Tag Archives: Aeronautics

Golden Era of Aeronautics, Part One

Posted on by .

Image of Patrick Stoliker, Deputy Director of NASA Dryden Flight Research CenterPatrick Stoliker

Deputy Director 
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

On May 2, 1952—virtually 60 years ago—36 people boarded BOAC’s De Havilland Comet DH 106, known as “Yoke Peter” to its crew for last letters of its registration G-ALYP, took their seats and readied for a long journey. These were the first paying passengers of the modern jet age, departing London for a 7,000-mile trip to Johannesburg, South Africa. Powered by four Ghost jet engines (also made by De Havilland) and with a cruise speed listed at about 500 mph, the passengers rode in pressurized comfort. About the only significant difference between that day and now was the legroom and the ratio of passengers to fight attendants. But if we pay too much attention to the similarities we’ll miss what is remarkable about the span of time involved. It’s been 60 years since the first passengers rode on a jet airliner and we’re still flying at the same speeds and the same altitudes.

There was a brief interval during which the wealthy could travel at Mach 2 on the Concorde (slightly faster if they wanted to fly the Soviet Tu-144), but neither airplane was ever a commercial success: both were just items of national prestige.

If it seems as though little has changed in the last 60 years—I said seems—consider how much changed between 1903 and 1952: call it the first 50 years of flight. It was on a wintry day in 1903 that two brothers from Dayton, Ohio, succeeded where no one else had, on the sand dunes of Kill Devil, North Carolina. Wilbur and Orville Wright were hardly the only ones trying to figure out flight at that time; there were quite a few in the US and in Europe, and most were further along than the two brothers. Even worse for the brothers, their competitors seemed to be better educated or better funded, as in the case of Samuel P. Langley of the Smithsonian Institution, or at least further along in the quest. 

The brothers made up for this with an intellect that the made their lack of a high school diplomas irrelevant. They learned the value of a wind tunnel by building their own, and they were smart enough to figure out that everyone before them had been wrong about the relationship of lift, wing area, and velocity, to say nothing of airfoils shapes. They had that rarest of talents, what Eugene Ferguson called “engineering in the mind’s eye,” the ability to move back and forth between the abstract and the concrete when trying to solve an engineering problem. They recognized propellers as rotating wings in the process. They understood wing warping and, more importantly, figured out the vertical stabilizer as the solution to adverse yaw, which they encountered on their glider, and they managed to do so largely because of how they mingled the abstract and the concrete. With Charlie Taylor, they put together a 180 pound, 12 horsepower engine with a good enough thrust to weight ratio to fly. It was an ungainly airplane, unstable in all axes, and I’m certain that only the hours of practice with the gliders gave them the skills needed to control the airplane. Then again, the same goes for riding a bicycle: it too, is unstable and takes time to learn how to ride, but you are then rewarded with a contraption that is nimble as can be, as opposed to a four-wheeled wagon. Progress came quickly. Although canard configurations have returned, the Wright’s pursued their original aircraft configuration until 1909, when they added an elevator and larger vertical tails. The 1910 Wright Model B had no canard and engines with 28-42 hp (with a production run of about 100 airplanes).

Their competitors settled into the more conventional wing/rudder/elevator configurations and everywhere advancements in capabilities and performance quickly followed (ditching wing warping in favor of ailerons was a way to control the airplane and try and avoid the Wright’s patent). Aircraft manufacturers proliferated across Europe and the United States. Although we think of this as the era of the biplanes (and triplanes), monoplanes like the Nieuport 2 were being built by 1910! The Loughead Brothers (later Lockheed) formed their first aircraft company in 1912 in Santa Barbara. The first aviation meet in America was held in Los Angeles (Dominguez Hills) January 1910 and airplanes were still so relatively new enough that dirigibles were a huge draw even then.

