NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS

AiResearc/1 0, Div.

SEP 4 975
REPORT 1386

INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAG OF VARIOUS AXIALLY

SYMMETRIC NOSE SHAPES OF FINENESS RATIO 3
FOR MACH NUMBERS FROM 1.24 TO 7.4

By EDWARD W. PERKINS, LELAND H. JORGENSEN

and SIMON C. SOMMER

1958

For sale by the Superintendent o( Documen"'. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washinl/ton 25. D. C. Yearly subscription. $10; (oreign. $13;
Single COPT price varies accordln" to size _. - - - - - • - Price 25 cen'"
 REPORT 1386

INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAG OF VARIOUS AXIALLY

SYMMETRIC NOSE SHAPES OF FINENESS RATIO 3
FOR MACH NUMBERS FROM 1.24 TO 7.4

By EDW ARD W. P ERKI NS, LELAND H. J ORGENSEN

and_SI MON C. SOMMER

Ames Aerona utical Laboratory

Moffett Fi eld , Calif.
 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
IIeadquarte7's, 1512 H t7'eet N HT., TTTashington 2/), D . O.
rcated by acL of Congre s approyccl March 3, 1915, for t he supcl'vi ion an 1 d irection of Lhe scientific study
of the problem of flight (U. ode, title 50, sec. 15 1). I t m mbership wa incr eased from 12 to 15 by act
approved March 2,1929, and to 17 by acL apPl'oved lIay 25, 194 The m embers ar e appoin Led by th e Pre ident,
and serve a such without compensation.

J ERO~1E C. H UNSA KER,. . D ., l\Ia saehusett Institute of Technology, Chairman

LEONARD CAR~lIC Ii AEL, PII. D., Secretary, m ithsonian Ins t itu t ion, \lice Chainnan

J o EPH P. ADAM, LL. B., Vice Chairman , ivil Aeronautics CARLJ. PFIN 0S'l'A0, Rear Admiral, united tates Navy, A sistant
Board. Chief for Field Activitie , Bureau of Aeronautics.
ALLE V. A TIN, PH. D ., Director, National BUI'eau of Standard. DONALD L . PUTT, Lieutenant General , United tates Air Force,
PHE TON R. BA SSET'l', 1\I. A., Vice Presid ent, Sperry Rand D eputy Chief of Staff (Development) .
Corp. AwrH uR E. RAYMOND, Sc. D. , Vice President- Engincering
DETLEV W. BRONK, PH. D., President, Rock efeller Institute for D ouglas Ai rcraft Co., Inc.
1\l edical Research. FRANCIS \Y. REICHELDERFER, Sc. D ., hief, nited States
THOMAS . CO~ I BS, Vice Admiral, t.:nited tates Ta vy, Deputy Weather Bureau.
Chief of Naval Operations (Air) . EDWARD Y. Rr CKE"BA CKER, c . D. , Chai rman of the Board,
FHEDEHlCK C. IUWFOHD, Sc . D., Chairman of the Board, Ea tern Air Lin es, In c.
Thom pson Product, Inc. LOUIS . ROTHSCHILD, PH. B., Under Secretary of Commerce
J AMES H. DOOLITTLE, Sc . D., Vice President, hell Oil Co . for Tran portation.
C'Lll"'ORD C. F RNAS, PI!. D. , Ass istan t Secrrtar.\' of Drfrns ATffAN F. TWI 'Y,, 0, Gen eral, united Stutes Air Force, Chief
( Resra rch and D evelopm ent) I epartmrn t f Defen. e. of taff.

H UG Il L. DRYDE N, PH . D., Director JOITN F . VICTORY, LL. D. , Executive Secretary

JOH N W. CROWLEY, In., B. ., Associate Director for Research EDWARD H. C Ii A~!BERLrN, Executive O.Uicer

HENRY J. E. REID, D. Eng., Dir ctor, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Lan gley Field, Va.

S~!lTH J. DEFRANCE, D . Eng ., Director, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, 1\I offett Field, Calif.

EDWARD R. HARP, C. D, Director, Le\yis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio

WAJ.TER C. \\· IT , LY A ~I S, 13. S., Chief, Hi gh-Speed Flight Station, Edwards, Calif.

"
 REPORT 1386
INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAG OF VARIOUS AXIALLY SYMMETRIC NOSE SHAPES OF FINENESS
RATIO 3 FOR MACH NUMBERS FROM 1.24 TO 7.4 1
By EDW A RD \\'. P E RKD1S, LEI_AN D
SUMM ARY
Drag measurements have been made at zero angle of attack
fm' a 'eries of finen es ratio 3 n ose ·hapes . The modeLs in-
cluded variou theoretically derived minimum drag shape·,
hemispherically blunted cones, and other more common profiles .
Press;;'re-distri buti on measurement f or a series of hemispheri -
cally bLunted cones were aL 0 obtain ed. The jl.l{ach numb I' and
R eynold number mnge of the test were 1 .24 to 7.4 and
1.0 X l06 to 7.5 X l0 6 (ba 'ed on model length), re pectively.
Of the models te ted, the paraboLoid of revoluti on had the
leastjoredrag below a l.l{ach number oj 1.5, and the theoretically
mini mum drag hape jor a given length and diameter based
upon N ewton's i mpact theory hacl the least joredrag above a
Mach number oj 1.5. The theor tical shapes jor minimum
pre.s ure drag jor the auxiliary condi tion oj given 1 ngth and
diameter or given diameter and volume derived by von Karman
and by Haack do n ot have le s drag thcLT/, all other possible
shape having identi cal value oj the same parameters . N o
model had the lea t joredrag jor the complete Mach number
range. Wherever po sible, theoretical values oj the joredrag
based upon the sum oj the theor ti cal slcin -jricti on lrag and the
theoreti cal wave dmg were calculated j or comparison with the
expe1'im ental1'esults .
The 1'esult J OT the eries oj h mi8pherically blunted cone
have important p1'actical i gnifican ce since it wa joun d that
the diameter oj the hemispherical tip may be jairly large without
ma1'kedLy increa ing the joredrag over that oj a harp pointed
cone oj the same fineness rati o. I n jact, f or a fi xed finene c
rati o oj 3, the joredmg is 1'educed omewhat by a small degree
oj blunting, although jor ct fi xed cone angle blunting always
increas d the drag. An empi rical expression, aZJpli cable j01'
jree- tream Mach numbers greater than 2, is developed j or
calculating the wave drag of the erMS of hemisphel'icaLly
blunt d cones .
INTROD CTlO l
The allied problems of predi ·ting Lh e drag of bodies of
revol ution and of minimizing Lhe drag by proper hap ing of
Lhe body have been the objeeLs of numerOLl LbeoreLi cal
inve tigation. With reo-m'd to the problem of predicting
Lhe lrag, that part of the dnw wh i h has Lhu far prov d
r upcrsedes N ACA R esearch M emorand um A52 U? by Ed ward \\-. P erk ins and Leland II. J orgensen, 1952, and :-rAC A Research i\lemorand um A52Bl3 by
James A. Stark, 1952.
II. JOR G E , SE N, a nd IM ON C. S OM ~m H
mo t amenable Lo LheoreLical calculaLion is the wave drag.
For pointed bodie of revol uLion at 1 l ach number ufficien lly
high for sho ck-wave atLachment, the wave drag may be
calculated b. either perLlu'baLion theory or by Lhe m etbod
of characteristic. For hio-hly blunte I no e hape Lh er e ic
n imple th orcli cal m ethod for prcdi cLillo- the pr Rurs
eli Lribution and drag. Ther efor e),:-p erimental r es ult have
been relied upon for Lhi information.
The firsL parL of Lh e pre enL inve Li gaLion i a s tudy of
Lh pre~ LU'e clisLribuLion a nd drag of a cries of hemi spheri-
cally blunted con e . AILhoug h i t mighL eem LhaL th e usc of
s uch a blunt no e would r e wt in a hig h drag penalLy, pre-
liminary e LimaLe 2 have indicat ed LhaL the drag of a no
hap e cons i Lin g of a hemi sph erical urface faired inLo an
expanding conical urface can be Ie than thaL of a harp
con of the ame lel1<Yth-Lo-diameLer r a Lio. Th e 1'e ult of
preliminary e Lima te of Lhe variation of drag with th e 1'aLio
of h emi ph erical Lip diameLer Lo ba e diam eter for £in ene
ratio 3 have in licaLed LhaL a small r eduction in drag can be
r ealized at all uper onic 1lach nLll11bec. Perhap more
important than the reducLion in drag i th e inclicaLion that a
relaLively large hemi ph eri al Lip can b u eel wiLhouL in ur-
1"ino- an y drag in crease above LbaL of a harp-no d con e of
Lh e same fin ene raLio . In ord er to \"erify the e prediction
and Lo provid quan ti Lative drag data tb e I re en Linv Liga-
Lion \Va undertaken.
The second pha e of the inve tigation i a Ludy of mini-
mum drag no e hape. ':'Ios t th eoretical approache have
been direcLed Loward Lhe mimimization of Lue wave drag
only . Von Karma n (1' f. 1) d evelop ed a n integral equation
for Lhe wav drag of lend er bodie of r evolution at mod rate
Mach numbers. sing Lhi equaLion , he derived a minimum
drag no e shape (commonly referred to a Lh e K arma n ogive)
for a given leng Lh and diameter. ub equ enLly, Haa k (rd.
2) and other (r ef. 3 and 4) have u cd t he K arma n integral
cquaLion in developing minimum drao- hap e for other
auxiliary oudition , llch as given leng Lh and volLlin or
given volume and diameter. Through Lhe u e of th . K arman
, These preliminary estimate wo ro made by SLI mming theexperimclltally detc r'mined wave
d mg of t he hem isphcrical nose and the t heoretical prcssure drag of t he conical afterbody, as-
su ming tbat the pressure on the surface of the conical aftcrbody was t he same as t hat for 8
s harp cOile of t he same slope.
imon C. Som mer and
1
2 HEPOH'l' 13 6- NATIONAL ADVISOHY COMMITTEE FOH AEHONA TICS

