Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mach tuck

Mach tuck is an aerodynamic effect experienced by aircraft in flight, characterized by a sudden nose-down pitching tendency resulting from the rearward shift of the center of pressure on the wings due to the formation and aft movement of shock waves. This typically occurs as the aircraft accelerates beyond its critical Mach number—often between 0.75 and 1.2 Mach—when local airflow over the wings reaches supersonic speeds, causing aft of the shock waves and an alteration in the lift distribution across the . The primary cause of Mach tuck stems from the effects in the regime, where the strengthening on the upper surface of the moves rearward, altering the pressure distribution and shifting the aft. This shift creates a strong that can overwhelm the aircraft's authority, potentially leading to severe buffeting, structural stress, and an unrecoverable dive if not addressed. In high-altitude operations, factors such as reduced air density exacerbate the issue, as the limiting (MMO) represents the maximum safe speed to prevent such instability. To mitigate Mach tuck, aircraft designers incorporate features like swept wings, which delay the onset of shock waves, and horizontal stabilizers positioned aft of the center of gravity to provide natural stability. Modern often employ automated systems, such as Mach trim or variable-stability controls, that adjust elevator deflection to counteract the automatically once MMO is approached. Pilots are trained to reduce thrust and immediately upon encountering high-speed buffeting or warnings, ensuring within safe altitude margins. Historically, Mach tuck posed significant challenges during the development of in the mid-20th century, influencing designs that enabled safe and supersonic flight.

Aerodynamic Fundamentals

Definition and Characteristics

Mach tuck is an aerodynamic effect that causes the nose of an to pitch downward uncontrollably during high-speed flight, particularly as the approaches or enters the regime between Mach 0.75 and 1.2. This phenomenon manifests as a sudden onset of longitudinal , where the experiences an uncommanded nose-down that intensifies with increasing . It primarily affects high-speed , such as swept-wing jetliners and fighters, and is distinguished from other pitch variations by its non-structural, speed-induced origin tied to compressibility effects in flow. Key observable traits include a progressive but potentially abrupt degradation in pitch stability, often requiring pilots to apply increasing up-elevator input to maintain level flight. The pitch-down tendency develops gradually at first but can escalate rapidly if the aircraft accelerates unchecked, leading to excessive airspeed and heightened risk of control loss. Unlike low-speed stalls or control-induced pitches, Mach tuck's characteristics are uniquely tied to the aircraft's velocity relative to the speed of sound, making it a critical consideration in transonic operations. Basic symptoms observed in flight include trim requirements shifting forward as speed builds, with elevator authority diminishing if the effect advances unchecked, potentially resulting in accelerated descent and further speed gain. This instability demands prompt recognition and intervention to prevent the from entering a divergent dive, underscoring its role as a hallmark of .

Transonic Flow Regime

The flow regime refers to flight speeds where the over portions of the reaches or exceeds the local , typically in the range of 0.75 to 1.2, resulting in a complex mixture of and supersonic flow regions around the vehicle. In this regime, the freestream velocity is close to the , but local accelerations over curved surfaces, such as wings or fuselages, can produce supersonic pockets even when the overall speed remains . This mixed flow pattern arises because the varies with local conditions like and , leading to nonuniform aerodynamic behavior across the . Key concepts in the regime include effects, which become pronounced as air density variations significantly influence flow dynamics, unlike in purely conditions where such changes are negligible. The marks the onset of local supersonic flow on the surface, defined as the freestream at which sonic conditions are first achieved at any point on the body. Beyond this, the indicates the point of rapid drag increase, conventionally defined as the where the slope of the versus curve reaches 0.10. These thresholds highlight the transition from benign to more challenging conditions dominated by nonlinear wave phenomena. Physically, flow leads to the formation of shock waves that abruptly compress the air, often detaching the due to the resulting and increasing through energy dissipation across the waves. This separation exacerbates and can alter distribution, while the overall rise demands higher to maintain speed. These effects are particularly relevant to high-altitude, high-speed operations of , where thinner air at cruise altitudes (around 30,000–40,000 feet) allows efficient flight for fuel economy, as seen in modern airliners operating near 0.85.