The speed with which aeronautical technology developed is astonishing and I consider this first decade one of the golden eras of aeronautics. We made big steps from the first ‘practicable’ airplane to modern aircraft. War had much to do with this, as it often does–in this case it was WWI. That war brought the first monococque fuselage, the interrupter gear, vastly improved flight instruments, the first UAV (the Kettering Aerial Torpedo, whose flight was made possible by Lawrence Sperry’s autopilot of 1914), the first all metal aircraft (Junkers J1, J2, and finally, the truly functional J4), just to name a few. The rapidity of the developments and their dramatic appearances likely makes us think war is the prime driver in such changes. But if we look at the bigger picture, this seems to be less the case.

After all, the Wrights achieved flight in a period of peace and were themselves not driven by any war, even if their first customer was the US Army Signal Corps. The first four-engine aircraft, Igor Sikorsky’s Ilya Mourometz appeared in 1914 in Russia, before The War. It was during the interwar years, the period between WWI and WWII, that NASA’s predecessor agency, the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) developed or assisted in developing some of the most fundamental changes to aeronautics, including retractable landing gear, the variable pitch propeller, deicing boots, engine cowlings, and the world famous NACA airfoils. It was in this same era that the first superchargers were developed to allow piston engines to gain higher altitudes (and speeds), and we saw the first genuine pressurized fuselages. It was in 1928—long before WWII began—that Englishman Frank Whittle conceived of the turbojet, and still before WWII that German Hans von Ohain succeeded in flying the world’s first turbojet, developed independently of Whittle. And while people first paid to travel by air before the War, it was in the interwar years that commercial aviation actually took off, so to speak.

Image of X-1WWII drove more aeronautical developments, of course, one of the subtler ones being the abandonment of seaplanes as the preferred way to carry passengers on long routes. The war resulted in plenty of new runways all over the world as well as an abundance of multi-engine aircraft with long range, making the big seaplanes a dying breed. It also helped that long-range navigation and radar approaches were improved and created, respectively, because of WWII. Piston engine/propeller aircraft had been having trouble with the transonic realm before WWII; figuring out supersonic flight was the next big challenge, and while folks in the Army Air Corps and the NACA expected it to be a big challenge, I don’t think they realized just how big the leap into the unknown would be. Getting to Mach 1 could be done with a turbojet engine, but if you were in a hurry to do it—and the AAF was—you were going to need a rocket plane. Jet engines of the era simply weren’t powerful or reliable enough to do the job-yet. This led to the Bell X-1, two X-1s actually, and the quest for supersonic flight. This was dawn of the golden age of flight research and X-planes, of almost infinite questions and purpose-designed aircraft like the X-3, the X-4, and the X-5.

Change came fast.

In 1961 TWA introduced in-flight movies on its Boeing 707s. By 1964 we had gone Mach 3 in a jet powered aircraft (A-12/SR-71), faster in rocket planes; we’d been to space and back in capsules and a space plane (the X-15), and supersonic flight was routine, at least for the military. In 1970 Boeing introduced first the “jumbo” airliner, the 747, and we’ve been packing in more and more passengers ever since. Yet we’re still flying at virtually the same speed and altitude as those 36 passengers on “Yoke Peter” in 1952. Have things really not changed? Are we in the doldrums, and if so, why?

Aerodynamic Trucks Make Me Smile

Posted on by .

Image of David McBride, Director, Dryden Flight Research Center By David McBride

Director, NASA DrydenFlight Research Center

Over the last severalmonths, I have read many news stories and web accounts about rising and falling fuel pricesand how some companies are rediscovering efficiencies by making trucks more aerodynamically efficient. These makeme smile as it reminds me of the early aerodynamic truck studies conductedalmost 40 years ago at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center on Edwards AirForce Base. Fuel efficiency in long haul trucks was never much of an issueuntil the first peacetime gas crisis, in the early 1970s. In 1973 anaeronautical engineer at NASA Dryden began musing over ways to cut theaerodynamic drag of over-the-road trucks. He led a small team of researcherswhose results had an extraordinary, if little recognized, impact.

