2009

Design of an External
Compression, Supersonic, AirBreathing Engine Inlet

Mike Meller
MAE 422
4/23/2009

1|Page

Table of Contents
1

Shape of Engine Inlet .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2

Internal Compression Inlets........................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3

External Compression Inlets .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4

Mixed Compression Inlets ............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.5

General Choice of Inlet Shape ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2
Calculation of the Ratio of the Stagnation Pressure Behind the Last Shock to the Stagnation Pressure of the Free Stream
(P0L/P0) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
3

Data and Plots of P0L/P0 vs. Mach Number ........................................................................................................................... 10

3.1

Design 1: Triconic Inlet (1 = 8, 2 = 8, 3 = 9) .......................................................................................................... 10

3.1.1

Data for Design 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1.2

Plot for Design 1................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2

Design 2: Triconic Inlet (1 = 9, 2 = 8, 3 = 8) .......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1

Data for Design 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2

Plot for Design 2................................................................................................................................................. 15

3.3

Design 3: Triconic Inlet (1 = 8.33, 2 = 8.33, 3 = 8.33) ........................................................................................... 16

3.3.1

Data for Design 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2

Plot for Design 3................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.4

Triconic Design Comparison ........................................................................................................................................ 19

3.5

Biconic Comparison 1: (1 = 12.5, 2 = 12.5) ............................................................................................................. 20

3.5.1

Data for Biconic Comparison 1 .......................................................................................................................... 20

3.5.2

Plot for Biconic Comparison 1 ............................................................................................................................ 21

3.6

Biconic Comparison 2: (1 = 14, 2 = 11) ................................................................................................................... 22

3.6.1

Data for Biconic Comparison 2 .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.6.2

Plot for Biconic Comparison 2 ............................................................................................................................ 23

3.7

Plot Comparing both Biconic Designs .......................................................................................................................... 24

3.8

Monoconic Comparison: (1 = 20).............................................................................................................................. 25

3.8.1

Data for Monoconic Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 25

3.8.2

Plot for Monoconic Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 26

3.9

Comparison Plot of All Previously Discussed Geometries ........................................................................................... 27

Discussion of Inlet Design Including the Effects of Viscosity ................................................................................................. 28

Discussion of Inlet Design Including the Effects of a Nonzero Angle of Attack ..................................................................... 29

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30

References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31

2|Page

1 Shape of Engine Inlet

1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this design project is to design the most efficient external compression, supersonic, airbreathing engine inlet. It is extremely important to have efficient supersonic diffusers like this. The
purpose of the inlet is to decelerate the airspeed to a compatible airspeed for engine operation. Most
gas turbine engines require subsonic flows between about Mach 0.3 to Mach 0.6 at the entrance face of
the engine to operate. The requirement for the model at hand is an engine face upstream Mach of 0.8.
When considering the most aerodynamically efficient system to design, the largest factor we will be
taking into account is the total pressure loss. To have the least amount of pressure loss, it is important
to slow the flow using multiple weak shocks. Using multiple weak shocks will always have a smaller
pressure loss than obtaining the same Mach number using a single (or fewer) shocks, and will therefore
be more efficient. Obviously, there will be complications that will be run into when performing the
design.
One such complication will be the fact that higher supersonic speeds mean a need for more
compression to slow the flow. In external compression inlets, this indicates a need to turn the flow
more, which results in a in an increase in cowl lip angle to align it with the incoming flow at the normal
shock. Unfortunately, an increase in cowl lip angle means a larger inlet frontal angle, which increases
the drag. This is one of the principle reasons purely external compression inlets are not used a great
deal at higher supersonic speeds.
As one might guess, certain methods of compressing the airflow are more efficient in different
conditions. For this reason, there are three general types of supersonic air-breathing engine inlets. The
three types are internal compression, external compression, and mixed compression. Each of these
inlets will discussed more in depth. It is important to note that the focus of this project is on external
compression inlets, however the other methods are briefly observed to help gain a background on the
purposes of their design, and conditions they work best in.

1.2 Internal Compression Inlets

As given by the name, internal compression inlets (figure 1.2) perform both the supersonic and subsonic
compression of the air inside the duct. An easy way to think about the internal compression inlet is that
it is a converging-diverging nozzle. The compression is achieved through a series of oblique shock waves,
and then a normal shock just after the throat.

Figure 1.2) Internal compression inlet with reflected oblique shocks and terminal normal shock.

3|Page

This is a complex design because it is necessary to have a varying throat area to swallow the shock
past the throat. Additionally, fast reaction bypass doors are also essential past the throat to allow the
proper positioning of the normal shock. This is required because flight and engine conditions are
constantly changing, and in turn, the position of the normal shock will be too unless there is a
mechanism (the fast reaction bypass doors) to properly position the normal shock for best efficiency.
This design is beneficial because it requires a very low cowling angle, therefore it produces less drag.
For this reason, it is better suited for high supersonic Mach numbers, generally greater than Mach 3.5.

1.3 External Compression Inlets

External compression inlets perform the supersonic compression of the airflow before it enters the duct.
These inlets compress the air by either one oblique shock followed by a normal shock, a series of
oblique shocks followed by a normal shock, or just one normal shock.
The simplest of these is obviously compressing the flow by only one normal shock. This is referred to as
a pitot inlet (figure 1.3a), and is the cheapest, lightest, and easiest to design. This method however,
will lose efficiency quickly as you increase the Mach number.

Figure 1.3a) Pitot Inlet with a single normal shock outside of the duct.

The design I will be focusing on, is a series of several oblique shocks followed by a normal shock (figure
1.3b). This is a very reasonable design for Mach numbers below about 2.5. For this Mach range, the
simplicity of this design prevails over the lack of efficiency in total pressure losses. To adjust for
different conditions, namely different Mach numbers, inlet cone positioning is often included in the
design. By moving the cone, the location of the shock system can be changed for different Mach
numbers to make the system as efficient as possible. It will be desirable to align the normal shock with
the leading edge of the cowl to avoid spillage, seen in the off-design of figure 1.3b.

4|Page

Figure 1.3b) On and off-design of a series of oblique shocks and a normal shock on an external
compression inlet.

1.4 Mixed Compression Inlets

Mixed compression inlets attempt to combine the best aspects of both internal and external
compression inlets. This largely lies in the balance between simplicity and performance. These types of
inlets attain compression by a series of external oblique shocks, internal reflected oblique shocks, and
ultimately a terminal normal shock.
Just as in internal compression, the ideal location for the terminal normal shock is just downstream of
the throat. It also obtains the proper placement of this shock utilizing fast reacting bypass doors, as well
as a variable throat area. The variable throat area in mixed compression is far less than in internal
compression due to the series of external oblique shocks. Additionally, the series of external oblique
shocks allows the internal shocks to be less sensitive to disturbances in flow than a completely internal
compression inlet.
Because mixed compression is partially comprised of internal compression, as I stated earlier, it is still
necessary to have the fast reacting bypass doors. This makes this type of design much more complex
and expensive. On the other hand, this type of design experiences high efficiency between about Mach
2.5 and Mach 3.5, and undergoes much lower cowling drag due to its reduced angle.