Causes of Mach Tuck

Shock Wave Formation on Wings

In transonic flow regimes, as the freestream increases toward 1, airflow over the curved upper surface of the wing accelerates, creating localized regions where the local exceeds 1, forming a supersonic bubble that typically originates near the . This acceleration results from the adverse pressure gradient being overcome by the geometry, leading to supersonic flow bounded by an at the forward extent and a normal or terminating at the rear of the bubble. The abruptly compresses the supersonic flow back to speeds, marking the transition point on the upper surface. With further increases in freestream Mach number, the position of the terminating shock wave shifts rearward along the chord, expanding the extent of the supersonic bubble and intensifying the shock strength as the pressure differential across it grows. At a critical angle of attack, where the wing loading promotes further acceleration, the shock sweeps even farther aft, significantly altering the chordwise pressure distribution by extending the low-pressure supersonic zone. These dynamics are evident in experimental pressure distributions, where the supersonic region's growth correlates directly with rising Mach numbers above approximately 0.7. The formation and movement of these shock waves profoundly affect lift generation. In the forward supersonic sections, the accelerated flow produces lower surface pressures, enhancing local lift compared to subsonic conditions. However, aft of the shock, the sudden pressure rise interacts adversely with the boundary layer, often inducing separation that thickens the layer and disrupts attached flow, thereby reducing the lift coefficient in the rearward regions. This separation diminishes overall wing efficiency, with the net lift impact stemming from the imbalance between the forward gain and aft loss. Shock wave development also triggers a sharp rise in , primarily through arising from the increase and loss across the . The total aerodynamic is expressed as
D = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_D,
where \rho is air , V is velocity, S is reference area, and C_D incorporates the component that spikes due to shock-induced losses. Local wave contributions can be quantified by the deficit across the , \Delta d_{\text{wave}} = (p_1 + \rho_1 u_1^2) - (p_2 + \rho_2 u_2^2), integrated over the surface to yield the total C_D rise. This divergence becomes pronounced as the supersonic bubble enlarges, emphasizing the regime's challenges for wing performance.

Rearward Center of Pressure Shift

In the flow regime, formation alters the distribution across the , causing the center of pressure () to shift rearward. This core arises from a net increase in acting further : the forward portion of the experiences a gain in due to the local acceleration to supersonic speeds, where lower pressures enhance suction, while the aft portion suffers a loss in as the flow behind the encounters an , reducing the pressure differential. As a result, the CP typically moves rearward by 10–20% of the mean aerodynamic chord. This rearward CP shift directly impacts longitudinal stability by reducing the static margin—the horizontal distance between the aircraft's center of gravity (CG) and the CP. With the CG typically located forward of the subsonic CP position, the increased moment arm for the wing's lift force generates a nose-down pitching moment. The overall pitching moment M about the CG is expressed as M = q S \bar{c} C_m, where q is the dynamic pressure, S is the wing reference area, \bar{c} is the mean aerodynamic chord, and C_m is the pitching moment coefficient. In transonic conditions, C_m becomes increasingly negative due to the aft CP movement, with C_m = C_{m0} + C_{m\alpha} \alpha, where the Mach number-induced change in the slope C_{m\alpha} (more negative) amplifies the instability. The derivation follows from integrating the pressure distribution over the airfoil to obtain the resultant force and moment, with the CP location x_{cp} = -\frac{\int x \, dL}{\int dL} (where dL is the elemental lift and x is the chordwise position) shifting aft, thereby altering C_{m0} and C_{m\alpha}. Quantitatively, the coefficient C_m decreases rapidly with increasing , exacerbating the nose-down tendency. For example, on the studied, the shifts from around 41% in low flow to 40% at Mach 0.9, then rearward to 70% at Mach 1.17, significantly altering the moment balance. This shift underscores the need for careful trim management in transonic flight to counteract the resulting .

Effects and Risks

Nose-Down Pitch Tendency

Mach tuck manifests as an uncommanded nose-down pitch tendency in aircraft operating near or above their , primarily resulting from the rearward shift of the center of pressure on the due to formation. This aerodynamic effect typically emerges in high-altitude level flight or during climbs when airspeed approaches the maximum operating (M_MO), causing the aircraft to pitch downward without pilot input. If left unchecked, the nose-down accelerates the toward higher numbers, creating a feedback loop where increased speed further intensifies the and airflow separation. This progression can interact with engine thrust, as sustained or increased exacerbates the speed buildup, potentially leading to a condition. In severe cases, the attitude may exceed 10° nose-down, heightening risks of structural overload or loss. Unlike a deep stall, which arises from high angles of attack and results in a persistent nose-up at low speeds, Mach tuck is fundamentally speed-dependent, occurring in the regime where effects dominate rather than . This distinction underscores its occurrence during high-speed operations, often above 250, where reduced air density amplifies the phenomenon's impact on .

