contained in external websites which can be accessed via links from CEAS’s websites. Despite accurate research on the content of such linked external websites, CEAS cannot be held liable for their content. Only the content providers of such external sites are liable for their content. Should you notice any mistake in technical or editorial aspects of the CEAS site, please do not hesitate to inform us.