{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/45385"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/45385","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Comparison of the aeroacoustics of two small-scale supersonic inlets","abstract":"An aerodynamic and acoustic investigation was performed on two small-scale supersonic inlets to determine which inlet would be more suitable for a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft during approach and takeoff flight conditions. The comparison was made between an axisymmetric supersonic P inlet and a bifurcated two-dimensional supersonic inlet. The 1/14 scale model supersonic inlets were used in conjunction with a 4.1 in (10.4 cm) turbofan engine simulator to provide the typical characteristics of a turbofan aircraft engine. A bellmouth was utilized on each inlet to eliminate lip separation commonly associated with airplane engine inlets that are tested under static conditions. Steady state measurements of the aerodynamic flowfield and acoustic farfield were made in order to evaluate the aeroacoustic performance of the inlets. The aerodynamic results show the total pressure recovery of the two inlets to be nearly identical, 99% at the approach condition and 98% at the takeoff condition. At the approach fan speed (60% design speed), there was no appreciable difference in the acoustic performance of either inlet over the entire 0° to 110° farfield measurement sector. The inlet flow field results at the takeoff fan speed (88% design speed), show the average inlet throat Mach number for the P inlet (Mach 0.52) to be approximately 2 times that of the 2D inlet (Mach 0.26). The difference in the throat Mach number is a result of the smaller throughflow area of the P inlet. This reduced area resulted in a “soft choking” of the P inlet which lowered the blade passing tone of the simulator by an average of 9 dB in the forward sector, when compared to the 2D inlet.","abstract_html":"An aerodynamic and acoustic investigation was performed on two small-scale supersonic inlets to determine which inlet would be more suitable for a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft during approach and takeoff flight conditions. The comparison was made between an axisymmetric supersonic P inlet and a bifurcated two-dimensional supersonic inlet. The 1/14 scale model supersonic inlets were used in conjunction with a 4.1 in (10.4 cm) turbofan engine simulator to provide the typical characteristics of a turbofan aircraft engine. A bellmouth was utilized on each inlet to eliminate lip separation commonly associated with airplane engine inlets that are tested under static conditions. Steady state measurements of the aerodynamic flowfield and acoustic farfield were made in order to evaluate the aeroacoustic performance of the inlets. The aerodynamic results show the total pressure recovery of the two inlets to be nearly identical, 99% at the approach condition and 98% at the takeoff condition. At the approach fan speed (60% design speed), there was no appreciable difference in the acoustic performance of either inlet over the entire 0° to 110° farfield measurement sector. The inlet flow field results at the takeoff fan speed (88% design speed), show the average inlet throat Mach number for the P inlet (Mach 0.52) to be approximately 2 times that of the 2D inlet (Mach 0.26). The difference in the throat Mach number is a result of the smaller throughflow area of the P inlet. This reduced area resulted in a “soft choking” of the P inlet which lowered the blade passing tone of the simulator by an average of 9 dB in the forward sector, when compared to the 2D inlet.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Miller, Kevin C."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Mechanical Engineering","degree_department":"Mechanical Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1996,"date_issued":"1996","date_published":"1996","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:02Z","subjects":["supersonic inlet","aeroacoustic","P inlet","bifurcated 2D inlet"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11012008-063024"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-11012008-063024","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45385","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Mechanical Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Miller, Kevin C."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:48:35Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:48:35Z","2008-11-01"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1996"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Mechanical Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["supersonic inlet","aeroacoustic","P inlet","bifurcated 2D inlet"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11012008-063024"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45385"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["An aerodynamic and acoustic investigation was performed on two small-scale supersonic inlets to determine which inlet would be more suitable for a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft during approach and takeoff flight conditions. The comparison was made between an axisymmetric supersonic P inlet and a bifurcated two-dimensional supersonic inlet. The 1/14 scale model supersonic inlets were used in conjunction with a 4.1 in (10.4 cm) turbofan engine simulator to provide the typical characteristics of a turbofan aircraft engine. A bellmouth was utilized on each inlet to eliminate lip separation commonly associated with airplane engine inlets that are tested under static conditions. Steady state measurements of the aerodynamic flowfield and acoustic farfield were made in order to evaluate the aeroacoustic performance of the inlets. The aerodynamic results show the total pressure recovery of the two inlets to be nearly identical, 99% at the approach condition and 98% at the takeoff condition. At the approach fan speed (60% design speed), there was no appreciable difference in the acoustic performance of either inlet over the entire 0° to 110° farfield measurement sector. The inlet flow field results at the takeoff fan speed (88% design speed), show the average inlet throat Mach number for the P inlet (Mach 0.52) to be approximately 2 times that of the 2D inlet (Mach 0.26). The difference in the throat Mach number is a result of the smaller throughflow area of the P inlet. This reduced area resulted in a “soft choking” of the P inlet which lowered the blade passing tone of the simulator by an average of 9 dB in the forward sector, when compared to the 2D inlet."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparison of the aeroacoustics of two small-scale supersonic inlets"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Mechanical Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Miller, Kevin C."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:48:35Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:48:35Z","2008-11-01"],"dc:date.issued":["1996"],"dc:description.abstract":["An aerodynamic and acoustic investigation was performed on two small-scale supersonic inlets to determine which inlet would be more suitable for a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft during approach and takeoff flight conditions. The comparison was made between an axisymmetric supersonic P inlet and a bifurcated two-dimensional supersonic inlet. The 1/14 scale model supersonic inlets were used in conjunction with a 4.1 in (10.4 cm) turbofan engine simulator to provide the typical characteristics of a turbofan aircraft engine. A bellmouth was utilized on each inlet to eliminate lip separation commonly associated with airplane engine inlets that are tested under static conditions. Steady state measurements of the aerodynamic flowfield and acoustic farfield were made in order to evaluate the aeroacoustic performance of the inlets. The aerodynamic results show the total pressure recovery of the two inlets to be nearly identical, 99% at the approach condition and 98% at the takeoff condition. At the approach fan speed (60% design speed), there was no appreciable difference in the acoustic performance of either inlet over the entire 0° to 110° farfield measurement sector. The inlet flow field results at the takeoff fan speed (88% design speed), show the average inlet throat Mach number for the P inlet (Mach 0.52) to be approximately 2 times that of the 2D inlet (Mach 0.26). The difference in the throat Mach number is a result of the smaller throughflow area of the P inlet. This reduced area resulted in a “soft choking” of the P inlet which lowered the blade passing tone of the simulator by an average of 9 dB in the forward sector, when compared to the 2D inlet."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-11012008-063024"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45385"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["supersonic inlet","aeroacoustic","P inlet","bifurcated 2D inlet"],"dc:title":["Comparison of the aeroacoustics of two small-scale supersonic inlets"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Mechanical Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:02Z"}