AGARD.AG-300-VoI.

411

AGARDograph No.300

AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series

Volume 5
onl
Store Separation Flight Testing
by

Edited byJUI e
R.K.Bogue
A

DISTRIBUTION AND AVAI.ASIUTY

ON SACK COVER
lot publTic 1Jen;,
 AGARD-AG-300-Vol.5

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARICH AND DEVELOPMENT

(ORGANISATION DU TRAITE DE L'ATLANTIQUE NORD)

AGARDograph No.300 Vol.5

STORE SEPARATION FLIGHT TESTING

by

RJ.Arnold and C.S.Epstein

A Volume of the
AGARD FLIGHT TEST TECHNIQUES SERIES

Edited by

R.K.Bogue

,I

I This AGARDograph has been sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD.

4
 THE MISSION OF AGARD

The mission of AGARD is to bring together the leading personalities of the NATO nations in the fields of science and
technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes:

- Exchanging of scientific and technical information;

- Continuously stimulating advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening the common defence posture;

- Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development;

- Providing scientific and technical advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospace research
and development (with particular regard to its military application);

- Rendering scientific and technical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies and to member nations in
connection with research and development problems in the aerospace field;

- Providing assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential;

- Recommending effective ways for the member nations to use their research and development capabilities for the
common benefit of the NATO community.

The highest authority within AGARD is the National Delegates Board consisting of officially appointed senior
representatives from each member nation. The mission of AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are composed of
experts appointed by the National Delegates, the Consultant and Exchange Programme and the Aerospace Applications
Studies Programme. The results of AGARD work are reported to the member nations and the NATO Authorities through
the AGARD series of publications of which this is one.

Participation in AGARD activities is by invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NATO nations.

The content of this publication has been reproduced

directly from material supplied by AGARD or the authors.

Published April 1986

Copyright O AGARD 1986
All Rights Reserved

ISBN 92-835-1523-4

Prined by SpecializedPrinngServices Limited

40 ChoiwfLw, Loqhtoo Esm IGO3TZ

t
 PREFACE

Since its founding in 1952, the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development has published, through the
Flight Mechzu':s Panel, a number of standard texts in the field of flight testing. The original Flight Test Manual was
published in the yearn 1954 to 1956. The Manual was divided into four volumes: I. Performance, 1I.Stability and Control,
Ill. Instrumentation Catalog, and IV. Instrumentation Systems.

As a result of developments in the field of flight test instnmientation, the Flight Test Instrumentation Group of the
Flight Mechanics Panel was established in 1968 to update Volumes III and IV of the Flight Test Manual by the publication of
the Flight Test Instrumentation Series, AGARDograph 160. In its published volumes AGARDograph 160 has covered
recent developments in flight test instrumentation.

In 1978, the Flight Mechanics panel decided that further specialist monographs should be published covering aspects
of Volume I and II of the original Flight Test Manual, including the flight testing of aircraft systems. In March 1981, the
Flight Test Techniques Group was established to carry out this task. The monographs of this Series (with the exception of
AG 237 which was separately numbered) are being published as individually numbered volumes of AGARDograph 300. At
the end of each volume of AGARDograph 300 two general Annexes are printed; Annex I provides a list of the volumes
published in the Flight Test Instrumentation Series and in the Flight Test Techniques Series. Annex 2 contains a list of
handbooks that are available on a variety of flight test subjects, not necessarily related to the contents of the volume
concerned.

Special thanks and appreciation are extended to Mr F.N.Stoliker (US), who chaired the Group for two years from its
inception in 1981, established the ground rules for the operation of the Group and marked the outlines for future
publications.

In the preparation of the present volume the members of the Flight Test Techniques Group listed below have taken an
active part. AGARD has oeen most fortunate in finding these competent people willing to contribute their knowledge and
time in the preparation of this volume.

Adolph, C.E. AFFTC/US.

Bogue, R.K. (editor) NASA/US.
Borek, R.W. NASA/US.
Bothe, H. DFVLR/GE.
Bull, EJ. A & AEE/UK.
Carabelli, R. SAlIT.
Galan, RC. CEV/FR.
Lapchine, N. CEV/FR.
Norris, EJ. A & AEE/UK.
Phillips, A.D. AFFTC/US.
Pool, A. NLR/NE.

J.TM. van DOORN, NLR/NF.

Member, Flight Mechanics Panel
1 Chairman, Flight Test
Group. eTechniques
Vai
NTIS CFIA&
DTIC TAB
Unannounaed L
Justificatio

By
Distributiton/

Dis
Availability Codes
LAv:t I an/or
Sper tal

illi
 Pm.e
PREFACE i

I,. SUMMARY

2.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hb~raled Peo
2.2 Shaed nlsh dh 2
2.2.1 Se i4sPykaRaIk CAUlowm 2
1.2.2 Someeto.Ai. cr CaolIae 3
2.2.3 Sore4u.. Collsio 3
2.3 Hsluudy DIeIaft St-_r I •-ap Pibe 4
2.4 Aeewy Caivdlemtlea 9
3.0 REQUIRMENTS FOR ASTORE SEPARATION PROGRAM 6
3.1 Delsoie Opeuht pl -e-ne erCeiakllam 6
3.2 USAF• •-Hem C mqld4a Aspm ad Ten •Cpm 7
3.3 Comheadma w Op'Aa- Usn Olc 9
3.4 Gel CowWmimlldm libies Iid tSepstsow Analoye sd Toeof 10
4.0 SMORE SEPARATION mEDCnoN TECHNIQUES 12
4.1 Review o9r"TyessPredfP ok Technpques 12
4.1.1 T71enerd Pedkeu Teebmkqes 12
4.1.2 Imldkad mad Send-Fmplk Methods 14
4.1.3 Anew Me&d@& 18
4.2 Spindle Teehiqmes Used by One NATO Nad.. is
4.2.1 UAWied Stims Air Verve (US) 19
4.2.2 United Khogiem (UK) 20
4.2.3 NoethleAd (NL) 21
4.2.4 Canadm (CA) 22
4.2.5 Fruaee (R) 23
4.2.6 Gomnsoy (GE) 24
S.0 STRUCTURING A FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM BASED ON PREDICTIONS 24
5.1 Sah4.FII1 C.u6 hr irthTenProram 24
5.2 Meth Iu fhrSrmmIong FIgh Tens Prpam Daed on Prodltioom 26
5.3 hae d e I. Srulam Miou Sinmlee 25

6.0 FLIGHT TEST PUEPARATIONS 23

6.1 Pumpese of Comparlog F8l Ten Rasales wIh Analyes 28
6.2 Anl•• RqAuresseot 29
6.3 CAmM ItequIe1 30
6.4 Viid Cm,. 32
6.5 Dom Redactlso Toeblqmioe fr Camerv 33
6.5.1 Tocdamiques Avadde 33
6.S.2 IuVon Tech 33
6.5.3 Phete Im.a.lsTeudbque 34
6.5.4 Cokddlers. hor Select dhe Righi Technlque 35

7.0 COMPANG ACTUAL RESULTS VWrli PREDICTION 36

7.1 lauft Iletwome F•* Tent and Anlys 36
7.2 lins FWoce Tedtla 37

L.0 BALLUSIC TEST CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS 39

9.0 Fu'n=h TEN 39
1O.GCONCLUSIONS 41

11.0oRfERENCES 83
12..0
L IIOGRAPI 86

IV
 APPENDICES Pag

3)F-16/CIUI9 SepuwlM Aftdlybý 0

PPidmMewininmuFacilo) 122
D Gqepic AUWAud Doav.i~f Sy ' 135
USWAF Semi DuNvmy Analyb Nkihaishp 142

14I
 UIST OF IlGURES

Palls
I Store to Aircraft Collision: BLU- I Firebomb Released from F- 105 46
2 Store to Aircraft Col!islon MK-77 Firebomb Released from A-7 Aircaft 47
3 Store to Aircrct Collision: Fuel Tank and Pylon Released from F- I 113 48
4 Store to Aircraft Collion: Fuel Tank Relemaed from A-37 49
S Ertic MK-20 Rockeys Separation and Collision with A.? Doe to Uneven Fin COenj 50
6 Time for MK-82 Snakey Bomibs Released from Tandem MER- 10 Stations to Collide 51
7 Store to Store Collision: BLU-80 Stores Released f•om A-4 52
8 Unsatisfactory Separation of AIM-7 Launched from F-I5 53
9 Parent Pylon Carriage of Stores on A-? 54
10 Multiple Crflage of Stores on A-7 54
11 Geometric Comparison of GBU- IOA/8 and GBU- IOC/B Stores 55
12 F- 16 Flutter and Loads Instrumentation 35
13A A-10 ASIM Front View 56
13B A-10ASIMSideView 57 I
13C A-lOASIMTopView 58
14 F- I I I Aircraft Model Installed on Captive Trajectory Rig in AEDC Wind Tunnel 59
15 Grid Wind Tunne Testing Technique 59
16A Enhanced Computer Graphics Depiction of Predicted Store Separation Characteristimc Three Quarter View 60
16B Enhanced Computer Graphics Depiction of Predicted Store Separation Characteristict,. Rear View 60
17 Tornado Model Installed on Two Sting Rig in ARA Wind T.innel 61
18 Fuel Tank Mounted in Displaced Position on NLR Captive Store Load Memuring System on NF-5 61
19 Risk a Function of Miniom 62
20 ierformance Factor as a Function of Missions 62
21 Captive Carriage Store Separation Constraint 63
22 lluutration of Typical Captive Carriale Store Coristraint 63
23 Development of Captive Carriag Store Constraint 64
24 Development of Store Collision Boundary: Store [itch versus Verticdl Displacement 65
25 Store Collision Boundary Plot: Smooth Speed Continuity 65
26 Store Collision Boundary Plot: Abrupt Speed Discontinuity 66
27 Store Collision Boundary Plot- Nose-UP and Nose-Down Pitching Motion 66
28 Alternate Store Separation Teat Approach 67
29 Camera Locations Available on F-I5 Aircraft 67
30 F-lI Wing Pylon Mounted Camera Installation 68
31 F- IS Right Hand Rear Fuselage Mounted Camera Installation 68
32 F-I5 Left Hand Rear Fuselage Mounted Cacra Installation 69
33 A- 10 Fuselage Wing Mounted Camera Installation 69
34 A-10 Wing Mounted Camera Installation 70
35 F-16 Fuselage Mounted Camera Installation 70
36 F-16 Wing Tip Mounted Camara Installed in Dummy AIM-9 71
37 A-7D Wing and Fuselage Camera Installation 72
38 English Electric Valve Company CCD Camera 72
39 Instrumentation Marketing Corporation CCD Camera 73
40 Typical USAF Photogrammetry Store Paint Pattern 74
41 Typical NLR Photogrammetry Store Paint Pattern 74
42 Typical Film Strips Used by NLR for Data Reduction: SepaNtion of LAU-3 Rocket Launcher from NF-5
with 5 Millisecond Release Interval Between Frames 75
43 PDAS Major Components 76
44 Typical PDAS Graphical Dat. ,'resentation 76
45 GADS Operator Console 77
46 Comparison of Actual Test Results with Prediction Good Agreement 77
47 Comparison of Actual Test Results witi Predictions: Poor Agreement 78
48 Manual Scaling of Store Trajectory Data from File 79
49 Comparison of Geometric and Physical Characteris of MK-82 LDCP and MK-82 Snakeye 79
50 Potential Station for Store-to-Store Collisions in the Ripple Release Mode on an A-7 79
51 F-15 withMK-82 Bombs Carried Tangentially 80
52 F-16XL with MK-82 Bombs Carried Tangentially 80
53 F-4 Flight Envelope Extension with Twelve MK-82 Bombs Carried Conformally 81
54 MK-82 Bombs Separating fomr F- 16XL at 5:0 Knots 82

vi
 IST OWTAMZS
a

I Stoft Supwalmon TmaIII Sylhbwa 41

If In-Mome Compsutbift AnaWysi and Tat CspabWtlsa 42
III Alguaft/Stoess Cetitficatlon Flow Chsn 43
IV Excerpt from. A-I10 AirciIt/Stoee Masver Conftgurwlon U21 44
V Miss Distaince of MK-82 Bombs Due to Various Pararmetrs 45

Iim,
 Ce volume puraiemat dam la e TeTdtnlqu des Beaie en Val dAOARD waraldee ernie de uiparali dee charge
en fancalo do leajemble dee symaans Toas lee aepect doe ernie, portant marl.n pdzld d'ldfmnaifclon dun beecin
perllc~ule avior./charg eant ddcrite daqmppr dtape4 conduleant Ildtablleeemnt dune enveloppe demplol satlaflean.
Leecena ad6d mis pflnepalmenaw maie planing et laicualon de la phuae d'eeesalen vol du propamme autoried d'amport
de chargee ycoapne I&defintio dune stuctur de beee et mr renemble des p noc Idures qul augmententa I&edcuwitd et
Ilezicutla efficae d'un %elpromgainme
Ceftt AOARDognplhie adad publid i la deanane du Pwane
deIs Mldcanque du Vol de l'AGARD, 4
 I

SEPARATION FLIGHT TESTIIN

STORE
Robert J Arnold
Chief. Office for Aircraft Compatibility
3244 Test Wine
Eglin Air Force late. Florida 31S42
USA
and

Charles 5 Epstein
Progrem Maneger
Deputy for Doevelopment Plans
Eglin Air Force late, Florida 32S42
USA

1.0 SUIAR•
Y

The saepration of stores from aircraft is an old story - the accurate prediction of the store
trajectory during separation from the aircraft Is not. Prior to the 1960's, there were virtually no
widely usal or generally accepted methods available for pre-flight prediction of store separation
trajectories other than wind tunnel testing techniques. With the advent of modern high-speed attack or
fighter-bomber jet powered aircraft, the requiremet to carry more and more stores, and to release then
at higher and higher speads emerged. High transonic, and even supersonic, release speeds became common-
place requirements. it became obvious that the classic old wind tunnel store separation techniques ware
no longer adequate. With the aerodynamic sophistication of new aircraft catm a better understanding of
transonic aerodynamics and a more thorough knowledge of the complex aerodynamic flowfield surrounding
the aircraft. Not until the virtual explosion in high-speed digital computers, however, did advances in
both wind tunnel and theoretical prediction of store separation trajectories occur. Today, there are
literally dozms of wind tunnel, wind tunnel/analyses, and purely theoretical analytic methods of store
prediction available to the separation analyst or angineeer. The littraturo abounds in technical reports
and descriptions of these techniques. The problem is which of the new techniques applies best to the
problem at hand. Eich method has its advantages and aisadvantages. when it can be applied and when it
can not, and its acturacites and inaccuracies. In nine out of ten cases, the engineer finds that several
of the techniques could be used, and that the best method for the task must be selected using non-
engineering criteria - usually cost or time available. For this reason, various companies,
organizations, and governmeit agencies have picked a set of methods which generally serve their needs.
There is no set technique, or group of techniques, that one could describe as preferable for all users.

The purpose of this report, then, is to document the various aspects of a store separation
program - what they are and what methods are being used by the US and other NATOnations to address
these phases. The report is primarily intended for use by managers and new engineers to the field,
both in govermenat and industry, who are responsible for the planning or execution of store separation
programs. For this evason, this report provides the reader with an overview of store separation
prediction, testing, and analysis terhniques currently in use in the US and other NATOnations. It also
provides a ready reference listing for the re4der's further investigation. if desired, to learn more
about the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the applicability, of each technique. It is
intended to assist the reader In determining the best technique to be used on a particular problem,
given a specifir set of circumstances.

