AIAA 2002-3777

38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit

7-10 July 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana

EFFECT OF SIDEWALL CONFIGURATIONS ON THE AERODYNAMIC

PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSONIC AIR-INTAKE
Y. Watanabe*, A. Murakami and H. Fujiwara
National Aerospace Laboratory
Tokyo, Japan

Abstract
The effects of the sidewall variation on the
aerodynamic performance for a two dimensional
external compression supersonic air-intake were
investigated by performing both of wind tunnel tests
and numerical simulations. It became clear that one
of the major disadvantages of the air-intake with a
larger sidewall is its comparatively poor pressure
recovery and skewed spatial distortion, both of
which being caused by the separation vortices
induced by the interaction between the sidewall
boundary layer and the shock waves. It also became
clear that another disadvantage is its comparatively
large spillage drag. On the other hand, it turned out
to have the advantage of comparatively wide stable
range in subcritical operation. The reason for the
wide stable range of the air-intake with a larger
sidewall was investigated in detail using both of the
results of the wind tunnel tests and numerical
simulations.

Nomenclature
A1
A2
Ac
B
Cd
Cdspillage
Cdbleed
Cdcowl
D
DC(60)
DImax, DImin
Hc
H
Ht
L
MFRcapture
MFRspillage
p
exit
slit

= area of throat
= area of exit
= capture area at full flow condition
= width of stream tube
= drag coefficient of intake drag
= drag coefficient of spillage drag
= drag coefficient of bleed drag
= drag coefficient of cowl drag
= diameter of intake exit
= circumferential distortion parameter
= distortion index
= capture height at full flow condition
= capture height
= height of stream line
= length of subsonic diffuser
= capture mass flow ratio
= spillage mass flow ratio
= pressure
= pressure recovery at exit plane
= pressure recovery behind slit

throat

= pressure recovery at intake throat

Introduction
National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan is
promoting the development of two types of Scaled
Supersonic Experimental Airplanes (Non-powered
Experimental
Airplanes
and
Jet-powered
Experimental Airplanes), as well as conducting the
research on related technology. The propulsion
system for the experimental airplane must have
enough net thrust to accelerate the airplane up to the
flight speed of M2.0. The air-intake plays a key role
on the propulsion in the supersonic flight, the
air-intake being required to have high aerodynamic
performance such as low total pressure loss, low
spatial distortion, low external drag and wide stable
operational range. In order to satisfy such
requirements, each component constituting the
air-intake, such as the ramp for supersonic
compression, the sidewall, the subsonic diffuser and
the bleed system, should be sophisticated
independently and moreover should be working
altogether at the highest performance.
In this study, special focus was paid on the
design of the sidewall configuration for the air-intake.
The objective of this study is to clarify the effect of
the sidewall configuration on the aerodynamic
performance such as the pressure recovery, the
spatial distortion, flow stability characteristics and
the external drag. Both of the wind tunnel tests and
numerical simulations of the air-intake with four
types of sidewalls were performed, the results of
which were compared to each other.

Configuration of Intake
Figure 1 illustrates the schematic of the
supersonic air-intake. The air-intake is a rectangular
and external compression air-intake with three shock
system. The design Mach number was 2.0. The total
length and capture area was 1663mm and 910cm2,
respectively, to the scale of the air-intake integrated

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

Copyright 2002 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

into the experimental airplane. Figure 2 shows the

cross sectional view of the air-intake. The first ramp,
shown as a red area in the supersonic diffuser in
Figure 1, consists of a wedge of 3 degrees and an
isentropic compression surface of 5 degrees. The
second ramp, the green area in the supersonic
diffuser in Figure 1, is a variable wedge, the turning
angle of which varies from 0 up to 12 degrees. The
hinge point location of the movement of the second
ramp is shown Figure 2. The oblique shocks and
compression waves originating from the first and
second ramps focus on the cowl lip at the condition
Fig.3 Detail of supersonic diffuser

