Reviewpaper : Supersonic Biplane

The review paper discusses about the supersonic Biplane in which wave-drag characteristics of the
Busemann biplane over a range of flight Mach numbers, with a focus on its design Mach number of 1.7.
The study highlights the flow-hysteresis problem, which arises due to the continuous change in the free-
stream Mach number, but does not consider this issue in detail. The study also notes the occurrence of
flow choking and hysteresis in experiments.
Interestingly, the study reveals a low wave-drag range for a specific range of Mach numbers
(1.64<M<2.0) that is critical for the development of future airplanes. However, it also identifies a high
wave-drag range in the transonic flow region where wave drag is greater than that of a baseline diamond
airfoil. Strategies to counteract choking and high drag include airfoil morphing and Fowler motion
adaptation. The figure below shows the Buseman Biplane and Diamond airfoil comparison.

FIG 1 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

The review paper represents the design process of a Busemann biplane with improved aerodynamic
performance. The target and initial pressure distributions for both the upper and lower elements are
shown in Figure below .The target Cp distributions are constructed to generate more lift on the upper
surface of the upper element and lower drag on the lower surface of the upper element, especially near
the trailing edge. The gain in angle of attack (of the lower surface on the lower element) is approximately
0.191 at its design point (a=1.01) compared to the initial Licher-type biplane. The total maximum
thickness-chord ratio (t/c) of the designed biplane is 0.102. The lift and wave drag of the designed
biplane are Cl=0.115 and Cd=0.00531, respectively, resulting in a high lift-to-drag ratio (L/D=21.72).

Wit
h reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

FIG 2 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

The designed biplane is revealed that it boasts lower wave drag over a broad range of lift coefficients
(Cl). Notably, at Cl greater than 0.14, the total wave drag of the designed biplane is highlighted as
surpassing that of the zero-thickness single flat-plate airfoil. This unexpected characteristic of a biplane
outperforming a flat-plate airfoil in terms of wave drag is emphasized. This reduction spans a range of 12
to 35 counts and the passage indicates that the designed biplane configuration exhibits favorable
aerodynamic characteristics, showcasing its capability to achieve lower wave drag than a flat-plate airfoil
and outperforming other biplane configurations.

FIG 3 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

Reducing the angle of attack (α) of an airfoil result in the attenuation of shock waves generated from its
lower surface. Figure 4 illustrates that, among airfoils sharing the same angle of attack, the designed
biplane achieves the highest lift coefficient (Cl). This implies that, under identical angle of attack
conditions, the designed biplane generates the least powerful shock waves directed toward the ground.
The geometric details of this two-dimensional designed biplane are available in references [6,28]. The 2-
D Busemann biplane was extended to a 3-D rectangular wing with identical wing-section geometry. The
wing had a reference area of 1.0, a semi-span length of 1, and an aspect ratio of 2. Inviscid flow analysis
at a Mach number of 1.7 involved approximately 1.10 million nodes. Fig. 5 displays typical meshes and
Cp contours, revealing no significant interference at wingtip regions. However, pressure leaks near the
leading edge generated a Mach cone, disrupting flow two-dimensionality at the wingtip. This led to an
increased wave-drag coefficient of 0.00685, compared to 0.00218 for the 2-D Busemann biplane [30–32].