The authors have many years of experience and are thoroughly familiar with the store
separation techniques in use in US government agencies and industry. Canada and several European
countries wre visited to determine how the problem was being handled there, why specific techniques
were being used, how effective were these techniques, and why a specific technique was chosen in the
first place. A further objective was to determine how well the other nations understood some of the
basic store separation prediction and testing techniques, whether they had made any changes or
improvements to these basic techniques and. if so, why. From this, this report has been prepared which
hopefully provides the reader with an understanding of store separation problems, the techniques used to
treat these problems, and the set of circumstances (such as time or funding constraints) that govern
the selection of the techniques used. Throughout the report, the authors have made maximum use of
experience by the inclusion of exaples from specific tests.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Historical Perspective

The separation of stores from aircraft goes beck to the early days of this century - prior to
World War 1. Even up to the post World War 11 period, the oi;.y reasons stores were dropped during
testing were to test the store itself or to obtain sight setiings needed for accurate stoo% delivery.
The rapid development of the jet engine followingw•orld War 11, however allowed fighter type aircraft
to carry large payloads of stores externally on thair wings and/or fuseiage. Store delivery speeds
begin to approach Nach One, Soddenly, it was no longer pos,.iblo to merely drop stores end obtain
ballistic data. The very art of separating the store from the aircraft beWaim a pIrblem in itself; one
worthy of careful preflight consideration and In-flight caution.

The compatibility of stores with aircraft requires several types of engineering analyses and
flight testing; structural, flutter, performance, stability and control, ballistics, electronagetic
compatibility, and separation a primary disciplines. By far the most visible of these - end one of
the most critical from a flight safety standpoint - is store separation. It may also be the least
understood of all the disciplines. Virtually every university that offers a course in aeronautical

.1 4
 ad

engineering covers thoroughly the disciplines of aerodynamics. loads, stress analysis, flutter,
performance and stability and control, and so forth. To the authors' knowledge, none offer courses
In store separation at the undergraduate level. A few, however, do offer courses at an advanced degree
level. Because of the above, the Air Force's Office of Aircraft Compatibility (OAC)at Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida has developed Its own training program. The syllabus outline is contained in
Table I. It is recommended that every organization performing store separation work have a formal
training program.
Store separation is of major concern to all Air Forces today, and is a major sub-specialty
of engineering. Despite this, engineers and scientists working on problems of store separation have
largely developed their own tools (both academic and empiricall) and have achieved success through
experience on the job. It is in the hope of assisting the managers and engineers in rapidly acquiring
this on the job experience that this report Is witten . The report will not provide the reader with the
proper way of performing store separation analyses of flight tests. Rather, It will attempt to explain
the problems and discuss the ways in which the USAF, and particularly the way the OAChas dealt with the
problems over the years. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the reasons why particular methods
are good in a certain particular set of circumstances will be discussed. The overall intent is to
provide sme "lessons learned" and an outline of successfully used methods and guidelines on how to
choose the method that best meets the user's meads.
2.2 Safety of Flight Hazards
As mentioned previously, prior to the 1960s, stores were placed an aircraft with little or no
thought of eventual store separation. Store bays of heavy bombers were designed to pack as many stores
inside as possible. When released, the stores ware expected to fall out properly. External carriage of
stores on fighter-type aircraft was generally limited to two or four stores per aircraft - each carried
on Its own separate pylon (single carriage). As aerodynamic design and available jet engine power
allowed larger and faster aircraft, store separation became more and more of a proble , particularly as
release speeds became transonic (above 0.8 Mach). The old standby of gravity release of stores became
unacceptable and the first store Ejector Release Units (ERUs) were incorporated Into aircraft. Ejecting
a store from an aircraft with pneumatic or gas power, rather then merely releasing it, solved the store
separation problem for a short time. As engine power avai lable grew rapidly, so did the shxe and
payload of fighter aircraft. Again, however, stores were carried largely on the basis of how many could
be physically instal led. With the larger number of stores cam more complex arrangements for carrying
the stores (such as on mltiple, triple, or twin ejector racks). Virtually every fighter aircraft In
use today by the NATOAir Forces uses forced ejection of stores and some sort of multiple ejector
rack.

When the complex schemes for the carriage of large numbers of stores externally oanfighter
aircraft are mixed with the equal ly complex aerodynamic flowfield surrounding modern swept wing
fighters, sei'ious problem in store separation can occur. But it should be stressed that store
separation problems may occur throughout the aircraft's flight envelope - not just at the high
speed/high Mach points. The aerodynamic flowfield around the aircraft dictatLs when these problems
occur. They may occur at low speed/high angle of attack, high speed/low angle of attack, high dive
angle/low *g, or where sharp changes in the flowfield occur rapidly (such as when a shock wave forms or
when critical Mach for the particular wing airfoil shape is reached). Generally, store teparation
problem fall into three distinct areas: store-to-pylon/rack collisions, store-t,-aircraft collisions,
and store-to-store collisions.

2.2.1 Store-to-Pylon/Rack Coll isions:

When a store is ejected or released, the most likely problem that c,.*ld occur is that the
store might pitch, yaw, or roll more rapidly than it displaces away from the aircraft. If this occurs,
the store wi I I usual ly col I ide with the closest part of the adjacent structure - the pylon or rack from
which it was released. Store-to-pylon/rack collisions usually occur within 200 milliseconds from
release and may result in some bending or breakage of portions of the store or pylon rack. Aside from
the fact that any such collision Is undesirable and unacceptable operationally, store-to-pylon/rack
collisions are not usually in and of themselves dangerous or serious. If, however, a store suffers
breakage or bending of a fin. or becomes unpredictable, more serious collisions with the aircraft or
with other stores may occur. The most coemon scenario for this type of collision is where the store
pitches violently nose-down immediately after release causing the stores's tail to rise upward, striking
the pylon or rack. Generally, after sustaining some bending of the store's tail. the store will fall
away and assume a violently erratic ballistic trajectory. Although the store will not further endanger
the aircraft, it may, due to its high drag erratic movements. impact the ground as much as several
thousand feet short of the intended target. This could pruve disastrous if the aircraft were operating
In close support of friendly ground troops. The over-rotation, or violent pitch-down, of the store
generally occurs when there is a large nose-down moment on the store whi le it is in the carriage
position. When the store is released, this moment causes an imeediatt nose-down pitch. This sit~ation
could be caused by a large upward flow on the tail of the store, causing nose-down pitch at separation,
but this is not as common in our experience. Usually, it is either a pure nose-down load on the store
nose or a combination of nose-down load on the nose and tail-up load on the tail. Rarely is It a result
of a pure tail-up load. The phenonomen causing this situation may appear rapidly and with little
warning, or it may just get worse as flight limits are varied. For example, violent nose-down pitch of
stores releaed from the bottom position of a Triple Ejector Rack (TER) on most USAF fighter aircraft
occurs at speeds arond 450 KCAS and worsens predictably as dirspeads are further increased. At SSO
KCAS, this nose-down store pitch may reach ninety degrees (particularly for large diameter blunt nose
stores such as the CIAJ-24/58 series) and this almost alvays causes store-to-rack collisions. Whereas
the TER problem occurs at high speeds, pitch-down ay also occur at low speeds. When aircraft employ
thick wings with high camber airfoil sections, flow separation may occur at relatively low airspeeds,
and this separation will occur rapidly and with little warning. On the 0-57 and A-lO aircraft,
uneventful store separation can be made at speeds up to W. at;AS. However, if airspeed Is increased to
350 KCAS, flow separation occurs (because Mach critical has been reached for the particular airfoil
section) and toma stores will pitch violently nose-down when releasetL Detailed testing has been
performed on the A-10 and this testing Corroborates that Onset of flow the s4epration described Occur
over a 10.20 KCAS speed range.
2.2.2 Stort-to-Aircraft CalII ion~s
Although store-to-rack/pylon collisions aerobviously also collision% with the aircraft, they
have bean broken out separately to distinguish thee from those In this section. Store-to-aircraft
collisions, asused here, involve collisions after release of the store with other parts of the aircraft
such aswings, fuselae,. or ampennage. Collisions of this typ~e are by far the most serious from an
aircraft safety standpoint. Since they occur at tom time ant' distant* from the Initial point of
release, the stores are moving rapidly, end their mass, impacting the aircraft at high energy and high
speeds, can cause serious aircraft damage.
Ideally, when a store is separated it should pass through the aircraft's aerodynamic flow-
field into undisturbed air asquickly as possible. If this does not occur, and the store reomain in the
aircraft flowfield, the flowfield forces begin to dominate and to determine the store's movements.
When this happens. a store/aircraft collision is highly likely. There are several reasons for a store
r~emain.ng in the aircraft flowfield too long. The primary reason is not enough store ejection force..
This may occur becriuse the ejector reck cannot produce enough force, or it mayoccur because the
flexibility of the rack or aircraft supporting structure reduces the offecttive force pushing the store
away. In effect, the aircraft pylon or wing ispushed upward while the store Is being pushied downward,
resulting in less separation between the Aircraft and the store. Effective ejection force may elso be
reduced by releasing the store at low 'V levels. Since gravity usually assists in store seperation,
lowering the gravity force lowers the total, or effective, separation force.
When a store isreleased athigh speeds and remains inthe aircraft flowfield too long,
enormous forces mnybegenerated which can drastically affect tot store's separation trajectory.
Viewers of store separation films aerofton amazed toaee a 500 or 1000 pound store Start its seplration
downwarls only to later rise back up into or even over the releasing aircraft. Figure 1 shows an
example of the above. Inthis Sequence, a SLU-l firebomb is ejected fry,, an F-lOS . I starts downward,
pitches nose-up due toflowfield efft-ts, ant' isthen swept upward by the flomfield, inicting the
aircraft's horizontal taill. Figure 2 shows anIdentical occurrence on an A-7 aircraft with a Nil-i?
firebomb. Figure 3 shows a sequence which ends with a spectacular collision between an empty fuel
tank and pylon on an F-l.What starts asa good separation soon becomes a serious collision as the
fuel tank rotatesaninety degrees, picks up lift from the pylon (now acting asa wing), and rises to
cc) lide with the aircraft's aft fuselage.h Figure 4 shows the gravity release of anempty fuel tank
from inA-37 aircraft. Although this release was mid* at less then 250 KCAS, the empty fuel tank is
large and light (low density). The aircraft flowfield Immediately causes a nose-up pitch of the fuel
tank, and it remains in contact with the aircraft wing until it has scraped the wing from the leasing to
the trailing edge. A final sequence, Figure 6. shows store-to-aircraft col lision% which occurred when
NK-20 Rockeye Cluster bombs were separated from an A-? aircraft. The W$'-20, being marginally stable
until its fins open, remained Inthe flowfield because of a low effective ejector force and because its
fins did not open properly. This allowed the flowfleld aerodynamic forces to sweep the store inwards
towards the aircraft. This condition was initially aggravated by the stores being released ina high
dive angle (sixty degrees) at low 0g0, further reducing the effective ejection force.
2.2.3 Store-to-Store Collisions
When released, stores may collide with other stores still atta~ched to the aircraft, or they
may collIIde with others that may have al so bean released When the col I sion is with other stores not
yet released, the comments ofthe previous paragraph apply. However, when the collision Is between
stores which have already been release'i, several things may occur". one or both CoulId explIode, one or
both could sustain damage, or one or both could be knocked into an unstable trajectory thereby effecting
accuracy. Of the three, the least likely to occur is explosion, particularly if the collision Is
immediately after release. Generally, the store fuze will not have hau time to arm (normal setting is
several seconds after release) and a side-to-side collision (thm meet likely) will not be of sufficient
force to causa explosion or fuze function. While not desirable, side-to-side collision of stores
Immdiately. or shortly after, release is sometimes Inevitable and must be expected. particularly when
large numbers of stores are released simultaneously or ina short interval ripple release mode.
Photographs of the release of eighty-four NK~-82 500 pound stores from the bomb bay of the B-52. for
example, show many low energy, side-to-side collisions of stores, but they do not ad~versely affect
safety or the ground pattern. If the col Ilisions occur appreciably after releae, they may be of the
high energy type, again because the time period has allowed their speed relative to one another to be
high. If this type of high energy collision occurs, it will ganeralIly resulIt in damage to one or both
stores. What happens thereafter is a function of what damag occurs. Store-to-store coll1isions are not
usually a safety hazard to the releasing aircraft, but asdescribed inthe previous section, they can
cause serious safety hazards to friendly troops onthe ground by affecting the stores's ballistic
trajectory.
One type of store-to-store collision can be a hazard, but usualIly occurs well away from the
releasing aircraft. Ifa number of stores are released simultaneously, or at very short intervals,
stores may "draft" on one another. Specifically, iftwo stores are Inballistic flight, one directly
behind the other. the rear one will be inthe wake of the lead store and the drag of the rear store will
be Ilessoend. Th iscan allIow the rear store to speed up and coIIIde wi th the lemad store. Ifthis
occurs, an explosion ishighly likely Since the fuze on both stores willI usually havem had time to arm.
One remedy to this 'drafting' Is to Increase the interval between stores, particularly for stores
released from tandem carriage positions. "Drafting* has proven to be quite predictable for the son
type of store released from specific carriae racks. For examle, Figure 6 shows the time Ittakes for
WK-92 SNMEYE
Multiple bombsRack.
Ejector to (HER-10)
coIIIde (nose-to-talI) wi th plot
at 450 KCAS. This one was
another when released
formulated based onfrom tandem stations
literally hundreds on
ofa
4

after release the bombs would explode. At

immediately. If the bomb fuzes were set to arm immediately milliseconds. the bombs never collide.
of 240
the other end of the scale, note that with an interval the problem would be simply to limit the
The reader may believe at this point that the solution to in most instances users desire much lower
minimum release interval to 240 miliseconds. Unfortunately,
Another way around the problem, if the aircraft ha% several store carriage pylons, is to
intervals. the interval between tandem stores off
sequence stores release from pylon-to-pylon thereby increasing circumstances be accepted so long as they
the same rack. Store-to-store collisions can under certain
Incidentaly, as airspeed is increased, the time it
occur outside the tircraft's fragmentation envelope.
i o collide decreases. That Is, at 500 KCAS, 300 miliseconds may be required to
takes for stores In addition, the time it takes for stores to
drafting instead of 240 milliseconds at 450 KCAS.
preclude stores released In a high drag mode such
collide is a function of the stores themselves. For example,
clearly require higher intervals to preclude drafting than a MK-82 SNAKEYE
as the MK-82 SNAKEYE will
released In the low drag mode.
store-to-store collisions
To conclude this section. Figure 7 shows an example of multiple contacted the centerline
were released from an A-4 aircraft. Note that'one store
when BLU-80 stores The tank then contacted another BLU-80 released
mounted fuel tank causing it to break off the aircraft. fin. Obviously, not a satisfactory situation.
from the other side of the aircraft breaking off the store