The center’s firstexperiment involved a passenger van modified into a driving laboratory. Weattached an aluminum rectangular box to the vehicle—hence the nicknameShoebox—and over successive experiments, changed elements of the box.We rounded the vertical and horizontal corners, sealed the entireunderbody including the wheel wells, and even added a “boat tail” tothe rear of the vehicle, finding out what benefits each had on the overallaerodynamic drag. Road tests of the Shoebox, with rounded vertical andhorizontal corners front and back, lowered the vehicle’s aerodynamic drag by 54percent. Sealing the van’s underbody and wheel wells reduced drag another 15percent. Road test showed a mileage increase of between 15 and 25%. Mileage mayvary, of course, depending on conditions and styles, which is why Dryden’sengineers were fond of testing outside of wind tunnels.

Image at right: 1970s van fitted with square corners, top image, and round corners bottom. Tufts of yarn attached to the sides of the van indicate air flow around the vehicle.

Our second experiment wasconducted on a cab-over-engine tractor-trailer, again modified by rounding allof its front corners and edges. In addition, technicians attached sheet metalfairings over the cab’s roof and sides, reaching as far back as the trailer;this completely closed the open space between the cab and trailer. While stilllooking like a tractor-trailer, it was a radical departure from anything on theroad in the 1970s. Researchers found that in highway driving at 55 miles perhour, these changes resulted in 20 to 24 percent lower fuel consumption over anidentical but unmodified tractor-trailer they tested against it.

At the time of NASADryden’s research, which extended off-and-on until 1982, the majority oflong-haul tractors were cab-overs. This was because the Federal Aid Highway Actof 1956 – formally known as the National System of Interstate and DefenseHighways Act – placed a limit on the length on the total vehicle.

Image to the left: As depicted by this 1975 image, sheet metal is attached to a heavy haul truck rounding the front corners of the truck and adding a fairing between the cab and the trailer of the truck.

The Surface TransportationAssistance Act (1982), which came primarily in response to the impact of thegas crisis on the trucking industry, required states to permit trucks withtrailers as long as 48 feet on both interstate and intrastate highways, andeffectively ignored the tractor altogether. This small detail of the bill wasresponsible for the shift from cab-overs to conventional engine-in-fronttractors, a much more fuel-efficient design because of its shape.

In 1985 Kenworthintroduced the T600, the first tractor manufactured with factory-built fairingsthat reflected the empirical research done at NASA Dryden. It is encouraging tosee the continuing improvements to the shapes of both tractors and trailerstoday, all of which reflect research conducted at Dryden at the time orperformed at three universities under Dryden’s guidance.

Hence, when you see fairingsthat narrow the gap between tractor and trailer, side skirts on the trailer, orboat tails on the back of trailers, you’re looking at the results, in part, ofNASA and NASA-sponsored empirical research whose benefits have a tangibleimpact on our daily lives. It is especially gratifying when I think of the veryreal increases in fuel efficiency these trucks have realized, and the benefitswe all derive as a result

Spring Means Unpredictability and Budgets

Posted on by .

Photo of Patrick StolikerBy Patrick C. Stoliker

Deputy Director of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center

It’s springtime again at Dryden. You cantell by the wild fluctuations in weather: cold and dreary, gale force winds, orsunny and balmy –  sometimes all in oneday! The wild flowers start blooming, sometimes spectacularly; but this yearnot so much. I was at the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, west ofLancaster, two weeks ago and the poppies were few and far between. 

Another principal indicator of springtime isthe leap into the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) cyclefor the Agency’s budget. For those not familiar with the process, let meexplain.

We start off with PPBE guidance tricklingout of Washington (stamped Draft, of course). This is followed by StrategicProgram Guidance (SPG) – Draft 2. These documents provide the ground rules foreach of the Centers and the Agency Mission Directorates to input their budgetinformation into various databases. The budget information includes workforce numbers, procurement expensesand travel. It provides a top-level description of the Agency’s activities forthe next five years. Why is this important? Because it helps set the strategicdirection and constraints in which we must complete our research priorities.

