NASA/TM—2012–216021

In-Flight Boundary-Layer Transition on a Large 

Flat Plate at Supersonic Speeds 

D.W. Banks, M. A. Frederick

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

R.R. Tracy, J.R. Matisheck, N.D. Vanecek

Aerion Corporation, Reno, Nevada

 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

June 2012
NASA STI Program ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated 

to the advancement of aeronautics and space science. 

The NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and its 

public interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, 

thus providing one of the largest collections of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels and 

by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase of 

research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counter-part of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has less 

stringent limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations.

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal 

annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis.

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or 

co-sponsored by NASA.

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services.

For more information about the NASA STI program, 

see the following:

 Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI Information

Desk at 443-757-5803

 Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802

 Write to:

STI Information Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed.
NASA/TM—2012–216021

In-Flight Boundary-Layer Transition on a Large 

Flat Plate at Supersonic Speeds 

D.W. Banks, M. A. Frederick

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

R.R. Tracy, J.R. Matisheck, N.D. Vanecek

Aerion Corporation, Reno, Nevada

 Insert conference information, if applicable; otherwise delete 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Dryden Flight Research Center

Edwards, California 93523-0273

June 2012
 Enter acknowledgments here, if applicable. 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

Available from:

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802
1

Abstract

A flight experiment was conducted to investigate the pressure distribution, local-flow conditions, and 

boundary-layer transition characteristics on a large flat plate in flight at supersonic speeds up to 

Mach 2.00. The tests used a NASA testbed aircraft with a bottom centerline mounted test fixture. The 

primary objective of the test was to characterize the local flow field in preparation for future tests of a 

high Reynolds number natural laminar flow test article. A second objective was to determine the 

boundary-layer transition characteristics on the flat plate and the effectiveness of using a simplified 

surface coating. Boundary-layer transition was captured in both analog and digital formats using an 

onboard infrared imaging system. Surface pressures were measured on the surface of the flat plate. Flow 

field measurements near the leading edge of the test fixture revealed the local flow characteristics 

including downwash, sidewash, and local Mach number. Results also indicated that the simplified surface 

coating did not provide sufficient insulation from the metallic structure, which likely had a substantial 

effect on boundary-layer transition compared with that of an adiabatic surface. Cold wall conditions were 

predominant during the acceleration to maximum Mach number, and warm wall conditions were evident 

during the subsequent deceleration.

Nomenclature 

CF cross flow (transition mechanism)

CLIP Centerline Instrumented Pylon

CP pressure coefficient

IR infrared

M Mach number

Minf freestream Mach number

N log of the disturbance amplitude ratio from the point of neutral stability to the point of 

transition (also N-factor)

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NLF natural laminar flow

SBLT Supersonic Boundary Layer Transition (project)

SSNLF Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow (project)

TS Tollmien-Schlichting (transition mechanism)

α angle of attack, deg

β angle of sideslip, deg

Introduction

Supersonic cruise aircraft suffer from limited range and high costs, as well as poor subsonic flight 

characteristics compared to aircraft designed to cruise at high subsonic speed. The primary reason for the 

former is the reduced aerodynamic efficiency (lift-to-drag ratio) caused by the addition of wave drag at 

supersonic speed, and the latter is because highly swept supersonic lifting surfaces typically have poor 

subsonic and low-speed aerodynamic characteristics. Careful configuration design (refs.1 and 2) can, 

however, reduce but not eliminate supersonic wave drag. Also, laminar boundary layers are much more 

stable at supersonic speeds as compared to high subsonic speeds, and the resulting reduction in skin 

friction drag offers a means of offsetting some of the wave drag penalties. In addition, the wing shapes 

required to support extensive natural laminar flow do not incorporate significant sweep and thus can 

provide improved subsonic cruise efficiency as well as better takeoff and landing characteristics. Better 

understanding of transition at supersonic speeds will enable improved design methodology and transition 

prediction.
2

System studies of applications of supersonic natural laminar flow have been performed and show 

sufficient improvement in aerodynamic efficiency, thus significantly benefiting range and economics 

comparable to subsonic aircraft in the same role.