2.3 Historically Difficult Store Separation

have been separated from many
Over the last two decades, many different kinds of stores
combination provides its own problems there
different kinds of aircraft. Although each aircraft/store that have historically been problems no
have been several types of stores (and release conditions)
matter what aircraft was used. These are:
- Low density unstable stores
- Stores with folding fins
- Liquid filled stores
- Jettison of fuel tanks, pylons, and racks
- Ripple release of stores

negative or near
Low density unstable stores, that is, those whose static margin is either
weight, have always been a problem no
zero and whose aerodynamic loads are large in comparison to their
matter what the release airspeed. Examples of this type store are empty rocket pods (such as a LAU-3)
aerodynamic disturbance will
and training dispensers (such as a SUU-20). Being unstable, even a small
being light in weight, the store may be
cause large deviations in store separation trajectories. Also, angular and displacement
moved with small disturbances. The result is, usually, extremely large Most of the spectacular
departures during separation, and a highly unpredictable separation trajectory.
Also, because of the extremely large
store-to-aircraft collisions seen in films have been of this type.
store separation prediction
angular movement of the stores - sometimes resulting in tumbling - mary
testing should proceed very
methods will not arcurately simulate the store's trajectory so flight
carefully.
fins that open after
Almost as dangerous as low density unstable stores are those which have
series Itke the GBU-1O and
release. Such stores (like the MK-20 Rockeye and many of the guided stores inertial loads) but, because
as
GBU-12 are almost always high density (aerodynamic loads are not as highso until their fins open.
of their folding fins, they are also almost always unstable, or nearly large angular or linear
Therefore, immeoiately after release these stores sometimes start to move with
these motions quickly
motions. Even when the fins open, the additional stability often cannot correct
stores. Such problems are
enough to prevent the store from moving and striking the aircraft or other
greatly aggravated by slow opening fins. Consider the following examples:
are supposed to open
- The MK-20 store, used by several NATOAir Forces has four fins which
after release. However,
independently (each fin has its own spring) in less than fifty milliseconds are more powerful
because of different aerodynamic forces acting on each fin and because some springs
Is one of today's most
than others, the fins almost never open simultaneously. As a result, this store
5 which shows MK-20's
unpredictable and dangerous stores to separate from any aircraft. Recall Figure
the A-7 causing
released from an A-7. On this mission, MK-20's collided with the aft fuselage of the fins did not
substantial damage. MK-20 separation trajectories did not match predictions becauseresponsible for the
open equally as can be seen ir the second frame. Unequal fin opening was directly
the time of this
erratic and unacceptable separation shown in this figure. It may be noted that at things, of
writing, the USAF was considering a modification to the MK-20 which consists, among other
still no guarantee
stronger springs. While these springs are expected to speed up fin openinc there is
that the fins will open simultaneously since the fins still will not be interconnected.
- The GBU-lOC/B and G3U-12B/B consist of 2000 and 500 pound bomb bodies respectively
with
bombs. Like the MK-
nose and tail assemblies which convert the general purpose bombs into laser guided positive
do not. However, on the
20, the fins are designed to open very rapidly, but in flight they The fins on
side, the fins are interconnected with one another so they at least open simultarfeously.
that store separation
the GBU-lOC/B are particularly slow in opening. In fact, they open so slowly
In the near
analyses and flight testing has been structured assuming that the fins do not open at all A-7, and
vicinity of the aircraft. ThIs aoproach was used in certifying the G3U-IOC/B on the A-lO,
several other aircraft.

In short, stores with opening fins should be tested very carefully if the fins do not open
with a mechanism to
simultaneously or if they do not open rapidly. Ideally, stores should be designed
insure rapid opening of interconnected fins. Explosive cartridges used to power the
fin o:aning
mechanism is an example of one successful approach.
separation
Liquid filled stores (such as fuel tanks and firebombs) pose a unique store
problem. Sloshing of the liquid fill can radically change the inertial characteristics of the store and
in inertial
cause an extremely unpredictable, erratic separation trajectory. Sometimes these changes
 V5

properties can act as a damper on the aerodynamically produced loads and result in a very flat,
uneventful separation. At other times they wi l add to the aerodynamic loads and produce drastic store
displacements and angular rotations. There are no easy solutions to the problems associated with this
type store. Ideally, the store should be designed with internal baffling to prevent all the liquid from
running tu the store's nose if the aircraft were to approach the target in a dive angle. At best,
liquid fil led stores are unpredictable and erratic and, therefore, dangerous and should be tested with
extreme caution. One word about testing liquid simulant ft I led stnres. The authors have found that it
is virtually imossible to simulate most liquid fills. For example, for years the USAF filled firebombs
with Vermiculite (a low density water absorbing material) and water to the proper weight and center of
gravity as a simulant for napalm. The Vermiculite absorbed the water and prevented slosh. Others in
the United States used a dessicant (such as floor sweep) and water in a similar manner. It was later
discovered that firebombs released with these simulants did not fol low the same store separation
trajectory xs those filled with real napalm. This was proved during A-7 testing when live firebombs
(real naraim with inert fuzes) were released from one wing and simulant filled firebombs were released
from tie other wing in the pairs mode (that is, one from each wing at the same time). Firebombs filled
with, simulant separated with slow nose-down pitching motions whereas the live firebombs separated with
minimal pitching motions but large yawing motions. As a result of this experience, and others, the USAF
now only al lows real napalm in all separation testing of firebombs.

Using real napalm fill and inert bomb fuzes does not pose a flight safety problem. Even if store
collisions occur, no ignition of the napalm will occur. In this regard, it may be noted that for a
recent test of a firebomb on a aircraft, live napalm was used. The stores had to be used within a
specified period of time after they were fi lled because the napalm mixture decomposes with time and that
could change its slosh characteristics. In addition, the largest source of error comes from the machine
that mixes the napalm. When the machine is clean, the first firebombs filled will be of proper weight
and center of gravity. Later in the day, when the machine becomes partially clogged, firebombs will be
filled with a completely different density mixture. As much as 90 pounds difference has been observed
in one day for a 750 pound store. For liquid filled stores (other than napalm), it is absolutely
essential that any liquid used to simulate the liquid fill (when the real liquid just cannot be used for
whatever reason) not only simulate the weight and center of gravity, but also the density and slosh
characteristics of the real fill. The bottom line is that great caution must be used in filling and
separating liquid filled stores.
Jettison of fuel tanks, pylons, and racks combine all the above problems. Fuel tanks,
pylons, and racks all are unstable aerodynamically, and they also are usually of low density. Fuel
tanks, even if supposedly empty, usually contain some residual liquid. Pylons and racks are of such
irregular aerodynamic shapes that their separation trajector, is almost impossible to predict. At best,
they may be simulated in a wind tunnel. The word jettison is usually defined as getting rid of
something no longer wanted. So it is here. Jettison of fuel tanks usually means an empty or partially
full tank. Jettison of pylons and racks is usually done in an emergency condition and may mean with or
without some or all of the st-ares still attached. The combinations one would have to analyze, for
example, on an A-7 aircraft with six pylons (or the A-l0 with eleven pylons), many of which are capable
of carrying a multiple ejector rack, are enormous. Since Jettison is used in an emergency condition,
and since such testing flight can be very dangerous, fuel tank, pylon, or rack Jettison is normally
studied extensively in a wind tunnel (and most frequently using the drop model technique). Even then,
remembering the F-ill/fuel tank sequence in Figure 3, dangerous store separation can still occur.

Ripple release of stores in very small intervals can also pose another very dangerous
separation problem. When store separation is studied in a wind tunnel, the aircraft model may have many
stores loaded, but only one is released at a time (except when the drop model technique is used). The
airflow around, say, twelve stores released in a ripple sequence at a small interval, will be
considerably different because the individual stores disturb the airflow of the other stores. Thus,
wind tunnel and computer predictive methods are marginally effective at best. Ripple release, however,
is a very coemon operational requirement and must be cleared. Such multiple releases are normally made
in flight using "brute force" methods. That is, a multiple or ripple release is made at a safe airspeed
in level flight using a high release interval (intervals in excess of 200 milliseconds). If stores
separate without store-to-store collisions, the interval is lowered, and the flight conditions are
increased until flight limit goals are achieved or store-to-store collisions occur (presuming these
collisions occur well below the aircraft so that they do not pose a safety of flight hazards). Another
reason why analytical and wind tunnel methods are not always successful in predicting actual stores
separation is rack flexibil-cy. The ejection force imparted to stores carried on the various stations
of a MERare all different due to rack flexibility. As stated earlier, there is no substitute for
fligtt testing when it comes to establishing safe separation envelopes for stores released in the ripple
mode.
2.4 Accuracy Consideration:

In pursuit of safe store separation, the point must not be overlooked that stores are being
separated for the purpose of hitting a target. If the store clears the aircraft safely but then, due to
collisions, unstable motion, or other problems, does not follow its expected. ballistic trajectory, that
is often Just as unacceptable as a store-to-aircraft collision. There are always certain factors
present that can cause inaccuracies in stores delivery; wind conditions, optical sight error, pilot
error, store manufacturing tolerances, and so forth. Some of these factors may be compensated for;
however, there are other factors which cannot. If the store Is marginally stable or unstable, its
trajectory is erratic and not repeatable. Likewise, if a guided weapon is released and experiences some
severe angular pertubatlons, the store control system may not be able to return the store to a trajectory
that will allow it to hit the target. One can imagine the pilot's reaction when the AIM-7 missile
depicted in Figure 8 was launched from the F-15. This missile certainly did not hit its intended target.
The problem was caused by the aircraft flowfield generating more nose-up pitch than the missile's control
system could correct for.
6

3.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR A STORE SEPARATION PROGRAM.

3.1 Determining Operational Requirements for Certification

In the United States, operational users (such as the Tactical Air Forces) generate
certification requirements. Requirements are transmitted to higher headquarters under the auspices of a
Certification Request (CR). If the CR is approved (validated), then the cogizant Aircraft Program
Office (APO) on which the store is to be certified is responsible for arranging and Managing analyses
and testing necessary to establish aircraft carriage and store employrsent envelopes. In addition, the
APO is responsible for insuring applicable Technical Orders (T.O.s) are mended so the store may be
carried and employed operationally. Typical T.O.s include the aircraft -1 series which contains
aircraft/store carriage and employment limits and other operational restrictions, the aircraft -33
series which contains aircraft/store loading and functional procedures, and aircraft -34 series which
contains store delivery and ballistic tables and procedures.

Because of constantly changing user requirements and the large number of CRs that are
generated, the USAF instituted a management program to process and approve/disapprove CRs from users,
and to track the status of validated CRs. This program is called "SEEK EAGLE" and has worked
extraordinarily well over the last eighteen years its has been in use. Therefore, additional discussion
on the SEEK EAGLE program and how it fits into establishing a store separation program is in order.
Although the SEEK EAGLE program was established for the USAF. the authors feel that the reader will
gain from the knowledge of ow and why this program was begun. Authority for the SEEK EAGLE program
rests with Program Management Directive (PEO), Reference F1),established by Headquarters (HQ)USAF.
This PMDdefines the specific procedures for submitting CRs to HQUSAF and cognizant APO. For each CR,
the user must provide the following information:
Aircraft/Store Configuration
The user must specify each type of store desired to be carried on each aircraft pylon station
and whether the store is to be carried on parent pylon or multiple carriage racks. There is a huge
number of possible aircraft/store configurations and the configuration actually required drives the
scope, cost, and schedule of compatibility analyses and testing. For example, it would be
unsatisfactory for the user to state a requirement to carry MK-82 bombs in combination with CBU-58
dispensers on the A-7. The A-7 has three pylons on each side of the wing and it should be obvious that
carriage of a pylon mounted MK-82 on the center pylon and a fuel tank on the inboard pylon (Figure 9)
would require far less analyses and tests than if these same stores were mounted on multiple carriage
racks as shown in Figure 10.
Specific Store Type Required
Because there are so many versions of some stores, it is mandatory that the user define the
specific store type required. For example, it Is not satisfactory to just specify a requirement to
certify the MK-82 because there are MK-82 LDGP (low drag general purpose), NK-82 SNAKEYE (retarded fin
assembly), NK-82 Air Inflatable Retarder (airbag retardation device), and even other versions with an
array of fuzing options. Another example is the GBU-10. The GBU-1O consists of a MK-84 (2000 pound)
general purpose bomb body with nose and tail assemblies which convert a "dumb" bomb into a "smart* laser
guided bomb. However, there are many nose and tail assemblies each of which give the GBU-10 a different
designation. For example, the GBU-lOA/B has a fixed tail fin assembly whereas the GBU-lOC/B has a tail
fin assembly which opens Immediately upon release from the aircraft (see Figure 11). Clearly, the user
must specify in detail which version, or if all versions, are required for certification.
Carriage and Employment Limits
The user must specify the limits required. Typically, users ask for more than they need.
For example, If the aircraft's maximum carriage speed is 600 knots and a carriage speed of 500 knots is
actually required, 600 knots is often requested. Users have told the authors that they fear that If the
true carriage requirement were specified, the technical community might only perform analyses and
testing to even a lesser speed to reduce time, cost, complexity and so forth. This is,of course, not
true. If any event, users are required to specify required carriage speeds, load factors, maneuver
limits, employment speed, dive angles, release intervals, and other applicable Information.
Justification
The user must explain why the CR Is required. Usually, the user explains that the mission
cannot be accomplished, or will be adversely affected, unless the new store configuration is certified,
or if present limits for a certified store configuration are not expanded. Certainly the USAF will not
approve a CRunless a strong Justification is provided and it must be defended by the user If
challenged.
Priority
The user must specify (interms of the USAF Precedence Rating System) the priority attached
to the CR. This forces the user to let HQUSAF know how badly the CR Is really needed. In ?ffect, if
the user has 100 outstanding CRs and APO funds are limited, and if the new CR is assiqned a priority of
101, the new CR would probably never get acted upon even if Itwere to be validated by HQ USAF. If on
the other hand the new CR was assigned a high priority, a lower priority CR would get postponed, perhaps
indefinitely. Obviously, the priority of the CRwill ultimately impact scheduling of analyses and tests
performed by the engineering organization, particularly if the engineering organization is already
working on several other CRs.
Required Certification Date
The user must specify when the CR is required in the field. Clearly this date ties in
 7