This is followed by the Program and ResourceGuidance (PRG) from each Mission Directorate. The PRG is a more detaileddescription of the work the Mission Directorates plan to accomplish. We spendthe rest of early spring revising inputs based on project plans, gettingrevised instructions, and revising timelines.

Image of SOFIA aircraftIn reality this is a critical effort. What arethe staffing and resource requirements for the Center to successfully operatethe SOFIA aircraft for 1,000 hours of science flights? What are theimplementation plans for the Aeronautics Research Directorate and how do weutilize our workforce to accomplish them? What is the schedule and what are theappropriate resources to support launch abort system testing for MPCV? Workingwith all the organizations at the Center, we will develop our best answers tothese questions, and effectively use the resources to execute these missions.

All the while we are using a very blurrycrystal ball to extend this guidance five years into the future. So these arethe things keeping us busy: building spreadsheets, attending Budget ControlBoards, and chasing shifting time lines every spring.

For me, one of the best parts of spring isdriving onto the Center at sunrise after the time change and Hangar 4802 is litup and lined with airplanes. That sight never disappoints me.

Two days ago it started bright and sunny, aweek ago I shoveled a foot of snow off my driveway, and another storm is comingin this weekend. I’m certain it is going to snow, my apple trees all startedblooming this week…it’s springtime at Dryden again.

Gray Creech blogs from NASA's Green Aviation Summit

Posted on by .

(Editor's Note – NASA'sAeronautics Research Mission Directorate is holding a two-day Green AviationSummit conference Sept. 8-9 at NASA's Ames Research Center in NorthernCalifornia. Gray Creech of NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's public affairsstaff is attending the summit, and will be periodically blogging on thehighlights of the event as they proceed. His first blog is posted below.)
By Gray Creech
NASA Dryden public affairs
Sept. 8, 2010, 8:15 a.m. PDT

Welcome to the 2010 NASA Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate’s Green Aviation Summit, a proverbial peek-behind-the-
curtain for a look at the future of green aviation!

We’re “summiting” here at NASA’s Ames Research Center in
Mountain View, Calif.,  just a stone’s throw from the southern end of
San Francisco Bay, in the heart  of Silicon Valley. Bear with me as I
get our blog going. I could use a cup ‘o java to help bring coherence
to the conversation…


Let me introduce “green aviation” -- It’s more than “eco-friendly”
flight; it’s a compilation of radical ideas about the next generation of
airplanes making  less noise, producing less harmful emissions, and
achieving better fuel economy. 

Imagine standing at the end of an airport runway as a jetliner swoops
low, and still being able to hear someone next to you whisper. Imagine
these quieter planes being less polluting because of leaner combustion
technologies and cleaner fuels. And imagine these aircraft consuming
fuel in a miserly fashion, due to better aerodynamics and lightweight
composite construction, etc. 

I’ll keep you posted the next two days as the Summit unfolds – after I
get that first cup of coffee! I’ll be back soon…

Welcome to the Dryden Blog

Posted on by .

As center director, let me be the first to welcome you to the Dryden blog site. This is an exciting new Web feature we are embarking on to provide you with additional perspectives on our many projects. 

As an engineer, I find myself in a constant struggle to convey information in a technically accurate manner while at the same time keeping it in terms understandable by non-engineers. On the flip side, I am often troubled with the responsibility of explaining the vagaries of federal government management, planning, and budgeting to an engineering community that expects exact answers. The great thing about a blog is that you have the opportunity to help guide the level of detail being provided.As we share information on our projects, I would like to encourage you to leave comments and tell us what you think! 

Through this blog site, we hope to introduce the human perspective to the technical work we do and the technical considerations inherent in managing complex engineering projects. I am inviting people from throughout the Dryden organization to post updates on their work and share the challenges and accomplishments they face in their daily activities. Over time, I expect that topics covered in this forum will reflect the diversity of our workforce both in terms of expertise and the projects we support. 