in Legral cquation a thc ba i for these dcriva ti o n , thc J![ fl'cc- tl'Cftm :\fach numbcl'
appal'entl.,- unn ccc ary yeL implifying ass uml tion of
ZCI'O lopc of the m Cl'idian aL the ba e has becn imposed. p
Thi s r estriction i pointed o ut b~' W ard in referell ce 5,
wherein he hows that hi m o re ge neral expre io n [01' wave
drag redu ces to that o bLain ed b)- von K arm ELil for Lhe pecial p itot-pres 1II'e coefficicnt , (i, - P
q
ea e of a bod)- h a vi ng zcro slop e at th ba e. In a lat cr
paper (r ef. 6) Ferrari d cveloped a minimum drag nose s hapc I)w · Pw- p
('o lle pl't', ure COl' fTilell' nt , - - -
for a O'ivcn length ancl diam etc r which ha a finite lope o f q
the m eridian at the base. For the high up er o ni c :\lach
locn l sta tic pres lJI'e, Ib / q in .
number ra nge , minimum drag s hapcs ba cd upon Newton 's
la w of ]'e i tance have been d eri ved b)- Egger, R esn ikofl', p frec- tl'eam Latic pressurc, lb/ q i n .
and D en ni (ref. 7) . Th ese hapes differ appreciabl~- from
comparable optimum hape fo r low stlp cr o ni e .:\Iac h (i t piLol total-h ead pre ufe, lb /sq in .
number, alt hou g h th e theorctical optimum hap e in both
pw co nc sLaLic pressurc, Ib/sq in.
instan ec, h ave blunt no c wh cn the lengt h is fixed and s harp
nose when the lengt h is allowed to va ry.
Du e to the basic a umpti o ns in th e d eri va ti on of the q frer-s tream dynamic pressurc, ~ pAP, lb/ q in.
K a rm t1l1 integral eq uat io n, it m a.,- be cxp ee ted t haI, th e l' modcllocal radiu , tn.
hap e r e ulting from the u e of this eq uation ar e th eo reti call)-
optimum from a minimum drag sta ndpoin t only fo r la rgc R model ba e l'nd iu s, in.
finene ratio and 10 \\' uper on ic .:\I ach numbcr. ]n con -
trast , the s hap e r esulting from the .l\ ewtonian th eo r.\- may Re fr ee- trcam R c)' nolcl numbcr b a cd on boely len g th
be exp ec ted to b e optimum o nly at hig h su p erso ni c .:\lach l' model volum e, cu in.
number. However , for low fin cne rat io hap es a t moder-
aLe M ach numb ers, iL i impo ihlc to aya prior i whi ch o[ .\ axial cli s Lance fr om Lhe no c, in .
tb e th eoreticall)' opt imum ha pe will have th c lesse r wave
drag, 0 1' in fact if either of th e th eo ri e is capable o f prcdi ct in g angle oJ nttack, d eg
Lhe lcast-drag profile. On e o f the pLII'pO es o f the presen t ral io of pecifie h eats of ai r, taken as 1.40
inve tign,lion is, thcrefore , to comp are the ex perim ental
drag of thesc t heor etica ll.\- optimum s ha pes a ncl of other more 8 circumfer enti al flnO'le of h emi ph erc men lII'ec/ from
common profiles foJ' a n interm ediat e finene r at io over a tlie ups lre am stagnation point, d eO'
wide .:\lach n umber rangc. T o (his end a series of fin cne
w conc Ilfllf angle, d cg
ratio 3 models of these th corcli ally optimum shapes ha'-e
hccn testc el in t he Mach num ber ra nge from 1.24 to 3.67. APP ARA TUS A D TESTS

SYMBOLS Th e cxperimenLal inve tigation was eonducLed in tliree

A model base ar ea, q III .
facili ties, the Ame 1- br 3-foo t sup er onic wind tun cIs
No.1 and No . 2, a lld thc Arne uperso nie fre -flight '~'ind
. total drag t unn el. Th e two 1- b)T3-foot wind tunnel arc co nventional
tota l drag eoe fficlellt , 1
qr tunnels which arc equipped with flexibl e top and bottom
plate for var)-ing th e le t ec tion .:\1ach number.
foredl'ag coeffic ienL hased o n ba c a rea , Fol' th e te ts in th e uper onie fr ee-flight tunnel the models
lo tt>! drag bll , c drag wer e la un ched from a smoo t h-bore 20mm O'un , a nd weI'
qA upported in the g un by plastic aboL. Separation of the
model from Lhe sa boL was achieved by a muzzle constrict ion
( " f)F fOl'eclr ag coc fFicient h a. cd on volu me (0 tlit, ~ PO \\'('I' . whi cli r etarded the aboL and allowed the model Lo proceed
in free flig ht throug h the le t ection of t he wind tunnel.
total d l'ag- h f! (' drag
q ~ ' 2/3 A more det a i.lecl dcscription of t his fac ili ty i given in r fel'-
cll ce .
MODELS
. \\'f. v(' dl' p. o·
\\' fiVe draa codfi('J(' IlL -"
~ ' q \ Sketchcs of tlie mod el tested, includin g clim en ion , peei-
rICcl parameters, and d efi ning eq ua lion , arc prese n ted in
d h('m isp li el'e di amcte l' , ill. fi g ure l. For Lhc cri es of h em isph er icall)- blunLed con
s hown in figlll'e lea) th e length-to-diam tel' ratio of 3 is
J) morlt'l b r.se di f! m('[('I', in .
co nsLant, a nd the co n angle is dccrea cd as lh e blunL e s
Af (ratio of hemi s ph cr e di ameter to base diameter) i ill crea ed.
J( s imil a rit y p a rametcr, "I T) For th e serie ill fig ure l (b) the base cliam LeI' and eone
angle arc co ns tant , a ncl the lengt h dccl'ea e wiLh in cl'ca e in
L moc1cllengtli , ill. bluntn es .
 INVESTIGATIO .oF THE DRAG OF VARIOUS AXIALLY SYMMETRIC JOSE SHAPES OF F1 JEKESS RA1'10 3 3
,rModel 12
,'rMadel II
" / rMadel 10

E jl
o

Model
no 0
L

d w 0
~L'525- 1~5
1 0 9°28' 1.75
If 0 9° 28' 0.45 Madel
Designation n
2 .075 8° 52 1.75 no
2f .075 8°52' 0.45 I Cane I
3 .1 50 8° 15' 1.75 10 Hypersonic ap t. 3/4
3f .150 8° 15' 0.45 II Paraboloid 1/2
4 .300 6° 59' 1.75 12 1/4 Po wer 1/4
4f .300 6° 59' 0.45
4p .300 6° 59 2.00 (c)
5 .500 5° 10 1.75
5° 10' r Model 14
5f .500 0.45
5p .500 5° 10 2.00 />Model 13
,/ / r Model 15
6p 1.000 0 4 .00
~/':b
/'" ~~ I
Nole , Ap, 5p, and 6p are pressure distribution models.
Models If through 5f, are free-flight models . - -1---0=1 .75