closely with priority. A long lead time enables the APO to smoothly Integrate new CRs into ongoing
workload activities. Short lead times are highly disruptive to ongoing activities.
It isclear that with the above information, HQ USAF has the necessary information to assass
the user's CR interms of ov_ýrall USAF requirements. Inaddition, the APO has the necessary information
with which to forimulate a cost estimate for the enginsering organization to perform analyse& and tests.
* HQ USAF makes the final dacision asto whether or not the CR should be validated based on meshing
overall operation&l requirements with cost considerations. Ifthe CR isvalidated, the SEEK EAGLE PMD
isamended, and once amended. the cognizant APO isresponsible for effecting certification. After the
* store has been certifiea (all T.O.s amended) the APO advises HQUSAFwho then deletes the CRfrom the
PMD,thereby completing the SEEKEAGLE process.
It should be noted that the above management procedure is used for Clis which involve
inventory stores (such asa MK-82 LDGP bomb) on inventory aircraft (such as anA-71)). The management
process isessentially the same for developmental stores. Validated CRs for developmental stores are
placed i,% a separate annex of the PND. So long as the store remains in this annex the APO is not
required to take certification action. Instead, the APO isrequired tomo~nitor store development (such
and take necessary actions to plan for certification (such asthe need
tests),modifications
to ongoing
a's aircraft and
fund for analyses softwar'e to function and employ the store). Once, and if,a
production decision ismade for the store, itisremoved from this annex and placed inthe Inventory
store annex. At this point, the APO must t,'ke action to effect .:ertification. There are many cases
where developmental stores do notgo into production. Ini these cases, the store is deleted from the
PMD. One last point on the SEEKEAGLE process. The SEEKEAGLE PHD is an unfunded document. Thus, if
a high cost, short notice, CR isvalidated by HQ USAF and the APO does not have the funds required to
effect certification, no action istaken ui~til the APO requests and receives supplemental funding.
Usually, some funds are available to handle short notice CRs but thrse are reserved for high priority
efforts.
3.2 USAF In-House Compatibility Analysis and Test Capability
Once a CR has been validated, analyses amid
testing required to establish captive carriage and
employment envelopes may begin. But who isto perform this work? Inthe United States the question
narrows down to industry or the USAF.
In the mid 60's, USAF engineering personnel were not oriented or trained to support
aircraft/store compatibility efforts. During this period of time there was a tremendous quantity of CRs
being requested and approved by HQ USAF. Most of these CR5 were required yesterday. That is,there was
animmediate operational requirement. Yet, because the USAF did not possess its own in-house
capability, all analyses and tests required for certification were performed by industry (usually the
prime aircraft manufacturer) under contract. Because of the long lead time required to award a
contract, stores were frequently not certified ina timely manner which adversely impacted combat
operations. Another problem was that assoon asthe contract was awarded, user requirements frequently
changed. This required a contract amendment which took more time and funds. Because of these problems,
the USAF perceived that they could perform compatibility analyses and testing more cheaply and quickly
with their own personnel. To quantify perceptions, the USAF commissioned several independent studies
which corroborated that compatibility analyses and tests for follow-on certification efforts could be
performed in-house more responsively and at less cost than by contracting with industry for such
support. Reference (2)documents results of such a study. The term follow-on isof significance Inthe
study findings. Itwas, and is,acknowledged that the prime aircraft manufacturer isbest able to
establish the aircratt's basic structural and aerodynamic limitations for carriage of baseline store
configurations. Baseline configuidtions are those which dr'ive and influence the design of the aircraft
(such as pylon stations, hard points, electrical, mechanical, stores management, fire control and so
forth). Inaddition, baseline configurations are those that are critical from the disciplines of
flutter, loads, stability and control end store separation. Enouqh baseline configurations should be
analyzed and tested to correlate with predictions. Hawever, once the contractor has established and
demonstrated the ability of the aircraft to carry and employ baseline store configurations (usually 20
or less configurations), studies were unanimous intheir findings that follow-on work Involving the
addition of new stores and configurations to the .uircraft should be performed in-house. A complete
description of what constitutes follow-on and baseline certification programs Iscontained inReference
(3).As a result of the above study results, in the late 60's. the USAF formed at what was then the
Armamnent Development and Test Center (currently called the Armament Division), Egl inAir Force Base,
Florida, anorganization dedicated to monitoring contractor baseline analyses aid tests avid performing
follow-on analyses and tests. This organization has evolved over the years and isnow called the Office
* for Aircraft Compatibility (OAC).
The first major application of in-house resources was insupport of the A-7D SEEK EAGLE
program. By the time the A-7D program started, the Navy had already certified an array of store
configurations ontheir A-7A/B. These became baseline configurations for the USAF. Many store
configurations were just what the USAF required. However, there was a large group of additional stores
(involving over two hundred configurations) which the USAF required to be .ertified. Because the USAF
was just building up its in-house capability, no attempt was made to perform saalyses to establish
captive caraeevlps All captive carriage envelopes were established by the prime aircraft
contractor. However, the contractor reports which documented the basis for the captive carriage
envelopes were delivered to the USAF. USAF engineers used the data inthese reports as a basis for
stalisingan n-husecaptive carriage analysis capability. Incidentally, several government
organizations inEurope acquired their in-house capabilities injust this same way. The number of
different store types and the variety of configurations inthe contractor's data base was extensive.
This made itrelatively easy to formulate programs to predict aircraft flutter, loads, and stability and
control characteristics for follow-on store configurations which were not Inthe data base. By the time
the A-7D SEEK EAGLEprogram was completed several years later, a complete in-house captive carriage
capability had been established and validated. This put the USAF in a posture to establish cerni
envelopes for additional follow-on store configurations without the need for contractor support.
fact, this capability has been used extensively injust this fashion over the last 15 years. While the

--
I ~ ~~___ -- --- --- -*....-* . -----. -
USAF did not initially undertake the job of establishing captive carriage envelopes. the USAF did assume

the job of establishing store separation envelopes and performing all flight testing. This In itself
was a departure from the past when the USAF had contracted for all separation analyses and f1ight
testing using contractor aircraft, pilots, and other resources. The only contractor supoort for the
separation program consisted of two engineers who were assigned to work with USAF engineers In the OAC.
One engineer was an aerodynamicist who helped train USAF engineers in the planning and conduct of wind
tunnel tests, analysts of test dota, formulation of flight test plans, end techniques for performing
succeeding misisons based on results of data from proceeding missions. Another engineer was an armament
specialist who helped train USAF engineers in the verification of proper store loading and rigging
procedures and establishing the functional adequacy of the aircraft/store configuration from an
electrical/avionics stan. ooint. The training provided during the A-7D program served as the foundation
for establishing a USAF in-house store separation capabi l ity.

AEproximately ten wind tunnel test entries were made at the Arnold Eng.neering Development
Center (AEOC)In support of the A-70 SEEK EAGLE program. Store separation trajectories were established
in the AEDC four foot transonic wind tunnel using a Captive Trajectory System (CTS). The CTS will be
described in a subsequent section. It is appropriate to state at this tim that the CTS was chosen for
the A-7D program because it was, and is, the easiest method for obtaining complete trajectories from the
viewpoint of the USAF. All the USAF had to do, and this was important because of limited technical
expertise in the field at the time, was to specify the aircraft/store configuration, store release
conditions, ejection force, and other applicable information. The wind tunnel engineers and the CTS did
the rest. During the course of CTS testing in support of the A-70 program it became apparbnt to the
USAi- that other wind tunnel test methods, such as drop model end grid, both of which will be described
later, were more efficient for selected applications. In short, the A-7D program opened the USAF's eyes
and offered convincing proof that it could perform compatibility analyses and tests in-house. Over two
hundred captive compatibility and store separation missions were successfully flown leading to
certification of a huge array of store types and configurations. The A-70 program also validated the
earlier mentioned commission's belief that the USAF could do follow-ont compatibility work chtaper (in
terms of direct cost expenditures and faster than by contracting for support. In this case, the USAF
had tangible evidence because the value of the A-7D contract was reduced by over $13,000,000 (in 69
dollars) by eliminating contractor flight testing alone.
Because of the success of the A-7D progranm, in-house capabilities were soon expanded to cover
the F-4 and A-l0. For both of these aircraft, the USAF Initially obtained captive carriage envelopes
from the contractor. Contractor reports were used to establish a captive carriage analysis capability
for new store configurations as was done for the A-7D. However, unlike the A-7D, all store separation
analyses and tests were performed by the USAF without contractor support.

In 1975. bouyed by increased responsiveness to changing operational requirements and by cost

savings, HQ USAF established what was called an Implementation Plan. This plan required the USAF to
establish in-house coepatibi lIty analysis and test capabilities for practical ly all inventory aircraft
to the point where most work could be performed by the USAF.
Table II shows current USAF in-house analysis and test capabilities In the major
compatibility disciplines. A few notes are in order at this point. Note that for F-III flutter, the
USAF presently has only a partial capability. This is a result of a conscious decision to not establish
a full capability. To have done so would have been a coeplex technical undertaking due to the
aircraft's high speed capability, many wing sweep angles and other factors. But, there was a more basic
underlying reason. In the late 70's, it was assumed that operational F-111 aircraft would be out of the
inventory within ten years and that as a result, few additional stores would be required to be
certified. Accordingly, it was rationalized that it would be more costly to develop and maintain an in-
house capability than to contract with induqtry for occasional compatibility work as the need arose.
The other compatibility disciplines were not nearly as complex to develop and maintain, nor as costly,
so these were established as contingencies for future work. Basically, time has proven that this was a
sound decision. There have been a number of additional stores certified on the F-111, but few stores
have required contractor analyses. Most stores have been cleared by analogy to certified stores.

This Is an Ideal time to dwell on the subject of whether the USAF, or any other Air Force,
should or should not establish an in-house cempatibility capability. Each Air Force knows its own
requirements and these requrements drive the management and technical strategy. From the point of view
of the USAF, if there Is only an occasional need to certify stores on a given aircraft, the cost to
establish and maintain In-house capabilities is not worth the effort. This is why such aircraft as the
A-37, F-lOS, and B-52 are not shown on Table 11. In-house capabilities are only established and
maintained for aircraft that have continuing, and/or projected, store certification requirements of a
significant scope. For aircraft which have few certification requirements, It is more cost effective,
but not necessarily more responsive, for the USAF to contract with industry for occasional analyses than
to maintain dedicated personnel and technical progrAmm In a ready posture to perform work that may never
materialize.
Note in Table I1 that a complete in-house compatibility analysis capability exists for the
F-16. Because of the F-16's very high maneuvering capability and speed envelope, and other technical
reasons, It was a major undertakin, to develop a complete in-house capability. But, as stated earlier,
because this aircraft has a current backlog of store certification work and a larie projected workload
as new developmental stores enter the irventory and are requried to be certified, the investment was
worth It. To put Into perspective how large the F-16 program really is, It can be stated that more
store configurations have been certified on this aircraft in the last several years then on all other
USAF tactical aircraft combined. Incidentally, the USAF certification program includes the
certification requirements of the European Participating Group (mmbet nations which operate the F-16)
whenever feasible. This saves time and money and maximizes utilization of test resources.

An F-16 instrumented for loads, flutter, and stability and control is maintained ft Eglin Air
Force Base to support store certification program. The task of installing and calibrating required
 9

instrumentation was complex and costly. Figure 12 shows the general position and types of
Instrumentation added to the aircraft. Because the F-16 is sensitive to the addition of stores an
instrumented aircraft Is mandatory considering the limitations of current prediction techniques. For
example, even though in-house flutter prediction program are considered to be state-of-the-art, flutter
speed predictions have sometimes been conservative and sometimes optimistic. That is, a high flutter
speed Is predicted when the actual flutter speed is lower and vice versa. Let the reader not take this
section out of context and conclude that the F-16 is overly sensitive to stores carriage. This is not
necessarily the case. Many configurations are benign in all compatibility disciplines and are cleared
to aircraft limits. It is just that prediction techniques are not perfect, especially when applied to
an aircraft like the F-16 which has e flexible structure. An Instrumented aircraft Is required if every
last ounce of usable flight envelope is to be obtained for each store configuration. This Is precisely
the opportunity an instrumented aircraft provides. When Eglin's instrumented F-16 is flown, real time
data is telametered to a Central Control Facility. In this facility, engineers monitor actual results
with predictions and provide the pilot with go no-go recommendations for the next test point. This
allows flight test missions to be flown efficiently (build up points can be performed during the same
mission) and safely (results analyzed on the ground before going to the next test point while the
aircraft is still airborne). One last point regarding the F-16. Because F-li SEEK EAGLE activity has
been so high, and expected to remain so, every effort Is being made to continually enhance in-house
capabilities. For example, the original F-16A/B capability has already been upgraded to include the
F-16C/D and further enhancements will be made as new versions of the F-16 become available. Thus,
unlike with lesser used aircraft, a complete in-house analysis and test capability is warranted.

Referring to the 8-1 in Table I1, note that in-house capabilities have not been established
in a number of compatibility disciplines. This Is because it would be premature to do so at this time.
As mentioned in the beginning of this section, the USAF only establishes capabilities to perform follow-
on store certification work after the contractor has established aircraft characteristics/limitations
for baseline store configurations. In this case, the contractor is still performing baseline work.
But, the USAF is acquiring contractor reports and the strategy is the same. At the appropriate time, a
complete in-house analysis and test capability will be established, if warranted, by assessing current
and future certification needs and balancing these against cost and schedule considerations.

In summary, the USAF performs as much compatibility work in-house as it possibly can because
it is more cost effective and responsive to do so in the majority of cases. Each Air Force must,
however, assess its own requirements before establishing an in-house capability for one or more
aircraft types. If the certification workload is low, and if there is no urgency to complete the work,
then contracting with industry will usually be more cost effective. It takes a certain minimum number
of personnel to maintain an in-house capabitlity. If workload is too low, personnel will be
under utilized. That is why in the 0AC the manning authorization is optimized based on a historical and
predicted number of personnel to satisfy workload requirements. If a surge in workload develops,
industry is usually relied upon as they have a greater flexibility in the ability to hire additional
personnel to support the work at hand. The creation of a technical organization to support work that
never fully utilizes personnel is a terrible waste of valuable resources and should not be tolerated
under any circumstance. Table III shows the major steps involved in the USAF SEEK EAGLE program.

3.3 Coordination with Operational Users

Once a CR has been validated and the APO requests support from the OAC to perform in-house
analyses and testing, additional dialog takes place with the APO and the user. Requirements (such as
configurations and flight limits goals) are reviewed one last time to make sure that there has been no
misconmunication. Priorities for individual configurations are reviewed from the user's standpoint and
the technical community's standpoint. This Is of major importance. Users always prioritize
configurations required based on operational needs. However, the technical comunity prefers to
prioritize configurations on the basis of expediency. For example, for some configurations on some
aircraft, It may be more cost effective and schedule efficient to analyze and test configurations
involving the sam store released from a given pylon with different adjacent store loadings. On another
aircraft a different approach may accelerate and simplify analyses and tests. The point Is, once the
technical community develops a prioritized list from the stan0'oint of analyses, schedule, and cost
efficiency, the list must be re-coordinated with the APO and the user. Usually, but not always, the
user is quite agreeable if all configurations can be obtained In a shorter span of time (or the same
time span) than In a specific order. On the other hand, it has been our experience that users do not
generally agree to re-ordered configuration lists on the basis of cost savings alone.

Next, the Impact of required flight limits on the time and cost to perform analyses and tests
is revisited. As mentioned earlier, a cost estimate is prepared for each CR and, unti recently, the
cost estimate was for exactly what was requested. In other words, assume that the user requested a
carriage speed of 600 KCAS for a certain store configuration on a certain aircraft. Further assume that
the cost to establish the captive carriage envelope is $250,000. What the user and HQ USAF may not
realize is that if the carriage envelope were reduced to 550 KCAS, the cost might be reduced to only
$25,000. This Is not I far fetched example. One of the benefits of haviR2 an in-house capability is
that this sort of trade-off can be scoped and considerid. Experienced USAF personnel can quickly and
independently weigh and assess the cost benefitt to be derived by adjusting flight limits. In the above
scenario, If cost were significantly less for ai=l1 decrease in flight limits the user might be
agreeable knowing that, in times of limited funds on the part of the APO, additional configurations
might be certified with the cost savings that otherwise might not get certified for a long tinm.
The best SEEK EAGLE progrm have a Master Configuration List (MI.L) to document agrese-ts
made between the user, APO, and the organization performing the analyses and tests. This list can end
should be continually updated as configurations are certified and as user requirements dictate changes.
For many of the programs managed by the OAC, bi-monthly meetings between cognizant organizations are
held during which changes are made or the existing list is siaply revalidatod. In mnyevent, the list
provides everyone with an audit trail that eliminates any reason for miscomunication as to what the
user wants and what the technical comunity is working on. Table IV shows typical CN configurations
10

and limits. The limits are "goals'. This is, these are the goals required by the user Ahich the
technical comunity will try to establish but which may be unachieveable for a variety of reasons. For
exmple, flutter may limit aircraft speed and unsafe trajectories may limit store separation envelopes.
The point is that every configuration should have a documented flight limit goal.