5|Page

1.5 General Choice of Inlet Shape

As stated in the title, the type of inlet that is being designed is an external compression inlet. Now,
some basics in the design process of the surface geometry of a supersonic external compression inlet
must be considered. Two very large factors to keep in mind when trying to design the inlet are the
Mach range the aircraft will be operating at, and the terminal shock Mach number necessary for proper
engine function.
The observed scenario will have the following general criteria:

The operational Mach range varies from Mach 1 to Mach 3

The Mach number immediately after the terminal normal shock will be approximately Mach 0.8
The maximum angle that the flow can turn before entering the subsonic diffuser is 25
Try to attain the maximum total pressure recovery to be most efficient
The aircraft is flying at 45,000 ft
The air is assumed to be inviscid and calorically perfect
The aircraft is at an angle of attack of zero
The flow is assumed to be 2-dimensional

When considering geometries for the inlet, one might think that the having a perfectly curved surface
would be quite beneficial. This would theoretically create a compression fan of infinite oblique shocks,
therefore creating isentropic flow, and creating basically no total pressure loss. In reality, viscous effects
diminish the performance of these isentropic inlets, which can lead to a lower boundary layer health
than the equivalent multiple, straight surfaced geometry. Also, isentropic inlets and their similar
multiple, straight surfaced inlets both have a similar turn angle. This means neither one of these inlets
has an advantage over the other in terms of drag (a larger turn angle results in a larger cowl angle,
which results in a larger drag). Observing this, it was decided that multiple straight faces as opposed to
a curved geometry will be sufficient.
Now that it is established that the geometry will be multiple straight faces, there are some other major
factors that still need to be determined. One such factor is the number of oblique shocks before the
terminal shock. Through some research, it was determined that some aircraft use a biconic inlet to
create two oblique shock waves with both waves focused on the lip of the cowl. It is known that the
more oblique shocks that exist, the better the pressure recovery. This is why I am designing the inlet to
have an additional oblique shock. This will make it more efficient. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to
produce something with this triconic geometry since biconic inlets are in existence. Another factor to
consider is the angle of each separate flat surface that creates the triconic geometry. In my calculations,
I will perform several different angle variations to see which configuration is the most efficient.

6|Page

After taking all of these factors into account (many more factors are being neglected), a final design has
been settled upon. The design geometry will be a triconic external compression inlet (it will be analyzed
as 2D flow). At different Mach numbers and flying conditions, the point at which the shock waves
intersect will vary. To account for this and reduce the spillover, the center cone will move axially
forward and backward to direct the shocks to line up with the leading edge of the cowl to obtain the
best efficiency. A representation of the general shape of the triconic inlet (2D) is seen in figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5) 2D visual representation of the triconic inlet that will be designed.

2 Calculation of the Ratio of the Stagnation Pressure Behind the Last

Shock to the Stagnation Pressure of the Free Stream (P0L/P0)
The calculation of the ratio of stagnation pressure behind the last shock to the stagnation pressure of
the free stream (P0L/P0) for the cruising Mach number of 2 can be done by a number of basic relations in
gas dynamics. The scenario being observed is the triconic design 2, with 1 = 9, 2 = 8, 3 = 8. The
process below was used for all the calculations of all the Mach numbers and corresponding stagnation
pressure ratios:
Free stream Mach number: M1 = 2 ; First angle: 1 = 9
Want to find Mach angle, , so must find and first:
=

2 1

3 1+

1 2

1+

+1 2
2
2

1/2

With the above M1 and 1, this returns: = .

=

2 1

9 1+

1 2
2

1+
3

1 2 +1 4
2
2 + 4

With the above M1, 1, and 1 , this returns: =.

Now we can find Mach angle, , using the following relation:

= 1

2 1 + 2
3 1+

4 + 1
3

1 2
2

With the above M1, 1, 1 , and 1 , and = 1 for weak shocks (assumed): = .

7|Page

Now it is possible to find the normal component of M1 before the first oblique shock:
1 = 1
In this scenario, = .
Using normal shock relations, we can find the normal Mach number, 2 , after the fist oblique shock:
2

1
1 2
2
=
1
1 2 2
1+

In this scenario, = .
Next, we will find the Mach number after the first oblique shock:
2 =

2
sin 1 1

Our second Mach number came out to be = .

To calculate the total pressure ration across this first shock, use the following relation:
02 1 2 + 1 2 2
=
01 2 2 + 1 1 2
Across this shock wave,

+1
2 1

= 1.4

=.

Now, we must repeat this process across the subsequent shock waves, where each new is with respect
to the previous one. Following this process, we obtain:
ML = .8355 , which is approximately Mach 0.8, the specified approximate final Mach number.
We also obtain the following total pressure ratios across each of the shock waves:

= .

= .
= .

Ultimately, we want to obtain the value

0
01

, the ratio of the total pressure after the last to the total

pressure of the free stream. This is done by multiplying the determined ratios together:
0 0 04 03 02
=
= 1.0000 . 9917 . 9820 (.9886)
01 04 03 02 01

= .

8|Page

There is a very important note to make referring to calculations made above, and all the calculations
made in the excel spreadsheets below. There was an error that appeared in the tables for the
calculations of for the first few entries. Due to the geometry of the cone of the inlet, and gas
dynamics, low Mach numbers will experience a detached shock (see figure 2).
This detached shock is treated as a normal shock, and values of 90 are added in to the table where
they occur. Once a detached shock occurs, values are set to zero for the rest of the surface changes
because the flow is subsonic, and therefore will not experience any more shocks.
Later in the tables the values will be zero early on due to previous normal shocks, then progress up to
90 for the detached shock that will occur as soon as the flow becomes supersonic again for higher initial
Mach numbers. As you progress with higher Mach numbers, the shock will eventually become attached,
and the regular equations will resume their intended functions.

Figure 2) This is an example of a detached shock in supersonic flow, also referred to as a bow shock.