(a)
r-=w =9°28 '
~~~ ~

~
I ~
I - - -- - - - L =5.25 - -- - -- ----l

"':::::::=.:- ~_ _ 0= 1.75
Model
Designat ion
Spe ci f ied
c

t
no parameters
13 L-O Hoock Len th, dia. 0
14 L-V Hoock Len h, val. 1/ 3
15 O-V Hoock 010, vo l. - 2/ 3

I
1--- - - - - - 5 . 2 5 L (d)

Madel
no
d
75 0
L (c) Profile defin ed by r = R (i) n

0 3 .00
finedby r=,,~ Jcp-~
I
7 .Q75 2.8 1 (d ) H aackminimumdmg no e d ·in2cp + csin 3 cp •
8 .150 2.62
9 .300 2 .24
cp = arc co~ 2X) .
(l-Z;
(b)
FI U RI, ) .- Continued.
(a) Hcmi~phere-cone seri es for can lanL ~= 3.
(b) H emispher e- co n e serie. for can . tant co n e angl e. been u ed [01' the circular-arc tangent ogive and co ne !lown
FlO HE l.- ~I odel profiles. (Dimen ion. are in inches .)
in figW'c l (e). Th L- T,i' ogive 11a the ame 1 no-lil and
vohune as the L- 17 Haack model, and the D- 11 con ha the
The family of fineness ratio 3 model defined by t he qua- same diameter and volume a th D- 11 Haack model. Al 0
tion 1'= R (XjL )n i show n in figUl'e l(c). For length and sho l',711 in figur l(e) is a fin ene -ratio-3 ellipsoid.
base diam eter specified, the profil cs of the hyper oni c op t i- Except for lhe pre ure-distribution rno lel , all Lhe no e
mum (Ne wton ian) nose a nd Lhe no e dcveloped by Ferrari hapes wer e 'onsLru Led of dw·alumin. The 30- and 50-
(ref. 6) ca n both be very closely approximated by Lhe above perccnl hemi pheri ally blunted co ne pr s w'c-di lri \ lllioll
equat ion Jor n =%. (ee fig . 2. ) in ce the %-power no e i models (model 4p and 5p) were cast of lin and bi muth, and
a rea onable approximaLion Lo lhes theoretically del'ivecl Lhe hemi phere-cylinder pre ure-dislribution model (model
optimum shape , it alone has been te ted and i referred to 6p) was con trucLed of tecI.
Lhrou gho uL t he report as the hypersonic optimum nose. TESTS
Finen s ratio 3 model of th minimum drag hapo ba eel
upon t he work of von Karman and ub equ ently H aack are Wind tunnels N o. 1 and No. 2.- Th e lotal drag was mea -
s hown in fig ure 1 (d). For any Lwo sp ecified parameter m ed by mean of a train-gage balance loeated in th model
such a length and d iameter , lengLh and volLUne , or diam L l' upport hou Ln g. Th e bit e pre ure was cleLermin cllhrouo-h
and vol ume, these a1' Lhe theor et ical optimum no e the u c of a liquid manomeler connected Lo two hole in the
shapc and for convenience have been desio-nated a Lh e supporting ling aL the ba e of th e model. Experimental
L-D. L- 11, and D-V H aack noses. A sim ilar designat,ion bas value of foredrag were lh n Laken as the difference b etween
 REPORT 13 6- 'KATIONAL ADVISORY OMMITTEE FOR AERONA TICS

.,--- Model 18
,/',- _. Model 16

~
I '<>'---Mo<m? I 0 = 1.75

~~l O'II{~~d"161
r--______ L,5L;~~25 I
Model L
Deslgnotlon
no 75
16 L-V Oglve 2.93
17 O-V Cone 3.38
18 Ellipsoid 3

(e) Other profil es .

I.- Concluded.
F I GU RE

1.0 ;-- 8
l- I-- j / .1
V V -- Air-o ff op eral lon
V
'-let
.8
/'
V .;1---" --- .01 Alr - on opera Ion

~
g .6 V v L?' V
v i...f" V
~ V ~4 ... !----
.,..
.- _~.;=r--
o V V~ :'»"
8 .4
VV - - - L -0 Haack. ref. 2
- - Ferra ri , ref. 6
-
-
E
::J
C V I-- I
~V ~2
"D
o ,/
a:: .2 _ .- Hyper. opt.. ref. 7 - o V
~ ----- i?=({l/4 c

V
- >-
Q1
a:: 1--------
o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AX IOI coord inote. { Mach number. M

FIG U R E 3.- R a nge of ?\I ach numbers a nd R eynol d. nllmb c r~ of

FW ll RI, 2.-Compa ri so n of profil es of minimum drag 1I 0:,;e>; fo r
te. t .. in Lh Ames , upersonic free fli ght wind tunn el.
gi\'e n Ipn g lh a nd base dia m ete r.

the measlU"ed total drag and base preSSlU"e drag. B ecause 10 llgitudi nal pre ure eli t ribution at each 30° in cremenL in
of the operaLing characteri Lies of Lhe tu nn el , iL \Va no L circnmfeJ'enLial a ngle was obtained. Th e rc ulLing prc Ure
possible to maintain a cons Lant Reynolds number throughouL coefftcien t aL eac h longi tu di nal station were averaged Lo
the ::-Iach number range of 1.24 Lo 3.67; however, an atLempL ob t ain thc valu es pre ' cnted .
was made to keep th e R .\rnolcls number con tanL for all Fr ee-flight wind tunnel.-·Wi th no ail' flo\\- through Lhe
model at each ::-Iach number. In Lhe followin g lable the wind tunnel, \[ach number var ied from].2 lo 4.2, depeJld-
ayerage Reynolds number (ba eel on moclellenglh ) and iL in g o n t he model launc hing velociLy. 'f hi condition i
limiL of variation for all moe/el tested at ea ch ::-Ia ch numbet' rcfrrrecl [0 as "air ofI'. " R eynold number va ried Ii nearl}'
are ] i ted: wi t h ~I ach !lumbe r from J.O X 106 Lo 3.3 X IOn, a hown in
1\[ ReX 1 0- 0 Tunn el Ko. figur e 3. 'W ilh ai r fiow e Lablish eel in Lhe wind LUll llel,
1. 2-1 2. ·12 ± 0. 1-1 1 referrcd Lo a "air on, " Lhe combin ed velociL i of the mod I
1. ·14 1.17 ± O. 0 1 1 a nd 1Iach numb er 2 air tream , wiLh the reduced p ed of
3. 14 ± 0. 20
so und in th e Le L secLion , provided Le t 1Iac h numbers from
1. 5.J 4. JO ± O. 10 2
1. !l6 4. 1.J ± 0. 12 2 3. to 7.4. In this region of t sting, R eynolds number \ as
1. n!l 2.01 ± O. Ol 1 hell app roximalely aL 4 X I0 6 by conLrollin o- te L- ccLion
2. 86 .J . OO ± O. 10 2 Latic prcs me. I n addiLion , ome model were lc te 1 at
3. 06 4. OO ± O. In 2 approximale R eynolds number of 3 X 106 at ~ Iach numbcl 6.
3. 67 3. 45 ± 0. 07 2
Drag coeffIc ient wa obtained by recording Lhe time-
'flit' prp LIre-dis tribution tes t ' we rr all made in t unne! :;\ o. di Lan ce hi Lor y of Lhe flioht of thc model with Lhe aid of a
2 at .\ faeh numhe r of ] .5 , 2. :~, and 3.7 and at an average chronograph and four hadowgraph taLion a L 5-foo t inter-
Reynolds number of abouL 4 X ]06. Pressure dis LribuLions val along Lhe Lc t ectioD . From these dala, deceleration
fot' Lhe hemi phel"e-C'one pressu re models (m odels 4 p, 5p , and was compu ted a.ncl on verte 1 to drag coeHicient. Thi
p) w(,1"e deLermined t hrOlJ<Yh Lhe use of a liquid manomeLer r eport include only th e data from model wh ich had maxi-
s.\-s Lt'm connected to lwo row of orifices along lhe model mum ob el'ved angles of attack of less than 3°, ince larger
and spaced ] 0° apar t. Th e models were roLaLed and a angle m ea urably incr as cl the drag .
 INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAG OF VARIO S AXIALLY
A ALYSlS OF DATA
REDUCTIO N OF DATA
All Lhe experimenLal daLa have bee nl'ecluced to coeffici co lll
form and tile daa fronl wind Lunncl No . 1 flncl2 have been
corr ccted for the effects of the small nonulliformities in t he
wind-tunnel Dow. The free-sLream LaLic-pressure va ["iations
in the moelel-free tunnel have been applied a COITe Lions to
the drag and pressure-eli tri bu Lion daLa by imple Ii nc ar
uperposiLion. Correction du e Lo LIl eff ecLs of lream.-
angle variation were well wiLhin Lh e limits of accuracy of lh e
data and have therefo re bee n negle cLed. Ko COlT clion
werr nec essary for th e data obtain ed in th e free-flig hL tunn el
PRE CISION
The uncertain ty of Lhe experimcntaJ daLa from Lunn el
Ko. 1 and .0:0.2 was calculated by con iderin g the po ible
errOl" in the in [ividual m ea uremenl s which entererl illto
the detennination of th e s tream character i ti cs, pre sure dis-
tributions, and drag. Th e fin al un ce rtainLy in a quantiLy
wa taken a. the square roo t of Lh e um of the square of th e
possible error in the indi vidual m easurem en t. The
resulting ul1 certaintie in th e final qu anti ties are as follow
Qu an t i ty U nce r Lain Ly
p ± 0. 004
± 0.004
CD"
± O. 15°
The variation of the fr ee-s tr am 1-.I ach numb er over th '
length of each model te ted was Ie lhan ± O.Ol for all
Lest ~rach numb ers. Th e uncertain Ly in th e ~ fach number
at a given poin t in the tream i ± O.003.
The magnitude of tb e alcula ted un certainty in the drag
coefficient appear rather large relative to th e observed
scatter of the data. Drag coeffi cients for r epea ted Le ts
gen erally agr eel within ± 0.002. IL i therefor e believed
that the drags of models relative to one anoth r ar uffi-
cienLly accurate for comparative purpo es, al thouO"h th e
ab olu te magnitude of the drag coefficients for the model
at a particular ~Iach numb er may be in error by the magni-
Lucie of tb e uncertainty.
, in ce there are no known ~T LemaLic nor in Lh e daLa
from Lhe fre -flight tunnel, Lhe acc urac,- of til re ull i
indi cated by the rep eatab ilit~- of the da t~ . Examination of
t he e data how that r ep aL firings of similar model ll11c1 er
almo t identical condition of R eynold number and Mach
n umber yielded result for wh icll LllC averi'tge deviation from
t he {aired curve was 1 p ercent and the maximum dev iation
wa 4 percent.
THEORETICAL CO SlDERATIO S
WAVE DRAG
Wi th th e exception of some of the ver~T blunt L mod el
(models 11 , 12, an 1 1 ) the wave lrag of ea ch model \ a
eith er calcu lated by theoretical m Lhod or wa e timaLecl
from exisLing experim ental r e ult. Values for Lh e wave
dmo- of t he con e and th e tangen t ogive wer e obtained from
the exact 'T'aylor -1faccoll th eo!"y (refs. 9 and 10) ancl Lhe
method of characteris tic (ref. 11 ), r e p ec tlvely. For th e
theoretical optimum nose hape Lh e econd-order theory of
Van Dyke wa u eel. The exact procedure employ eel in
l1\i(METRIC ~ O E SHAPE OF FINENESS R A'r IO 3 5
using Lh e econd-order th eory \Va that O"iven in refer nee 12,
in which t he approxima Le bOllnclar)- condi tion a t tb e bod ,-
urface are used in tb e calculation of the p erLurbatio~
vclocitie , and th e exac t pre sure relation is u eel to evalualc
Lhe pres m e coeffi cienLs.3 Th e m ethod prese nted Lherein j
Lrictly applicable Lo harp-no ed bodies of r evolution at
~Iach number Ie than that at which Lh e :H ac h cone be-
come tang en t Lo th e model vertex. ince Lh e Lh eo retical
optimum no e s hape for which the leng th is 11.'( ecl (models
10, 13, and 14) h ave infiniL slopes at their ve rtice (yeL
m a~r be con sidered harp for most prac tical purpose ), an
approximation to Lhe shape at th e vertex \Va m ade Lo
enable u e of Lhe theory . The blun t t ip wa r eplaced by a
hort conical ec tion Langen L Lo the original con Lour. The
con e angle, and hen ce the point of tangen cy, wa srlec ted so
that th e cone half-an gle did no t exceed 94 p ercenL of the
11a ch angle. In Lhe ubs qu en L in tegra tion for Lh e wave
drag from the r esulting pre ure eli tribution , th e data wer e
plotted as rP v el' Ll r so t ha I, t he curve co uld b e smoothly
fair e 1 through Lhe orio-in.
A imple m ethod of e timaLin g Lhe wave d rag of the hemi-
ph el'ically blun Led c nieal no e ha b een u ~g ted . It h as
bee n proposed tha L Lhe wave d rag of the h emi ph erical tip,
which could be ob tained fro m exi ling exp rimen tal elaLa , b e
added Lo the pre sur drag of the conical por tion of tb e no e,
ba ed upon t he assump tion that t he pre ure on th e conical
urface would be Lh e ame a on a pointed COll e of th e sam e
lop e. H ence, t he pre sure drag of Lhe conical pOltion of
Lhe nose could be ob tained b y exact th eory.
The follo\\~in g empirical expres ion , ba ed u pon c rt ain of
Lho experimental 1'e ul t , i uggested for calcul aling th \\' ave
drag of t he hemi ph erical tip for ).Iach numb er of 2 and
g reater :
(1)
where P t i Lh e piLot-pI' ssure coeJIi.ciell L at th e Lip of th e
hemisphere which may be calculaLed with Lhe aiel of R ay-
leigh' equa tion. Thi ex pres ion \\' a obtain ed from the re-
ull of t he pre sure-cl i lributi on les l , a nd it cleriya tion is
eli cus eel in more detail ill th ection of th e repor t which i
concerned wiLh Lhe pre m e-eli trib ul ion tes t . 'Yh en thi
expre sio n i u cd fo r th e \mve drag coefficient o f th e h emi-
pherical por tion, t he expre sion fo r the ,,-ave drag coefficien L
of th e compleLc model for ~ Tach numb er of 2 an d g rea ter
become
C DW D =(!l)2(
2P t - 1 _ p )+p
3 w w
(2)
wh ere P", i Lh e urfaee pres ure coe ffteient or pre" ure drag
C'oeffi.ciell t (ref. 9 or 10) for a cone of h alf ap ex a ngle w at th e
free- t ream )..rach numbe r. An approxi ma te expre ion fo r
w which is uffic ientl~~ accura te [or lhe d rag e tima le i
l - (djD ) _ J
w=
,.....,
tan
- I [
't (L /D) _ (d/D) (3)
I' OREDRAG
Yalue of the for d ra~ hav b een calcul a l ecl b)' Lll add ition
of Lhe e t ima tecl or th eoretical, ave drag and Lhe t heor eti cal
3 I n the application of this method a first·order solution is necessarily obtained.
6 RET RT J 3 6- NATIONAL ADVI SORY COMMI'l"T'EE FOR AERONA U TICS

20 ______ Pilot- t ube pressure coe ff icient

I - - - Pil ot-tube pr essu re coe ff icient
- - -- COrle exoct theory, ref 9
_ _ _ IncompreSSible potential ' heory. p= 1-22 Sin 28
20 M=3.10 ____ Newtonian Ih eo r y, P=2 cos 2 8. ref 15
>---- 1 2.0 r-\~I-""-I-"----.--'--"---'----'---r-I
1.6 20 I

~~ r7 \ ,M=3.80 - l---I--+----+- - j - - + - - t - - - I
16 f f =::' -M :3.04
I ~_\ __ j M - 1.97

Q..
12

12
1.6 M =1 5 0

~ r ~~59' I--- f----

- 1.6 1W \
~
C
- .,..;:- \
(IJ
·u 8 12 rL,--- - - f - - - 1 - - - I - - . - - - f- Q.. 1.2
(IJ
0
u .8 Ii- ; - -f -
- r--
C
'"
(IJ
~
~
<J>
.4 8
t--
- u

'"0 1\ \\
<J> L3 u .8
(IJ 0-
a: .4
'"
~
M =3.10 ~
h <J>
<J>
0 .4
M =1.97 '"
~

Q..
.4
~
;r -w
0 I[)"U' \ , - -M=3 .80
M =150
1--
1
-11--+-----' ~"<1~~,~_+_-+-_+-_"_I, ---M= 304 I---
~k.
-.4 0
IP II. ,/,' r M = 1.97
b..d
° r--lP\~_t-~Ir-~
~~~~~~~±2~/i/gp~:'~+=~~===2
0
~ -4

~
f'.. (a ) \. ~~~4:~~-4I
~ ._ .4
1110
~ ,~ (a l :'I Iodl'I -lp, 75d = 0..30
.
. _ .4L-_~_~_~_~
\. __ ~_~_~ _ _ L_ _L_~
(c '

"
~ o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
2.0 Distance from Ih e nose, .K
- -- - Pl tOt - tube pr essure coeff icient
- - - Cone exact the ory, ref. 9
o
d
20
~lO6 (c) :'Iod cl 6p , }5 = 1.00

16 2D FI (;U R E -l .- Coll cIuclcd .