3.4 eneral Considerations before Initiatin Separation Analyses and Testing

Now that the aircraft store configurations, captive carriage and separation goals, and the
priority to pace the schedule have been established and validated, one might be tompted to initiate
separation analyses and tests. History has proven, however, that certain considerations should first be
addressed such as the following:
Paoer and All Up Fit Test

As a miniom., fit checks performed using scale drawings, called "paper fit check', should be
performed to assess if the configuration is physically compatible before any analyses or other tests are
Initiated. The authors are familair with many cases where the technical commnity "assumed" the
aircraft-rack-store configuration was physically coampatible only to find out upon actually loading the
store on the aircraft that there was a major incoepatibihity. This might not be a catastrophe were it
not for the fact that these problems usually occurred after extensive, costly. and time conseumin
analyses had been completed. The OAC performs paper fit checks using the drawings contained in
Aircraft/Store Interface Manuals (ASIM) developed by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group (JTCG) for
trn-service (Amy-Navy-Air Force) use, Re.erence (4). These manuals are now being converted into NATO
AOP-12. There are three manuals: an aircraft manual, a store manual, and a suspension equipment
manual. All drawings are to the sm scale. The procedure for performing a paper fit check using these
manuals is to superimpose the various store and rack drawings on the appropriate aircraft drawing at the
desired carriage station. Figure 13 Is an example of an ASIM drawing for the A-l. Note that the
maximum deflection of all aircraft movable surfaces (such as flaps, lendirg gear, and access panels) are
depicted. While these drawings are quite accurate. they are not precise. Two reasons are that some
aircraft exhibit permanent deformations after being in service for some time and manufacturing
tolerances (or lack thereof) of stores and the aircraft. The net result is that while a paper fit check
might show close, but acceptable, clearance, an actual fit check might reveal negative, and
unacceptable, clearance.

An all-up fit check using actual hardware is recommended at the earliest possible time.
This is the best and surest way to avoid untimely surprises. NIL-STO-1289, Reference (5), was developed
to standardize the fit test procedure and is constantly used by the USAF. Now that it has been
converted into NATO STANAB 3899AA it is also being used by other Air Forces as well.

MID-STD-128g recommends a minimum clearance between stores and adjacent rack/aircraft

structure of three inches. The authors (who prepared the original NIL-STO) have received many inquires
as to how this figure was established and what does one do If a lesser clearance is encountered? In the
first place, three inches is a "guide'. A greater clearance will not guarantee that aircraft-store
interference will be eliminated during separation. The intent of establishing a minimum clearance was
really aimed towards store designers. Nothing much can be done to eliminate fit problems between
inventory stores and inventory aircraft. However, new stores should not be intentionally designed for
less than three inches clearance with the intended aircraft. One might suppose that because of the MIL-
STD there are no physical incompatibilities involving new stores. Unfortunately, the list is long and
embarassing. One reason is that many store designers design the store to satisfy specific
aircraft/pylon station requirements and do not take future USAF certification requirements into account.
For example, after many years of developing and testing, a new store went into production. It was
designed for three specific aircraft types and fit perfectly on these aircraft. Just after the store
went into production., the user established a requirement for a fourth aircraft type. The store was
subsequently determined to be physically incompatible on this late- aircraft. In our view. store
designers should design new stores for maximum possible conmonality by considering not only stated
requirements, but by also anticipating future requirements. Perhaps this exa:mle can be written off as
bad planning. However, there are just as many cases where new stores did not even fit the aircraft for
which they were designed. These cases can only be written off as bad engineering!

What does one do when paper and/or actual fit checks show less than three inches clearance
between stores and aircraft? The choice exercised by the OAC in the majority of instances is to
continue so long as there is a *positive" clearance. Recently. a new store was urgehtly required to be
certified on an aircraft. Upon delivery of the store (an inventory store) to the test site, and upon
performing an actual fit test, a clearance of less than one inch was recorded betwmen the store and the
aircraft's fully deflected flap. Even though the clearance was much less than desired, the extent of
possible damage to the flap if the store were to make contact during separation was assessed and was
determined to be quite low. Accordingly, the decision was made to continue with the program but with
great caution. In fact, several test points were added to the program to reduce risk. The program was
completed without incident and post flight analyses showud that had the Initial store to flap clearance
been three Inches instead of less than one inch, the separation envelope ougud only have been increased
by about 10 knots. The point to be made is that a NIl-STD cannot always drive a go/no-go decision.
Program requirements should be meshed with good engineering judgment and then the go/no-go decision will
almost invariably becom self evident. In this last example. it was to %go"despite less than three
Inches clearance to start with. Lastly, if the minim. stort-to-aircraft clearance is more than three
inches, one should not astume there Is no cause for concern. Perhaps the mnitoring level between
missions can be a little less, but close monitoring most prevail at all times since a large static
clearance at one speed can completely disappear (and result in stort-to-aircraft contact) at another
speed.
Functional Analyses

As in the case of paper and actual fit checks, It is esseatial that functieoal analyses for
stores that require an electrical Interface with the aircraft be perforaed as early as possible. As a
minimum. functional analyses should be perfomed before any compatibility analyses or other testing is
 Initiated& In functional analyses, the store power and Signal requirements are imshed with the aircraft
output poee characteristics. Usually. funictional analysts will either validate functional adequacy o1
uncover functional inadequacies. If functional inadequaciea are discovered, their Nature and scope may
preclude further work until a solution is devised. Ideally, functional analyses should be closely
followed by an actual functional check on the aircraft. In most cases where an Inventory store is being
certified on a inventory aircraft, an actual functional check is easily arigd Infact. functional
checks should be performed inconjunction with fit checks In accordance with I-T129
It may be obvious that functional analyses (likei paper fit checks) should be performed before
initiating costly and time consuming analyses and testing in the other compatibility disciplines.
However. our experience has been that many cases of functional inadequacies were uncovered after all
analyses and ground testing had been completed and flight testing was about to begin. In most of these
* cases, engineers either never thought to check (they lassuimed there was no problem) or the engineers
who did check were in a different part of the organization and never c- nnicated with the rest of the
* organization about the problem. Consider the following examples:
-An actual functional chock was made for a rocket launcher carried on a parent pylon rack on
one station of a certain aircraft before beginning compatibility analyses. The functional check was
tuccessful. It was assumeed that since the launcher was functionally compatible on one station, it
would be compatible on other required stations and, therefore, other stations were not checked. At the
beginning of the flight test program, long after analyses had been comapleted, an electrical continuity
check of the aircraft was maue tto ensure that anelectrical signal was being sent to the ejection rack
whore the rocket launcher was mounted. Nothing more was done even at this late stage. The flight
test program began and captive compatibility and launcher jettison testing were successfully complete&.
Now the program was ready to move into the rocket firing phase. On the first mission the pilot selected
the proper cockpit switchology to fire rockets, depressed the trigger, and nothing happened this now
became a high visibility problemx. Extensive functional analyses were performed on the problem pylon
station and subtle differences between pylon stations were uncovered. Rockets were fired by
*fooling' the aircraft stores delivery system into believing, it had a store mounted on a smiltip a
carriage rack when in fect it actually had a launcher on a parent pylon rack! While this al lowed the
program to be completed, one can imitgine the confusion the pilot would have Inan operational
environment with such an airangement. Eventually a software modification was performed to return the
aircraft to normal switchology.
- An ECH pod was required to be carried on an aircraft. AllI coapatibilIity analyses and
testing were completed and flight testing was ready to begin. The fit check was satisfactory. The
functional check revealed that tha aircraft did not have the electrical capacity to power the pod. The
certification action was cancel led with a major disruption to the flight test community who had blocked
out tine and resources to support a considerable number of missions.
Clearly, paper fit checks and functional analyses must be performed as early inthe
compatibility cycle as possible. In allI cases, these should be exercised (such as rocket launcher
jettison and rocket firing) using aircraft cockpit switchology. Only inthis way can surprises inthe
functional area be avoided when they are least expected.
Store Strenoth
Not long ago a program to certify a finned firebomb on an aircraft was completed. The
carriage and employment goal was 600 KCAS. Paper fit checks were satisfactorily performed (functional
analyses were not necessary due to the absence of an electrical interface). Wind tunnel tests were
performed to acquire necessary data (such as for aircraft stability and control, aircraft loads, and
store separation) and extensive analyses (such as for aircraft flutter) were performed to establish
captive carriage and separation envelopes. Subsequently, on the first captive compatibility mission,
during which aircraft handling qualities and aircraft/store structural adequacy were being Qualitatively
evalulited, the store fins fai led at 400 KCAS.Research, after the fact, revealed that this same store
had similar problems on other aircraft. In short. had storei strength been properly addressed earlier,
the scope of wind tunnel tests and other analyses, and the flight test program could have been reduced.
In this particular examle, it was 'assumed' (erroneously) that the store was %GovernmentFurnished
Equipment' and. therefore, was structurally sou!nd throughout the intended flight envelope.
Nost new stores In the United States, except for approved deviations, are designed in
accordance with NIL-A-85g1 (NATO STANAG 3441), Reference (6).Stores can be design~ed for carriage on a
specific aircraft (Procedure 1) or for carriage on generic aircraft (Procedure 11). Inthe OAC, stores
are required to be designed in accordance with Procedure 11since this ensures that the storet can be
safely carried on any known aircraft. Procedure 11 uses conservative airloads coupled with an aircraft
inertial envelope that encompases worst case boundaries of all inventory aircraft. Ifa store has been
designed inaccordance with Procedure 11, no further checks on store strength are required.
The advantage of designing stores Inaccordance with Procedure 11 can be illustrated with the
fol lIowing examle: A new store that had been designed in accordance with Procedure I showed that it
Ithe could not be carried on en additional newi aircraft type without limitiona the aircraft envelope unless
store was redesigned. The reason this situation occur-red was that che contractor designed the store
inaccordance with Procedure I. since the user only required the store to be carried on one type of
I aircraft. Unfortunately, as has been recorded earli er. the user later added mnother aircraft type. one
that had a larger inertil&maneuvering envelope than the original aircraft. Structural analyses showed

-I that the store would either have to be redesigned or the aircraft acceleration envelope would have to be
reduced. Itwas decided to reduce the aircraft acceleration envelope since the cost to redesign the
store was considered to be prohibitive. The moral, of course, Is that had the store been designed In
accordance with Procedure 11 itwould have been over designed for carriage on the original aircraft but
it would have been worth it. Invariably, the user will want most inventory stores to be carried on most
aircraft. Designing the store in accordance with Procedure 11 is the recommended approach to avoid
future problems. Only special mission stores such as mines or torpedoes should be designed i;
accordance with Procedure I and, even then, only if carried on a limited number ov &srtraft types.
 In sumary, the structural strength of the store must be known or should be established early
in the compatibility cycle. This will ensure that captive carriage and separation analyses and tests
are not needlessly perfomed outside the speed envelope that the store can be safely carried.
Captive Cerriage Envelope
Given that the store fits, rill function, and is strong enough for carriage within the
desired flight envelope, a qualitative assessment should be made of the likelihood that the aircraft
itself can safely carry the store (frem aircraft load, stability and control, flutter an other such
stanipoints). The flight limits for analogous stores and store configuration which are already
certified should be reviewed and copaered against flight goals for the stores and store configlrations
in question. For exmple, essum that it Is desired to certify the KU-aO store on the F-l to GOD KCAS
and 7g positive symetrical load factor. One would now see if there Is an analoS"o store to the ILU-80
store on the F-lI. The WN-20 Rockaye would Immediately cam to light as being analogous. Both use the
sam basic body and have similar mass properties. Next, one would see if the certified flight envelope
is equal to or greater than the flight limits desired for the BLU-6O. If they are, separation analyses
may be scoped to consider the entire flight envelope with reasonable certainty. On the other hand, if
the flight envelope Is restricted Itwould be pointless to perform extensive separation analyzes at
flIght conditions outside the expected captive carriage envelope.

When a clear analogy cannot be established, or when a restrictive flight envelope is anticipated or
suspected, it Is desireable to complete captive carriage analyses and testinq before starting separation
analyses. Frequently, however, schedule constraints force simultaneous separation and captive carriage
analyses. in this event, oea has no choice. Sut to reiterate, use the analogy approach whenever
possible in an etteopt to qualitatively establish a preliminary captive carriage envelope and to scope
the separation prograL. It would be wasteful to perform separation analyses for a stare up to the
desired flight limit goal only to later learn that the captive carriage flight envelope was several
hundred knots less due to aircraft stability and control, load, or flutter problems. It would be
especially embarassing to learn late in the program that the store being certified was analogous to a
certified store having much lower limits. It has happened too many times in the past. Weare striving
to educate others so that it will not happen again.
The reader is urged to review References (7) - (9). These references are quite imiportant in
our opinion. Reference (7) aetails the responsibilities of all organizations Involved in the
aircraft/store certification process and outlines the procedures to be followed for conducting
aircraft/store compatibility programs. Readers from other nations may find it instructive to compare
USAF organizational procedures and responsibilities with their own. References (8) and (9) fall into
the category of required reading in the our opinion. These references define and provide procedures for
formulating and conducting ground and flight tests/analyses In support of aircraft/store cumpatibility
programs. These references also contain an array of useful supporting material such as approved
aircraft/store terminology end a bibliography of government publications, standards, and specifications.
4.0 STORE SEPARATION PREDICTION TECHNIQUES
After considerable research, the authors believe that all of the store separation prediction
techniques in use throughout NATO have already been thoroughly discussed in an array of published
literature. For this reason, it was decided to present no more than an overview since this report is
intended to be used as a guide for the new store separation engineer and management personnel. An
extensive list of references is provided for those readers who wish to research individual store
prediction techniques In the detail needed to actually use any or all of them.
4.1 Review of Types of Prediction Techniques
Methods designed to predict store separation motion may be categorized into three broad
groups: theoretical, empirical (or smi-empirical) and analogy. These three groups are distinguished
by their different aerodynamic approaches. Each approach -ffers advantages and disadvantages to the
store separation engineer. The trajectory problem may be uasidered as two interrelated problems;
aerodynamic and dynamc, that may be coupled to each other or treated separately. Generally,
theoretical approaches utilize the solution of the fluid equations which can be coupled or uncoupled to
solve the equations of motion. By coupling the fluid equations to the equations of motion, one
can solve for the iew attitude of the store at each time step In the store trajectory and then use this
new aircraft/store physical relationship to calculate a new floufield. Using the new tlowfield
parameters, the aerodynmics may be updated. Conversely, in the empirical approach, a specified survey
of points throughout the flowfield can offcr thc aerodynamic information which is recalled via table
look-up when the store moves to a new point (and/or attitude). More recent predictive methods offer the
option of coupling or decoupling the influence of aircraft/store mutual interference at each time step.
Empiric0ly or sieet-pirical ly derived aerodynamic solutions are predominately used decoupled from the
equations of motion solutions. The grid data based approach is an excellent exmple which is discussed
in afollowing section. Store separation prediction by analogy relies on past experience with a store
of similar aerodynamic shape and mass properties and using its know soparat'on characteristics to
predict the new store's movements. Each of these generic methods will be discussed In detail, followed
by sections explaining how each nation utilizes them.
4.1.1 Theoretical Prediction Methods
Purely analytical predictive methods used today to study store separation trajectories are
applications of various paneling methods that solve the linear Prnotl-Glavert equation. A general
three dimensional boundary value equation is then solved for the configmostion of interest. The
equation governs inc- ressible and linear compressible flows In beth subsonic and Supersonic regimes.
Further, the assumption of inviscid flow applies. These ponel mthods differ from the more complete
nonlinear potential flow formulation that govern the transonic flow egims. These nonlinear potential
flow formulations (that Is, transonic small disturbances and full potential flow) retain terms to
improve the resolution of shock waves end to mare readily determine when the equation changes its
t

naturel that It, elliptic or hyWebolic. Although these equations are more applicable to the problems
of concern In store separation testifng they are. computationally, more difficult to solve,