In view of the large effect of laminar flow on aerodynamic efficiency, accurate prediction of the onset 

of boundary-layer transition is critical to the successful design of laminar flow aircraft. Many factors 

influence the stability of the laminar boundary layer and, hence, transition. These factors include Mach 

number, Reynolds number, pressure distribution, wing sweep, surface roughness and waviness, 

free-stream turbulence, acoustic disturbances, and wall temperature. For most modern airframes, 

transition is governed by attachment-line contamination, cross-flow (CF) instability, Tollmien-Schlichting 

(TS) instability, laminar separation, or a combination of these factors. Growth of TS instabilities in the 

laminar boundary layer tends to be the dominant source of transition onset on smooth wings with little or 

no sweep at high Reynolds numbers. Growth of CF instabilities tends to be the dominant source on wings 

with leading-edge sweep angles exceeding approximately 20 ̊ with modest leading-edge radii.

Attachment-line contamination (spanwise flow along a leading edge with sufficient thickness can cause 

instabilities and transition) can occur on swept wings with larger leading-edge radii.

Extensive theoretical work has been performed in the area of boundary-layer stability, resulting in 

several codes such as LASTRAC (refs. 3 and 4) that solve for disturbance growth in compressible 

three-dimensional boundary layers. Transition prediction typically involves assuming a value of “N,” the 

logarithm of the disturbance amplitude ratio from the point of neutral stability to the point of transition

(ref. 5). This value is estimated by experiment with similar geometry and flow conditions.

There has been a substantial effort in the area of active laminar flow control, typically using suction 

to delay transition, both at subsonic and supersonic speeds (refs. 6 and 7). Efforts at supersonic speeds

have been motivated by the inability of a highly swept supersonic wing to support natural laminar flow 

because of attachment-line contamination and the high levels of cross flow near the leading edge. These 

efforts have included both theoretical studies and flight tests, more recent flight tests being the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) F-16 (General Dynamics, now Lockheed Martin, 

Bethesda, Maryland) F-16XL Laminar Flow Research Aircraft tests. The F-16XL tests had limited

success and entailed complex wing structures and pumping equipment with cost, weight, and maintenance 

impacts in application. The natural laminar flow (NLF) approach avoids most of these drawbacks and 

thus has appeal from the systems perspective.

The public literature contains flight data supporting an N-value of 9 or 10 for conical bodies at 

supersonic speeds, but contains little or no flight data for planar surfaces with pressure gradients. 

Supersonic wind tunnels have turbulent wall boundary layers with high disturbance levels and thus cause 

earlier transition than what is seen in flight. A Mach 3.5 “quiet tunnel” was developed at the NASA 

Langley Research Center (Hampton, Virginia) in the 1980s; one test of a flat plate at adiabatic conditions 

was reported that supports an N-value of 10 (refs. 8-10).

There is thus a need for transition data on planar surfaces with chord-wise and cross-flow pressure 

gradients and over a range of Mach numbers and wall temperature ratios, in order to confirm the 

transition levels predicted by stability theory. In addition to pressure gradients and cooling, there are other 

transition factors that have received limited study in the context of subsonic wings and axi-symmetric 

bodies at hypersonic speeds, but not for supersonic wing shapes. These factors also require flight tests and 

include the effects on supersonic transition of radiated noise, surface roughness, and leading-edge 

bluntness.

Airfoil designs capable of maintaining significant runs of natural laminar flow at low supersonic 

speeds (Mach up to ~2.0) have been shown by theoretical and empirical means and recently demonstrated 

at moderate Reynolds numbers (~107) in flight. Most prior flight-validated supersonic laminar flow 

techniques relied on active boundary-layer control at least near the leading edge. A more recent design 

philosophy utilizes low leading-edge sweep to reduce growth of cross-flow instabilities in the boundary 

layer and relatively thin wing sections to subsequently minimize wave drag. These limited flight results 

and other ground tests at low to moderate Reynolds numbers have verified the concept. Other methods 

have been proposed that reduce supersonic viscous drag. Flight data at high chord Reynolds numbers are 
3

required to prove any design concept prior to implementation on full-scale aircraft. These types of tests 

would also provide data to validate design tools and turbulence models.