9|Page

3 Data and Plots of P0L/P0 vs. Mach Number

3.1 Design 1: Triconic Inlet (1 = 8, 2 = 8, 3 = 9)
3.1.1
:

Data for Design 1

1.4

1:
M1
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3

8 degrees
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8032
-0.0580
1.1156
0.5736
1.4383
0.7841
1.7760
0.8752
2.1308
0.9211
2.5036
0.9469
2.8951
0.9624
3.3055
0.9723
3.7352
0.9790
4.1843
0.9836
4.6528
0.9869
5.1409
0.9894
5.6487
0.9912
6.1761
0.9926
6.7232
0.9938
7.2901
0.9946
7.8767
0.9954

Oblique Shock 1
(Respect to horizontal)
1
Mn1
Mn2
90.0000 1.0000 1.0000
90.0000 1.1000 0.9118
90.0000 1.2000 0.8422
90.0000 1.3000 0.7860
59.3672 1.2046 0.8393
52.5715 1.1912 0.8477
48.0302 1.1896 0.8487
44.5282 1.1921 0.8471
41.6734 1.1968 0.8442
39.2722 1.2027 0.8405
37.2101 1.2095 0.8363
35.4125 1.2169 0.8319
33.8269 1.2247 0.8272
32.4154 1.2329 0.8224
31.1489 1.2414 0.8175
30.0053 1.2502 0.8125
28.9666 1.2592 0.8075
28.0186 1.2683 0.8025
27.1496 1.2777 0.7975
26.3499 1.2872 0.7926
25.6114 1.2968 0.7876

2:
Po2/Po1
M2
1.0000
1.0000
0.9989
0.9118
0.9928
0.8422
0.9794
0.7860
0.9923
1.0744
0.9936
1.2079
0.9938
1.3195
0.9935
1.4232
0.9931
1.5225
0.9925
1.6191
0.9919
1.7137
0.9911
1.8069
0.9902
1.8987
0.9892
1.9896
0.9882
2.0795
0.9870
2.1685
0.9858
2.2568
0.9845
2.3444
0.9830
2.4313
0.9815
2.5175
0.9799
2.6031

Oblique Shock 2
8 degrees (Respect to 1)
2
2
2
Mn2'
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.0744
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2079
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.3195
0.8751 0.1678 57.4217 1.1992
1.1872 0.6397 51.4222 1.1902
1.5016 0.8072 47.2971 1.1899
1.8238 0.8833 44.1031 1.1927
2.1558 0.9234 41.4959 1.1972
2.4988 0.9466 39.3003 1.2026
2.8533 0.9611 37.4121 1.2087
3.2196 0.9706 35.7630 1.2153
3.5978 0.9772 34.3058 1.2222
3.9879 0.9818 33.0058 1.2293
4.3898 0.9852 31.8369 1.2367
4.8033 0.9878 30.7791 1.2441
5.2284 0.9897 29.8164 1.2518
5.6647 0.9913 28.9359 1.2595

Mn3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9323
0.8373
0.7762
0.8426
0.8483
0.8486
0.8468
0.8439
0.8405
0.8368
0.8328
0.8287
0.8245
0.8202
0.8159
0.8117
0.8074

Po3/Po2
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9995
0.9920
0.9758
0.9929
0.9937
0.9937
0.9935
0.9931
0.9925
0.9919
0.9912
0.9905
0.9897
0.9888
0.9878
0.9868
0.9858
10 | P a g e

3:
M3
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9323
0.8373
0.7762
1.1094
1.2341
1.3398
1.4370
1.5292
1.6179
1.7039
1.7878
1.8699
1.9504
2.0296
2.1074
2.1840
2.2595

Oblique Shock 3
9 degrees (Respect to 2)
3
3
3
Mn3'
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.1094
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2341
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.3398
0.9182 0.2720 53.1764 1.1503
1.2086 0.6566 47.7153 1.1313
1.4976 0.8058 43.9212 1.1223
1.7897 0.8776 40.9941 1.1178
2.0867 0.9169 38.6173 1.1158
2.3895 0.9405 36.6258 1.1156
2.6987 0.9556 34.9204 1.1165
3.0144 0.9658 33.4365 1.1183
3.3366 0.9729 32.1292 1.1208
3.6652 0.9781 30.9658 1.1237
4.0002 0.9819 29.9219 1.1271

Terminal Normal Shock

Mn4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9045
0.8217
0.7665
0.8748
0.8883
0.8949
0.8982
0.8997
0.8999
0.8992
0.8978
0.8960
0.8938
0.8913

Po4/Po3
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9986
0.9891
0.9719
0.9967
0.9977
0.9981
0.9983
0.9984
0.9984
0.9984
0.9983
0.9982
0.9981
0.9979

M4
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9415
0.8455
0.7839
0.9045
0.8217
0.7665
1.2334
1.3901
1.5253
1.6495
1.7665
1.8783
1.9860
2.0903
2.1918
2.2907
2.3874

ML
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9415
0.8455
0.7839
0.9134
0.8298
0.7740
0.8221
0.7439
0.6923
0.6541
0.6242
0.5999
0.5798
0.5627
0.5482
0.5355
0.5245

PoL/Po4
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9992
0.9987
0.9984
0.9892
0.9606
0.9216
0.8762
0.8274
0.7773
0.7274
0.6787
0.6319
0.5874
0.5455

PoL/Po1
1.0000
0.9989
0.9928
0.9794
0.9919
0.9857
0.9697
0.9843
0.9748
0.9570
0.9715
0.9433
0.9040
0.8583
0.8092
0.7587
0.7085
0.6595
0.6125
0.5678
0.5258

11 | P a g e

3.1.2

Plot for Design 1

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Triconic Design 1
1.1000
1.0000

P0L / P0

0.9000
0.8000
8,8,9

0.7000
0.6000
0.5000
1

1.5

2.5

Mach Number

Figure 3.1.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, triconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 2 = 8, and 3 = 9.

The above plot, figure 3.1.2, is the inlet efficiency for the triconic inlet with 1 = 2 = 8, and 3 = 9. The
idea behind these chosen angles was to see the effect of keeping the change in angle between each of
the three flat sections similar, but experimenting with a larger angle at the last oblique shock. The next
relationship that is going to be observed is if the angles are flipped begin with 9, and have the last two
angles be 8. It is visible in the graph that with each new oblique shock that occurs, the efficiency
briefly goes up again, but never quite to the same height as the previous peak because of losses. Once
the terminal normal shock occurs (around Mach 2), it is clear that the total pressure recovery decreases
steadily at a much sharper rate (and consistently) than within the oblique shock range. At Mach 3, the
efficiency drops all the way down to 0.5258.