Panelln methods have envolved since the early seventies to the point where rather complex
configurations canhe addressed. A major advantage of these paneling methods is that, unlike solutions
of transonic full potential or other nonlinear Ohlgher' forms of the Navier-Stokes equations, they do
not require a field grid for numerical solution (such less an adaptive grid needed for trajectory
studin). This free these scheme of geometric limitations that limit the nonlinear methods to more
siaple cfnfiguretaie. Additionally, at this time, ao methods exist to provide a coupled trajectory
solution using these higher monilneer schemes. Paneling mnthods have evolved from earlier elooer order"
versions that feature constant singularity strengths (or linear variation in one direction) on each
panel. Higher order versions such as PAN AIR are distinguished by oon-constant Singularity strengths or
cposite' panols that al low a linear source and quadratic doublet variation on each panel. These
Imprevoments have helped to mAke pan• solutions less sensitive to panel spacing end density el lowing
mere caoplex configurations to be sturied. The use of cmposite panels has allowed singularity strengths
to be made continuous on a conf. aration. This has significantly reduced the potential for numerical
error, particularly far supersonic flows. A feature of PAN AIR is the ieplementation of the KUTTA
condition allowed by the use of the composite source-doublet panel. This mikes the computed flowfield
relatively insensitive to modeling detail at the trailing edge The code also features en expanded
treatment of wake modeling which enhances its use for liftin surfaces. The reader is referred to
Reference (10) for a detailad discussion of the feature of PA, AIR.

References (10) and (11) present coaparisons of PAN AIR predicted results with experiment for
both subsonic and supersonic flows. Data comparisons were made at veriout subcritical subsonic and
supersonic Mach numbers. Results show excellent agreement except In the region where nonlinear effects
are to be expected. The Prendtl- Glauertequetion is valid for subcritical flow about slender bodies and
thin wings at arbitrary subsonic or supersonic Mach numbers where flow discontinuties are not present.
While PAN AIR and other paneling methods cm provide trajectory solutions for relatively coaplex
configurations in subcritical flows, numerical gridding techniques have not as yet matured.

The application of paneling methods such as PAN AIR, NEAR, Reference (12) and others can be
very useful in the study of store separation characteristics as long as the limitations of the
methodology are kept In mind. These codes can offer a first look at details of the floufield that
normally are not obtainable without special, costly, eiperimental test techniques. Additionally, the
majority of "real world' store shapes aer complex and pose extremely complex modeling problem.
Although 'higher order' panel methods my now be able to accomodate these more complex shapes and
configurations (such is multiple stores carriage), these real world configurations only further
aggravate the nonlinear aspects of the Aerodynemic problem.
A first step in investigating a new store for release characteristics lies in understanding
the store's freestrea• arod).,mics. Preliminary trajectories can be computed for the Store using this
date with flow angularity or with grid data from very similar stores (if available) to determine if more
elaborate testing is necessary. Preliminary data can possiblybe acquired by examining the freestrem
sarodynamic data fNom similarly shaped stores. The OACand AEC have jointly developed a freestrem
storeý earodynemic data manage•et system that contains over sixty stores with a wide variety of
characteristics. This system is automated for data :etrieval with a number of features for manipulation
of th'! data. The data base is described in Reference (13). The data base has proven invaeuable In a
number of instances in supporting first order trajectory studies on short notice.

A number of semi-empirical aeredynemic estimation codes are used in conjunction with the
freestrem data base. These codes ajgment experimental data or provide a first order estimate when data
are not available. These codes continue to be improved anO currently those most used are L.C0CE
Reference (11). MISSILE DATCON Reference(14), NSC Reference(is). and NSRIOC Reference (15).
These codes are used to p:i ucs feestreom wrodynamics to be used with flaw angularity end grid data as
inputs to six degree of fr.edom trajectory progream. The codes retgire gieotric Inputs and are
relatively simple to use digemding on th" program In addition. AEC has developed an executive
selection progra tlxt assesses up to eight separato estimation program with logic designed to select
the particular rode that can best coae-ite a particular aerodynamic coefficient for the geometry and Mach
number/langle of attack range of interest. In the authors' view, attaining this capabi lity should be a
requirement 0 any aq.ncy desiring to establish a comprehensive stores compatibility progrem. Most
somim-mpirical codes are relatively simple to use for first o-der estimates :f release behavior. Jligher
order solvers (such av paneling methods) or Euler solvers, are more difficult for the using engineer to
apply. Nowever', m.y ire evolving rapidly Into more user-friendly codas. Until these codes are
anerally available, semi-empirical estimation codes will continue to be used and improved.
Wejre closing this section on theoretical methods, it should ae noted that Reference (10)
indicates that methods which atka use r' p urface geomtry are under development for solving non-
"..a
hiner transonic prutmes. Many believe that codes with a transonic panel" mthoO may be available in
the future. The n.vw~tric versatility of such a paneling method my make this approach, in same cases,
very competitive with future more elaborate nonlinear solutions the' will use .tld grids. Further, the
rapidly accelerating capabilit, o; Computational 'luid Dynamics Is being turned to solution of the
transonic store separation problem. klsic research Is well underway in the USAF, in the acadmlai and
in aerospoce = las around the world. The USAF's Ariment Laboratory has chosen the Euler
formualation r. thesolution eclritim. This avoids the limiting assuptions of smll distuz becs and
the restrict4ons of slender body store and relative WAk flowfield gradients. The Eulor algiorithe will
be solved nymerically usinl a contour-conformal grid scheme that has the advantage of flexibility In
concentrating the gridin an area of the flow wher strong gradients occur and Is applicable to any
aircraft/store configuration: Single and multiple stores cerritge, slender and mon-slender bodien, and
arbitarary shapes will else be incorporated. Additionally, dynalc grid con ts vwil be applled to the
store separation problo. Contour conformel grids vill be allowed to dymical ly adapt to the mve t
of the store as It e•nprates from the aircraft. Currently, the grid oneeation end Euler solving
computer p. gron have been derived by the Arement Laboratory and are being checked out usig simple
;tore shapes. ynm~ic grIdding algorithm are just now being developed. Wind tunmel testing designed
to provide data for method validation will be performed over the next several yews. Near torm, the
14

development of *transenlc surface panelinog methods wlI signlflcantly aid the study of transonic store
separation as higher order solvers continue to be develop"d Yet. for the foreseeable fvture,
mirically derlveO data will continue to be a principal source for the 'aerodyneemic solution of the
Separation problem.

4.1.2 Eirical and Seml-mirical "ethods

Despite the recent advances in computational techniques, the authors believe that wind tunnel
testing is, and llI remain for several years to come, the most rellable prediction technique that can
address the transonic store separation problem. Wind tunnel testing techniques used In understanding
store separation events are well known. References (16) threugh () present a concise revew of the
various techniques mnd therefore, we rev;eed herein only briefly.
Selecting the approach for the store configurations of interest to yield the meast reliable
and cost effective date is the most Important consideration in planning a wind tunnel test. However,
designing a test to acquire date that may be later extended to other configurations, or utilixed beyond
its Initial intended mhrfose, is another very important consideration. Som wind tunnel testing
techniques obviously uff,.r this advantage while others do not.

There are basically four wind tunnel methods that continue to be used to predict store
"separation trajectories. The USAF has used all four techniques In support of a variety of programs.
These four techniques are: Captive Trajectory System (CTS), Gr'id (flowfield data base), Flow Angularity
(flowfleld data base) and Freedrop. In addition, two other more recent wind tunnel based techniques are
discussed that offer alternative approaches. These are: Instal led Carriage Loads Derived Grid
Flowfiqld and the Influence Function kethod.

- CTS:

Within the United States there are five wind tunnels equipped with articulated dual sting
arrangements that support CTS testing. Of these five tunnels, four are transonic tunnels while the other
is a supersonic tunnel. Practically all of the store separation testing performed by the USAF is
accomplishud in the AMD four foot transonic wind tuanel (called 4T). The principle of the CTS is
essentially comomon to al w wind tunnels. The AEDC 4T facility is typical and can be used to cite
advantages and disadvantages. The articulated dual sting arrangement used for store separation studies
is no more than a system that supports the aircraft model on one sting, with limited movement, while the
store model with an Internal balance is mounted on a separate sting capable of commended movement In all
six degrees of freedoi. Aerodynamic forces and mments on the store are measured by an internal strain
gage balance that may measure from five to six force and moment components. The aerodynmic data
measure by the balance Is fed to a computer during the test run. These forces and moments are combined
with other required data such as store mass property characteristics (weight and center of gravity).
ejection forces, rate dapring forces and moments of inertia, which are not measured and which are needed
to solve the equations of motion and Dredict the store's next position relative to the aircraft for a
simulated increment in time. Through a closed loop system, the now position in time is fed to a
positioning device which then comands the model sting to move to a new position in the tunnel. The
cycle Is then repeated automatically to obtain a complete trajectory. Figure 14 shows an F-111 model in
the AEDC 4T facility with a store mounted on the CTS sting. This figure illustrates quite well the
extended movement capability of the CTS sting. It may be noted that a one second trajectory normally
takes about ten minutes (Reference (18).) However, as a result ui a concerted cost reduction program,
AEDCwill be able to reduce this tim In the future (Reference(21).)
CTS offers the primary advantage of most closely measuring the actual forces and moments
(withir general wind tunnel constraints) during the store separation trajectory that are the result of
the store's actual attitude and position. Furthermore, within the assumption of quasi-steady flow that
is cowm to all wind tunnel testing of this type, CTS can more closely simulato factors such as varying
aircraft loead factors and maneuvers, varying ejection force parameters, varying store thrust and a
variety of other parameters that obviously other methods, such as freedrop, cannot. Its advantages over
other methods that "aerodynemicallI map the flowfield (such as grid and flow angularity) is that it
measures the aerodynamic forces and moments at the precise point In the trajectory, and at the precise
calculated attitude of the store. This technique provides the most accurate experimentally determined
aerodynemic date for a position in the trajectory; but has some dramatic limitations.
CTS Is not designed to provide the user with a useful data base for exemining a large number
of individual trajectories off-line. This off-line capability is needed to understand the sensitivity
of store release to many different variables such as Mach number, angle of attack, changes in store
mess and inertia characteristics, fin deployment times, aircraft dive angle (load factor), ejection
performanca, and many other paremeters that require many individual simulations. These large numbers
of simulations cannot be economically completed in the wind tunnel. Although CTS can offer the
advantages of an on-line" trajectory simulation that can shorten analysis time (given the existence of
models end a timely entry In the wind tunnel), this can be offset by in even more far ranging
requirement for an earodynemic flowfield data base that can be used In the tjture. Future development
or product i provenent may alter mass and inertial characteristics of a store or other Ipportant
variables. Tese changes and the effect they would have on the seporation trajectory would be very
difficult to Isolate using CTS data from a previous configuration. Furthermore, no capability would
exist to match predictions to actual flight test conditions. This tool would be required in order to
Identify potential design changes that may become Vparent during flight testing. CTS data acquisition
can also be hampered by hardeare problems. The dual sting arrangement has been designed to torminate
the trajectory whenever the store or sting contacts the aircraft. For some aircraft/store
configurations and stores that exhibit large engular motions, the trajectories may be terminated too
quickly - before any useful data can be acquire& While this is not an insurmountable limitation, the
sapration engineer must be ready to alter trajectory data Inputs during the wind tunnel test to assure
longer trajectories for better study or live with the short trend trajectory information available from
the test runs. Practical limitations on CTS equipment in the past has resulted In trajectories being
terminated due to the linear motion of the store sting positioning device. Recent Improvements mode by
MDC in the software that controls the CTS apparatus motion allows the CTS movement to more closely
parl let the Actual store trajectory. This has significantly redeced the Occurrance of premature
termliation of trajectories due to stinglstere gromudinl Again however, CTS trajectories for stores
that ethibit larger Agular motions may still tormlate too oo to provide usefu data.

The CTS can be used to provide wind tunnel data In the CTS mode or the grid mde. The d
meod Is essentially a floufield mapping technique In that the store sting is positioned outomatic lyl
to preselected and preprgrmmed positiens and attitudes with respect to the aircraft model. It
store/baleace combination then measures Aerodynamic coefficient data at each point. During teS.ing of
this type, a matrix of coefficient data Is obtained through a region of the aircraft flowfi ld that can
e expected to en@-opass the subsequent trajectory path for a particular configuration. Figure IS shoes
Styp•icl grid. The meatured values represent total Aerodynamic coefficients of the store a a function
of the store's position end attitude at a particular point in the aircraft flowfleld. ly subtracting
the store's freestream aerodynamic coeffticints (measured for the sea store model at the sa attitude
outside the flowfleld of %ft aircraft) from the total "rodyalic coefficients, a set of interference
Aerodynamic coefficients can be calculated as a functios of position and attitude within the aircraft
flowfiald. The matrix of interference ccefficients becomes a date base available for subsequet
trajectory calculations. These interferemce coefficients are recombined with freestreem aerodynamic
data dering each time step of a trajectory calculation to determine a total aerodynamic coefficient
applicable for that store's position end attitude within the aircraft flowfield.

The basic advantage that thd grid technique offers is Its ieplicit versatility for future
studies. On-line wind tunnel test tim required for coeputation of trajectories using the full CTS mode
is not used in the CTS grid mode to gather a larger aerodynamic data base that c'.i be used for further
studies later. A larger, more comprehensive, set of trajectories can be generated more economically and
efficiently by allowing the store separation engineer the flexibility of careful study of trajectory
sensitivity to various parameters outside of the high cost environment of the tunnel test section. For
certain configurations such as stores with deployable fins, this approach may be far more economical and
nuch more practical than a comprehensive CTS test of a model with changing configurations.