M= 1.97
1.6
---
skin -friction drag. Sin cc th e skin-fri ction drag for lamin ar-
12 1.6
I b u nda ry-Ia ~-e r now co n t ribu tes so li ttle Lo the foredrag, the
M = 1.54
IT ?'!IO'
- in clusion of lhc ma ll eft'e ct of body hapc a nd ompre i-

:1
Q.. 1.2 bllity on the kin-friction drag was not con ide red ju tifiecl.
I
Th erefore , the lamin a l'- kin-friction d rag coeffieienl WeI' cal-
C - -- --- '--- I-----1 -1 - - -1----
'"
·u
8 1.2 cula ted b.y Lhc Bla ius formula for flaL-plau' in comp l'es ' ible
boundar.,--la.\-('I' flow (ref. ] 3) . For lhc e limale of the kin-
~

(IJ
0
u
8 '- I fri ction drag for lUl'bu[enL-boundal'.y-laycl' fl ow, the hody
(IJ hape eft' cls W('I'C neglecLed , bu t th e eA'<,c t of compJ'c ibility
:s
<J>
.4 .8
was evaluated by m an of Lh e in tcrpolation formula of ref-
<J> -'=-=3
(IJ 0
~

Q.. 4 erence 14 which ba ed UpOIl all extend ed B'rankl and

Voishel a nalysis.
0 .4
\\ M = 3.06

~\
M = 1.97 RESU LTS A D DI C USSIO
0
~ co
\b M = 1.54 I-I EMIS P H E RI C ALLY BLUNTED E

-4 0 Pressure distributions .- The pre w·e-d ·stribu tion data

p.-
<D
o - .4
'""
\ 1/ ly
(b)
obtained fo r model 4p, 5p , and 6p at ).Iach number
between 1.5 and 3. are hown in figul 'e 4. Th e dat arc
f'..
~ ~- 4 r eferred Lo th e fr ee-s t ream ),Iach numb er ahead of the
II q- O .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 normal ho ck wave at the nose of each model. Although
~ If)
- Distance from the nose,)! these 1-.{ach number were approximately lh e same for each
" L
d model, they cl iffel'ed lightly beca use of th e clifl'er encps in
(b) J\ l ocl el 5p, ]5= 0.50.
po ition of th e model wi t hin Lh le t seetion. Fo r each
FIGUR E 4.- Long il udin a I dis tribu tio n of press ure coeffi cient for of th model , tb pre ure coefficient at th e nose agree
hem isphere-cones at 0° a ngle of attack. with th e pitot-pre Ul' coefficient calculated b~' R ayleigh'
 J ' YESTIGATION OF 'l'HE DRAG OF YARJO S AXIALLY SYMMETRIC
equation and shown for comparison by the dashed line.
For models 4p and 5p at l1ach numbers 1.97 and 1.5 (figs. 4
(a) and 4(b)) the rapid expaD ion of the flow over tbe
hemi pherical tip is followed by a recompression ov l' Lhe
forward part of the coni al portion of the no e. The
pres U1'e on t he conical surface l' covers to, 01' almo t to,
t he theoretical value of the pre U1'e co fficient for a sharp-
no cd cone of the ame 101 e. For a 1Iach number of 3.1,
the expanding flow on tbe hemi phere doe not reach a
lower pre sure than the theor tical surface pre ure for a
cone of the ame lope a the conical afterbody, and it i
foun 1 Lha t the pressure i con Lan L ov l' mos t of the coni cal
portion of the no e. From the e data it appears that the
as umption made in the drag estimaL ,namely, that the
pressure over the conical pOl'Lion of the nose icon tant and
equal to the theoretical value for a sharp-no ed cone of the
same lope, is essentially correct for free-stream 1Iach
number of 3 and greater. For 1Iach numbers Ie s than 3
tbe average pressure over the conical section i Ie than
that a umed in the estimate, and hence the estimated
drag contribu tion from this part of the nose will be too high.
A more detailed tudy of the pre sure distribution over
the hemispherical portion of thi type body is available
from Lhe data of figure 4(c). For comparison with Lhese
experimental data, the theoretical incompressible distri-
bution (only part of which is shown for simplicity) and the
di tl'ibution predicted by Newtonian theory (ref. 15) arc
hown. It is apparent that as the 1Iach number is increa ed
the pre sure clistribu tion approache that predicted by
IJ ewtonian theory. In pite of this trend, it i evident
hat the distribution would never agree exactly with the
:N ewtonian becau e the peak pressure coefficient at the no e
would be omcwhat Ie s than Lhe J ew ton1an value of 2.
An additional factor which ha been neglected in thc N ew-
tonian theory is the effcct of c ntrifuO'al forces which,
al though negligible for the lower Iach numbers, would tend
Lo reduce the theoretical pr SS Ul'e coefficients over the hemi-
sphere in Lhe high Mach number range.
The study of the compari on of the experim ntal pres ure
distribuLions for Lhe hemi phere with that predicted by
Newtonian theory (fig. 4(c) ) indicates that an empirical
expre sion for Lhe pre sure distribution, which yield rca on-
ablY a curate valu es of the wave drag, may be written. The
cle~olopmcnt of the expl'e sion is ba ed upon two experi-
mental results: First, the preSSllre at the tip of the hemi-
phere i the tagnation pre ure and may be calcula ted
exa tly from the Rayleigh equation. econd, at the high
Mach number the ub equent expan ion of the Dow is
imilar to that predicted by N wtonian theory, and the
local pre sure differ from the ewtonian value by an
amounL which varie approximately a the co inc of the
angle e. Based upon the e ob ervation the following
empirical expr e ion for the pr ssure distribution on a
hemisphcre may be written:
(4)
where P tithe pitot-pre me coeffici nt at the stagnation
poin L on the hemi phere. The expre ion predicts a pres-
1I1'e coefficient that i exac at e= o and agree with the
483645- 50- 2
-OSE SHAPES OF FINENESS RATIO 3 7
Ke,,·tonian value of P = O at 0= 90 0 • It, is appar cilt from
the data of figure 4(c) that, although Lhe l'csultinO' pre' me
distribution will closely approArimate the cxperimcnt.al eli -
tribution at high Mach numbers, the preclicLed prc sure
ncar e= 90 0 will be considcrably in errol' fot' lower Mach
number. How vel', this hould not result in a (' ['lOU S
elTOl' in the pre ure cira o', ince the ul'face lope i mall in
this region, and thus Lhe re ulLing drag conLribuLion is al 0
small. A simple expre ion for Lhe wave drag coeffic:ien I,
of the hemi phere re ult from this empirical equation for
the pre me distribution. Thus, ba ed upon the maximum
C1'OSS- ection area,
(1)
Values compu ted from Litis equation a re compared ill (j gu/'c
5 with e tinlate of the \\-ave drag from LoLal drag meaSlJ/'e-
1.0
& '" .8
C
Q)
u
,rr Model 4p
o
.6
~
/' Model 6p
0
Q)
0
I---l---hf-+
' - - Es Imo l ed from exper imen J, re f. 16 and 17
U
0' II 2,0,-1
2 .4 I---t--tl--+ - - - - Empirical formula , COw: - 3 -
'D
Q)
>
0
$: .2
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mach number, M
FIGURE 5.-Variation of wave drag coefficient with Mach number for
a hemisphere.
ment (ref . 16 and 17) and with the experimental pre mc
drag determined from the pressure distribu Lions of figure
4 . For 1ach numbcr between 2 and the agrcem nt is
excellent. A would be exp cted from the pre Ul'e-eli-
tribution re uIt , the yalue from the mpirical expL'c IOn
are too large in the lower 11ach number range.
From these data it appear that for the estimate of the
wave drag of the hemi phencally blunte 1 cone, the con-
tribution of the hemispherical tip to the total wave drag at
Mach numbers of 2 and greater may be calculated ac 'mately
with the propo ed empi}'ieal expres ion.
Flow field .- The recompre sion of the flow over the up-
tream portion of the conical afterbody, which wa noted
proviou ly in the eli cu ion of the pre uro eli tribu tion , i
a ociated with the appearance a hort di tance elown Crcam
from the bow wave, of an approximaLely conical shock
wave in the flow field. The ehliel'en pictlU'e for model 5
(fig. 6) are typical for all the hemispheric ally blunted cone
(model 1 throuO'h 5) tlu'oughout tho Mach number rang.
The e picture how that the inten ity of Lhe wave dccrea 0
with incl'ca ing Mach number. At Mach number 3.06 the
wave is no longer evident wiLhin the bound of the s hliel'cn
field. The dccrca 0 in ill ten ity of the wave is in accorel
with tho changes found in Lhe pressure disLribu tion data.
8 B,EPOB,T ]3 6- NA'l'I ONAL ADVI SORY COMMI'l' TEE FOB, AEB,O r AUTI CS

(d) M = 3.06

(a) Jlf = J .2-1-

(e) 111 = 3.67

Figure G.- Concludcd.