Boundary-layer stability theory indicates that extensive laminar flow can be maintained on aircraft 

wings and other surfaces at supersonic speeds by appropriate configuration design. There are limited 

suitable experimental transition data available, however, for verification of the theory for planar surfaces 

with pressure gradients. The major benefit of this technology is that it is passive in nature. There has been 

a significant amount of computational analyses and systems studies of proposed configurations that 

employed such a system. The system appears to offer the best trades at the business jet class of aircraft.

Aerion Corporation (Reno, Nevada) has a patented design for an efficient supersonic business jet 

based on maintaining large runs of laminar flow (up to 70%) on its lifting surfaces. Prior and current 

supersonic cruise aircraft likely have no significant laminar flow on any surfaces. The Aerion design 

employs a relatively unswept wing to effectively eliminate cross flow, a major boundary-layer transition 

mechanism. The modified bi-convex wing maintains a favorable pressure gradient from leading to trailing 

edge supersonically, and is relatively thin to minimize wave drag. The Aerion design reduces total 

airframe drag by up to 20% over conventional swept wing designs such as the Concorde (manufactured 

under the combined efforts of Aerospatiale [France] and the British Aircraft Corporation [United 

Kingdom]). The Aerion design also maintains efficient performance at subsonic speeds, allowing a mixed 

supersonic/subsonic cruise profile and thus missions with both segments of supersonic speeds over oceans 

and segments of high subsonic speeds over land where supersonic flight is restricted. Aerion Corporation

plans to obtain flight data supporting the physics of their concept and the sensitivity of laminar flow to 

surface roughness and imperfections.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has an interest in reducing the barriers to 

efficient supersonic flight and has teamed with Aerion Corporation to explore the physics of high 

Reynolds number boundary-layer transition. Joint flight tests between NASA and Aerion have been 

conducted since 1999. To date, these tests have employed a NASA F-15B (McDonnell Douglas, now The 

Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois) testbed aircraft (discussed in detail below) with a bottom mounted 

test article as shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows a typical installation with the test article, the Centerline 

Instrumented Pylon (CLIP), and infrared (IR) camera pod. This method allows testing of large-scale test 

articles at Reynolds numbers similar to full-scale flight conditions.

Previous flight test results have demonstrated the feasibility of maintaining supersonic natural laminar 

flow with the low-sweep concept (Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow project or SSNLF, Phase I & II tests, 

1999 to 2002) (refs.11 and 12). Figure 3 shows the SSNLF test article mounted to the NASA F-15B

testbed aircraft. Figure 4 shows the initial IR image results showing supersonic natural laminar flow at a 

freestream Mach number of ~1.8. These low-sweep results, however, were limited in Reynolds number to 

approximately 10 million. The primary objective of the SSNLF project was to validate the predictions and 

ground test results of maintaining supersonic natural laminar flow at moderate Reynolds numbers. A 

follow-on program, named Supersonic Boundary Layer Transition (SBLT), has the objective of 

expanding on the results of the SSNLF project by increasing the Reynolds number and testing more 

complex lifting surfaces. The SBLT investigation will use larger scale test articles and a multi-purpose 

support structure to perform supersonic natural laminar flow (NLF) testing at significantly larger chord 

Reynolds numbers. The first phase of the SBLT investigation was to better define the flow field in the 

vicinity of the test article on the F-15B testbed aircraft. This objective was accomplished by using a flat 

plate test article with an array of surface pressures and using five 5-hole probes near the leading edge of 

the flat plate to define the immediate upstream flow. The test article backside indicating the flow probes is 

shown in figure 5(a) and the surface pressure array is shown in figure 5(b). The test article is discussed in 

more detail in the following section. This calibration test article had a simplified surface coating in lieu of

surface insulation. More surface insulation would likely be necessary to obtain a near adiabatic test 

surface in the given environment. Nonetheless, IR thermography was used to observe the boundary-layer 