For a given aircraft/store configuration the Aerodynamic loads acting on the store are
functions of the aircraft Mach number. angle of attack and sideslip angle, and the store's relative
position and attitude with respect to its carriage position. A coeprehensive set of Aerodynamic
interference coefficient data as functions of all these variables would require a lengthy wind tunnel
test program as well as a trajectory generation computer program set up to sift through all of the data
for the appropriate values and to interpolate or extrapolate as necessary. Such a program would
require a high speed coliuter with a large storage capacity. The apparent disadvantage of the grid
technique in requiring a data sift program can be offset by judiciously selecting what grId data needs
to be taken. Reference (22) describes a joint wind tunnel study between the OACand AEOC This study
concluded that Interference aerodynamics varies considerably more with vertical displacement than with
lateral or longitudinal displacement and that store orientation In an axis within the grid volume
ageerallyhas a minimal (second order) effect on the interference aerodynamic coefficients. In some
inStances of stores with large planform areas, a second order influence of store pitch on the
interference coefficients my become imqortanL References (19) and (22) expand on the significance of
the study on planning a grid wind tunnel test for a new store. Experience with limited grid testing
though, has demonstrated excel lent correlation with ful l CTS trajectories for most store separation
studies conducted over the past several years by the OAC.

A number of references are listed in the work mentioned above which substantiate the use of
limited grid for complex aircraft flowfields and store shapes. Additionally, there are a number of
techniques that have evolved over the years that can aid the store separation engineer in optimizing a
grid survey In the case of mfltiple carriage racks, the displacement for stores ejected at an angle
from the vertical may be easily estimated and the resultant trajectory used to define the vertical and
lateral displacements at desired grid points. Careful attention to structuring the configurations to be
tested and the order In which they are tested can help to streoamline testing by treating each side of
the aircraft model as a separate flowfield. This allows the store separation engineer the ability to
minimize tunnel shutdown, model changes, and start up tims during a test.

- Flow Angularity

A second Comonly used method for determining interference floufleld aerodynamics is the
technique knew as flow angularity. Aerodynamic data Is normally obtained by using a velocity probe
attached to the CTS sting apperatus In place of the store/sting combination. The velocity probe is then
used to measure velocity components at various locations in and around the aircraft flowfield within a
volume that Is expected to Included the store's anticipated trajectory. From this information, local
floe angles of attack are determined generaliy at the nose and tail of the store. This information is
used with freestream lift curve slope data to generate the interference coefficients rather than
measuring the Interference coefficients themeles. Two approaches are gperally iployed when
utilizing a velocity probe. The first approach, as discussed in References (19)and(23). is to
measureflonfield effects with the store instal led in its carriage position. The second approach is to
measure the Initial store loads along the centerline of the store as it If were installed on the
aircraft Although neither approach is a true representation of the interference flowfield both can
provide a first order answer to store trajectory studies. The first approach incorporates a partial
Influence of the store gW the interfeevnce flowlield while the second approach may be more versatile
In dealing with a larger class of stares of vanous shapes and planform areas. The greatest advantage of
this second approach Is its adaptability to providing quick Answers for stores that have not been wind
tunnel tasted. Using this Approach nowever, requires a thorough understanding of the freestreom
Aerodynamic characteristics for the store In question, Including the relative contribution of the nose
And toil sagmants. This data can be acquired from wind tunnel tasting or approximated by Aerodynamic
estition computer codes Normally, the variation of aerodynamic forces with Angle attack and center
of pressure date Is vequired. This methodelogy generally allows a greeter degree of flexibility in
modelin9 the interferlen flowield interaction due to fin control surface motion of fin deployment for
complex stores. This is the case for modeling the damping of free floating control surfaces (such as

amid
m a
canards). A detal lad description of the approach can be found in Reference (19). It may be noted that
although the normal Oproach for acquiring flow angularity data is through the use of a velocity proe
attached to the CTS sting, soa work has bean done to explore the use of a laer doppler velocimeter in
measuring local transonic flouflelds. The real adventage In using the velocimter lies in removing any
physical interferenct attributed to the probe Itself. Finally, techniques have been developed for
extracting flow angularity data froe gr I data for certain stores. By using measured froestream
aerodynamic data, one can extract local flow angles and produce a data bate of local flowfield angles
that can be used to solve the aerodynamic Interference problem for other stores. A newer technique that
will he discussed later is an extension of the flow angularity approach.
Influene Function Nethod

Since wind tunnel testing still offers the mat accurate method for addressing store release
problem., the large number of store/laircraft and flight condi"ons involved In certifying stores
mandates that methods be developed td improve the cost-effe. Iveness of wind tunnel testing by extending
test data beyond the stores to which the testing was initially geared. The flow angularity technique
discussed previously has ban recognized for some tim as a useful approach for this reason. The
Influence Function Method (IFN) described in Reforences (24) and (25) is a natural extension of this
method - from two store elements (nose and tall) to any nuber of store elements - with some important
differences. The flow an laritty technique uses freestream values of the normal force coefficient slope
and angle of attack for the nose and tail plus assumed locations of the nose and tail centers of
pressure to calculate moment coefficients The IFM determines these coefficients by traversing the
store model through a known flowfield longitudinally, aft to forward, where the local angle of attack Is
knomw At each point In the traverse, the aerodynamic forces and moments are measured gemrating a
series of equations. By matrix inversion the influence functions themelves are calculated and the
store is calibrated to a known flowfleld. Conversely, a 'calibrated' store can be passed through an
unknown flaufield to determine the local flow angle along a tranverse line during a wind tunnel test to
solve for the unknown flowfield. In completing this method, the store of interest can then be Immersed
in this flowfelad analytically along that tranverse, having been calibrated previously to a known
flowfield. The aerodynamic coefficients can then be solved by matrix multiplication This methodology
has been successfully sed for supersonic flowfitelds with excellent results for single carriage stores
at various vertical distances from the parent aircraft. Investigation of the technique's application to
4
subsonic flows s still underway as is also the extonsion of the technique to the other aerodynamic
coefficients (yaw and roll). Preliminary findings tend to indicate comparable results can be achieved
for subsonic flows.
The obvious disadvantage of the 1FM lies in the calibration of the store in question. The
general approach for supersonic conditions would be calibrat-ig the store experimentally by passing it
through a known flowfiold such as an oblique shock wedge flow. The requirement for a wind tunnel test
is an obvious disadvantage. Calibration using analytical ly derived flowfields produced by panel ing
methods such as Pan Air has generated accurate influence function calculations. Reference (26)
(unpublished) has also demonstrated the reasonability of using semi-empirical aerodynamic estimation
programs, such as DL. COE, that have been modified to superposition simple flowfialds on the store model
within the code. Using the sam traverse logic, calculations of the influence functions were made using
the code generated coefficients. Reference (26) reports very gooe agreement with other calculations of
influence functions and subsequent comparisons of trends in predicted and measured aerodynamic
coefficients for a SSU-15 store in an F-15 floufield. The biggest disadvantage of this particular
approach, in the authors' view, lies in the fact that such prediction codes have inherent limitations in
predicting shock strengths. Consequently, local flow angles may show large discrepancies in these j
regions.

-Froodrqo
The fourth empirical wind tunnel method in use today is the freedrop method, also called
dynamic drop. In this approach, scale store models, constructed to obey certain similarity laws, are
released from the aircraft model in the wind tunnel. High speed orthogonal photography is used to
record the event. The film is read to extract time position data that can be used to understand the
separation events and to assess the relative risk of flight testing. Static aerodynamic forces and
moments acting on the store are properly scaled when the model geometry and floufield are matched to
full scale flight conditions. The accelerations of the store model wil l be similar if the total forces
and moments, mass, center of gravity, and moments of Inertia are also properly scaled. In achieving
this scaling, the model is scaled to one of three scaling laws; heavy, light, or Froude. Selection of
the most suitable scaling law depends on the nature of the separation problem, those parameters of
particular interest to the store separation engineer (which needs to be accurately known) and the
capabilities of the facilities available.

Reference (18) outlines the dynamic scaling principles involved in froedrop testing. Proper
scaling requires linear geometric scaling of aircraft and store models from full scale to modal scale.
Also required is linear and angular acceleration matching for both aircraft end store models.
Relationships for the ratio of model scale and full scale values for time, velocity, Mach number.
moments or inertia, ejector forces, and related parameters are calculated as power functions of the
scaling factor.
If compressibilitty and viscous effects are matched, then arodynamic coefficients are matched
between model and full scale. These premises lead to the scaling relationships that are known as Froud*
scaling: so named because the velocity scaling Is equivalent to the hydrodynamic Froude number. The
reduced Mach nuber at model scale resulting from Frouds scaiing. however, generally only insures
aerodynamic coefficient equality for low subsonic (less then 0.8 Mach) full scale flight conditions.

Assuring that the aerodynamics are properly matched requires that Mach numer be matched at
the expense of anothtr pramter. Thoie techniques that meintain Mach number equality are known as
"heavy' and 'light" scaling, Heavy rede1 scaling results in an Increased velocity requirement over that
 17
of Frovds scaling and with &I1 olse being equal. the required mss of the model Is larger thin that
required for -the Frevie scled model. Ikscuse the velocity reti hs been relaxed, heavy scaling fails
Lo account properly for induced al leof attack or aro" daing offetti oR angular motions.
tmic
Similarly, linear motion is also affected by induced ngile of attack varlances. The mlitude of
angular motion will be too larg duo to u dompd motion.

Light moe"l scalin cAn be used when prowr ulor motion response Is of major Importance,
Light model scaling Is so named because the mass ratio Is maintained to that of Fioude scaling and
retains the velocity ratio simulation along with Mach mumber by assuming that the gravitational constant
within the wind tunnel test con be arbitrarily incresesd. In reality, the gravitational constant within
the wind tvnnl cannot ha changed. The deficiency In the required gravitational acceleration called for
by light model scaling can be corrected by artificel maes. The use of magntic fields or use of the
alecraft model Sting apparatus to accelerate the aircraft model way from the store at store release,
and the use of increased ejection forces are typical methods that can be used.

Of the various scaling laws, heavy model scaling, in our view, Is the predominant method used
by most agencics throughout NATO. Beciuse of the low subsonic requrment for Frouds
sca lng, the method becomes unsuitable for the majority of work that centers around transonic
floufields. While heavy model scaling results in under duped angular motion of the store during
separation, the trend usually results in a conservative approach to safe separation studies. Referwcas
(16) and (271 generally indicate that heavy model scaling agrees favorably in angular motion in full
scale trajectories and very wel I linter motion since the ratio of aerodynamic forces to gravitational
forces is maintained. Light model scaling generally results in deficient vertical store separation
distances while agreeing such closer to full scale trajectories In angular motions. Reference (171
reports that a correction to vertical acceleration can be madeby altsrtin the ejector force. This
requires some a-priori knowledge of the flowfield that can be used to tailor this technique to the test.
For highly complex configurations where little or nothing can be realistically assumed about the
flowfield, such a technique would not be very useful. Consequently, the literature surveyed tends to
recommend heavy model scaling as the preferred method for most modern day studies.

Selection of the appropriate scaling method is dependent on the separation problem and the
experience and preference of the using engineer. However, dynamic drop offers zartain advantages and
disadvantages in coqmarison to other trajectory acquisition methods. Realistic considerations need to
be understood in deciding whether this approach over another is advisable. Reference Q18Velaborates on
these factors in detail. Some adveantag and disadvantages of using freedrop are summarized in the
fol lowing paragraphs.

- Freedrop testing general ly offers the best (if not the only) approach where model size or shape
precludes a suitable store-balance-sting cobination design. Modificetions to the rear part of store
models to accomodate stings can alter the store aerodynamics (such as static margin). Freodrop testing
eliminates this problem. In cases where stores are required to be released from internal aircraft bays,
freedrop testing can offer the best solution to the problem. Freetrop is particularly suitable for
unstable stores where tumbling motion ca be continued without the constraint of CTS sting
limitations/mehanical contralnts. Finally, freedrop testing al lows studying multiple stores releases
from racks in the ripple mode.

- The greatest disadvantage to freedrop testing lies in its cost and the rather limited
use of the date for future study. Data reduction is also a lengthy process, The nature of frtedrop
testing Is such that the store is usually destroyed. The model is normally captured in screens after
release but only to salvage the model for refurbishing for later testing and to prevent wind tunnel
damage. Normally, one model is used for each drop. The cost of model fabrication may easily reach a
sizable percentage of the total test cost. Tied also to the cost is the fact that the tunnel is
shutdown after each drop in order to retrieve models and reload the aircraft model with nw" store
models. Normally, one to two drops are made per hour. and whil•e air on" time Is short, tunnel
occupancy is considerably lengthened. Incidentally, the model scenes generally Increase required tunnel
total pressures and hence, increased power costs for higher Mach numbers.

- odel fabrication, particularly with heavy model scaling, can be difficult in obtaining the
correct scale of moments of inertia, weight, and center of gravity simultaneously. The requirement to
use high density materials such as tungsten, gold and other expensive metals or alloys can drive costs
up further, plus create fabrication problem. Engineers should consider allowing a tolerance in
modeling the store mass properties - saving design time and the possible selection of less costly
materials and machining. EjectioA mechanisms can similarly produce problems in modeling. Testing may
not be possible with certain full scale ejection forces due to practical limitations in model ejector
designs.
- Finally, a fundamon.al shortcoming of freedrop is its inability to addross releases under
active guidance or with axial thrust. Furthermore, the method is not particularly suited to maneuvering
release or diving flight although methods have been developed for correcting vertical and axial
displacements due to the load factor and bank angle associated with the maneuver (Reference (28).)
Summarizing, free"p methods (particularly using heavy model scaling laws) produce very 9o
agreement with full scale trajectories and in some cases offer the only viable experimental
technique. The technique has major drawbacks in the co-ts associated with this typo of testing, the
unsuitability of the date for future study, and its limitations to certain types of separation problem.
A Note on N•del Scale for Mind Tunnel restinog

Perhaps the single most prominent problem associated with wind tunnel trajectory testing
techniques lies within the realm of modeal scaling. Generally, the wind tunnel test approach is valid for
the simulation approach in use today. Under the assumptions of quasi-steady flows, the aerodynamic
behavior of the store within the flowfield is teepered only by Reynolds number and the fidelity of the
model and support system to produce as rear as possible the full scale external store shape.
Realistically, however, the high cost of wind tunnel testing favors the smellor tunnels and
consequently, the CTS and grid testing approaches used by the OAC have been designed around a S scale

I. .A.- "
V

18 . . ..

collection of store models. This standardization of scaling has contributed to a substantial savings
in model fabrication costs since many store programs invclve many different aircraft types. It my be
noted that the OAC also maintains 5% models of practically all inventory USAF fighter aircraft. The
F-111 model is the only one which Is not standardized. It is a 4.7% model and this does cause store model
problems. Five percent scaling is suitable to the AEDC 4T tunnel but creates a challenge In minimizing
loss of store detail at this scale. For example, sophisticated guided bombs possess antennae, umbilical
fittings, conduits, and other protuberances that are extremely difficult to model at this scale. More
importantly, these same types of stores may have lifting surfaces with airfoil shapes. Modeling of
these surfaces is often restricted to flat plates with shaped leading and trailing edges. Correct
alignment of these surfaces is also difficult at these scales. Additionally, stores with canards or
other control surfaces designed to "trvi1 center" or "float" freely during carriage and the first few
seconds after release before being engaged are extremely difficult to model effectively. The engineer
often must assume the worst case condition exists with these surfaces locked. Alternatively,
freestream data collected for a larger scale model may be incorporated to estimate the deflection of
these surfaces within the aircraft flowfield. Mating some store models to the sting balance combination
may become very complicated at 5% scale. Often some modification has to be made to the store afterbody
to be able to accept the balance. Furthermore, sting interference effects on store aerodynamic
characteristics, particularly at t-ansonic Mach numbers for stores with boat tail after bodies, can be
significantly affected by sting-to-model base diameter ratio. While these effects can be alleviated
somewhat by prudent sting design, there are important model design considerations that the using
engineer should keep in mind when dealing with small model scales. Testing has shown that attention to
minute model detailing to the maximum extent can improve small scale results with regard to full scale
or flight test results. Details such as store openings, swaybrace appendages on suspension equipment,
vortex generating devices, and antennae can impact results significantly. The model scale clearly has
an impact in store balance selection. Small scale stores may preclude full six-component balance
installation and often four or five component balances are used instead (usually excluding roll moment
and or axial force). Consequently, to provide fully accurate coefficient information, the missing data
must be supplied from external sources. The difficulties encountered at small scale can be offset by
testing the store in freestream at the largest scale possible. Interference aerodynamics are obtained
from the flowfield determined coefficients by subtracting the freestream aerodynamics for the same
small scale store at the same attitude. Consequently, the effects of loss of model details are removed
from the interference aerodynamics.