12 | P a g e

3.2 Design 2: Triconic Inlet (1 = 9, 2 = 8, 3 = 8)

3.2.1
:
1:
M1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

Data for Design 2

1.4
9 degrees
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.7553 -0.6432
1.0765
0.3881
1.4037
0.7008
1.7440
0.8302
2.1003
0.8940
2.4741
0.9291
2.8661
0.9501
3.2767
0.9634
3.7064
0.9723
4.1552
0.9784
4.6234
0.9828
5.1111
0.9860
5.6183
0.9885
6.1450
0.9903
6.6913
0.9918
7.2574
0.9930
7.8431
0.9939

Oblique Shock 1
(Respect to horizontal)
1
Mn1
Mn2
90.0000 1.0000
1.0000
90.0000 1.1000
0.9118
90.0000 1.2000
0.8422
90.0000 1.3000
0.7860
63.1866 1.2495
0.8129
54.4699 1.2207
0.8296
49.5111 1.2169
0.8319
45.8105 1.2190
0.8306
42.8385 1.2239
0.8277
40.3601 1.2304
0.8238
38.2440 1.2380
0.8194
36.4068 1.2464
0.8147
34.7915 1.2553
0.8097
33.3571 1.2647
0.8045
32.0728 1.2744
0.7993
30.9151 1.2844
0.7940
29.8654 1.2947
0.7887
28.9086 1.3052
0.7833
28.0327 1.3159
0.7780
27.2277 1.3268
0.7727
26.4850 1.3379
0.7674

2:
Po2/Po1
M2
1.0000
1.0000
0.9989
0.9118
0.9928
0.8422
0.9794
0.7860
0.9871
1.0025
0.9907
1.1637
0.9911
1.2806
0.9908
1.3863
0.9903
1.4864
0.9895
1.5830
0.9886
1.6773
0.9875
1.7699
0.9863
1.8609
0.9850
1.9508
0.9836
2.0395
0.9820
2.1273
0.9803
2.2143
0.9785
2.3004
0.9765
2.3857
0.9744
2.4703
0.9722
2.5541

Oblique Shock 2
8 degrees (Respect to 1)
2
2
2
Mn2'
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.0025
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.1637
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2806
0.7107 -0.9531 68.7743 1.2922
1.0325
0.3140 58.4433 1.2666
1.3474
0.6664 53.5635 1.2736
1.6656
0.8088 49.9729 1.2844
1.9911
0.8788 47.0962 1.2964
2.3259
0.9176 44.6935 1.3088
2.6707
0.9410 42.6347 1.3213
3.0261
0.9560 40.8395 1.3337
3.3922
0.9662 39.2537 1.3461
3.7692
0.9733 37.8388 1.3583
4.1569
0.9784 36.5661 1.3704
4.5552
0.9823 35.4135 1.3824
4.9641
0.9852 34.3638 1.3943
5.3832
0.9874 33.4030 1.4061

Mn3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9975
0.8657
0.7960
0.7899
0.8035
0.7997
0.7940
0.7878
0.7815
0.7754
0.7694
0.7636
0.7579
0.7525
0.7472
0.7421
0.7371

Po3/Po2
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9958
0.9826
0.9807
0.9847
0.9837
0.9820
0.9800
0.9778
0.9755
0.9731
0.9706
0.9679
0.9652
0.9625
0.9596
0.9567

13 | P a g e

3:
M3
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9975
0.8657
0.7960
0.9142
1.0576
1.1397
1.2109
1.2768
1.3395
1.3998
1.4584
1.5155
1.5714
1.6261
1.6797
1.7324
1.7842

Oblique Shock 3
8 degrees (Respect to 2)
3
3
3
Mn3'
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.0576
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.1397
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2109
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2768
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.3395
0.7548 -0.6462 65.8667 1.2775
0.9429 0.1183
60.2732 1.2665
1.1266 0.4596
56.7824 1.2679
1.3088 0.6395
54.0720 1.2724
1.4910 0.7448
51.8228 1.2783
1.6738 0.8112
49.8919 1.2847
1.8577 0.8555
48.1990 1.2915
2.0429 0.8863
46.6929 1.2983

Terminal Normal Shock

Mn4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9465
0.8823
0.8355
0.7980
0.7667
0.7976
0.8035
0.8028
0.8003
0.7972
0.7938
0.7903
0.7868

Po4/Po3
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9998
0.9973
0.9917
0.9832
0.9719
0.9831
0.9847
0.9845
0.9839
0.9830
0.9819
0.9808
0.9797

M4
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9975
0.8657
0.7960
0.9142
0.9465
0.8823
0.8355
0.7980
0.7667
0.9525
1.0300
1.0840
1.1304
1.1729
1.2126
1.2505
1.2868

ML
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9975
0.8657
0.7960
0.9142
0.9465
0.8823
0.8355
0.7980
0.7667
1.0507
0.9712
0.9245
0.8889
0.8596
0.8344
0.8124
0.7927

PoL/Po4
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0002
1.0000
0.9993
0.9977
0.9951
0.9915
0.9870
0.9816

PoL/Po1
1.0000
0.9989
0.9928
0.9794
0.9871
0.9865
0.9738
0.9717
0.9750
0.9707
0.9627
0.9515
0.9374
0.9448
0.9424
0.9377
0.9314
0.9238
0.9151
0.9052
0.8944

14 | P a g e

3.2.2

Plot for Design 2

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Triconic Design 2
1.0200
1.0000

P0L / P0

0.9800
0.9600
0.9400
9,8,8
0.9200
0.9000
0.8800
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mach Number

Figure 3.2.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, triconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 9, 2 = 8, and 3 = 8.

The above plot, figure 3.2.2, is the inlet efficiency for the triconic inlet with 1 = 9, and 2 = 3 = 8. The
idea behind these chosen angles was to see the effect of keeping the change in angle between each of
the three flat sections similar, but experimenting with a larger angle at the first oblique shock. It is
visible in the graph that each dip in the graph still corresponds to the start of a new shock that briefly
helps with total pressure recovery. With these angles, the recovery is better than the last scenario, with
a final efficiency of 0.8944 at Mach 3.

15 | P a g e

3.3 Design 3: Triconic Inlet (1 = 8.33, 2 = 8.33, 3 = 8.33)

3.3.1
:
1:
M1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

Data for Design 3

1.4
Oblique Shock 1
8.3333 degrees (Respect to horizontal)
1
1
1
Mn1
Mn2
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.0000
1.0000
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.1000
0.9118
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.2000
0.8422
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.3000
0.7860
0.7882 -0.2226 60.4246 1.2176
0.8314
1.1033
0.5188 53.1780 1.2008
0.8417
1.4273
0.7589 48.5120 1.1986
0.8431
1.7659
0.8614 44.9482 1.2010
0.8416
2.1211
0.9128 42.0562 1.2057
0.8386
2.4942
0.9414 39.6304 1.2119
0.8349
2.8858
0.9586 37.5509 1.2189
0.8306
3.2963
0.9696 35.7404 1.2266
0.8261
3.7260
0.9769 34.1453 1.2348
0.8213
4.1750
0.9820 32.7263 1.2434
0.8163
4.6435
0.9856 31.4540 1.2524
0.8113
5.1314
0.9883 30.3057 1.2615
0.8062
5.6390
0.9904 29.2634 1.2709
0.8011
6.1662
0.9919 28.3125 1.2806
0.7960
6.7131
0.9931 27.4413 1.2903
0.7909
7.2796
0.9941 26.6398 1.3003
0.7858
7.8660
0.9949 25.8999 1.3104
0.7807