transition on the flat plate during this investigation.
4

The SBLT phase 1 test article (flat plate) was exposed to large variations in temperature, which 

without properly insulating the surface would likely have a significant effect on the stability of the 

boundary layer and consequently the transition location. Cold wall conditions are known to be stabilizing 

to air boundary layers at low supersonic Mach numbers (M<3.00) where the Tollmien-Schlichting (TS)

first mode transition dominates (ref. 13). Warm wall conditions are conversely destabilizing. A qualitative 

study of the effect of the wall temperature on boundary-layer transition was conducted with the IR 

thermography results from SBLT phase 1. The characteristics of flat plates, including transition (ref. 14), 

are well documented. The results from this test will aid in the design of the phase 2 supersonic NLF test 

article.

Methodology and Approach

A digital IR imaging system was packaged within a specially designed pod and mounted on the 

right-hand armament rail (under the engine inlet) on an F-15B aircraft (fig. 2). The camera utilizes an 

Indium Antimonide (InSb) focal plane with 640 X 512 pixels, with 20-micron pitch. The sensor responds 

in the 3-5 micron spectral range. A 13-mm lens was selected to capture a complete view of the 

experiment with minimal background within the field of view.

To minimize the size of the camera pod and resultant drag, the sensor was oriented parallel to the 

airflow. This orientation also placed the line of sight parallel to the experiment. A prism was incorporated 

in the design to fold the line of sight inboard and down to center on the region of interest. A silicon 

window with an antireflection coating optimized for the 3-5 micron spectral band was installed on the 

inner surface of the pod directly in front of the prism. The camera provided simultaneous analog (RS-170)

and 14-bit digital output (high-speed serial interface).

Data are currently collected on HI-8 (8-mm) videotape for the analog output and to a digital recorder 

for the digital output. The recording system will support continuous collection of 14-bit digital data for up 

to approximately two hours. Digital data collection can be started and stopped using a cockpit control 

switch.

The NASA F-15B test aircraft is a two-seat version of the F-15A aicraft: a high performance, 

supersonic, all-weather air-superiority fighter built by McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company (now The 

Boeing Company). Two Pratt & Whitney (East Hartford, Connecticut) F100-PW-100 afterburning 

turbofan engines power the F-15B aircraft. The F-15B aircraft (ref. 15) is 63.75 ft (19.43 m) long with a 

wingspan of 42.8 ft (13.05 m) and a basic takeoff weight (interceptor configuration) of 41,500 lb

(18,824 kg). The test article was mounted on the centerline tank location on a specially modified pylon.

The aircraft is outfitted with a flight test nose boom in order to obtain accurate air data during flight.

The test article was fabricated mostly of 6061 Aluminum. Structurally it consisted of two major 

pieces: the test surface and a main structural piece called the “strongback.” The test surface was attached 

to the side of the strongback, which in turn was connected to the specially modified centerline pylon,

which provided attachment to the aircraft. The pylon is a modified external tank pylon that has the fuel 

mechanisms removed to allow room for instrumentation and has a large splitter plate on the bottom,

which shields the test article from the turbulent flow under the aircraft. This modified pylon is called the 

Centerline Instrumented Pylon or CLIP and can be seen in figure 2. As mentioned above, the test surface 

had a simplified surface coating, which did not provide adequate insulation from the underlying metallic 

structure (to be near adiabatic). This condition was known to be a possibility from the beginning of the 

test phase, but the primary objective of this phase of testing was to define the flow field at the test 

location in preparation for future laminar flow test articles. The gathering of IR data to observe the 

transition characteristics of the flat plate remained a secondary objective. The size of the test surface was 

84 inches (213.4 cm) long (chordwise direction) and 40.875 inches (103.8 cm) high (spanwise direction), 

and 0.75 inches (1.9 cm) maximum thickness, with a 10° swept leading edge.