FIG 4 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

FIG 4 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

Within the scope of changing sweep angles, the sweep angle, denoting the angle between the wing's
leading edge and the free stream, was examined for its impact. Fig. 4 illustrates the variation in CD
characteristics concerning the sweep angle. To assess the sweep angle effect, we utilized a parameter
represented by the mid-chord apex at the wingtip (Cmid/Croot), the tapered wing with a Cmid/Croot
value of approximately 0.5 demonstrated the most favorable outcome, achieving the lowest wave drag.
Extending a supersonic biplane airfoil to a three-dimensional wing revealed undesirable pressure leaks
and disrupted wave interactions at the wingtips . To rectify this issue, winglets were introduced to the
supersonic biplanes. The results indicate that the addition of winglets effectively eliminates unfavourable
wingtip effects, leading to an overall improvement. Fig. 5 reveals higher pressures on the inner surfaces
of the biplane wing compared to the outer surfaces, highlighting the potential role of winglets in
minimizing flutter and bending problems.
The application of the 2-D designed airfoil to the practical design of a 3-D biplane wing for high L/D at
sufficient lift conditions (CL≥0.1) is explored in this section [30,32]. Utilizing the inverse-problem
method employed in the previous section for 2-D biplane designs, we discuss the design process for both
the upper and lower elements of the wing at each span-station. The initially designed 2-D airfoil serves as
the starting geometry, leading to different wing-section geometries at each span-station. It's important to
note that the biplane wing's planform is fixed in this study. The 3-D inverse design involves an initial
wing model with a chosen planform from Table 1. The reference wing area and taper ratio are 1 and 0.25,
respectively, with a semi-span length and aspect ratio of 1.6 and 5.12. The wing sections of the initial
wing use the 2-D designed biplane geometry .The design process is confirmed to work well for 3-D
design, applying the method at ten span stations. The iterations focus on achieving specified pressure
distributions along both upper and lower elements. The design procedure, illustrated in Fig. 4, involves
iterative adjustments to the upper element until Cp distributions match the target values. Subsequently, the
lower element is designed while keeping the upper element configuration fixed.
Wing–fuselage interference Characteristics of wing–body configurations are simulated utilizing CFD and
the aerodynamic performance of the biplane wings affected by those wing–body configurations is
discussed.The body has a conical configuration at the nose and a rectangular parallelepiped
configuration in the rear. CL and CD were improved from 0.126 to 0.131 and from 0.00647 to 0.00631,
respectively. L/D increased from 19.4 to 20.8. It can be observed that when the Mach number is at 1.57
the detached shock waves around the wingtip are not swallowed due to the winglet effect. However, at
the other span-wise locations the detached shock waves are already swallowed.
FIG 5 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

At the freestream velocity of 30 m/s, the Busemann airfoil stalled at an angle of attack of approximately
20. During the study, end plates were attached to a rectangular-shaped biplane wing to simulate 2-D
flows. At high incidence angles, flow around the upper With the help of hinged slats and flaps, the
maximum lift coefficients of the Busemann biplane could reach to roughly 2.0 The aerodynamic
performance of the original Licher biplane was of Cl¼0.0812, Cd¼0.00449 with lift-to-(wave) drag ratio
of 18.1 at an angle of attack of 11, based on Euler (inviscid) simulations Aerodynamic center Shock
waves generated from a wing flying at supersonic speeds result in both of high wave drag and sonic-
booms, which are disadvantageous for supersonic flight For considering a monoplane wing, the A.C. is at
the 25% chord during subsonic flights (i.e. MNo1.0) and at the 50% chord during supersonic flights (i.e.
MN41.0) Biplane and diamond airfoils The 27 cases contain a subsonic range of Mach numbers from 0.2
to 0.6 and a supersonic range from 1.7 to 2.0 with angles of attack of 01, 11 and 21 , it was found that the
A.C. of biplanes remained within 25–27% chord at both in subsonic and in supersonic ranges. On the
other hand, the A.C. location of diamond airfoils was 28% chord for flow speeds of Mach 0.2–0.6, and
44–45% chord for Mach 1.7–2.0 Relation between an A.C. location and load distributions of diamond
airfoil, the rear half of the airfoil generates lift, causing the A.C. location to shift to near 50% chord.
However, in the other cases, the rear half of the airfoil does not generate lift, resulting in the A.C.
location around 25% chord.
FIG 6 : With reference from google: www.sciencebase.com

In Conclusion Therefore, the A.C. of Busemann biplanes designed for MN¼1.7 remains fairly constant, at
25% chord, both in subsonic flows of MN from 0.2 to 0.6 and in supersonic flows of MN from 1.7 to 2.0.