2:
Po2/Po1
M2
1.0000
1.0000
0.9989
0.9118
0.9928
0.8422
0.9794
0.7860
0.9910
1.0538
0.9927
1.1936
0.9929
1.3067
0.9927
1.4110
0.9922
1.5105
0.9916
1.6071
0.9908
1.7017
0.9900
1.7946
0.9890
1.8862
0.9879
1.9766
0.9867
2.0662
0.9855
2.1548
0.9841
2.2426
0.9826
2.3297
0.9810
2.4161
0.9793
2.5018
0.9775
2.5868

Oblique Shock 2
8.3333 degrees (Respect to 1)
2
2
2
Mn2'
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0000
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.0538
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.1936
N/A
N/A
90.0000 1.3067
0.8227 -0.0840 59.3527 1.2139
1.1368
0.5565 52.6099 1.2002
1.4510
0.7692 48.2281 1.1986
1.7716
0.8626 44.8956 1.2011
2.1013
0.9107 42.2003 1.2054
2.4415
0.9383 39.9434 1.2110
2.7927
0.9552 38.0101 1.2172
3.1553
0.9663 36.3266 1.2240
3.5294
0.9739 34.8423 1.2311
3.9151
0.9793 33.5205 1.2385
4.3122
0.9832 32.3340 1.2461
4.7206
0.9861 31.2615 1.2538
5.1402
0.9884 30.2864 1.2617
5.5708
0.9901 29.3956 1.2697

Mn3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9498
0.8462
0.7826
0.8337
0.8421
0.8430
0.8415
0.8388
0.8354
0.8317
0.8276
0.8235
0.8192
0.8149
0.8105
0.8062
0.8018

Po3/Po2
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9998
0.9934
0.9782
0.9914
0.9928
0.9929
0.9927
0.9923
0.9917
0.9910
0.9903
0.9895
0.9886
0.9876
0.9865
0.9854
0.9843

16 | P a g e

Oblique Shock 3
3:

8.3333 degrees

(Respect to 2)

M3
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9498
0.8462
0.7826
1.0724
1.2062
1.3144
1.4127
1.5052
1.5939
1.6797
1.7633
1.8449
1.9249
2.0033
2.0805
2.1564
2.2311

3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8279
1.1198
1.4072
1.6960
1.9886
2.2864
2.5899
2.8993
3.2147
3.5362
3.8635

3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
59.1991
52.8944
48.7581
45.6067
43.0556
40.9177
39.0844
37.4863
36.0755
34.8176
33.6868

3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.0647
0.5379
0.7497
0.8463
0.8975
0.9275
0.9464
0.9590
0.9678
0.9740
0.9787

Mn3'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0724
1.2062
1.3144
1.2134
1.2004
1.1985
1.2003
1.2038
1.2084
1.2136
1.2192
1.2251
1.2312
1.2375

Terminal Normal Shock

Mn4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9340
0.8383
0.7787
0.8339
0.8419
0.8431
0.8420
0.8398
0.8370
0.8339
0.8305
0.8270
0.8234
0.8197

Po4/Po3
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9996
0.9922
0.9768
0.9914
0.9928
0.9929
0.9928
0.9924
0.9920
0.9914
0.9908
0.9902
0.9894
0.9887

M4
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9498
0.8462
0.7826
0.9340
0.8383
0.7787
1.0751
1.1998
1.3002
1.3903
1.4744
1.5542
1.6308
1.7048
1.7765
1.8463
1.9144

ML
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.9498
0.8462
0.7826
0.9340
0.8383
0.7787
0.9317
0.8423
0.7859
0.7438
0.7104
0.6827
0.6594
0.6393
0.6218
0.6065
0.5928

PoL/Po4
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9995
0.9928
0.9793
0.9606
0.9377
0.9117
0.8835
0.8537
0.8230
0.7919
0.7607

PoL/Po1
1.0000
0.9989
0.9928
0.9794
0.9908
0.9862
0.9713
0.9837
0.9774
0.9618
0.9747
0.9682
0.9538
0.9337
0.9093
0.8818
0.8521
0.8208
0.7887
0.7562
0.7236

17 | P a g e

3.3.2

Plot for Design 3

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Triconic Design 3
1.0500
1.0000

P0L/P0

0.9500
0.9000
0.8500
8.33,8.33,8.33

0.8000
0.7500
0.7000
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mach Number

Figure 3.3.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, triconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 2 = 3 = 8.33.

The above plot, figure 3.3.2, is the inlet efficiency for the triconic inlet with 1 = 2 = 3 = 8.33. The idea
behind these chosen angles was to see the effect of keeping the change in angle between each of the
three flat sections identical, since it was assumed that close to uniform compression would be most
efficient. This graph is definitely the smoothest when it comes to transitioning, but it is not as efficient.
Once the terminal normal shock occurs (around Mach 2), it is clear that the total pressure recovery
decreases steadily at a much sharper rate (and consistently) than within the oblique shock range also.
The final efficiency at Mach 3 was 0.7236 for this orientation.

18 | P a g e

3.4 Triconic Design Comparison

Triconic Design Comparison

Efficiency P0L/P0 vs. M
1.1
1

P0L/P0

0.9
0.8

8, 8, 9

0.7

9, 8, 8
All 8.33

0.6
0.5
1

1.5

2.5

Mach Number

Figure 3.4) The above plot shows the efficiency comparison of the three previously discussed supersonic,
external compression, triconic inlets.

Comparing all 3 of the triconic designs in figure 3.4, some important trends are noticed. At our cruising
Mach of 2, Design 3, 1 = 2 = 3 = 8.33, is the most efficient. However when observing the whole range
of free stream Mach values from 1 to 3, Design 2, 1 = 9 and 2 = 3 = 8, is very obviously the most
efficient. At Mach 3, it ends with an efficiency of 0.8944 when compared to designs 1 and 3, who end
with efficiencies of 0.5258 and 0.7236 respectively.
When weighing the benefits of each design, it is decided that Design 2, 1 = 9 and 2 = 3 = 8, is the
best out of these three. Even though at cruising Mach 2 its efficiency is slightly less than Design 3, the
broader range that Design 2 is more efficient for is far more beneficial.