Six 5-hole probes were used during this investigation in order to define the local flow field. Five of 

these probes were located near the leading edge of the test article and one was located on the apex of the 

pylon splitter plate; see figure 5(a). The probes are placed adjacent to the leading edge of the flat plat such 
5

that the shocks from the probes will impact the non-measuring side behind the leading edge and not 

contaminate the measurements. Also, the shocks from the leading edge of the flat plate will cross the 

probes behind the pressure ports at the test conditions (M≥1.40). The local flow has been processed 

through several major shock waves and expansions and is not expected to match freestream values. The 

major effect is a local flow angularity. This local flow angularity typically consists of a downward 

component and a port to starboard sideflow component. The downward component has the effect of 

increasing the effective sweep angle on the test article. The sideflow has the effect of putting the flat plate 

at a slightly positive angle of attack.

Significant local-flow distortions are observed at low Mach numbers and consequently the centerline

pylon area is not considered useable for testing much below M=1.40. The flight profile typically consisted

of level supersonic accelerations up to M=2.00 and then level decelerations. The altitude was maintained 

at a near constant value. During the accelerations the engine was set in a high afterburning setting; during 

the decelerations the engine power was maintained at a maximum non-afterburning setting. The inlet flow 

is known to be the same at maximum non-afterburning and afterburning power settings for a given set of 

flight and atmospheric conditions. The inlet flow field, namely inlet spillage, can have significant effects 

on the local field under the aircraft at the test location. This inlet effect and identical flight and 

atmospheric conditions result in the local flow field at the test location being same at both power settings

during the level acceleration/deceleration maneuver. The flight profile consisted of climbs to altitude of 

approximately 40,000 to 42,000 ft (12,200 to 12,800 m) and a cruise to the end of the supersonic test 

range. This cruise was typically of 10 to 15 minutes and caused the test article and structure to cold soak 

at temperatures of -70° to -100°F (-57° to -73°C). The subsequent supersonic acceleration created 

aerodynamic heating up to approximately +240°F (+116°C) at M=2.00. At lower supersonic Mach 

numbers the test article realized a substantial (though not measured) difference in surface temperature 

between the acceleration and deceleration portion of the supersonic maneuver. Significant differences in 

the measured transition location were observed for these pairs of test points that had no significant 

differences in condition except for the surface temperature. Thus, the inference can be made that these 

changes in transition were due to the wall temperature differences.

Surface pressure data, local flow data, and analog IR data were captured during the entire flight. 

Figure 6(a) shows sample analog IR results at M=1.57 during the acceleration; figure 6(b) shows the local 

pressure coefficient (Cp) and leading-edge flow angles (α and β) also for M=1.57 during the acceleration.

Figures 6(c) and 6(d) show the IR image, and Cp contours with flow angles for the deceleration, 

respectively for M=1.57. The Cp contour plots were processed using the in-flight pressure data on the flat 

plate. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the IR and Cp with flow angle results for the M=2.00 condition. The 

pressure contours for the acceleration and deceleration parts of the maneuver at a given Mach number,

such as that shown in figures 6(b) and 6(d) for M=1.57, are virtually identical. Also, the inflow angles are 

very close, indicating that the assumption of similar flow conditions for the same Mach number during 

the acceleration and deceleration is valid. Again, the only significant difference between these two test 

points (at the same Mach number) is the surface or wall temperature. The analog IR data show the 

relatively cooler areas as darker shades of gray and the warmer areas as lighter shades. The transition 

zone is indicated on the figure, as is a shock wave that affects transition at lower Mach numbers. The 

shock wave is evident near the end of the transition zone. The analog images are automatically adjusted, 

which provides better-looking images, but the raw intensity values are obscured by this automatic

processing, subsequently eliminating quantitative analysis. The transition zone is clearly seen as the 

darker area on the first 25% of the chord for M=1.57 and much closer to the leading edge for M=2.00. 

The zone is terminated by turbulent wedges, where critical roughness quickly changes the boundary layer 

to turbulent and propagates as a wedge downstream. These areas are darker because laminar boundary 

layers allow less heat to be transferred from the freestream to the surface (colder than freestream) than do 

turbulent boundary layers, thus having a colder surface beneath the laminar boundary layers than the 

turbulent ones. Some of the apparent features seen aft on the test surface are due to reflections from the 

very smooth surface. The reflections cease as the test article warms, such as at M=2.00 in figure 7(a), at 
6

which point the emitted energy is much greater than the reflected energy. Also, the position of the camera 

and optics relative to the test article causes some geometric distortion in the acquired images.