Fig.4 Schematic of experimental model

Fig.1 Schematic of air-intake

Fig.5 Experimental model installed in wind tunnel

Fig.2 Cross sectional view of air-intake ( Unit : mm )

Fig.6 Computational grid

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

of the inlet Mach number 2.3. The diffuser ramp,

shown as the green area in the subsonic diffuser in
Figure 1, is also of a variable type, the turning angle
of which is uniquely determined by the position of
the second ramp trailing edge. A wide slit is located
just downstream of the throat to suck the boundary
layer developing on the first and second ramps.
Bleed mass flow ratio was varied by changing the
bleed exit area. The length-to-exit-diameter ratio of
the subsonic diffuser, L/D, was about 3.3. The
variation of the cross-sectional shape along the flow
direction is shown in the upper part of Figure 2,
where it is shown that the shape changes from
rectangular to circular while the width D is always
constant along the flow direction. The area ratio of
the subsonic diffuser A2/A1 depends on the position
of the two variable ramps, which was equal to 2.05
at the condition that the turning angle of the second
ramp was 12 degrees.
Four kinds of sidewall configurations were
tested shown in Figure 3. The largest sidewall L1
covers most of the supersonic diffuser, the edge line
starting from the leading edge of the first ramp. The
smallest sidewall was referred to as S1, in which
the upstream half area of the sidewall was cut away.
The edge line of S1 starts from the corner of the
second ramp. The edge line of the sidewall L3
starts from the starting point of the isentropic
compression surface, while that of L4 starts from
the ending point of the isentropic surface.

Wind tunnel test

Figure 4 shows the schematic of the
experimental model. It was a 19.2% scale model of
the actual air-intake used for the experimental
airplane. The exit diameter of the air-intake is 70mm.
In the wind tunnel test, two kinds of sidewall, S1
and L1, were tested. The bleed exit area was set 8
percents of the capture area, Ac. A flow plug was
used to control the mass flow ratio. A spatially high
resolution measurement of the total pressure
distribution at the air-intake exit was performed by
means of rotatory pitot rakes. For steady pressure
measurements, three electrical scanners (PRESSURE
SYSTEMS Inc.) were used, each of which contains
64 pressure transducers. For unsteady pressure
measurements, high response pressure transducers
(Kulite XCQ-062) were used. The unsteady pressure
transducers were set at the two locations, one of
which was near and inside the cowl lip and another
was at the center of the air-intake exit surface. Figure
5 shows the picture of the experimental model
installed in the 1m1m blowdown type supersonic
wind tunnel of National Aerospace Laboratory of

Japan. The wind tunnel tests were performed with

the free stream Mach numbers ranging from 1.5 to
2.0. The duration time of a blow was 36 seconds.
The color schlieren method and the oil flow
technique were applied to visualize the flow fields in
and around the supersonic diffuser.
The pressure recovery and the total pressure
distortion were obtained based on the results of the
total pressure distribution measurements. The
pressure recovery is defined as,

= Pf / P

(1)

where Pf is the spatial average of the total pressure

on the air-intake exit surface while P is the total
pressure of the free stream. Two kinds of distortion
parameter were used in this study, one of which is
the distortion index (D.I.) used for the guideline to
determine the engine operation limit. The maximum
and minimum values of the D.I. are defined as,

D.I.max = (Pmax Pf ) / P

D.I.min = (Pmin Pf ) / P

(2)
(3)

where Pmax and Pmin are the maximum and minimum

values of the total pressure within the region of the
air-intake exit surface excluding the outer 1.5
percents region near the wall. Another distortion
parameter is the circumferential distortion parameter
DC(60) which is defined as,

DC(60) = (Pf P60 ) / q f

(4)

where qf is the mean dynamic pressure at the

air-intake exit while P60 is the spatial average of the
mean total pressure obtained in the worst 60 degrees
sector of the exit. In order to detect the buzz, the
pressure fluctuation was monitored, the pressure
being measured through the high response pressure
transducers explained above. The mass flow through
the subsonic diffuser was calculated on the choked
area of the flow plug using both of the free stream
total temperature and the total pressure just upstream
of the flow plug. The bleed mass flow was calculated
based on the total pressure and the static pressure at
the bleed exit.

