Fig.1

Framework of the RANS solver with automatic transition prediction capability［16］

Fig.2

Sketch of mesh adopted for high-precision near-field overpressure signal calculation

Fig.3

Framework of research on influence of wing pressure distribution on sonic-boom characteristics

Fig.4

Geometry of the baseline 30 t supersonic civil aircraft

Fig.5

Overpressure contour and near-field overpressure signal at symmetry plane of baseline configuration

Fig.6

Airfoils of baseline configuration and Configuration N

Fig.7

Pressure distributions at different spanwise stations of Configuration N and baseline configuration

Fig.8

Near-field overpressure signal of baseline configuration and Configuration N

Fig.9

Far-field waveform of baseline configuration and Configuration N

Fig.10

Near-field overpressure contour of baseline configuration and Configuration N

Fig.11

Comparison of equivalent areas of baseline configuration and Configuration N

Fig.12

Framework of supersonic natural laminar flow wing design method considering sonic-boom characteristics

Fig.13

Sketch of target pressure distribution for supersonic natural laminar flow wing design

Fig.14

Pressure coefficient contour and pressure distributions on different spanwise stations of baseline configuration

Fig.15

Geometry of baseline airfoil and Airfoil A

Fig.16

Pressure coefficient contour at upper surface of baseline configuration and Configuration A

Fig.17

Pressure distribution on different spanwise stations of baseline configuration and Configuration A

Fig.18

Spanwise stations selected to specify zero pressure gradient distribution of Configuration A

Fig.19

Sketch of airfoils corresponding to upper and lower boundaries in the first round inverse design

Fig.20

Current and target pressure gradient distribution at selected spanwise stations of Configuration A

Fig.21

Convergence history of the first round inverse design based on pressure gradient distribution

Fig.22

Pressure gradient distribution on different spanwise stations of Configuration B and target pressure gradient distribution designed by the first round inverse design

Fig.23

Geometry of Configurations A， B and baseline configuration

Fig.24

Pressure coefficient contour at upper surface of Configuration A and Configuration B

Fig.25

Pressure distributions on different spanwise stations of Configuration A and Configuration B

Fig.26

Pressure gradient distributions on different spanwise stations of Configuration A and Configuration B

Fig.27

Pressure gradient distribution on different spanwise stations of Configuration B and Configuration C

Fig.28

N factor envelopes of disturbances on different spanwise stations at upper surface of Configuration C （0~100 kHz disturbance frequency domain）

Fig.29

Laminar flow region at upper surface of Configuration C

Fig.30

Near-field overpressure signal of Configuration A， B， C and baseline configuration （H/L=3）

Fig.31

Far-field waveform of Configuration A， B， C and baseline configuration

Fig.32

Far-field waveform of Configuration C and baseline configuration

Fig.33

Near-field overpressure signal of Configuration C and baseline configuration （H/L=3）

Fig.34

FFD control box for designing fuselage

Fig.35

Geometry at symmetry plane of aft section of fuselage before and after design

Fig.36

Comparison of shock-expansion waves before and after fuselage design

Fig.37

Comparison of near-field overpressure signal before and after fuselage design （H/L=0.3）

Fig.38

Geometry of horizontal stabilizer before and after design

Fig.39

Comparison of shock-expansion waves before and after horizontal stabilizer design

Fig.40

Comparison of near-field overpressure signal before and after horizontal stabilizer design （H/L=3）

Fig.41

Near-field overpressure signal of Configurations C， D and baseline configuration （H/L=3）

Fig.42

Far-field waveform of Configurations C， D and baseline configuration