Digital IR data (30 frames per second) were captured during the entire supersonic portion of the 

flight. The digital images were processed by performing a histogram equalization and then applying a 

suitable color mapping. The color mapping used is shown in figures 8(a) and 8(b). Figures 8(a) and 8(b)

show sample digital images (M=1.65) from the acceleration and deceleration maneuver phases, 

respectively. The transition zone and shock wave impingement are also indicated. This method optimizes 

each image for contrast to better visualize the flow phenomena but results in a different color versus

temperature (intensity) between images. Future tests will incorporate temperature sensing devices at key 

locations that should allow a calibration of the pixel intensity level to a temperature. This will provide a 

means of measuring the entire surface temperature profile and quantitatively analyzing the wall 

temperature effects. Additionally, development of algorithms to fix the geometric distortions has been

initiated. The results of this current analysis are presented with the color mapped digital images.

Results and Discussion

Data are presented for freestream Mach numbers of 1.40, 1.50, 1.60, 1.70, 1.80, and 1.85 and are 

shown in figures 9(a) to 14(b). These data were obtained during a single flight maneuver. The data are 

presented as paired images for each Mach number, one during the acceleration (a) and one during the 

deceleration (b). As previously discussed, the test article was cold soaked prior to the initiation of the 

supersonic run. This means that during the acceleration phase the test surface wall was colder than that of 

an adiabatic wall; however, the test article surface temperature was expected to rise during the 

acceleration. Subsequently, during much of the deceleration the surface temperature was assumed to be 

warmer than that of an adiabatic wall. In any case, the surface temperature during the deceleration phase 

would be warmer than that for the acceleration phase. The leading edge should heat faster than the rest of 

the test article due to the higher aerodynamic heating and less thermal mass. There is likely a single 

condition where the wall temperature, at least near the leading edge, is close to or matches the adiabatic

condition. No quantitative temperature measurements were obtained during this test; therefore, the wall 

temperature departure from adiabatic is assumed based on the flight test profile, although some qualitative 

values can be inferred from the raw IR intensities that were recorded.

The laminar flow regions are noticed as a sharp change in the coloring, usually accompanied by 

“wedging” (turbulent flow propagating as a wedge from critical disturbances). The coated surface also 

has some noticeable amount of reflectivity, which is usually overshadowed by the temperature effects and

is only evident at the lower Mach numbers during the acceleration portion of the maneuver due to the 

surface being made very smooth. This effect will be minimized during the subsequent laminar flow test 

but cannot be entirely eliminated due to the desire for a relatively smooth surface. There is also some 

indication of the subsurface pressure plumbing; these show up as small round areas under the pressure 

ports and chordwise lines where the tubing is laid.

A noticeable and important feature, that of a shock wave impingement, is observed in most of the 

images. It is much more noticeable in movies made from these obtained images at 30 frames per second.

The shock wave is responsible for terminating the laminar flow at the lower Mach number acceleration 

conditions (M≤1.40). The shock appears near the terminus of the M=1.50 (fig. 7(a)) cold wall transition 

zone. At higher Mach numbers the shock moves aft, located approximately mid-chord at M=1.60

(figs. 11(a) and (b)) and within 20% of the trailing edge at M=1.85 (figs. 14(a) and (b)). Notice the shock 

locations are nearly the same for both the acceleration and deceleration phases at the same Mach number.

This is expected since the upstream flow conditions should be nearly identical except for minor aircraft 

excursions. For all Mach numbers the deceleration phase results show much less laminar flow and earlier 

transition than for the acceleration phase. At M=1.40 (figs. 9(a) and (b)) the transition is dominated by the 

shock wave and shows a smaller difference between the two. At M=1.50 (fig. 10(a)) the amount of 

laminar flow seen during the acceleration appears to be the maximum even though it subsequently is 

terminated by the shock. At M=1.60, 1.70, and 1.80 (figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a), respectively) the overall 
7

transition boundary moves slightly forward with increasing Mach number, but the more noticeable effect 

is that the outboard flow (near the bottom) moves forward much more quickly, possibly because of some 

cross-flow contamination [the fine sawtooth pattern seen at M=1.80 (fig. 13(a)) and 1.85 (fig. 14(a))] and 

the disturbance coming off the outboard leading-edge corner.