(Sec fig. 4.) A t fir t, glance it, might, appe<Lr t,ha t this wave
could be as ociatecl wi t h a region of separa ted flow on the
hemispherical t ip, wi th ub equ en t r eattachmen t accom-
panied by a ho ck wave. However, the schlier en pictm es
show no ' evidence of flow eparation. Additionally, it is
apparen t from the schlier en pictmes that this sho ck wave
(b) M = J. 54
does not extend from the ou tel' flow dO'wn to t he body
urface but appears to be diffu sed neal' the surface. These
observations lead to the peculation that the origin of the
wave must b e associated with the transonic or mixed type
of flow which occur in the vicinity of the no e of the body .
Th e mechanism by which the compression wave is formed
may be much the arne as that discussed in reference 18 for
the two-dimensional flow around a sharp-nosed double-
wedge airfoil ec tion wi th d etached bow wave. It is b elieved
t hat the wave r e ults from a coale cence of weak compres-
sion wav es r eflec ted from th e body surface. (The existence
of . the compression r egion is confumed by the pre sure-
distribution da ta .) Th ese waves apparently originate as
expan ion waves from th.e body surface downstream
I'
from
the onic poin t. As indi cated in the sketch , the e expansion
wave which travel along chatacteri ti lin e arc r efle cted
from the oni c line and tb e" bow wave as compression waves
\\-hich ar e in tum reflected from th e body surface. The
refl ction of these wavelets from th e body urfaco occurs in
such a manner that th ey coalesce to form a sho ek wave.
(c) M = 1.96 The dependence of this phenomenon on both the fr ee-
} .'ra U RE 6.- Schlicrcn p ictu rcs for 50-percent hcm ispheri call,l' blun t ed stream Mach numb er and the inclina tion of th e uody surface
con c, mo del 5, at vari ou. M ac h n umber . ju t down tream of th e po int of la ng ncy of th e h cmi phel'e
 INVES'l'IGA'l'IO l OF 'l'HE DRAG OF VARIOUS AXIALLY SYMMETRIC NOSE SHAPES OF Fl. ENESS RATIO 3
with Lhe afterbody is demon trated by the following ob e1'-
vaLions. For the hemispherically blunted cone, neither
the hock wave nor the region of recompression on the
body urface was found for 'Mach numbers above 3.06 .
The di appearance of this hock wave and region of com-
pression results from the combination of the movement of
the bow wave do er to the body urface and the small up-
stream movement of the onic point witL increasing Mach
numb 1'. The e change reduce the extent of the mixed
flow region so that for Mach number above approximately
3 most of the compre ion wavelet reflected from the
son ic line and bow wave are incident upon the body urface
in the expansion region between the onic point and the
poin t of tangency of the hemisphere with tbe afterbody and
hence are canceled. The importance of the inclination of
the bo ly surface in the r egion of the reflections is indi ate 1
by the fact that, although the pre sm e-distribution data
for model 6p (fig. 4(c» how that at the lowest test 11ach
number there exrists a region of recompre ion just down-
stream from the juncture of the Lemi phere and eylindrical
afterbody, the magnitude of the recompre ion is very small
and doc not result in a econdary shock wave that can be
detected in the schlieren pictures.
Drag.- The variation of drag coefficient with Mach num-
ber for the hemisphel'ically blun ted cone of fin enes ratio 3
(model 1 through 5) are presen ted in figme 7. Becau e of
the difference in test technique, the data from the winel
tunnels and from the free-flight facility ar e pre ented epa-
rately. ince the models vary progre sively from the sharp-
no cd cone to the very bluD L model with the large hemi-
pherical tip (d/D=0.5), the variation of the foredrag coefft-
cient with Mach number (fig. 7(a» changes progres ively
from thc familiar variation for a cone (foredrag coefficien t
decrea e with increasing 1fach number) to the variation
chal'3.cteri tic of a hemisphere (fig. 5). Variation with
Ma,ch number of the total drag coefficient (fig. 7(b» 4 is
• No ULLOllllJL hus been made to join the air-off daLa anel ai r-on data because of the dif.
ferences in Reynolds number, recovery temperature. And stream Lurbulence,
- - - Shock waves
- - - Sonic line
- - - - - Expansion } Mach
- - - Compression lines
imilal' for all model in that the drag coefficient continuall.\-
elecrea e 1 with increasing 11a h number.
The data from figure 7(a) are replotted in figure to
show the variation of foreelrag with nose bluntne at con-
tant Mach number and provide compari on with the
e timated foredrag characteristics. For Lhis series of fine-
ness ratio 3 no es, a small aving in foredrag may be achieved
t hrough the u e of a hemispherically blunted cone in place
of a harp cone of the same fineness ratio. POl'hap more
important i the fact tl1at a relatively large increase in
volume over that of a harp. nosed cone may b realized
without incurrinO' any increa e in foreclrag . An additional
factor to be on idered i that the hemi pherical nose pro-
viele an ideal hOll ing for earch radar gear. The e data
show that with i!lcrea Lng 1 I ach number there i a decl'ease
in both the degree of blunting which re ults in minimum
foredrag a well as the maximum blunting anowable uch
that the foredrag i not O'reater than that of the harp-no ed
cone. These result are in e ential agreement with the
preliminary foredrag cLimate.
Although the re ult (fig. ) show that for thi finene s
ratio 3 erie of model there is orne drag reduction with
increase in bluntne , the magnitude of the po ible drag
r eduction which i obtainable by thi method of blunting
decrea e rapidly with in reasing finenes raLlo. In fact ,
there appear to be an upper limit to the finenc ratio for
which thi.s type of blunting will yield any drag reduction.
ome indication of the magnitude of (hi limiting finene
ratio which varie with 1Iach number have been obtained
by comparing the variation ,,-ith finene raLio of the e ti-
mated wave drag of the d/D=0 .075 model with that of a
cone of the same finen ratio at 11Iach number of 2 and 3.
The e results (fig. 9) indicate that the wave drag of the cone
i Ie s than that of thi moderately blunt model for length-
to-diameter ratio in exce of approx'imately 5.4 and 5.0
at 1Ia h number of 2 and 3, re pectively. The e result
also sho w hat the range of no e fineness raLio for which
10 REPORT 1386-NATIO TAL A DVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO AUTI CS

Re=2.42x I06 Experiment

: Re=3.14 x 10 6 Re= 4.o0x 10 6
o Foredrog
, i ! Re'4.14x106 , ! Re=3,45x I06 o Wove drog (press. distr. models)
I J 1 T
Estimate
dID, .500 _ c:J - M =1.24
"'ZJ"
.2 I-- Wove drag
Re=2.42xI06 'l -- - - Foredrog (estimated wove drClg

.1
~- - -p + BlaSIUS' laminar skin rlc:,on)

Flogged symbOlS
"'- 300 . c::::::J - denote Re = 1.17x I 0 6

f>-- 10-
I I J --
c M =1,44
r-
.<?
o r,, 150 - c:::::::::::J - ~.2 1- Re= 1.17xl06 .2 I-- M =3.06
0>
.2 u :,.::: J;? Re=4.00xI0 6 ~
~ P-- la- 075 .c:::::::J -
f-- ,~ 3.14x106 yP' y
0 """ ~
8'" .1
'0
to--- fa-- t-- I
, .~

O+-ir- .1
<V

t2 0 1
0'
I
o
o
~o
I o
(0) '"
o
1,4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 lL. .2 I-- M =1.96 .A
2 I-- M=3.67 ~
Re=4 . 14x 106 ; "'/ Re=3,45xI0 6 ,fP'
Mach number, M
..", ~ r .1 i..-- ~
.1
-
0 Re=0.8Mx 10 6 , 01( off
~~ 0 Re= 3.0 x 106 , 01( an () .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5
0 Re=4.ox10 6, air an d d
~ {; Re= 7.5 x 10 6 , 01( an
Bluntness' l5 Bluntness, 75
"'C I I
Q dID =.500 FI GU R E 8.- Y ari ati on of foreclrag coeffi ci ent with bluntn ess for
~
~

lJtI... L
hemisphere- con e series, constan t 15=3.
.2.3 '0
q \
e:, I" \ "=\
& \ 1\
1:3"
-: .1 2.3 Q "'" ~ -....... -.a- .300 14
c
~
~
;:?
't;
"
f\. "U

~ 0.1.2.3 c;: '\I1\ 1'-.

o
u ~ ~
\ ~ "'r- . 15~ 1 j\
'0
0.12.3
I'\.. f'.. - 12

1\\ d / D= 0 , cone
o
f- r'u. D-
1-- 075 f.--
0.1 .2
b1 l\\~ ---
-'-J

"'" ~
r-c L Li , ~ 10
d / D= .075

I \~\\
0.1
~

(b) '-:Ie:, \ \ 1\
o 2 3 4
Mach number, M
5 6 7 8 -c
'"u
-
.0 8
\~ \\
(a) \\'ind t unn el r esults.
( b) Free-flight r es ul t s.
-
~
0
I\>~!\
~~
U
FI GURE I. - V a ri ation of drag coeffici ent ,\'ilh Mach n umber for r --M =2

,
. I . ",,' /
15L = 3.
0'
h cmlsp l er e- co ne sen es, con stant 0 .0 6

,· l~ ~
~' I
'0

'"> ..
this type of blunting would be advantageou decreases with 0
M=3 -.. - '.'

"
.
increasing l\![ach numbers. 3:
.0 4 ~ ~
It should also be pointed out that the drag penalty asso-
""'- .........
ciated with the 11 e of excessive blunting increases rapidly
with increasing fineness ratio. At a Mach number of about
~~ ~--.....

3.1 the data of the present report (fig. 8) indicate that the
~ p::
~ r::::::
foredrag coefficient of a 20-percent blunt cone is about 0.01 .0 2
greater than that of the sharp-nosed cone of the same fmc -
ness ratio. This increment repl'esen t approximately a 12-
percent increase in foredrag and may be compared with the
data of refereuce 19, wherein it is shown that the same o
2 3 4 5 6 7
de!:,ree of blunting for a fineness ra tio body results in an Fin eness rati o, L /D
increment in wave drag coefficient of 0.053 , corresponding ;FIG URE g.- Compari son of t he estim at ed II a l 'e drag variation " 'ith
to an in crea e in prc m e drag of mo)'e than 300 percent. fin enes rat io for a sharp-p oin ted con e and a 7.5-p cr cen t hemisph eri-
The estimated wave drag coefficients fo), the d/D = 0.30 ('nll~' bluntcd co ne at :\Jach number 2 and 3.
 L · VESTI GATION OF 'l'HE DRAG OF VARIO U S AXIALLY S YMMET RIC N OSE H A PES F FI TE E S RATIO 3 11