Numerical simulation methods

The steady, compressible, Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes equations were solved for the flow
through the supersonic air-intake. The turbulence
viscosity was evaluated with the low Reynolds
number k-epsilon model developed by Myong and
Kasagi2. Spatial difference was evaluated by a third
order upwind biased Roe scheme3 with a TVD

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

limiter of Chakravathy and Osher type4. For the time

advancement, an implicit method was adopted.
Figure 6 illustrates the computational grid in
and around the air-intake. The computational domain
was decomposed into four regions. The total number
of grid points was 450,000. A straight duct and a
variable second throat was located downstream of
the air-intake to control the capture mass flow ratio
corresponding to the flow plug in the wind tunnel
test. The internal flow through the bleed chamber for
boundary layer removal was also simulated. The
bleed chamber was connected to the main duct
through the slit located just downstream of the throat.
The bleed exit area was 9 percents of the capture
area Ac of the air-intake. Four kinds of sidewall
configuration shown in Figure 3 were investigated in
the present numerical simulations.

Results and Discussions

Flow fields around the air-intake
Figures 7 and 8 show the flow fields through
the air-intake with the largest sidewall L1 obtained
by performing the numerical simulations with
different mass flow ratio. The inlet Mach number
was 2.0. The operation conditions shown in Figure 7
and 8 are nearly critical and subcritical, respectively.
As is shown in Figure 7(a), the oblique shock waves
and the compression waves cross the terminal shock
wave above the cowl lip at critical operation. Figure
7(b) shows that large longitudinal vortices were
induced in the subsonic diffuser. This is due to the
shock boundary layer interaction on the large
sidewalls. These vortices still remained in the
subcritical operation shown in Figure 8(b). The
results of the smallest sidewall S1 with different
mass flow ratios are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Note
that the mass flow ratio of the flow shown in Figure
9 is nearly equal to that of the flow shown in Figure
7. In the case with S1 sidewall at critical condition
shown in Figure.9(b), the vortices induced in the
subsonic diffuser were fairly small compared to the
previous large sidewall case shown in Figure 7(b).
The reason for the difference lies on the thickness of
the sidewall boundary layer upstream of its
interaction with the shock waves. It can be easily
estimated that the thickness of the sidewall boundary
layer on the large sidewall was larger than that on
the small sidewall one, which naturally resulted in
the larger longitudinal vortices downstream of the
shock boundary layer interaction as long as the
strength of the shock waves is almost the same.
Figure 10 shows the flow field through the air-intake
with the smallest sidewall S1 in subcritical operation.

Note that the mass flow ratio of the flow shown in

Figure 10 is nearly equal to that of the flow shown in
Figure 8. Although the location of the terminal shock
wave in the flow field shown in Figure 10(a) is
approximately the same as that in Figure 8(a), there
exists a clear difference between these two flows,
especially on the cowl side of the subsonic diffuser.
In the case with the small sidewall, Figure 10(b)
shows the existence of the low total pressure region
on the cowl side of the diffuser, which turned out to
be caused by the shear layer ingestion, the shear
layer originating from the intersection point of the
shock waves (referred to as Triple point in the
figures). On the other hand, in the case with the large
sidewall, no such low total pressure region could be
observed on the cowl side as is shown in Figure 8(b).
The reason of this difference will be explained later.
Figure 11 compares the oil flow pictures on
the first and second ramps for the air-intakes with S1
and L1 sidewalls. In the case with S1 sidewall,
streamlines on the first ramp are diverted outside
indicating that sideways spillage occurred, on the
other hand, streamlines are nearly straight in the case
with the large sidewall L1 indicating that the
sideways spillage was negligible. This is simply due
to the effect of the large solid sidewall preventing the
flow from going outside.
Pressure recovery
Figure 12 shows the pressure recovery plotted
as a function of the mass flow ratio obtained in the
numerical
simulations
for
four
sidewall
configurations. The wind tunnel test result for only
S1 sidewall case is also plotted in the same figure.
The mass flow ratio is defined by the ratio of the
mass flow going through the throat to the captured
mass flow. The inlet Mach number was 2.0. The
numerical result for S1 sidewall agrees fairly well
with the corresponding wind tunnel test result. The
results of the numerical simulations with different
sidewalls show a large difference of the recovery.
The pressure recovery for L4 sidewall is nearly equal
to that for S1. On the other hand, both of the
recoveries for the sidewalls L1 and L3 are clearly
smaller than that for S1.
In the cases of the larger sidewalls, L1 and L3,
the sidewall boundary layer became too thick, due to
the shock boundary layer interaction, to be sucked
into the bleed chamber completely, which resulted in
the appearance of the large longitudinal vortices
finally causing the reduction of the pressure
recovery.
It was interesting that the pressure recovery for
the larger sidewall cases, L1 and L3, increased with