The IR false color images show relative temperature for each individual image. The progression of 

time (acceleration to deceleration) shows the edges of the test article warming significantly compared to 

the central portion. This is due to the aerodynamic heating being more effective on the parts of the test 

article that are not in direct contact with the structural strongback; also, aerodynamic heating would 

expected to be more effective near the leading edge than the trailing edge. The strongback constitutes a 

very large thermal mass, which would obviously take much longer to change temperature. A rectangular 

area near the trailing edge (~80% chord) that is adjacent to an equipment bay in the strongback indicates 

warmer temperatures similar to those of the edges. The equipment bay is an open area in the strongback 

that does not have the thick metallic structure; the area of the test surface over the equipment bay 

(fig. 5(a)) would not be expected to have the same thermal inertia and should have heating characteristics

like the other areas not in contact with the strongback. Additionally, there is some internal heating of this 

area due to instrumentation and associated temperature control (instrumentation heaters). This indicates

that the areas in contact with the strongback are cooler than other areas (the edges, and the area adjacent 

to the equipment bay). Since each image is separately equalized and processed, the image shows relative 

temperature distribution of each image, and no quantitative determination regarding the temperature 

compared to freestream, ambient, or adiabatic can be made. The background behind the test article should 

remain relatively constant in temperature during the entire maneuver; however, the background color

changes significantly during the maneuver. The background color changes from warmer than average 

(yellow-red) to colder than average (blue). Qualitatively, this indicates that the test article is warming 

significantly as compared to this background.

The summary of the results of the processed digital images indicates the boundary-layer transition 

moves significantly forward (earlier) due to wall heating (temperature). As expected, cold wall conditions 

have a beneficial effect on laminar to turbulent boundary layer transition and warm wall conditions are 

conversely detrimental.

Summary and Concluding Remarks

A flight experiment was conducted to investigate the pressure distribution, local flow conditions, and 

boundary-layer transition characteristics on a large flat plate in flight at supersonic speeds up to Mach

2.00. The tests used an F-15B testbed aircraft (McDonnell Douglas, now The Boeing Company, Chicago, 

Illinois) with a centerline mounted test fixture. The primary objective of the test was to characterize the 

local flow field in preparation for future tests of a high Reynolds number natural laminar flow test article. 

A secondary objective was to determine the boundary-layer transition characteristics on the flat plate and 

the effectiveness of using a simplified surface coating for future laminar flow flight tests employing 

infrared thermography. Boundary-layer transition was captured using an onboard infrared imaging 

system. The infrared imagery was captured in both analog and digital formats. Surface pressures were 

measured with electronically scanned pressure modules connected to 60 surface-mounted pressure 

orifices. The local flow field was measured with five 5-hole conical probes mounted near the leading edge 

of the test fixture. Flow-field measurements revealed the local flow characteristics including downwash, 

sidewash, and local Mach number. Results also indicated that the simplified surface coating did not 

provide sufficient insulation from the metallic structure, which likely had a substantial affect on 

boundary-layer transition compared with that of an adiabatic surface. Cold wall conditions were 

predominant during the acceleration to maximum Mach number, and warm wall conditions were evident 

during much of the subsequent deceleration. As expected, the cold wall conditions showed significantly 

more laminar flow and later transition as compared to the warm wall conditions. The infrared imaging 

system was able to capture shock wave impingement on the surface of the flat plate in addition to 

indicating laminar-to-turbulent boundary-layer transition.
8

Figures

Figure 1. The NASA F-15B testbed aircraft.

Figure 2. The NASA F-15B testbed aircraft with the infrared camera pod and mounted test article.
9

Figure 3. The NASA F-15B testbed aircraft with the Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow test article.