and 0. 50 mod 1 at Mach numb er of 3.06 and 1.96 ar e in
very good agr eem ent wi t h the wave dr ag determined from
t he pressure distribu tion model (ee fig. ) . imilarly t he
agr eem ent be ween the experim ental fOl'edrag and Lh e ti-
mated fOl'edrag b ased upon th e e timated wave drag plu s
lamin ar incompres ible skin -fri ·tion drag is v er)T good 1'01'
M a h nu mb ers ] .96, 3.06, and 3.67. For the tes ts at th e e
Ma ch numbers the schlier en pictmes taken duri ng th e te l
ind icated t ha t the boundary lay er wa completely lamin ar
over each of t he model . An in ter e ting effec t of body shape
upon bound ary -layer tran iLion .is indicated b y th e r e ulLs
of th e te t at M = 1.44 a nd] .24. From th e schlier en pictur e
a nd the fOl'edrag data i t wa evid ent t hat tmbu lent bound-
a ry-lay l' flow existed on part of t he conical af terbodie of
Lhe d/D = 0.30 and d/D = 0. 50 bodie for t he higher R ey nolds
numb er at M = 1.44 and] .24 . In con tra t, the bou ndary-
layer How was l aminar over t he. ent ire surface of t he. cone
for t he identical te t conditions. I t i b elieved that t he
difference b e.tween t he. r esult for t he. cone a nd t he blu n t
bodies r esul t largely from the effect of the difference in
body pre ure distribu hon . For t he cone t he pr e ure i
con ta u t along th e surface alld t herefor e n eu tral in sofar a
its effect on t he boundary -layer (J ow is con cern ed. For bo lh
the blun t bodies at t he low .M ac h numb ers, the pr essu I'e
gradient ill the. str eamwi e. d irection is positive ju st dow n-
stream from the point of ta ngency of the no e. wiLh Lhc
conical section ( ee fig . 4) and hence Lends to t hick eJl t he
boundary layer and promo te tran ition. Both t he. chlieren
p icture an d th e. for ce m easurem n ts indica t th at for Lhe
h ig h R eynolds numb er the bound al'~' layer i turbule.nt over
a much gr ea ter por tion of Lhe surface of tile blunter of Lhe
two bodie . This r e ult, i in agr eem ent wi th what mig ht b e
exp ected on th ba i of t he diffeTon e in. the pre m e di tl'i-
bu tions for the two mod el . AlLhouo-h th e adver e gl'ad ien t
for both th e. d/D = 0. 30 and d/D = O.50 model star t a t e en-
b e achiev ed throu gh the u e of a h emi pherically blunted
con e in place. of a harp cone of Lhe samc nn ene ralio.
AlLhough this Lype of blunting can b e beneficial, pr eliminary
es tim a te have ttl 0 indicated that no drag r edu clion ca n b e
a chieved by simply r eplacing tbe. harp no e of a 'iven con e
wiLh a hemi ph erical Lip . In t his case the cone a ngle i no t
r edu ced, in ce Lh e leng t h of Lhe model i r edu ced in Lead.
In ord er to vcrify these ],esul ts, tests have been m ade a L
M ach numb ers ].44 a nd ] .99 for a ser ies of h emi phcri cally
b lun ted cones, formed by progr e iv ely blun t in o- an L /D = 3
cone. Bo th th e. exp eriment al for edr ag r e ult and the es ti-
m ated value of for dr ag ar plotted in figl.1l'e 10. lL is evi-
clent from th e figure t hat t her e i good agreem enL b etwee.n
experim en t and t heory, and t hat, as expected , t here is no
drag r edu ction du e to m er e blun ting of t he p ar en t cone..
T H E OR ETIC AL M I NIM UM D RA G OSE SH AP E
Co mp arison of experimental and theoretical foredrag.-
Comparisons of the experimen tal and lheore. tical foredr ag
variation with M ach numb er for t he theoretical minimum
drag nose, the. L /D =3 cone. an d th e L-V ogivc, are bown
in figure 11. The t heorelical drag calculation have b een
Experi ment
o Foredr o g
Esti ma te
_ _ _ Wa v e drag
__ __ For edrag ( est i mated wave dr ag
+ B lasi us ' l ami nar sk i n fric t i on )
.3
M= 1.4 4
Re =3.1 4 xI0 6
c:.l<.
~
/
...:
.,
c
.2
I--Y
u ~
--? ~
.,
0 :,.::::=-:;-
U
-~.::=- ~
0'
.,.".

tially th e. arne longitudinal tatio n along th e model , a.nd ::

'0
.1
ini tially ar e of approximately equ al m ag nitud e, t he aclver e ~
0
gradient for th e. bluntcr m odel, d/D = O.50 , ex tend over lJ...

mo Lof Lhe conical section of t he model ; wh er ea the gJ'a lien t

fo]' th e d/D = 0. 30 mod el i ncutral over mo t of t hc coni cal 0
ection. H ence, iL appears r ca onable to expect a lower
R ey nold numb er of tra n il ion for t he blun ter of t h Lwo
model .
For t he. d/D = 0. 30 a nd d/D = 0.50 mod els at Mach numb er .3
M= 1.99
of 1.24 and 1.44, e.qu aLion (2) yiells val'u es of Lhe wave drag 6
c:.l<.
Re= 2.01 x 10 /./
alone which ar e ev en gr eater Lha n t he. m easured fo ['cclrag ~
.j?
/./'
aL the lower R eynold numb er . This di cr epa ncy i attr ib - ?
.,c .2
uted to th e fa ·t th a t at these Mach numb ers t he emp ir ical 'u ;:::?
expl'e sion include too large a valu e for th e wave drag of .,
~

0 l.;:?'
~
the h emi pherical portion of these model . (. ee fig. 5.)
~
u

H ence., for the for edrag e timate hown in figur e for 0'
...D -- ~ ~
2 .1
:Mach numbers 1.24 and] .44 , Lhe lower val-u s of Lhe wave .,
'0

d],ag of t he h emispherical por t ion. of t he model obtained ~

0
lJ...
from xp eriment (fig. 5) were. u eel . For all ot hcl' Mach
num1 er tile empirical expl'e.ssion (eq. (2)) was use.d . The. o
o .2 .3 .4 .5
csLimated for drag r e nI t obtain ed ar e in fail' agreement
Bl unt ness . !!...
\v i th th e exp erimental daLa. o
previously discussed , preliminary estimates and e.xperi- F IGU R E l O.-Variation of fore drag coefficient " ith blu nLnes for hc mi-
m ent have. bo Lh shown t haI, a m all aving in foredrao- may p h r -cone scrics, can tant coDe anglc= l °56'.
12 REPORT 13 6- rATIO NAL ADVI ORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTI CS

o Pres en tesTS (2 x I0 6 <Re<4 x I0 6 )

• Data fro m ref 7

Theoretical wave drag

--- Exacl , ref. 9
- -- Me thod of characteristics, ref. /I
--- Secand order , ref. 12
- -- - First orde r, ref. 12

Theoretical fared rag (Re= 4 x 10 6 )

- -·-- Wave drag + laminar skin friction by ref. 13
----- Wove drag + lu rbul ent skin friction by re f. 14

16

c}
\j

c
.12
~
~~
-- ----- - ....:::::::
0 - --- --
~-----=--- ,-==- -=
-- ---
Cl>
u -- - --
-- k>. _
-- --
o - -=-- ___-1--_
r--
8 o
Cl>
0
.OS
U
0'
~
u
Cl> .04
(;
LL

(0) (d)
0

.16

~c:.
"-
--- - -- - --
-.: .12

--= t:::. - --
.........
c 0
-? --- --- -- -
----
Cl> In

'--
1--':- u
U ~-
f:::--- r:-=: I":'::':' ~
I-
Cl> .OS
0 1---
U t---
0'
~
u
~
.04
0
LL

(b) (e)
0

.16,---,--,,---,--,---,-- ,---,--,,---,--,--,--,,--.--,

.12 f---+--+--+-+--+--I--If--+--+--+--+--+--I--I
c

----
Cl>
0 - ___ _ _ -- 10 -
U

Cl>
--.,-,. --::- --1--__ ~__
0- -= =-~
.OS~~~+-~~~~~~~~~~~_~ ~~o-~-+-+-o~ ---------
o -- 1___ - --_
~
~
I

---- • o

¥o .04~-+-4--~-+-+-~-~-+--4-~-~-+-4-~
LL

(c) (I)
1.4 I.S 2.2 2.6 30 3.4 3.S 1.0 1.4 I.S 2 .2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8
Mach number, M Ma ch number, M
_ L L
Ca) ~I ode l ;\0. 1, cone, ]) = 3. (d) ~f ode l :\0. 14, L- V H aack'15=3.

(b) 10del No. 16, L- Y Ogivl!, ~= 2.93. (e) l\Iodcl ~o . 15, D - V H aack ' 15=3.
L

(c) M odel No. 13, L - D H aack, ~=3. (f) l\I odel No . 10, H YP('I"sonic Opt., ])=3.
L

F IG RE l l.- Co rn pari on of experimental and t heoretical fared rag for vari ous mode l .
 II VES'rIGATIO 1 OF THE DRAG OF YARIO S AXIALLY SYMl\1ETRIC ' OSE SHAPES OF FINENESS RATIO 3
limiLed in most ea os to a mallor ~laeh number rang Lhan
that for which experimental 1'e ults are available. For
·M ach numbers Ie s than 1.4 or greater than about 3, Lhe
conical Lip approximaLion Lo Lh lrue b ely hap whi h
would have been necessary for application of the perturba-
tion t heory to the minimum elrao- hap es were con iel r ed
umea ollably large; h enee, the econd-order thcoreLical
r esulL were limited to :M ach number between 1.4 and 3.
In facL, for the L- 11 Haack no e th theoretical calculation s
were limiL d to ::\Iach numb cr 2.4, a an exce ive amount
of co nical Lip modification would be nece sary for the theory
to be applica ble at higher ~Iach number. TheoreLical e ti-
mates of the fore drag have been made by the addiLion of
flat-plate skin-frietio n values to the computed wave cI rag,
the kin fri ction b eing calculated for a R eynolds number of
4 X 10 6 . Although ome of the experimental data wer e
taken at lower R eynolds number (betwecn 2 X 10 6 an 1
4 X 106) , the error introduc d by calculation of the skin
fri ction at one R eynolds numb r i mall and ce r tain l~' well
within the accuracy of the experimental r e ul t . Either
complel ly laminar (ref. 13) or completely turbul nt (ref.
14) kin-friction drag ha been a umed, al though the
chliel'en pictures indicated Lhat for the te ts at ~J!ach num-
bers of 3.06 and 3.67 boundary-layer tran ilion occulTed n
ome of the models.
A compari on of the experimen tal a n 1 theor tical fo redrag
for t be L jD=3 cone ha b een includ ed in figure 11 , inc
uch a compari on indi cate how well the kin-friction drag
may be calculated a nd al 0 provides an indication of th
accuracy of the other experimental r uHs. For Lhe R ey-
nold number of thi inve tigaL ion , hlier·en observalions
indicated l aminar-boundar)T-la~~e r flow on the cone at all
~Iach number. The foredrag of Lhe cone \Va clos ly e li-
mated by the addition of the exact Taylor-~I accoll wave
drag and Blasiu ' incompres ible laminar skin friction.5
In general, good agreement betwee n the experinlental and
theoretical foredrag for l amin ar-bounclary-I a~~er flow wa
obtain ecl for mo t of the models at M ach number of 1.4
and 2.0. Nevertheless, at 11ach number 2 the foredrag of
the L-D and L- 11 Haack hap e ar overe timat 1 1 )' abou t
the magnitude of the th eoretical laminar- kin-frict ion drag.
For a :'laeh number of 3 lhe for eclrag of the cone and the
for eclrag of the L-D H aack hap e arc in good aOTeement with
Lhe l heory for lami nar-boundary-Ia.\·er Dow. However, the
compari on indicate that th boundary-layer flow for III
L- T1 ogive, th D- 11 Haack shape, and the byp r onic
opLlmulU hap e were at leas partially turbulen t at t his
Uach numb er. At the maximum 11ach number (1\d"= 3.67)
the exp erim ntal foredrag of the L- 11 ogive ex eed eycn the
theor'tical value for compl lely urbulent boundary-layer
flow. Thi same re uIL i a1 0 inferreel from the compari on
for th D- 11 mod 1. It is not clear which part of the theo ret i-
cal for eclrag i at fault, that i , Lh wave drag or lhe ki.n-
friction drag. However, it appear mo t lik ly that the
theoretical-skin-friction drag is too mail, since con id erabl
, T he lTandtzche and "Vendt transform ation of lamin ar·boundary·layer skin·friction drag
of a Oat plate to that of a cone \I as neglected si nce its in clusion would ba\' e increascd the
foredrag by on ly 1 percent.
13
confidence may be pIa d in th wave drag value, parti ularly
for the L- 11 ogive. 6
The data also how that for these particular body shape ,
Lhe fiT t-OTCler theory- yields ac epLable value of wav e drag
for M ach numb I' clos to 1.4 only. At the higher ~l ach
numbers, th first-order theory yield r ults which are too
low.
Although slender-body theory has sometimes been used
to calculate the wave drag of shape with finene ratio a
Iowa these, the wave drao- coefficient of 1/9, 1/ , and 1/6
for the L-D, L- 11, and D- 11 H aack hape (r ef. 2), r e pec-
tivcl)7, are too la rge at all ~l ach number a ompared wi th
the result in figme l1(c), l1(d), and 11 (e).
Comparison of foredrag of theoretical minimum drag nose
shapes with foredrag of other nose shapes .- In ord er to
a sess the theoretical minimum drag bap e for lhe three
aLLwiary condition of gi ve il length and diameter, given
1 ngth and volume, or given diameter and volume, other
common shape with iclen Lical valu e of the e parameter
have been te ted and compari on of the resul t are hown
in figur 12. AlthouO"h the Reynold number wa noL COll-
tant throughout the 11ach number range, it wa un hanged
for all Lhe te L at each Mach number. Hence, differ nce
in foredrag between models compared at a giv n Mach
numb er may not be aLLribuLecl to difference in R eynold
numb er.
The foredrag coe[fici nL of the theoretical minimum lrag
hap for a given length and diameter, the L-D Haack no e
(or Karman ogive), and the h)~personic optimum nose (%
power and Ferrari hap , e fig. 2) ar compared with the
foredr ao- coefficients of th e parabolic DO e in figure 12 (a).
I t i noteworthy t hat th L-D Haack no e i not Lbe lea t-
drag hape for any ~I ach number within the range of the
le ts. For the major portion of the 11ach number rang
(above 11ach number 1.5), the h)'per onic optimum hap
has th least for drag. It i omewhat urpri ing that 3:n
optimum hap e ba ed upon Tewtonian impact theorr hould
have Ie s drag than the L-D Haack nose at the relaLively
low up er onic 1Iach number. It i DoL clear wh eth er thi
anomaly re LIlt from lhe l"e LricLion of zero lope aL Lbe
ba e which wa e iclenLly a umed in the d rivat ion of Lhe
L-D I-Iaack no e, or wh ether this i arc ull of the 10\ fin e-
nes rat io of the mo lel . To i,we tigaLc thi latter point,
tlte wave drag 0 (ficienL of both the L-D Haa k and the
h)'perso nic optimum hape were calculated by econcl-oreler
theory for fin enc raL ios of 3, 5, and 7 at a ~'[ach number
of 3. These re ult (nO". 13) show that Lh wave drag
coeffi cient of the "Haack" hape i the large r for fin ene
rat io of 3 and 5. For fin ene ratio 7 an." C/iJTerence in
wave drag betwecn Lh L-D Haack an 1 Lhe hyper onic
optimum hapes is 0 mall a lo be w·iLhin Lbe limits of
uncertainty of the alculaLion. T o provide a be tel' indi-
cation of Lhe ombinat ion of 11ach number and fin ene s
ratio for which lhe h)'per onic optimum no e ba Ie wave
, The foredrag \"filu cs reported herein for the L- F ogi\·e ( L/ D= 2.93) are a bout 10 pCl eent
low r than those reported in refcrcnce 7 for an L /D=3 ogive, although the foredrag results for
the cone and hype rsonic ol>t lmum shapes (fi gs. 11 (a) and 11 (OJ arc in agreement. E ven
though the tests ha '·c bcen rerun and the data have been carefull y checked, no saUsfactory
explanation has, as yet, been foun d for this di fference.
14 REPORT] 3 6- TATIO AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONA T I CS