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

(a) Cross sectional view of Mach number contour

(a) Cross sectional view of Mach number contour

(b) Total pressure distribution in subsonic diffuser

(b) Total pressure distribution in subsonic diffuser

Fig.7 Flow field around L1 air-intake in critical

operation at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.830

Fig.9 Flow field around S1 air-intake in critical

operation at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.833

(a) Cross sectional view of Mach number contour

(a) Cross sectional view of Mach number contour

(b) Total pressure distribution in subsonic diffuser

(b) Total pressure distribution in subsonic diffuser

Fig.8 Flow field around L1 air-intake in subcritical

operation at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.795

Fig.10 Flow field around S1 air-intake in subcritical

operation at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.793

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

the reduction of the mass flow ratio (MFR) in the

subcritical operation with the MFR lower than about
0.82 shown in Figure 12. This was not the case with
the simulations with the smaller sidewalls where the
pressure recovery was nearly constant except the
state of buzz. The increase in the recovery for the
larger sidewall cases in the subcritical operation can
be explained as follows; the pressure in the bleed
chamber became higher as the MFR was reduced
until the flow went into the state of buzz. This
pressure rise had an effect to increase the bleed mass
flow as long as the bleed exit area was fixed. As the
results, the bleed chamber was able to suck more
boundary layer than before which improved the
pressure recovery. Figure 13 shows the pressure
recoveries at the throat and at the location just
downstream of the slit for bleed for the case with the
sidewall L1. The former corresponds to the recovery
just before the boundary layer bleed, while the latter
corresponds to the recovery after the bleed. The
figure shows that the recovery after the bleed
increased with the decrease in the MFR even though
the recovery before the bleed decreased with the
decrease in the MFR. This clearly indicates that the
pressure recovery was improved due to the increase
in the bleed of the boundary layer.
Similar investigation was performed for the
inlet Mach number 1.7. Figure 14 shows the pressure
recovery vs the MFR. The sensitivity of the size of
the side wall to the pressure recovery is much less
compared to the M2.0 cases just because the shock
waves amplifying the boundary layer thickness
became weaker. Figure 15 shows the total pressure
distribution for the air-intake with L1 sidewall,
which corresponds to Figures 7(b) and 8(b) for M2.0
cases. The longitudinal vortices actually became
small even in the case with the largest sidewall at the
inlet Mach number 1.7.
Spatial distortion index
Figure 16 shows a diagram of the maximum
and minimum distortion indices at the inlet Mach
number of 2.0 obtained in the numerical simulations.
In all cases except in supercritical operation the
distortion indices were within the range of 7.5%
which is one of the requirements of the operation of
the engine used for the experimental airplane.
Comparison of the distortion indices with different
sidewalls shows a clear tendency that the distortion
was larger with larger sidewalls. This is due to the
large longitudinal vortices induced by the shock
boundary layer interaction explained above. The
circumferential distortion parameter DC(60) is
shown in Figure 17, where the flows with the four