Figure 4. Infrared image of the Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow test article showing transition at 

M~1.80.
10

(a) Test fixture backside, showing the strongback and local flow measuring probes.

(b) Sketch of test fixture front side showing pressure port locations.

Figure 5. Supersonic Boundary Layer Transition phase 1 test fixture details.
11

(a) Analog infrared image during acceleration.

(b) Surface pressure coefficients and local flow angles during acceleration.

Figure 6. Analog infrared images, surface pressure distribution, and in-flow angles of Supersonic 

Boundary Layer Transition phase 1 test fixture at M=1.57.
12

(c) Analog infrared image during deceleration.

(d) Surface pressure coefficients and local flow angles during deceleration.

Figure 6. Concluded.
13

(a) Analog infrared image.

(b) Surface pressure coefficients and local flow angles.

Figure 7. Analog infrared images, surface pressure distribution, and in-flow angles of Supersonic 

Boundary Layer Transition phase 1 test fixture at a steady M=2.00.
14

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 8. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.65 showing transition zone, shock wave, and color 

mapping.
15

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 9. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.40.
16

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 10. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.50.
17

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 11. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.60.
18

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 12. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.70.
19

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 13. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.80.
20

(a) During acceleration.

(b) During deceleration.

Figure 14. Processed digital infrared image at M=1.85.
21

References

1. Kroo, I., “Unconventional Configurations for Efficient Supersonic Flight,” VKI Lecture Series on 

Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft, 2005.

2. Sturdza, Peter, “An Aerodynamic Design Method for Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow 

Aircraft,” PhD. Thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 2003.

3. Chang, Chau-Lyan, Langley Stability and Transition Analysis Code (LASTRAC) Version 1.2 User 

Manual, NASA/TM-2004-213233, 2004.

4. Chang, Chau-Lyan, “LASTRAC.3d: Transition Prediction in 3D Boundary Layers,” AIAA Paper 

2004-2541, June 2004.

5. Malik, Mujeeb R., Stability Theory Applications to Laminar-Flow Control, NASA N90-12513.

6. Joslin, Ronald D., Overview of Laminar Flow Control, NASA/TP-1998-208705, 1998.

7. Braslow, Albert L., A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight 

Research, NASA Monograph in Aerospace History Number 13, 1999.

8. Chen, Fang-Jeng, Mujeeb R. Malik, and Ivan E. Beckwith, “Advanced Mach 3.5 Axisymmetric 

Quiet Nozzle,” AIAA Paper 90-1592, June 1990.

9. Chen, Fang-Jeng, Mujeeb R. Malik, and Ivan E. Beckwith, “On the Design of a New Mach 3.5 

Quiet Nozzle,” Instability and transition; Proceedings of the Workshop, Hampton, VA, 

May 15-June 9, 1989. Vol. 2 (A91-31301 12-34), New York, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 246-257.

10. Beckwith, I.E., F.-J. Chen, and M.R. Malik, Design and Fabrication Requirements for Low Noise 

Supersonic/Hypersonic Wind Tunnels, NASA N90-12555.

11. Banks, D.W., C.P. van Dam, H.J. Shiu, and G.M. Miller, Visualization of In-Flight Flow 

Phenomena Using Infrared Thermography, NASA TM/2000-209027, 2000.

12. Van Dam, C.P., H.J. Shiu, D.W. Banks, R.R. Tracy, and J. Chase, “In-Flight Visualization Of 

Supersonic Flow Transition Using Infrared Imaging,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 6, 

November-December 2002, pp. 936-944.

13. Reshotko, Eli, “Roughness-Induced Transition Transient Growth in 3-D Supersonic Flow,” NATO 

RTO-EN-AVT-151.

14. Hopkins, Edward J., Don W. Jillie, and Virginia L. Sorensen, Charts for Estimating 

Boundary-Layer Transition on Flat Plates, NASA TN D-5846, 1970.

15. Taylor, John W.R. (editor), Janes’s All the World’s Aircraft 1979-1980, pp. 383-384.