19 | P a g e

3.5 Biconic Comparison 1: (1 = 12.5, 2 = 12.5)

3.5.1
:

Data for Biconic Comparison 1

1.4
Oblique Shock 1

1:
M1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

Oblique Shock 2

12.5 degrees
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.2352
1.5914
1.9570
2.3363
2.7314
3.1436
3.5735
4.0217
4.4886
4.9742
5.4788
6.0026
6.5456
7.1079
7.6895

1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0824
0.5339
0.7267
0.8243
0.8795
0.9133
0.9351
0.9500
0.9604
0.9680
0.9737
0.9780
0.9813
0.9840
0.9861

2:
1
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
56.0215
50.9979
47.3919
44.5353
42.1688
40.1554
38.4113
36.8800
35.5217
34.3067
33.2124
32.2208
31.3179
30.4919
29.7335

Mn1
1.0000
1.1000
1.2000
1.3000
1.4000
1.5000
1.3268
1.3211
1.3248
1.3326
1.3426
1.3542
1.3669
1.3803
1.3944
1.4091
1.4241
1.4396
1.4554
1.4715
1.4879

Mn2
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.7727
0.7755
0.7737
0.7699
0.7652
0.7598
0.7541
0.7481
0.7421
0.7359
0.7298
0.7236
0.7175
0.7114
0.7054

Po2/Po1
1.0000
0.9989
0.9928
0.9794
0.9582
0.9298
0.9745
0.9755
0.9748
0.9733
0.9713
0.9688
0.9661
0.9630
0.9596
0.9559
0.9520
0.9478
0.9433
0.9386
0.9336

M2
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
1.1221
1.2457
1.3525
1.4515
1.5459
1.6370
1.7257
1.8124
1.8975
1.9811
2.0634
2.1444
2.2244
2.3032
2.3810

Terminal Normal Shock

12.5 degrees (Respect to 1)

2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0432
1.3663
1.6842
2.0033
2.3266
2.6554
2.9905
3.3324
3.6810
4.0364
4.3986

2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.4601
0.3014
0.5981
0.7424
0.8225
0.8711
0.9027
0.9241
0.9393
0.9504
0.9587

2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
60.2641
53.9103
49.9761
47.0034
44.6004
42.5862
40.8582
39.3512
38.0205
36.8340
35.7676

Mn2'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1221
1.2457
1.3525
1.4515
1.3423
1.3228
1.3215
1.3256
1.3323
1.3406
1.3498
1.3597
1.3701
1.3808
1.3917

Mn3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8950
0.8150
0.7606
0.7190
0.7653
0.7746
0.7753
0.7733
0.7700
0.7661
0.7618
0.7573
0.7527
0.7480
0.7432

Po3/Po2
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9981
0.9876
0.9692
0.9444
0.9713
0.9752
0.9755
0.9747
0.9734
0.9717
0.9698
0.9676
0.9653
0.9629
0.9602

M3
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.8950
0.8150
0.7606
0.7190
1.0337
1.1711
1.2742
1.3651
1.4491
1.5283
1.6039
1.6767
1.7470
1.8152
1.8815

ML
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.8950
0.8150
0.7606
0.7190
0.9678
0.8607
0.7994
0.7549
0.7199
0.6913
0.6673
0.6467
0.6288
0.6131
0.5993

PoL/Po3PoL/Po1
1.0000 1.0000
1.0000 0.9989
1.0000 0.9928
1.0000 0.9794
1.0000 0.9582
1.0000 0.9298
1.0000 0.9726
1.0000 0.9635
1.0000 0.9448
1.0000 0.9192
1.0000 0.9434
0.9953 0.9403
0.9836 0.9269
0.9664 0.9071
0.9451 0.8827
0.9206 0.8551
0.8937 0.8251
0.8653 0.7936
0.8359 0.7611
0.8059 0.7283
0.7759 0.6955

20 | P a g e

3.5.2

Plot for Biconic Comparison 1

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Biconic Comparison 1
1.0500
1.0000
0.9500

P0L/P0

0.9000
0.8500
0.8000
12.5,12.5

0.7500
0.7000
0.6500
0.6000
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mach Number

Figure 3.5.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, biconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 2 = 12.5.

The above plot, figure 3.5.2, is the inlet efficiency for the biconic inlet with 1 = 2 12.5. The purpose of
the above and following plots were to see how much less efficient a more efficient biconic inlet was
than a triconic inlet. The chosen angles were to see the effect of keeping the change in angle between
each of the three flat sections identical, since it was assumed that close to uniform compression would
be most efficient. Once the terminal normal shock occurs (just prior to Mach 2), it is clear that the total
pressure recovery decreases steadily at a much sharper rate (and consistently) than within the oblique
shock range also. The final efficiency at Mach 3 was 0.6955 for this orientation.

21 | P a g e

3.6 Biconic Comparison 2: (1 = 14, 2 = 11)

3.6.1
:

Data for Biconic Comparison 2

1.4
Oblique Shock 1

1:
M1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

Oblique Shock 2

14 degrees
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1337
1.5024
1.8749
2.2583
2.6558
3.0692
3.4996
3.9476
4.4139
4.8986
5.4019
5.9242
6.4654
7.0257
7.6051

1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.5551
0.2754
0.5936
0.7456
0.8285
0.8780
0.9095
0.9306
0.9453
0.9560
0.9638
0.9698
0.9744
0.9780
0.9809

2:
1
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
60.5370
53.7707
49.6611
46.5498
44.0286
41.9119
40.0948
38.5102
37.1119
35.8664
34.7485
33.7388
32.8218
31.9851
31.2184

Mn1
1.0000
1.1000
1.2000
1.3000
1.4000
1.5000
1.3931
1.3713
1.3720
1.3793
1.3900
1.4028
1.4169
1.4321
1.4481
1.4647
1.4819
1.4996
1.5177
1.5361
1.5549

Mn2 Po2/Po1
1.0000 1.0000
0.9118 0.9989
0.8422 0.9928
0.7860 0.9794
0.7397 0.9582
0.7011 0.9298
0.7426 0.9599
0.7521 0.9650
0.7518 0.9649
0.7486 0.9632
0.7439 0.9606
0.7385 0.9575
0.7327 0.9539
0.7266 0.9498
0.7203 0.9454
0.7140 0.9406
0.7076 0.9354
0.7012 0.9299
0.6949 0.9241
0.6887 0.9179
0.6825 0.9115

M2
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
1.0232
1.1757
1.2896
1.3913
1.4866
1.5777
1.6657
1.7514
1.8350
1.9169
1.9973
2.0763
2.1539
2.2304
2.3056

Terminal Normal Shock

11 degrees (Respect to 1)
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0506
1.3762
1.6927
2.0077
2.3245
2.6449
2.9696
3.2992
3.6338
3.9735