.16 .08 I I I I I
Model no. Designation LID Second - order theory, re . 12
c:,"-
'-l 0 13 L - 0 Hoock 3.00 - - L -0 Hoock (or Korman oglve ~ _

~
10 - - - HypersoniC optimum
c .12 0 Hyper. Opt. 3.00
OJ 0 II Para ba l oid 3.00
u In..
,. .06
la?' -= ~ U" "'\
~
-yo
~ .08
u ~ "
--
c
'"g ' ",
0'
o
~ .0 4
Q:;
0 .04 ~
'" ~
u
OJ
o
lJ...
'"
0
i>
(a)
o i'" ' :::::-- ~ -:::-....
.16
02 ::::::
Model no. Designation LID 1'---.
c:,"- 0 15 D-V Hoock 3.00
'-.l 0 17 D-V Cone 3.38
_- .12 -......
c
OJ
U
~ ~

.......
r--- r-- 3 4 5 6 7
r- r--.o Fineness rollO. L/O
~ .0 8
u FI GU RE J:3.- Va ri aL i n of " 'a ve drag coefficient "iih fin encs ratio for
0'
thc t h OI'eiical min imum drag no e hapes of pecificd lcngth an d
o di ameter at ~ I flcb number 3.
~ .0 4
OJ
o .5 I I I I I I
lJ...
(b) Second - orderIheory, re f. 12
o 1-0 L -0 Hoock (or Korman oglve)
0 Hypersonic optimum
.16
Model no. Designolion LID .4
V
,~
0 14
16
L-V Hoock
L-V Og ive
3.00
2.93
""IQ. ,. V /
~/
0
'-l .12 G'
c - .3
../
OJ
'"
/ /
Qj
U E
0
~ .08 (; ,./

~ I.c>- / ;/
o --{ 0.
U
'--
I----<> 0'
0' e .2
~~
0

2 '0

~.04 '"0:> ~
o 3 V
lJ...
/
(c) I""
1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8
Mach number, M

(a) Length an d diam etcr givcn. .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

(b) Diamctcr an d volumc givcn.
(c) Lcngth and volumc givcn.
Similarity parame er, K= L':o
FI(: R~~ 12.-Comparison of for edr ag of H aack models" ith othe r FiG U RE l -l. -Vari aLion of wav c drag parametcr, C'Dw i, with til(' . im-
p
models having the ame t wo sp ccificd paramctcrs .
la ri ty parameter forth c theo rctical minimum drag nosc shape of
pecified lcngth and diam eter.
drag than the L-D Haack no e, the result of all of the
available econd-order soluLion fo r these shapes have been cOlTecL m in imum elraO' hape for bodies wi Lh zero slop e aL
ploLLed in fig ure 14. The ploL i made in term of t he Lhe base. I n a ny evenL, it could be exp cte I Lhat t he (hag
hyper on ie irn il arity parameter, K = NJ/(L j D), a nd in di- cliffeI' nee would be much Ie for higber fin eness ratio no es.
cales Lhat for value of K in excess of about 0.4 01' 0.5 Lhe The fo r edl'aO' of t he theoretical m inimum dra g sh ape for a
hyper on ic optimum hape ha the lower wave drag. given length and volume (L- V Haack, model 14) is com-
T he foredl'ag of the theoretical minimum drag hape for a pared in figul' 12 (c) wi t h the foredl'ag of a il'cular-a.:r·c ogive
given diameter and volume (D- V Haack, model 15) i com- (L - V ogive, mod el ] 6) having identical value of length and
pal' cl in figure 12 (b) with the fOl'edl'ag of a cone (D-11 cone, volume. ince tbe ba e ar eas of the e )loses differ, the fore-
model 17) having identical value of diameter and volume. drag oeffi cient ar e based on (volume)2/3 in Lead of base
Except for 1 I ach number below abo ut 1.4, the foreclrag of area in orde l' that a direct comparison of Lll fO l'ecl l'ag m ay
the cone i of tbe order of 20 percent lower than that of the be conve ni ently mad e. Over the complete hc h n um ber
th eoretical optimum shape. Again, t hi 1'e lil t may be d uo range the foreci l'ag coeffici nt of th L -V H aack mo lel i
eiLher to t he low Finene raLio of t he bod ies leslcd Ot' Lhe between and 16 pe rcent lower t han Lhe foredrag coeffi cient
fail ure of the lender-bo 1y t heory to predict Lhe con ec t of the L- V oO'ive. For both model the variat ion of fo1'o-
minimum drag shape for all po ible hapes rather t han Lbe drag coefficien t with :'Iach number is similar.
 INVESTIGA'l'ION OF THE DRAG OF VARIO S AXIALLY SYMMETRIC NOSE SHAPES OF FINENESS RATIO 3 15
Foredrag of nose shapes defined b y r= R (X /L )n.- In r ef- over most of th e range. IL is of inter e I, to note that th e
erence 7 foredrag results of fin ene s ratio 3 models for n = 1, ellipsoid (model 1 ), alLhough howing a large in cr ease in
%, }~, and X are pre ented for th e Mach numb er range of for edrag coefficien t wiLb incr ea e in M ach numb E'l' to :.\Iach
2.73 to 5.00 and for length R eynold numbers between numb er 2, has con tant foredl'ag coefficienL for lV[ach num-
2 X 10 6 and 3 X I0 6. In th pre ent inve tigation similar b er above 2. Ther e i no minimum cll'ao- nose for Lhe com-
moc/el have been tested at Jvfach numb ers from l.24 to plete Mach numb er range, although th e hypersollic optimum
3.67 and R eynold numb r b tw en 2 X IO 6 and 4 X I0 6 in no e (model 10) ha Lhe least drag for Mach numbers abov
order Lo extend th e :Mach Dumber ran ge of availabl e drag 1.5 . Below lVIach numb er 1. 5 Lhe pal'abolod (model] 1)
elaLa. Th e foredrag r e ulL of Lhis inve tigation are pre- ha th e lowes t drag, slightly Ie than the drag of th e L- TJ
senLed in figure 15 and are compared with par t of th e res ults Haack no 0. (model 13). Of pecial no Le i Lhe obser vaLion
of referen ce 7, r eplotted fol' the overlappino- l\Iach numb er thaI, man y of Lhe no. c hap e have less drag Lhan th e cone
(model 1), parLicularly aL the lower M ach numb er .
Re=2.IOxI0 6
Re =2 .4 2 x 106 Re= 4.00 x 106 CO CLUSIO S
iRe =3 .14x I06 i Re= 2 .73 x 106
:: Re =4. 14x I0 6 : : Re= 3.4 5 xI 0 6 Drag measurements at zero angle of a tLack have been
i i !rRe =2.01 x l 0
6 , !Re =2 .1 7 x 10 6 made for various hemi pherically blun ted con e , theoretical
minimum drag no 0. hap e , and other more comm.on profiles
~

.24 ...- of fin ne ratio 3. An analysi of th e r es ult for a Mach

/' n umber r ange of ] .24 Lo 7.4 and for R eynold numb ers be-
.20
/ Mod el
Oesi gn at Ian n - tween l.O X I0 6 and 7.5 X I0 6 h a led to th e following
/ No. conclusions:
~
'-5 y- o I Cone I - 1. No model bad Lh e lea t foredrao- for the complete 1Iach
Hype r soniC Opt 31
.16
0 10
1/2 - numb er range.
C
<II
u
I <> I I
I> 12
Parab oloi d
1/ 4 Po wer 1/4 - 2. Of th e model te Led the paraboloid of r evolution had
~\Q Fi ll ed symbols den o te data fr om
- the least foredrag below a Mach nmub er of ] .5, and Lhe
'iii .12 r ef. 7
0
u I'---- f-..... hyper onic optimum hape bad the leasL foredrag above a
0-
~ / I--- Mach numb er of 1.5.
"0 .OS 3. Th theoreLical hap for minimum pre m e drag
~ fi ,0 ~