Flight Control Challenges

In flight, Mach tuck poses significant challenges to flight control authority, primarily through the formation of shock waves that disrupt airflow over the horizontal and . As the aircraft approaches or exceeds its , these shock waves can induce separation on the tail surfaces, reducing effectiveness and limiting the pilot's ability to counteract the nose-down . This diminished control authority often necessitates the use of Mach systems in modern to automatically adjust incidence and maintain longitudinal , preventing excessive pilot inputs that could exacerbate instability. The phenomenon substantially increases pilot workload, requiring immediate aft stick pressure to arrest the pitch-down tendency before it progresses to an unrecoverable dive. However, this rapid response carries the risk of overcorrection, where excessive nose-up input at high speeds can induce a high-angle-of-attack stall, particularly in high-altitude operations where thin air reduces aircraft response margins. Pilots must carefully balance altitude loss during recovery—often several thousand feet—with speed management to avoid structural overload, all while monitoring instruments amid the dynamic environment. Associated risks compound these difficulties, as operations near VMO (maximum operating speed in knots) or MMO (maximum operating ) heighten the potential for rapid acceleration into the tuck , where shock-induced and can mask subtle feedback and delay critical decisions. These transonic-specific effects, including turbulent wake from wing shock waves, obscure traditional stall warnings and demand heightened vigilance to maintain safe margins. A particularly hazardous scenario arises during "Mach tuck under load" in maneuvers, where increased g-forces—such as those from turns or pull-ups—shift the center of pressure aft more abruptly, amplifying the nose-down moment and distributing loads unevenly across the . This can reduce available authority faster than in straight-and-level flight, potentially leading to asymmetric responses and structural stress if not promptly addressed.

Recovery Methods

Manual Pilot Interventions

Manual pilot interventions for recovering from Mach tuck focus on immediate recognition and deliberate control inputs to counteract the nose-down pitching moment while reducing airspeed below the critical Mach number, thereby alleviating the aerodynamic forces causing the phenomenon. Pilots must apply smooth, progressive aft elevator input to arrest the pitch-down tendency, simultaneously reducing thrust to idle to decelerate the aircraft and avoid exacerbating the high-speed condition. This approach addresses the rearward center of pressure shift and shock wave effects that challenge flight control authority during transonic flight. Recovery must be initiated with adequate altitude margin, as it may result in a loss of 4,000 to 6,000 feet or more at high altitudes. The recovery procedure follows a structured sequence to ensure safe execution. First, pilots recognize the onset through or indicators exceeding limits, accompanied by attitude degradation and potential Mach buffet vibrations. Second, they disengage any or to assume direct manual control, then idle the to promptly reduce . Third, with wings leveled via if necessary, they apply smooth aft elevator input to the nose up and stabilize , while avoiding excessive increases that could induce a . Once decreases below the critical threshold and stabilizes, pilots neutralize controls and gradually reconfigure for level flight, accepting potential altitude loss of several thousand feet at high altitudes. Key considerations during recovery include maintaining positive g-loading to preserve control effectiveness and structural integrity, as negative g-forces can worsen buffet or lead to inverted flight risks. If equipped, deploying speed brakes can aid deceleration without abrupt maneuvers, though pilots must monitor for secondary effects like increased drag-induced pitch changes. All inputs should remain smooth and progressive to prevent overcorrection or structural overload, prioritizing energy management over altitude preservation. Training for these interventions emphasizes simulator-based practice in jet transports, where pilots rehearse recognition and execution under high-altitude scenarios to build for real-world application. In early , recovery relied on manual power reduction, drag devices, and adjustments to decelerate through the regime, followed by stabilization; modern standard operating procedures prioritize controlled deceleration to mitigate risks more effectively.