Fig.11 Oil flow picture on ramp at M 2.0

Fig.12 Variation of pressure recovery against capture

mass flow ratio at M 2.0

Fig.13 Pressure recovery at throat and behind slit of

air-intake at M 2.0

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

different sidewalls can be divided into two groups,

one was the air-intakes with the smaller sidewall, S1
and L4, and another with the larger sidewall, L1 and
L3. The former shows a clear reduction of DC(60)
near critical and subcritical range and shows rapid
increase in DC(60) when the shear layer was
ingested into the diffuser, while the latter shows that
DC(60) kept nearly constant at high value at any
MFR. Figure 18 shows the circumferential distortion
index diagram in the case of the inlet Mach number
of 1.7. The sensitivity of the size of the side wall to
DC(60) was weaker compared to the M2.0 cases
although it shows DC(60) a rapid increase with the
ingestion of the shear layer for the cases with the
smaller sidewalls shows.
Instability of the intake flow
Instability of an air-intake flow, which is often
described as a time distortion, is also an important
characteristic of an air-intake, which directly related
to the stable operation margin of an engine. In
subcritical operation below a certain value of the
mass flow ratio, there might to be occurred serious
shock wave oscillation phenomena well known as
buzz. Figure 19 shows the schlieren photographs
taken in the wind tunnel tests with the sidewalls L1
and S1 both of which operating at supercritical
conditions. The chocked exit area controlled by the
flow plug was almost the same for the two cases.
The similar photographs at subcritical conditions are
shown in Figure 20. At supercritical conditions
shown in Figure 19, shock system was stable in both
cases. At the subcritical condition shown in Figure
20, flow field in the air-intake with L1 was still
stable, while in the air-intake with S1, the oscillation
of the terminal shock wave occurred. Further
reducing the mass flow ratio, both of the flow fields
went into the state shown in the schlieren
photographs of Figure 21. Significant shock
oscillations were observed in both cases. Figure 22
shows the root mean square values of the pressure
fluctuation measured near the cowl lip in the
subsonic diffuser. As is shown in the figure, the
unsteady flow characteristics of the air-intake with
S1 sidewall is different especially in the operation
condition with the spillage mass flow ratio ranging
from about 0.14 to 0.23 in which the flow with the
sidewall S1 showed a higher level of oscillation
compared to the flow with L1 sidewall.
The ingestion of the shear layer is one of the
important factors of the occurrence of flow
instability. The instability of this type is referred to
as Ferri instability5. Although the ingestion of the
shear layer is not a sufficient condition for the

occurrence of buzz6, it is a useful criterion to

determine the safety limit of the air-intake operation.
Figure 23 illustrates the streamlines of the flow
through a supersonic air-intake. The height H c
indicates the height of the cowl lip while the height

Fig.14 Variation of pressure recovery against capture

mass flow ratio at M 1.7

Fig.15 Total pressure distribution in L1 air-intake

at M 1.7; MFRcapture = 0.797

Fig.16 Variation of distortion index against capture

mass flow ratio at M 2.0

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

Fig.17

Fig.18

Variation of circumferential distortion

parameter against capture mass flow ratio at
M 2.0

Fig.20 Schlieren photos in subcritical operation at

M 2.0

Variation of circumferential distortion

parameter against capture mass flow ratio at
M 1.7
Fig.21 Schlieren photos of buzz in subcritical
operation at M 2.0