0
LL
.04
1.4 I.S 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4
Ma ch number, M
F lO RE 15.- Va ri ation of for drag coeffi cient wi t h M ae h num be r fo r
the famil y Of~= 3 nose hap . defin ed by T= R
range of both inve tigations. In gen eral, th er e is good
ao-reement between tb e da ta from both source , althou gh
there are small differ enc e which may be a ttributed to vari-
ations in R eynolds number. BoLh Lh e hyp ersonic opLimum
nose (n = %) and th e conical nose (n = J) how a similar cl e-
orea 0. in forcdrag coefficient with innea in ~I£ach numb er
over th " complete ~ Iach numb er ran ge. The hyp ersonic
opLimum no e, however , ha mu ch the lower foredrag (about
24 pel'ccnt lower at Mach numb er l.24 and 15 percent lower
at Mach numb er 3.67 ). In contra t with the decrea e in
the fore drag coefficient wiLh in r ea ing YIa ch numb er for
th e hyper onie optimum and conical no e , the foredrag co-
efficien L for the parabolic and X-power nose incr ease with
in cr ea iug ~/Iach numb er in th e lower par t of Lhe ?-.Ia ch
1\ umber l'ange.
COMPA RISO OF t' O R ED R AG OF ALL T H E FORCE MODELS
In :figure 16 a compari on of Lhe varia tion of for edrag
coefficient with Mach numb l' for all the for ce model LesLed
is how)\. In general, it is een that for th e more blunt
noses (model 5, 12, and 18) Lhe foredrag coefficient in reases
wiLli increase in Mach numb er , while for th e other no th e
foreclrag coeffici ent decr eases witll in cr ea e in NIach n urn ber
d erived by von K arman and by H aack for given lengLh and
diameter or given di ameter alld volume do noL have Ie drag
t han all other po ible bape havino- idenLical valu e of t he
ame parameter .
3.S 4.2 4. For the 11 mi pherically blun ted cone of low fi neness
ratios (of the order of 3) :
a. mall reductions in fOl'edrao- may be achieved by
(i) "· hemi pberical blul1til1o- (hemi pher e diameter ap-
proximat ly 15 percent of ba e diameter) if the
:finene s ratio i held COll tan t and, hen e, Lh con
a ngle redu ced with incr ea ed blun ting. If the cone
angle i held con tan t and the fin enes ratio redu ed,
hemi ph erical blunting r e Lilt in increa ed foredrag.
b . A r elatively large hemi pherical tip diameter (as
large a 30 pel'cen L of the ba e diameter at Mach
number of 1.24 and l.44) may be u d wi hout
increasing the drag above that of a harp-no ed cone
of the ame finen s ra tio .
For large ph eri al bluntne e (nose diameters of Lhe
order of 50 perce nt of Lhe ba e diameter) drag
penaltie were moderaLe a t :"Iach numb r Ie than
1.5 bu t be am evere with increa ino- lIIach number.
d. For ~/Iach number of 2 and greater th wave drag
may b accmately e tima ted by lhe addiLion of th
wave drag of Lil hemi pherical tip calculaLed from
an empirical expre ion and the wave drag of the
conical por Lion from T aylor-i\Iaccoll Lh eory.
AMES A E RO NAUTI CAL L ABORATORY,
N A'l' IO NAL AD VI ORY OMMI'n'E E F OR A E RO NAUTI S,
~tIOFFETr FIE LD , CALIF ., A ug. 28, 1952.
16 REPOR'r 13 6-1 ATIO AL ADVI SORY COMMI TTEE FOR AER ONA TICS

Mo el 0 Des/gnotlOn d/D LID Model 0 DeS/gna lion LID

0 1 Hemisphere-Cone, .0.00.0 3.00 1.0 Hyper .op 3.0.0
0 2 HemlSp el e-Cone, .075 00 D II Paraboloid 3 ..0.0
0 3 Hem/sphPre-Cone, 5.0 3.00 () 12 1/4 Power 3 ..0.0
C> 4 Hemlsp ere- Cone, 3.0.0 .00 11 13 L-D Haack 3.0.0
5 Hem/sphere- Cone, .5.0.0 .0.0 () 14 L-VHaack 3 ..0.0
"
(7 7 Hemisphere-Cone, ..075 281 I> 15 O-V Haack 3 ..0.0
0 8 Hem/sphere- Cone, 15.0 262 ,.. 16 L-V.ogive 293
0 9 Hemisphere-Cone 3.0.0 224 (] 17 O-V Cone 3.38
D 18 Ellipsoid 3.0.0
Re= 3 14xl.o~_--i Re= 2 .olx I~ ___ ._,

Re=242xl.o.~ ..: j Re=414xl.o6-,

,,i Re=4 .o.oxl.o~._ ..,
I
Re= 3 45xl.o? ....:
26

24

~ L----
~
~ I------ r----
- -v-

17
17

22

----
~
-----
2.0
V ----
~ t? -

/
/
18

V
/ r----
----
"-- .16
"-i
c
'"
u 14 I ~

'"ou
~ ~~ ~

--
12

~'n~~I---
Cl'

~~.~
o
u
OJ
'-
o
l.L.
.1.0
~ I p

~
..c> -....... ~ ~ ;;,:,.
--n:::
~
;....0-- ...............

.08
~ ~ I I
~

I
I

.06

.04

..02

Il
.0
1.0 1.2 14 16 1.8 2.0 22 2.4 26 28 3.0 3.2 3.4 36 38
Mac number, M

FiGURE IB.- VariIlLioll of [orC'drag co fficient wiLh Mach number for all t h fur ce model. tc's led.
 I VES'!'IGATIOI OF 'J'HE DRAG OF VARIO US AXIALLY SYMME'! 'RI C NOSE SH APES OF F
REFERE CES
I . yon K ar man , T h.: The P rob lem of R esistance in Compressible
l"luids. R. Accad. d' Ita lia, CI. Sci. Fr . M at. c Kat. , vo l X I V,
1936, pp. 222- 276. (F if t h Vo il a Co ngre. s held in Rome, ept.
30- Oct . 6, 1935) .
2. H aack, W. : P r oject ile F orms of M inim um \Vave R esi tancc.
(Translation) D ouctla Airc raft Compan y, I nc., R ep. 2 , 19~6 .
3. Lighthi ll , 1. J . : Superson ic F low Pas t Bodi e of R evolu t ion.
R . & M. N o. 2003, Bri t i h A. R . C. , 1945 .
4. a r , \V illia m R.: On P rojectile of Minimum Wa ve Drag. Qu ar t.
App/. i\I ath. , vol. IV, n . 4, J a n. 1947, pp . 361-3 66.
5. Wa rd , G . N .: Super o ni c F lo w Past lender Po inted Bod ie.
Quar t. Jo ur. Mec h. a nd App l. M at h., vo l. II, pt . J, Ma rch 1949,
pp.75-99.
6. F errar i, a rlo: T he Bod." a nd Ogiva l Con to ur G iving Yfi nimUJn
\Va-'e D rag. Atti dell Accade mia delle cien ze eli T or ino, vol.
'J., no . I , pp. 3-1 , 1949- 50. (Tran 'lat ed by R. H . Cra mer ,
Cornell Aero . La b ., I nc ., BuffalO, Ne w York, presented at session
of R eale Accadem ia delle Scienze di T or ino, Nov. 23, 1949.
7. E ggers, A. J ., Jr., R e. n ikofl', M eye r M ., and D en nis, D a vid H .:
Bod ie of R evo lution fo r Min imum Drag at H igh Sup e r~o ni c
Airspeeds. NA CA R ep. 1306, 1957 ( upersedes 1 ACA T
3666) .
Scifl' , Alvin : A Free-Flight Wind Tunn el F or Aerod yn a mi c T s t ing
at H yper' on ic Speed. . N A A R e p. 1222, 1955 (Supersede.
N A' RM A52A24).
9. M ass. I n ·t. of T ech. , D ep t. of E lect. En gr. , Cen ter of An a ly. i, .
T a ble of Superson ic F low Around Con e , by t he Sta ff of t he
o mputin g ec t ion , Cen te r of An a lysis, und er t he d ir ction of
Zden k Kopa!. T ech. R cp. No . 3, Cambr idge, 1949 .
10. ,'Lewa r t, H . J. : Th Theoret ical J~ if t a nd Drag of Con , at upe r-
son ic peeds. J et Propu lsion La b., GAL CI1' M emo . No. 4- 14,
Nov. 18, 1946.
JE JESS RATIO 3 17
11. E hret, D orris i\1. , Ro . . ow, Vern on J ., and te vens, Vi cto r L : An
An alysis of the Applicabil ity of t he H y per:on ic imi la rity La \\'
t o t he St ud y of F low Abou t Bodi e. of R evo lut ion at Zero An gle
of Attack. I ACA T N 2250, 1950.
12. Van D y k , M il ton D .: Pra ctical Calculation of Second-O rder
Supersoni c F low Pa. t Nonlif t ing Bod ies of R e vo lut ion. ACA
T N 2744, 1952.
13. B las ius, H .: Gren z chich ten un F liis ig keiten mi t kleine r Rubun g.
Zx. Mat h . un . Phys. Bd 56, p . 1 (1 908).
14. Rubesin, M orr is ,,'. , Maydew, R and all C., a nd Va rga , te ven A. :
An An a lytical a nd E xpe rimen tal In ve t igation of th kin li' ric-
t ion of t he T urbu len t Bound a ry Layer on a F lat P late at 'uper-
. oni c peed . NA A T N 2305, 1951.
15. Grimmin ger, G. , \Vill ia m, E. P ., a nd Youn g, r . B . \V .: L ift on
I nclin ed Bod ies of R e volut ion in H y per oni c F low. J our. Aero.
Sci., vol. 17, no. J , Nove mber 1950, pp. 675- 690.
16. H odges, A. J .: T he Drag Coeffic ien t of Ve ry H igh Velocity p here .
J our . Aero. Sci. , vol. 2-1 , no . 10, Oct. 1957, pp. 755- 75 .
17. Hart , Roger G.: Flight I nvest igation of the Drag of Round- 0 cd
Bodi e of R e volu t ion at Mach Jumbel's From 0.6 io 1.5 Us in g
R oc ket Propell d T e. t Veh icle . )JA CA R 1 L51 E 2-1 , 195 1.
1 . Vin cen t i, " "alter G ., an d \ '{agon r, Cleo B .: Tra n oni c F low P a t
a Wed ge Profil e wi t h D etached Bow " "ave. NA CA TN 2339,
1951. A A Rep. 1095, 1953 ( upersede ACA T)J' 2339
an d 25 ).
10. Jac k, John R ., a nd Gould, La wren ce 1.: Aerod yna mi c of len der
Bod ie. at M ach rumber of 3.12 a nd R eynold N umber from
2 X 106 to 15 X 106 . II-Aerod ynam ic L oad Di. t ribu t i n of cr ies
of Five Bod ie. H a ving Coni cal Nose a nd y lindri cal Af te r-
bod ies. NA CA R 1 E 52C I0, 1952.
c. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTlNG OffICE: 1959