Aircraft Stability Augmentation

Aircraft stability augmentation systems are engineered to automatically mitigate the nose-down pitching tendency induced by Mach tuck, thereby enhancing and safety during flight. Central to these systems are Mach trim mechanisms, which detect increasing Mach numbers via air data sensors and automatically adjust the horizontal stabilizer's incidence angle to generate a restorative nose-up moment. This adjustment compensates for the rearward migration of the center of pressure on the wing, restoring longitudinal trim without requiring continuous pilot input. Complementing Mach trim, stability augmentation systems () employ feedback loops from inertial sensors to dampen short-period oscillations and provide active correction to , roll, and yaw disturbances exacerbated by flow effects. In functionality, SAS actuators move control surfaces in real-time to stabilize the , often integrating with Mach trim for seamless operation above Mach 0.6. For instance, variable incidence tailplanes in high-performance fighters, such as those in the YF-12 series, utilize SAS-driven adjustments to maintain speed stability across to low-supersonic regimes. These systems were introduced in the post-1950s era to address challenges in early operating at speeds. Contemporary architectures further advance these capabilities through integrated automatic flight control systems (AFCS) that enforce envelope limits to avert Mach tuck excursions. In transports like the , the AFCS incorporates electronic stability augmentation with automatic trim repositioning of the horizontal stabilizer, preventing excessive buildup and ensuring full authority remains available for maneuvers. While primary, such systems rely on manual pilot interventions as a backup in failure scenarios.

Design Mitigations

Aerodynamic Configurations

Swept wings represent a fundamental aerodynamic configuration for mitigating Mach tuck by delaying the onset of formation on the wing, thereby increasing the at which effects become significant. The sweep angle, denoted as φ, reduces the component of airflow perpendicular to the wing's , effectively making the appear thinner to the oncoming flow and postponing the local supersonic regions that lead to shock-induced center of pressure shifts. A common approximation for the of a is M_{\text{crit}} \approx \frac{M_{\text{sub}}}{\cos \phi}, where M_{\text{sub}} is the for an equivalent unswept wing; this relation arises because the normal Mach component is M_\infty \cos \phi, requiring a higher freestream to reach sonic conditions locally. For typical quarter-chord sweep angles of 25° to 35° used in , this configuration can increase the by 0.1 to 0.2, significantly reducing the rearward center of pressure movement that causes the nose-down associated with Mach tuck. Thin further enhance this mitigation by minimizing the maximum velocity peaks over the surface, which delays the formation of shocks and the associated and center of pressure migration. with thickness-to-chord ratios below 10% exhibit higher critical numbers compared to thicker sections, as the reduced and curvature limit the adverse pressure gradients that accelerate flow to speeds prematurely. This design choice is prevalent in high-subsonic , where it helps maintain stable longitudinal without abrupt pitching tendencies during acceleration. Tail designs play a crucial role in preserving control authority amid flow disturbances. All-moving stabilizers, known as stabilators, provide consistent effectiveness at high numbers by allowing the entire surface to pivot, which avoids the control reversal effects from shock waves that can blanket fixed-stabilizer trailing-edge flaps. This configuration generates larger control moments with lower drag penalties, ensuring the can counteract the nose-down Mach tuck moment effectively. Elevated placements, such as T-tails, position the stabilizer above the wing's wake and shock envelope, delivering cleaner airflow to the and preventing immersion in low-energy, shocked flow that would diminish its stabilizing influence. In contrast, low-mounted s risk reduced effectiveness due to interaction with wing-generated shocks, though T-tails offer additional benefits like reduced trim drag in conditions. Supercritical airfoils represent an advanced that further refines performance by reshaping the upper surface to promote a weaker, more aft-located , resulting in a less abrupt center of pressure shift and milder Mach tuck tendencies. These airfoils, characterized by a flattened upper surface and cusped trailing edge, delay onset while maintaining efficient lift distribution, allowing higher cruise numbers without severe pitching instability.