Fig.19 Schlieren photos in supercritical operation at

M 2.0

Fig.22 R.M.S. value of pressure fluctuation at M 2.0

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

H indicates the capture height and the height Ht

indicates the height of the streamline passing through
the intersection point between the second ramp
shock and the terminal shock waves, respectively.
The shear layer is ingested into the subsonic diffuser
when Ht is smaller than H. The relations between
the heights Ht and H at the inlet Mach numbers 2.0
and 1.7 were shown in Figures 24 and 25,
respectively. Both of the heights Ht and Hdecreased
as the spillage mass flow ratio increased. The capture
height H was larger in the cases of smaller
sidewall configurations, while the height Ht was
smaller in the cases of smaller sidewall
configurations. The minimum mass flow ratio
without the ingestion of the shear layer was thereby
dependent on the sidewall configuration. Assuming
that buzz always occurs when the shear layer is
ingested, the subcritical stability margin measured by
the mass flow ratio increases by about 3 percents
when the S1 sidewall is replaced by L1 at the inlet
Mach number of 2.0. In the case of M1.7 it increases
by 7 percents.
Figures 26 and 27 show the stream tubes going
into the subsonic diffuser in the cases of L1 and S1
sidewalls, respectively. The inlet Mach number was
2.0. The cross sectional area of the captured flow at
the infinite upstream, which is approximated by the
product of B and H, was almost the same in both

Fig.23 Definition of height of stream line

Fig.24 Variation of heights of stream line against

spillage mass flow ratio at M 2.0

of the cases because the spillage (or equivalently

captured) mass flow ratio was almost the same. In
the case of L1 sidewall air-intake, the sideways
spillage mass flow was much smaller than the mass
flow of the subsonic spillage escaping upward over
the cowl lip. On the other hand, in the case of S1

Fig.25 Variation of heights of stream line against

spillage mass flow ratio at M 1.7

Fig.26 Shape of capture stream tube of L1 air-intake

at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.795

Fig.27 Shape of capture stream tube of S1 air-intake

at M 2.0; MFRcapture = 0.793

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

sidewall air-intake, the ratio of the sideways spillage

mass flow to the total spillage mass flow is larger
compared to the air-intake with L1 sidewall. The
increase in the sideways spillage made the width of
the stream tube B smaller causing the increase in
the capture height H as long as the captured mass
flow or the product of B and H was constant.
The height H for S1 sidewall air-intake thereby
became higher than that of L1 which explains the
difference of S1 and L1 in Figure 24.
The sideways spillage, in addition, exhibits the
influence on the local Mach number distribution.
The expansion waves generated by the sideways
spillage propagated inside of the supersonic diffuser
for spanwise direction. The flow upstream of the
second ramp shock was accelerated by the expansion
waves making the shock angle of the second ramp
shock, shown in Figure 23, smaller. As a result, the
intersection point between the second ramp shock
and the terminal shock shifted lower. This made the
difference larger in the height Ht with the sidewall
configuration shown in Figure 24 and 25.
External drag of the air-intake
Figure 28 shows the air-intake total drag
coefficient and its three components, a spillage drag,
a bleed drag and a cowl drag, for the S1 and L1
sidewall air-intakes. The total drag of L1 sidewall
air-intake was larger than that of S1 sidewall
air-intake mainly because the spillage drag was
different, while the other two components were
almost the same.
Spillage drag is determined by the integral of
the pressure on the surface covering the capture
stream tube. Figure 29 illustrates the top view of the
pressure distribution on the surface of the capture
stream tube. The upper half of Figure 29 shows the
result of L1 sidewall air-intake while the lower half
shows the result of S1 sidewall air-intake. It is

Fig.28 Drag coefficient of air-intake at M 2.0

clearly shown that the high pressure area in the case

of L1 air-intake pushing the internal flow
downstream to increase the drag is wider than that of
t h e a ir - in t a k e w ith S 1 s id e w a l l. A n o th e r
interpretation of the difference of the total spillage
drag with different sidewalls can be written as
follows. The sideways spillage flow is mainly
supersonic because it goes through only oblique