If there is a particular topic or item you would like to learn more about, leave us a comment and we will do our best to post the information.  Thank you for taking time to visit the Dryden Blog. 

David McBride

Director

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

NASA Aids in Capturing Video of Historic X-51 Flight

Posted on by .

 

Every now and then, due to the unique capabilities of our aircraft and our personnel, NASA gets called upon to assist the Air Force in one of its missions. In this instance we were asked to help by providing video documentation and airborne safety chase for a high-altitude first release of the X-51 hypersonic test vehicle. You can read more about this test flight on the Edwards Air Force Base Web site here: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123206547 .

 

Normally, the Air Force would use its own chase F-16 aircraft. However, launch conditions were too slow for an F-16 at the planned altitude of 50,000 feet. NASA Dryden operates a fleet of four chase and support F/A-18 aircraft, and the high altitude and slow speed is something our aircraft could handle. NASA Dryden also has a unique cadre of truly talented airborne videographers and photographers. Taking videos and pictures requires a skill only learned through years of experience and this is routinely demonstrated in the NASA photo/video team’s superb products.

 

For this mission we conducted numerous briefings and several dress rehearsals so all participants, both in the air and on the ground, would be ready for their roles. The flight included the U.S. Air Force B-52, with the test vehicle tucked under the port wing and inboard of the engines, and two NASA F/A-18s. One F/A-18 was a single-seat aircraft with a primary mission of safety chase. It was there to allow the pilot to watch the takeoff and climb to altitude, ensuring the vehicle remained intact with no leaks or apparent anomalies in condition. The second F/A-18, a 2-seater I was flying, had the videographer in the aft seat. Our mission was to capture the X-51 as it separated from the B-52 and the rocket booster ignited, accelerating it into the record books. We took off about 15 minutes after the bomber and chase. We climbed to altitude in trail but were flying faster so as to catch them en route. We needed to be in position close to the B-52’s left wing when the flight reached the test area off the California coast. 

 

After a trial run down the launch path, the flight circled back to point west again. This time the X-51 launch system was readied and clearance was received. The range was “green,” meaning the X-51 could be safely released.

 

As we got close to the desired launch point the appropriate calls were made:  “30 seconds to release,” then “10 seconds,” followed by a tense delay until the hypersonic aircraft dropped free of the bomber. 

 

In the video chase F/A-18, I was striving to be in exactly the right position, not too close but never too far away. At this high altitude the aircraft is not nearly as responsive as it would be down lower. Also, we were flying much slower for this launch, making the flight controls even more sluggish. One false flight control or throttle input, and we could easily fall way below or way behind the B-52 and then be unable to catch it in time to capture the video. The camera operator needed a clear view of the release but also needed to have it in sight as it dropped away before the rocket motor ignited. The X-51 was going to drop up to 1,000 feet below the B-52, so we had to be ready to go lower with it. This sequence all went without a single hitch and the X-51 booster rocket motor ignited in a beautiful, sharp plume. The vehicle rapidly accelerated away before climbing smoothly into the planned trajectory. 

 

It was visually as flawless a launch as I have ever witnessed and truly an awesome sight. After the X-51 disappeared from view, which took about 45 seconds after being dropped from the bomber, we turned toward home. Now we could see the white contrail the X-51 had left in the sky. It was no longer arrow-straight, but wavy and kinked by the high-altitude winds. The flight home would take another 25 minutes, but it was a relaxing 25 minutes borne by the exhilaration of success.

 

To view the amazing video, follow this link. https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=14470278

 

The Air Force Research Lab’s X-51 project office said they were absolutely thrilled by NASA’s “superb safety and video chase support.”  It was a privilege to participate with the team to help capture this video and make it available to a global audience. 

 

Dick Ewers

NASA Research Test Pilot