Control Surface Enhancements

Control surface enhancements for mitigating Mach tuck focus on improving the authority and effectiveness of movable surfaces during flight, where shock-induced changes reduce traditional . Powered hydraulic or electric actuators are employed to deliver sufficient force and speed for deflecting surfaces against high dynamic pressures, ensuring pilots can maintain as effectiveness diminishes by up to 40% in the regime. Automatic scheduling of leading-edge slats and trailing-edge flaps adjusts wing camber and delays formation, helping to stabilize the center of pressure position and reduce the nose-down . In , leading-edge extensions (LEX) generate vortices that energize the over the wing, delaying aft of shocks and thereby moderating the rearward center of pressure shift. Tail design modifications enhance by increasing the tail volume coefficient, defined as V_h = \frac{l_t S_t}{S \bar{c}}, where l_t is the tail moment arm, S_t the area, S the area, and \bar{c} the mean aerodynamic ; this boosts the pitching stability derivative C_{m\alpha}, providing greater restoring against the Mach tuck tendency. Anti-balance tabs, which oppose the aerodynamic balancing of surfaces, are incorporated on horizontal stabilizers to facilitate precise adjustments without excessive hinge moments at high Mach numbers, allowing for fine-tuned nose-up to counter the tuck. In modern , thrust vectoring nozzles indirectly aid Mach tuck recovery by augmenting pitch control authority when aerodynamic surfaces lose effectiveness, as seen in fighters like the F-22 Raptor where vectored provides up to 20 degrees of deflection for enhanced margins. Variable systems, using actuated trailing-edge devices, optimize wing shape in conditions to minimize shock strength and drag rise, thereby limiting the center of pressure migration that induces tuck. A unique but limited-use concept involves "Mach tuck fences" or vortex generators placed on the wing upper surface to energize the and delay shock-induced separation, reducing the severity of the change in the range (Mach 0.88–0.94); while effective in tests, their penalty has restricted widespread adoption.

Historical Development

Early Observations in WWII Aircraft

During , the first notable observations of Mach tuck—a nose-down pitching tendency due to effects—emerged in high-speed testing of advanced . In , a experienced a fatal Mach tuck incident during dive tests at approximately Mach 0.675, where caused tail detachment, prompting early NACA research into dive recovery flaps. German test pilots encountered these issues prominently with the jet fighter in 1944, where dives approaching Mach 0.8 revealed an uncontrollable rearward shift in the center of pressure, causing the aircraft to pitch downward sharply. Wartime flight tests by Messerschmitt engineers confirmed that the Me 262 became uncontrollable beyond Mach 0.86, resulting in an ever-steepening dive that pilots struggled to arrest, with structural failures such as parts detaching at speeds around 900 km/h (approximately 560 mph) reported in a 1944 evaluation, leading to near-fatal incidents during steep descents. Allied aircraft provided parallel examples of these early compressibility challenges. In 1943, Lockheed P-38 Lightning dive tests at altitudes above 25,000 feet demonstrated uncontrollable nose-down tendencies at indicated airspeeds exceeding 500 mph (about Mach 0.65-0.7 depending on conditions), where shock waves formed over the thick wings, shifting the center of pressure aft and rendering elevators ineffective, often trapping the aircraft in a high-speed stall. Similarly, the Bell P-59 Airacomet, America's first jet fighter, experienced compressibility effects during early transonic dive trials in 1943-1944, prompting speed restrictions to avoid pitch instability, though its lower overall performance limited the severity compared to faster piston-engine types. These observations were further illuminated during WWII high-altitude intercept operations, where pilots in both Axis and Allied fighters reported sudden pitch-down moments when pursuing or evading at speeds nearing the , highlighting the risks in prolonged dives. Complementing flight data, tests by the (NACA) in the early 1940s confirmed the underlying mechanism: a rearward migration of the center of pressure on straight-wing propeller fighters as local airflow approached sonic speeds, exacerbating the nose-down moment in aircraft like the P-38. These findings from related NACA studies provided critical validation of the phenomenon observed in operational testing.