Fig.29 Pressure distribution on capture stream tube

Fig.30 Operational range at M 2.0

Fig.31 Operational range at M 1.7

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777

shock waves. In contrast, the spillage flow escaping

upward over the cowl lip is subsonic because it is
decelerated and compressed going through both of
the oblique and terminal shock waves. This
compression caused larger drag per unit mass flow
of the subsonic spillage compared to the sideways
supersonic spillage. The larger portion of the
subsonic spillage than the supersonic spillage in the
case of L1 sidewall air-intake was one of the main
reasons for the larger total spillage drag.
Engine matching
It is usual that the occurrence of the ingestion
of the shear layer determines the low MFR operation
criterion, while the spatial distortion determines the
higher MFR operation criterion. In accordance with
these criteria the data points in Figure 12 without the
stable operation range were eliminated and only the
points within the stable operation range were
re-plotted in Figure 30. There was no supercritical
operation margin in the case of L1 and L3 sidewall
air-intakes. The air-intake with no supercritical
margin must be operated at subciritical condition
with additional spillage drag. The pressure
recoveries of the air-intakes with the larger sidewalls,
L1 and L3, were worse than those of the smaller
sidewalls, S1 and L4. Using an air-intake with large
spillage drag and low pressure recovery causes the
aggravation of the net thrust of propulsion system.
As the results, S1 or L4 sidewall configurations were
better in the present study at the condition for the
Mach number of 2.0.
Similar consideration was done for M1.7.
Figure 31 shows that there was no subcritical
operation margin in the case of S1 air-intake at the
inlet Mach number of 1.7. Subcritical operational
margins were wider in the case of the larger sidewall
configurations, L3 and L4, however, there was no
operation margin at supercritical condition either.

capture mass flow ratio in the case with the large

sidewalls.
The shear layer originating from the
intersection point of the oblique and terminal shock
waves was ingested into the air-intake in subcritical
operation below a certain value of the mass flow
ratio. The minimum mass flow ratio without the
shear layer ingestion was higher for the air-intake
with the smaller sidewall. The stable operation
margin in subcritical condition was reduced more by
the shear layer ingestion in the case of the smaller
sidewall.
The external drag was larger in the cases with
the larger sidewalls due to the influence of the
relatively high ratio of the subsonic spillage
compared to the sideways supersonic spillage.
In short, at the inlet Mach number 2.0, the
air-intake with the smaller sidewalls have the
advantage of high pressure recovery, low distortion
and low external drag, while the air-intake with the
larger sidewalls have the advantage of their wide
range of safety operation range in subciritical
condition. At the inlet Mach number 1.7, the
differences in the pressure recovery and distortion
were smaller compared to M2.0 because the
interaction of the sidewall boundary layer and the
shock waves was softened in the case of M1.7
compared to M2.0.

1.

2.

3.

Conclusion
In this study, the effects of the sidewall
configurations on the aerodynamic performance of
the rectangular external compression air-intake were
investigated experimentally and numerically at two
Mach numbers of 1.7 and 2.0.
In the case with the large sidewall, the
interaction of the shock waves with the sidewall
boundary layer induced the longitudinal vortices in
the subsonic diffuser, which caused serious pressure
loss especially at Mach number 2.0. The pressure
recovery and the distortion indices were aggravated
by the longitudinal vortices especially at higher

4.

5.

6.

References
Seddon, J. and Goldsmith, E.L., Intake
Aerodynamics, AIAA Education Series
ISBN 0-93040-03-7, 1985.
Myong, H.K. and Kasagi, N., A new
approach to the improvement of k-epsilon
turbulence model for wall-bounded shear
flow, JSME International Journal of Fluid
Engineering, Vol. 109, 1990, pp.156-160.
Roe, P.L., Approximates Riemann Solvers,
Parameter Vectors and Difference Schemes,
Journal of Computational Physics, Vol.43,
1981, pp.357-372.
Chakravarthy, S.R. and Osher, S., A new
class of high accuracy TVD schemes for
hyperbolic conservation laws, AIAA paper
85-0243, 1985.
Ferri. A. and Nucci, L.M., The origin of
aerodynamic instability of supersonic inlets at
subcritical conditions, NACA, RM L50 K30,
1951.
Fujiwara, H., Murakami, A. and Watanabe, Y.,
Numerical analysis on shock oscillation of
two-dimensional
external
compression
intakes, AIAA paper 2002-2740, 2002.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 2002-3777