2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.9211
0.0837
0.4707
0.6586
0.7632
0.8269
0.8683
0.8966
0.9168
0.9316

2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
69.1105
61.8952
58.1870
55.3916
53.1096
51.1739
49.4935
48.0117
46.6898
45.5002

Mn2'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0232
1.1757
1.2896
1.3913
1.4866
1.4740
1.4693
1.4883
1.5103
1.5331
1.5560
1.5787
1.6010
1.6229
1.6445

Mn3 Po3/Po2
N/A
1.0000
N/A
1.0000
N/A
1.0000
N/A
1.0000
N/A
1.0000
N/A
1.0000
0.9775 1.0000
0.8577 0.9949
0.7913 0.9811
0.7434 0.9603
0.7059 0.9340
0.7105 0.9378
0.7122 0.9392
0.7053 0.9335
0.6975 0.9265
0.6897 0.9189
0.6822 0.9111
0.6750 0.9030
0.6681 0.8948
0.6617 0.8865
0.6555 0.8782

M3
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.9775
0.8577
0.7913
0.7434
0.7059
0.8662
0.9600
1.0119
1.0548
1.0933
1.1289
1.1625
1.1945
1.2251
1.2545

ML PoL/Po3PoL/Po1
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
0.9118 1.0000 0.9989
0.8422 1.0000 0.9928
0.7860 1.0000 0.9794
0.7397 1.0000 0.9582
0.7011 1.0000 0.9298
0.9775 1.0000 0.9599
0.8577 1.0000 0.9601
0.7913 1.0000 0.9467
0.7434 1.0000 0.9250
0.7059 1.0000 0.8972
1.1629 1.0042 0.9017
1.0423 1.0001 0.8960
0.9883 1.0000 0.8866
0.9489 0.9998 0.8757
0.9170 0.9991 0.8636
0.8900 0.9978 0.8504
0.8665 0.9959 0.8363
0.8456 0.9933 0.8214
0.8270 0.9902 0.8058
0.8101 0.9864 0.7896

22 | P a g e

3.6.2

Plot for Biconic Comparison 2

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Biconic Comparison 2
1.0500
1.0000

P0L/P0

0.9500
0.9000
0.8500
14,11
0.8000
0.7500
0.7000
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mach Number

Figure 3.6.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, biconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 14 , and 2 = 11.

The above plot, figure 3.6.2, is the inlet efficiency for the biconic inlet with 1 = 14 , and 2 = 11. The
chosen angles were to see the effect of keeping the change in angle between each of the three flat
sections similar, but having an initial larger angle. This is because this orientation was more efficient for
triconic inlets. The final efficiency at Mach 3 was 0.7896 for this orientation.

23 | P a g e

3.7 Plot Comparing both Biconic Designs

Biconic Comparison
Efficiency P0L/P0 vs. M
1.05
1
0.95

P0L/P0

0.9
0.85
0.8

12.5, 12.5

0.75

14 ,11

0.7
0.65
0.6
1

1.5

2.5

Mach Number

Figure 3.7) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, triconic inlet for
the conditions of 1 = 2 = 8, and 3 = 9.

Comparing these two biconic designs in figure 3.7, some important trends are noticed. At our cruising
Mach of 2, Comparison 1, 1 = 2 12.5, is the most efficient. However when observing the whole range
of free stream Mach values from 1 to 3, Comparison 2, 1 = 14 and 2 = 11, is slightly more efficient. At
Mach 3, it ends with an efficiency of 0.7896, when compared to Comparison 1 with an efficiency of
0.6955.

24 | P a g e

3.8 Monoconic Comparison: (1 = 20)

3.8.1
:

Data for Monoconic Comparison

1.4
Oblique Shock 1

1:
M1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0

20 degrees
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2025
2.6310
3.0693
3.5205
3.9863
4.4679
4.9659
5.4810
6.0136
6.5639
7.1323

1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2372
0.5077
0.6580
0.7495
0.8091
0.8498
0.8788
0.9001
0.9161
0.9285
0.9383

Terminal Normal Shock

(Respect to horizontal)
1
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
90.0000
53.4229
50.3645
47.9755
46.0071
44.3362
42.8902
41.6213
40.4960
39.4898
38.5839
37.7636

Mn1
1.0000
1.1000
1.2000
1.3000
1.4000
1.5000
1.6000
1.7000
1.8000
1.9000
1.6061
1.6172
1.6343
1.6547
1.6773
1.7015
1.7269
1.7534
1.7806
1.8086
1.8372

Mn2
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.6684
0.6405
0.6165
0.5956
0.6666
0.6633
0.6584
0.6527
0.6465
0.6402
0.6337
0.6273
0.6209
0.6146
0.6084

Po2/Po1
1.0000
0.9989
0.9928
0.9794
0.9582
0.9298
0.8952
0.8557
0.8127
0.7674
0.8929
0.8887
0.8821
0.8741
0.8650
0.8551
0.8444
0.8331
0.8212
0.8089
0.7960

M2
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.6684
0.6405
0.6165
0.5956
1.2102
1.3122
1.4035
1.4885
1.5689
1.6458
1.7199
1.7915
1.8610
1.9285
1.9941

ML
1.0000
0.9118
0.8422
0.7860
0.7397
0.7011
0.6684
0.6405
0.6165
0.5956
0.8359
0.7798
0.7382
0.7052
0.6780
0.6551
0.6355
0.6184
0.6034
0.5902
0.5784

PoL/Po2 PoL/Po1
1.0000 1.0000
1.0000 0.9989
1.0000 0.9928
1.0000 0.9794
1.0000 0.9582
1.0000 0.9298
1.0000 0.8952
1.0000 0.8557
1.0000 0.8127
1.0000 0.7674
0.9918 0.8856
0.9772 0.8684
0.9573 0.8445
0.9334 0.8159
0.9066 0.7842
0.8776 0.7505
0.8474 0.7156
0.8164 0.6802
0.7852 0.6449
0.7542 0.6100
0.7236 0.5760

25 | P a g e

3.8.2

Plot for Monoconic Comparison

Inlet Efficiency: P0L/P0 vs. M

Monoconic Comparison
1.1000
1.0000
P0L/P0

0.9000
0.8000
0.7000

20

0.6000
0.5000
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mach Number

Figure 3.8.2) The above plot shows the efficiency of a supersonic, external compression, monoconic
inlet for the conditions of 1 = 20.

This monoconic plot was also done strictly for comparison purposes to the triconic design. Monoconic
designs are pretty limited in attempting to have a better total pressure recovery and efficiency. It is
included to show with calculations why it is less efficient than triconic designs, and by what margin. An
angle of 20 was chosen over the maximum allowed 25 because this allowed more of the shocks to be
attached over the range of Mach numbers, and it also produced a better efficiency.