Post-War Incidents and Research

Following , the rocket-powered research aircraft provided critical insights into , where Mach tuck manifested as a nose-down pitching tendency due to the aftward shift of the center of pressure on the wings. During test flights in 1947, pilot encountered buffeting and pitch instability approaching Mach 0.92, but recovered using the aircraft's innovative all-moving horizontal stabilizer, a NACA-designed feature that allowed effective trim adjustment to counteract the effect. In the early 1950s, the , the first production aircraft capable of supersonic flight in level attitude, suffered multiple fatal accidents linked to Mach tuck and related high-speed control losses, including yaw-roll coupling that led to failures. By November 1954, six major incidents had occurred, resulting in five pilot deaths and prompting a temporary grounding of the fleet for modifications such as a larger tailfin and improved stability augmentation to mitigate the tuck tendency at speeds. The also highlighted post-war Mach tuck risks during high-speed dives, where pilots experienced uncontrollable nose-down pitches leading to overspeeds, underscoring the need for enhanced recovery aids. To address this, NACA-developed dive recovery flaps were incorporated on later models, increasing wing camber to restore lift and control at numbers. De Havilland's DH.110 prototype suffered Mach tuck during a demonstration flight at the , where a supersonic dive attempt led to mid-air breakup, killing John and 29 others on the ground, and emphasizing the dangers of unchecked pitch instability in early jet designs. Research efforts by the (NACA, predecessor to ) in the 1950s utilized s to quantify the center of pressure migration causing Mach tuck, demonstrating significant rearward shifts at Mach 0.8-0.9 and informing stability criteria for subsequent aircraft. A pivotal advancement came from NACA engineer Whitcomb's theory, announced in 1952, which reduced by smoothing fuselage-wing interference; tests on the confirmed a 25% reduction, enabling the modified F-102A to achieve supersonic speeds without severe tuck exacerbation. By the 1970s, U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 25 for transport category airplanes incorporated stringent high-Mach trim requirements under §§25.253 and 25.255, mandating automatic Mach trim systems to maintain positive longitudinal stability and prevent tuck-induced pitch-down beyond pilot control, a direct outcome of lessons from these early incidents and research.

References

  1. [1]
    Mach Tuck | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
    Mach tuck is a nose down pitch tendency due to a change in the position of the centre of pressure resulting from a rearward movement of the shock wave.Missing: aerodynamics | Show results with:aerodynamics
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C) - Chapter 16
    With increased speed and the aft movement of the shock wave, the wing's center of pressure moves aft causing the start of a nose- down tendency or “tuck.” Mach ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
    Mach Tuck, Explained In 8 Steps - Boldmethod
    May 25, 2019 · Mach tuck happens when aircraft transition through the transonic region, which can be anywhere from 0.75 Mach to 1.2 Mach.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] AC 61-107B CHG 1 - Federal Aviation Administration
    Mar 29, 2013 · Mach Tuck. The result of an aft shift in the center of pressure causing a nosedown pitching moment. o. Maximum Operating Limit Speed (MMO) ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Airplane Upset Recovery - High Altitude Operations
    Mach Tuck and Mach Buffet. ○ At speeds above Mmo (some airplanes) – mach tuck will occur. ○ Critical Mach Number – when airflow over wing reaches Mach 1.0.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] NACA RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
    The results from three successful flight tests are presentedfor the Mach number range between 0. 75 and 1.28. The data showed that the models tended to tuck ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Chapter 5: Aerodynamics of Flight - Federal Aviation Administration
    By using the aerodynamic forces of thrust, drag, lift, and weight, pilots can fly a controlled, safe flight. A more detailed discussion of these forces follows.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Airplane Flying Handbook (3C) Glossary
    Mach tuck. A condition that can occur when operating a swept-wing airplane in the transonic speed range. A shock wave could form in the root portion of the ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid Revision 2
    Oct 21, 2008 · Mach Tuck and Mach Buffet. In some airplanes, at speeds above Mmo, a phenom- enon called mach tuck will occur. Above critical. Mach number the ...
  10. [10]
    Transonic Aircraft
    For aircraft speeds which are very near the speed of sound, the aircraft is said to be transonic. Typical speeds for transonic aircraft are greater than 250 mph ...
  11. [11]
    Mach Number
    Compressibility effects are most important in transonic flows and lead to the early belief in a sound barrier above which velocity flight would be impossible.
  12. [12]
    Role of the Mach Number | Glenn Research Center - NASA
    Apr 26, 2024 · For transonic flows, the change in density is nearly equal to the change in velocity, and compressibility effects cannot be ignored. As the ...
  13. [13]
    Research in Supersonic Flight and the Breaking of the Sound Barrier
    As the sonic boom from the X-1 propagated across the California desert, this flight became the most significant milestone in aviation since the Wright brothers' ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
    Critical Mach number.- Since the critical Mach number (Mer) represents the speed at which sonic velocity is first reached on an airfoil, it should be ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] ~ . ~ .. L £ - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
    The drag- divergence Mach number is arbitrarily defined as the Mach number for which the slope of the curve of drag coefficient as a function of Mach number at ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] NASA SC(2)-07 14 Airfoil Data Corrected for Sidewall Boundary ...
    The drag-divergence Mach number is defined here as the Mach number for which dcd/dM = 0.1. The drag-divergence Mach number Mdd and drag-divergence profile-drag ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Compressible Aerodynamics Home
    Flight less than the speed of sound is called subsonic, near the speed of sound is transonic, greater than the speed of sound is supersonic, and very much ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  18. [18]
    [PDF] advanced transonic aerodynamic technology
    Most high performance aircraft operate at least part time at supercritical or transonic conditions. There- fore, this speed regime is of great practical ...
  19. [19]
    Simulations Provide Insight into Shock Wave/Boundary-Layer ...
    Jan 31, 2019 · Shock wave/boundary-layer interactions (SBLIs) occur in aircraft and space vehicles that travel at transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic speeds.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] HIGH-TRANSONIC-SPEED TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT STUDY
    The bodies for all of the configurations were area ruled to minimize the volume wave drag by the use of the transfer rule described in references 7 and 8.<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Transonic Shock-Boundary Layer Interaction Control
    On a transonic airfoil most of the lift on the upper surface is created by the supersonic region with correspondingly low surface pressures. Measurements on the.
  22. [22]
    None
    ### Summary of Shock Waves Causing Boundary Layer Separation on Transonic Airfoils and Effects on Lift
  23. [23]
    Modern Drag Equation - Glenn Research Center - NASA
    Jan 21, 2023 · The modern drag equation is: D = .5 * Cd * r * V^2 * A, where D is drag, Cd is drag coefficient, r is air density, V is velocity, and A is wing ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
    The aerodynamic center showed a gradual rearward movement of about 15 percent mean aerodynamic chord in the transonic region.Missing: shift mechanism
  25. [25]
    [PDF] RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
    with increasing Mach number up to M = 0.9, where the aerodynamic center was at 40 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord. As the Mach number was further ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] AERODYNAMICS FOR NAVAL AVIATORS
    The purpose of this textbook is to present the elements of applied aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering which relate directly to the problems of flying ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] 19980228311.pdf
    It can be seen that when the airplane cruises at an initial. Mach number. M 1 = 0.88 at an altitude of 35,000 feet, more than. 30 sec- onds of throttle at idle ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 Bombardier CL-600-2B19 ...