26 | P a g e

3.9 Comparison Plot of All Previously Discussed Geometries

Comparison of All Three Designs

Efficiency P0L/P0 vs. M
1.1

P0L/P0 vs. M

1
0.9

Tri: 8 ,8 ,9
Tri: 9 ,8 ,8

0.8

Tri: All 8.33

0.7

Bi: Both 12.5

0.6

Bi: 14, 11
Mono: 20

0.5
1

1.5

2.5

Mach Number

Figure 3.9) The above plot shows the comparison of the efficiencies of all the previously discussed
supersonic, external compression, inlets.

The above plot, figure 3.9, serves as a very important comparison of all the above plots. It allows us to
directly compare monoconic, biconic, and most importantly triconic inlet designs at various angle
configurations. We can clearly see that in general, the more oblique shocks you have decelerating and
compressing the flow, the more efficient it becomes.
The overall design that was chosen is Design 2, the triconic inlet with 1 = 9 and 2 = 3 = 8.
This is because for almost the entire Mach range from 1 to 3, it is clearly the most efficient due to its
much higher total pressure recovery and final efficiency at Mach 3 of 0.8944. Additionally, the Mach
number after the terminal shock was 0.7927 extremely close to the desired Mach of 0.8 for entrance
into the engine.

27 | P a g e

4 Discussion of Inlet Design Including the Effects of Viscosity

Viscosity and boundary layer control are extremely large factors in the design of supersonic inlets.
Throughout the above design, these effects were considered negligible, and the focus was on varying
geometry and seeing the resulting total pressure recoveries.
Boundary layers will basically build up on any exposed surfaces to the flow. Since the pressure increases
as you progress with the flow along the external compression geometry, the boundary layer is prone to
separation especially if the pressure gradient is very large. And since there are shocks occurring on the
geometry, the pressure gradient will be of considerable size, which almost ensures that boundary layer
separation will occur.
For a boundary layer to separate in 2-dimensional flow, there are a few main changes in flow that occur.
The large pressure gradient will outweigh the shear forces that transfer momentum to the wall. In this
scenario, the fluid near the wall will first become stagnant, and actually reverse at some point. You can
see this happening in figure 4.1. When boundary layer separation occurs, there will be a large reduction
in the uniformity of flow to the engine which can create potential problems.

Figure 4.1) Flow at a 2-dimensional separation point in flow due to viscous effects.
It is necessary to prevent boundary layer separation so as to avoid the non-uniform flow that is
associated with it. Some physical design elements must then be considered to achieve this. Most likely,
the best fix for this problem is to suck out the boundary layer just prior to where shocks occur. This
essentially eliminates the existence of the boundary layer before a large pressure gradient (the shocks),
therefore eliminating the possibility of the boundary layer detaching. This is known as bleeding the
airflow. Bleeding the airflow can be done a few ways. Two very common methods involve a slot, or
many pores to suck out the boundary layer (figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2) Different mechanisms for bleeding the boundary layer.

28 | P a g e

5 Discussion of Inlet Design Including the Effects of a Nonzero Angle of

Attack
The entire design process above dealt with the inlets at an angle of attack of zero. Now, we must briefly
consider the effects of a nonzero angle of attack. From these effects, the inlet design must be improved
in order to be most efficient for not only a angle of attack of zero, but also various nonzero angles of
attack.
As expected, there will be a greater loss in total pressure if there is an angle of attack when the inlet is
designed for an angle of attack of zero. This is clearly evident in figure 5, where there are some basic
relationships displayed corresponding to the total pressure loss, the incidence angle (angle of attack),
different inlet Mach numbers, and blade design.
The y-axis of the plots in figure 5, is the total-pressure-loss coefficient, which is determined by the
equation: 1 = (1 2 )/(1 1 ). Observing an inlet Mach of 0.8, our engine requirement, you
can see the least total pressure loss occurs in an incidence range hovering around 0. As you increase or
decrease the incidence, the total pressure loss will increase significantly.
One option for minimizing this loss could be a variable angle inlet. A complex program would be
necessary to take into account your Mach number, angle of attack, altitude, current rate of change in
altitude, and many other factors. The program would observe these inputs, and output to a mechanism
to change the angle the inlet sits on the aircraft to maximize the efficiency of the inlet geometry. This
sounds good in theory, however it would be extremely complicated to design, and very expensive. The
losses would most likely outweigh the gains. This is why the internal components are considered more
heavily to help with this.
In reality, the design process to take into account the angle of attack would shift to the compressor rotor
blades within. In the overall design process before, this was obviously beyond the scope of the project.
However, if we were to consider the compressor blades, observing figure 5 once again, I would choose
the double-circular arc blade. This is because for our operational Mach number at the engine inlet, 0.8,
there are the least losses in total pressure for larger angles of attack.
Figure 5)

29 | P a g e

6 Conclusions
After performing some elements of the design process of a supersonic, external compression, airbreathing aircraft engine, I have realized there are many things to take into account when considering
geometries for such an inlet. I initially decided I wanted a triconic design due the existence of biconic
inlets, and some gas dynamic relations. It is known that the more oblique shocks that occur, the more
aerodynamically efficient the system is due to the better total pressure recovery.
I varied the angles a great deal in the Excel spreadsheets used to calculate all the necessary values, and
settled on a triconic configuration of 1 = 9 and 2 = 3 = 8. This is because for almost the entire Mach
range from 1 to 3, it is evidently the most efficient due to its much higher total pressure recovery and
final efficiency at Mach 3 of 0.8944.
The sections that focused on viscous effects and angle of attack effects are present to show that there
are so many different conditions that can adversely affect our efficiency. The engineer needs to be
aware that there are countless factors to consider, have patience, and design preventative measures to
avoid these undesired scenarios to obtain the greatest degree of efficiency.

30 | P a g e

7 References
Anderson, John. Modern Compressible Flow. New York: OPEN UNIVERSITY PRES, 2004.
"File:Bowshockexample.jpg -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 24 Apr. 2009
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bowshockexample.jpg>.
"Isentropic compression inlet for supersonic aircraft invention." Freshpatents.com: Patent Applications
Updated Each Week, RSS, Keyword Monitoring. 14 Apr. 2009
<http://www.freshpatents.com/Isentropic-compression-inlet-for-supersonic-aircraftdt20081106ptan20080271787.php>.
Kerrebrock, Jack L. Aircraft engines and gas turbines. Cambridge, Mass: MIT P, 1977.
Kerrebrock, Jack L. Aircraft engines and gas turbines. Cambridge, Mass: MIT P, 1992.
Mattingly, Jack D., William H. Heiser, and Daniel H. Daley. Aircraft engine design. Washington, D.C:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1987.

31 | P a g e