    Oct 14, 2004 · 69 A Mach tuck is the result of an aft shift in the center of lift, causing a nose-down pitching moment. A. Mach buffet is the airflow ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) - Advisory Circular
    Apr 14, 2015 · • Mach tuck and Mach buffet and the reason for them. • Buffet-limited max altitude. • Critical Mach number and aerodynamic forces acting on ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] THE F-12 SERIES AIRCRAFT APPROACH TO DESIGN FOR ...
    The Mach trim system is also not a safety of flight parameter. Its function is to provide speed stability in the subsonk and low supersonic speed regime ...
  31. [31]
    Bjorn's Corner: Fly by steel or electrical wire, Part 9
    Sep 20, 2019 · Now we discuss how these handle different stability augmentation needs like Yaw damping, Mach tuck protection or Pitch control improvements like ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Effects of a simple stability augmentation system on the performance ...
    With the aid of the lateral -stability augmentation system, the non- instrument-rated pilot was capable of sustained instrument flight and limited radio navi- ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Critical Mach Number Prediction on Swept Wings
    Between these equations, a wing with 40 degrees of sweep, and a minimum pressure coefficient of - 1, has a Critical Mach Number range of ~0.72 to ~ 0.84.Missing: M_crit ≈ M_sub /
  34. [34]
    [PDF] CHAPTER 5 WING DESIGN
    Hence, by sweeping the wing, the flow behaves as if the airfoil section is thinner, with a consequent increase in the critical Mach number of the wing. For ...
  35. [35]
    Critical Mach Numbers of Thin Airfoil Sections with Plain Flaps
    Critical Mach number as function of lift coefficient is determined for certain moderately thick NACA low-drag airfoils.
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Effects of Wing Sweep
    Compromise High-Sweep Delta design generates lift at low speeds by increasing the angle-of-attack, but also has sufficient sweepback.
  37. [37]
    Design Process: All-Moving Tails - Kitplanes Magazine
    Apr 12, 2022 · All-moving tails are common on high-speed aircraft and light fighters; they provide more consistent control at high Mach numbers because of the way shock waves ...
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Aviation Module 11 Aerodynamics, Structures & Systems - EAMTC
    High speed “tuck-under” (or mach tuck) is a phenomenon that occurs at high ... because when the tip region stalls the center of pressure move for- ward ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Highlights - - NASA Technical Reports Server
    The test results indicated that the T-tail geometry results in a decrease in trim drag as· well as a reduction in pitchup compared to a low tail configuration ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] NASA Supercritical Airfoils
    These airfoils provided higher cruise Mach numbers than the low-speed airfoils while retaimng good high-lift, low-speed characteristics. References 3 to 12 ...
  41. [41]
    Supercritical Aerofoils | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
    A supercritical aerofoil is an aerofoil that, principally, has been designed to delay the onset of wave drag in the transonic speed range.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Effect of the Leading-Edge Extension (LEX) Fence on the Vortex ...
    The effects of the Leading Edge Extension (LEX) fence on the vortex structure over the. F/A-18 at moderate to high angles of attack were studied using a 1/9 ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Aircraft stability and control - The University of Bath
    and the aircraft pitch rate is q = 2π t. = ng. V . The aircraft is rotating ... degrees of freedom. We need to develop a systematic way of mod- elling ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Conceptual Design Optimization of an Augmented Stability Aircraft
    Dec 13, 2014 · This research focused on incorporating stability and control into a multidisciplinary de- sign optimization on a Boeing 737-class advanced ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Aerodynamic Optimization of Mach 0.8 Transonic Truss-Braced ...
    This paper presents an aerodynamic optimization study of the Mach 0.8 Transonic Truss-. Braced Wing (TTBW) aircraft with Variable Camber Continuous Trailing ...Missing: tuck | Show results with:tuck
  46. [46]
    [PDF] NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMl1YIEE FOR AERONAUTICS
    Large multiple boundary-layer fences were more effective than vortex generators in delaying the pitch-up between Mach numbers of 0.88 and 0.94 but caused a ...Missing: tuck | Show results with:tuck
  47. [47]
    Supersonic Me-262? - PPRuNe Forums
    Dec 1, 2014 · Messerschmitt concluded that the Me 262 could not exceed Mach 0.86 without becoming completely uncontrollable. ... Me 262 for max dive speed and ...<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Summary of debriefing German pilot Hans Fey on operational ...
    When testing the Me 262, it was not infrequent for parts to be stripped off in steep, fast dives, and Fay has himself lost cockpit covers, bomb racks, and the ...Missing: compressibility issues Heinrich
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Problems of High Speed and Altitude - Robert F. Stengel
    Dec 14, 2018 · ... down from P-38 Pilot's Manual. NACA TR-767, 1943. 5. P-47 Mach Tuck. • Static margin increase with. Mach number. – Uncontrollable vertical dive.
  50. [50]
    Mach 1: Assaulting the Barrier - Smithsonian Magazine
    In 1953, one year before the English Electric Lightning did it, the North American F-100 Super Sabre became the first fighter in the world to fly faster than ...In 1947, No Airplane Had... · The Sonic Boom · Mach 1 With A Propeller?
  51. [51]
    How the Bell P-59 Airacomet Became America's First Jet Fighter
    Mar 7, 2022 · The Airacomet was outclassed in dogfights against Republic P-47D and Lockheed P-38J fighters, and dive tests led to speed restrictions for the ...Missing: transonic compressibility
  52. [52]
    [PDF] The High Speed Frontier - NASA
    coefficients showing the rearward movement of the center of pressure at the ... Effects of Compressibility and Solidity on Performance, NACA Report 999,.<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    [PDF] NASA Technical Memorandum 85637
    The first Americanjet propelledairplane,the Bell P-59 Airacomet(fig. 1) ... - Transonic lift and drag for various wings from transonic bumptests. Page ...