4.1.3 Analogy Methods

Clearance of a store can often approached from an analogy standpoint; that is, when similarly
shaped stores that have been previously flight tested and for which the preponderance of data show that
from similarity the new store can be tested in a low risk manner. In these instances, a number of store
characteristics are compared between the two stores - the new store and the store that has already been
tested - and a conservative buildup flight test program is accomplished. The analogy is established on
the basis of mass and physical similarity between the two stores including the planform areas.
Freestream aerodynamic data is generally compared between the stores and if experimental date is not
available, aerodynamic estimation codes are used to generate a comparison. Since the missing data is
normally the interference flowfield effects, in attempting to establish the analogy, one should consider
differences in where the two stores are positioned in the flowfield. This is to say that the location
of each store's lifting surfaces at various locations in the flowfield should be noted as well as the
similarity in the sV;ore suspension system. A primary consideration Is any variation of store center of
gravity relative to the ejection force. Imparted ejection moments should compare favorably both in
magnitude and direction. Six degree of freedom simulations without flowfield data can be executed with
important aerodynriic coefficients varied parametrically - but caution should be exercised In
evaluating the results. Using the approach successfully is predicated on sound, well documented
historical data in the form of flight test reports. The propagation of analogies based on other
analogies should be avoided. It is best to base each analogy clearly upon well documented, hard test
results and data. Obviously, the basic advantages this method offers is a minimal cost program for
generating a flight cleorance by circumventing the cost and lead time required for wind tunnel testing.
The technique is best suited to minor design changes for previously cleared stores, or for stores of
similar shapes. For an agency like the OAC that processes over a hundred flight clearances each year,
the use of analogy techniques have proven an effective approach when properly applied. The greatest
disadvantage is in the relative risk, the relative increase in flight testing, and the amount of
judgment and experience that must be relied upon in deciding upon the approich for a particular problem.

4.2 Specific Techniques Used by the NATONations

In order to determine what techniques were being used in the nations outside the US, the
authors visited several government and industry organizations in other NATO nations and found that, in
essence, all the techniques used in the US are being used by other countries; at least to some degree.
Some real innovative application of proven techniques were uncovered, such as the method of actually
measuring captive store loads during flight testing and then using data to perform six degree of freedom
trajectory calculations (Netherlands), and the development of an Accelerated r'odel Rig (AMR) for
accurate freedrop wind tunnel testing (United Kingdom). The authors found that the well documented wind
tunnel techniques such as grid survey aid freedrop are being used; however, not as extensively as
theoretical methods. In the US the reverse is true (at least presently). That is, in the US the wind
tunnel based methods are extensively used. The reasons for the difference in emphasis between
theoretical and wind tunnel methods will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

At this point it is useful to outline the techniques and methods used by several of the
NATOnations and the reasons why they selected the particular technique. The purpose of this section
is to serve as a basis for stimulating engineers and managers in various government and industry
organizations to use the ^IARD channel to submit and dissiminate additional information on internal
capabilities, techniques, and procedures for use by the aircraft/stores compatibility community. The
authors stress this because of their inability to obtain anything more than an overview of capabilities
during their short visit to selected organizations.
 19I
4.2.1 United States Air Force (US).•

The OAC has established informal guidelines in deciding what techniques are best suited to a
particular store separation problem. Generally, since most stores are carried in complax configurations,
and released from multiple carriage racks at transonic speeds, experimentally determined flowfields is
the preferred methodology. In fact, before proceeding any further. it may be stated, based on a review
of OACrecords over the last several years, that wind tunnel based prediction techniques have been used
in the following proportions: CTS - 15%, grid - 70%, flow angularity - 10%and freedrop - 6%. The
authors informally polled AEDCpersonnel and were told that CTS was used 50% of the time, grid and flow
angularity was used 35% of the time and freedrop was used 15% of the time. These percentages give a
good indication as to the degree the various techniques are used by Industry and government throughout
the US.
By using the experimentally derived flowfield approach, a general flowfield data base is
continually expanded to include additional stores and aircraft. The OAC has developed an extensive data
base for the F-1 and F-16 aircraft. Data exists in both grid and flow angularity format. As a cost
savings measure, the grid is normally acquired in the "limited grid' mode described in an earlier
section. During each test, however, the limited grid is compared with selected full CTS trajectories to
verify the grid data base. For stores of large planform area, the store grid is acquired both as a
function of vertical distance from the captive position and the pitch attitude of the store.
Generally, freestream data for each store is acquired at the same scale as the flowfield grid, but for
stores with complex shapes, larger scale data is acquired if at all possible. The consideration here is
primarily the availability of funds to cover the cost of wind tunnel testing. Stores such as bomb racks
and fuel tanks that have a pivoting release mechanism cannot be practically tested using CTS. Only for
these type situations is the freedrop method used. When freedrop testing is performed, heavy scaling is
used.
Analytical methods are currently restricted to single carriage stores at speeds outside the
transonic flow region (Mach number less than 0.9 and greater than 1.1) For this reason, analytical
methods are not routinely used. Analogy methods are used extensively. Analogy methods are supported by
an extensive flight test data based and computer simulations using appropriate data when necessary.
Every available source of information is cross-referenced when exact aerodynamic data is not available.

The six degree of freedom computer program is the mechanism used to actually calculate store
separation trajectories. The program used by the OAC is fully documented in Reference (29) and (30).
The program uses a look-up format for all required input data such as ejection force, flowfield, store
mass properties, aircraft flight conditions and so forth. The program is an adaptation of the 01-MODS
modular trajectory simulation developed by Litton Systems. It has been extensively modified to suit the
special purposes of the OAC. For example, the program can be used to address maneuvering release of
stores with post aircraft maneuvering. Output from the program is in a multifaceted digital format.
However, computer generated plots are the primary means for analyzing store separation trajectories.
The computer graphics program is fully described in Reference (31). Incidentally, computer graphics
portrayal of store separation trajectories :)rovides the store separation engineer with a valuable
analysis tool. The engineer is able to quickly "see" the trajectory instead of having to analyze
"mundane' data plots. Practically every organization is now using computer graphics In some form or the
other. The rapidly expanding field of computer graphics offers ever new opportunities for enhanced
analysis. Figure 16 is an example of enhanced computer graphics where the store and aircraft can be
viewed from any angle. In addition, physical clearance between any points can be displayed. The
sensitivity of the trajectories to various parameters can be studied to determine trends and to
formulate a flight test program to validate the predictions.

The OAC has a policy of documenting each store separation program in the form of what is
called an "Aero Memo". Each memo contains background information, store characteristics, aerodynamic
data used, similation results, and ends with a recommendation for a flight test program. Extracts from
two of these memos are included in this report as Appendices A and B. The reader may gain additional
insight in the actual-a lication of the techniques described in this section by understanding how two
real world problems iwerp roached. Memos such as these are never published as they are used as
internal working documents only. Two memos are presented because they contain different, and commonly
used approaches in the OAC. In Appendix A, HARMmissile/rack jettison trajectories from the F-4 were
predicted by performing grid wind tunnel testing with limited CTS trajectories to verify trajectories
generated using the grid data. In Appendix B, CBU-89 store trajectories from the F-16 were predicted
using an analogy-grid approach. Basically, available grid data for an analogous CBU-58 store were used
in conjunction with the freestream data for the CBU-89 store. The Interested reader is encouraged to
consider the flight test program that he or she would have formulated based on the results of the
predictions. As will be mentioned in some detail in the next section, the scope of *he flight test
program, at least in the US, is largely influenced by safety of flight, cost, and time factors.
A very real problem in store separation today is multiple bomb rack jettison. Associated with
every employeent envelope established for stores is a Jettison envelope for thc rack from which the
stores are released If the rack itself is Jettisonable. For example, MER-1O anw TER-9 multiple bomb
racks are jettisonable. Jettison of racks can be very dangerous. It would be very expensive to wind
tunnel and/or flight test all possible combinations of rack/store configurations that could be
encountered. For example, the normal release sequence for the six stores from a MER-1O alternates from
aft to forward rack stations. If, for example, a malfunction occurs as stores are released, leaving
three stores forward and two stores aft, one store forward and no stores aft, and so forth, and the
pilot is now forced to jettison the rack with remaining stores, one can see that separation can be quite
a problem du^ to the unusual aerodynamic arrangement and large off-center weight. Since racks
are normally only jettisoned in an emergency there is little incentive to spend any more money and time
than is necessary to establish a benign safe jettison envelope. Because bomb racks are very narrow, use
of the CTS is generally precluded due to sting mounting incompatibilities. As a result, wind tunnel
testing has, in the past, resorted to freedrop testing. Unfortunately, this approach does not satisfy
the economic consideration%. when dealing with the scope of the problem. Consequently, a technique for
establishing a more efficient return on generated data and allowing more flexibility In studying rack
jettison questions was needed by the USAF. As a result, the OACdeveloped a technique called the
 20

Multi-carriage Bomb Rack Jettison Computer Simulation Techniques (MST). The technique is documented in
Reference (32). The technique offers a method for predicting the trajectories of bomb racks which are
of lw density, are aerodynamically unstable, and have wide center of gravity and moment of inertia
variations. All ofofthese
the complex nature the characteristics
problem. it can contribute to coupled
best be solved (in the angular opinion) Because
authors'motions. of
experimentally.
The MSTacquires total flowfield aerodynamic coefficients from two sources. First, the rack
with attached stores is mounted on an instrumented pylon (internal pylon balance) and aerodynamic data
are obtained for the total Installation In the captive carriage position. Next, ýreestream aerodynamic
data for the rack/store configurations are obtained using a larger model scale to facilitate sting
installation. Once this data Is obtained, it can be subsequently used in support of this type of work
on other aircraft. These data form the starting point for determining captive carriage interference
aerodynamic coefficients. Interference coefficients are decayed exponentially with vertical distance
with respect to the pylon. The resulting data is used In a six degree of freedom computer program,
along with other necessary input data to obtain rack trajectories. The technique has been validated
with freedrop tests for a variety of rack configurations and Mach rumbars with very good correlation.
This technique is very useful for subsonic flow, but does not agree as well for supersonic flows where
more complex patterns of shock flow exist. Sow a-priori knowledge of the flowfield is needed to
establish decay constants through previous tests and extensive freestreem data is needed. This is the
* principle disadvantage to the technique. Yet, It does provide more data versatility than the freedrop
method, and gathers installed loads data in the process which may be useful for later studies.

4.2.2 United Kingdom (UK)

During the visit to the UK, the authors visited with representatives from several
agencies and organizations, all of whom are actively Involved in store separation and each of which
utilizes one or more techniques.
Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AIAEE) Boscombe Down
Aircraft/store certification requirements emanate from the Royal Air Force (RAF) and are
submitted to the Ministry of Defense/Procurement Executive (MOD/PE), who processes vaiidated
requirements to the A&AEE. A&AEE evaluates the requirement and assesses whether flight testing can
be performed without the need for analyses or wind tunnel testing, or if flight testing can be dispensed
with and the requirment met by analogy to an already certified aircraft/store configuration. Usually
flight testing is required. In fact, even for analogy situations, flight testing is usually performed
to demonstrate satisfactory store separation at the corners of the flight envelope. When analyses or
wind tunnel testing is deemed necessary, A&AEE solicits assistance from aerospace firms or other
government organizations through MOD/PE. Upon receipt of predicted store separation characteristics,
A&AEE formulates the flight test plan and conducts the testing. The initial test point is selected on
the basis of judgment and experience. Subsequent test points are based on results of predictions and
actual results after each test mission. A&AEE utilizes externally mounted cine cameras
to record store separation trajectories. Cine film is reduced using a photogrameetric data reduction
program called ATRAJ. While this system has worked well in the past, A&AEE has taken the initiative
to develop a video camera system. The system (the first of its kind seen by the authors) offers to
revolutionize data gathering for compatibility testing and will be discussed in a subsequent section.
Royal Airplane Establishment (RAE), Bedford
RAE Bedford is not directly involved in aircraft/stores compatibility testing. In the
authors view, RAE can be likened to the US's National Aeronautics and Space Adninistration (NASA). They
have their projects and flight test resources. They perform basic research, concept evaluations, and
system assessments (RAE Bedford developed the first Heads Up D'splay). RAE Bedford has taken a
leadership role in the UK in developing theoretical prediction techniques for store separation.
Techniques are then made available to industry and government in the UK.
RAE Bedford has developed a store prediction technique called RAENEAR (an improvement of the
NEAR technique). This technique is a panel method and is vaiid for stores with circular cross sections.
RAENEAR calculates the flow field, calculates store loads, and uses the equations of motion to calculate
the trajectory. Advantages of RAENEAR are that it is cheap (does not require expensive wind tunnel
testing) and quick; although the definition of 'quick' is relative. At the present time, each run
requires several hours of computer time. A disadvantage of RAENEAR is the limitations of aerodynamic
theory (particularly in the transonic Mach regime and at high angles of attack) which impacts prediction
accuracy. RAE Bedford acknowledges that theoretical methods are far from being reliable enoagh to
dispense with wind tunnel techniques. However, they are convinced that with RAENEAR, critical
configurations, speed regimes, areas of difficulties, and so forth, can be evaluated at less
cost than by only performing expensive wind tunnel testing. RAENEAR is fully described in Reference
(33) and an overview of RAEBedford prediction methods is contained in Reference (34)
British Aerospace (BAe) Brough
BAe Brough uses both theoretical and wind tunnel techniques to predict store separation
trajectories. Both RAENEAR and SPARV, Reference (35), theoretical techniques are used. BAe Brough is
enhancing RAENEAR by Improving Its computational efficiency and accuracy, improving modeling and
aerodynamics, and extending its applicability to non-circular ejected stores, Reference (36). SPARV is
a panel program which calculates store forces and moments at any position In the trajectory and then
uses a Runge Kutta iteration to predict the movement of the store. BAe Brough states that the method is
still in ts infancy and will be improved by incorporating semi-empirical techniques such as cross-flow
drag and viscous effects. They feel that SPARV Is better than the simpler RAINEAR because of the
greater potential for extension as modeling techniques for panel methods improve. SPARV is applicable
to complex geomietries and, hence, can easily handle effects of geometry changes. The SPARV program has
been validated to some degree by comparing predictions with flight test results. BAIBrough states that
a shortage of high quality flight test data has been a major stumbling block In investigating the
relative merits of various prediction techniques.
 21

Turning to their wind tunnel capa.ilities, BAe Brough operates a. blow-down tunnel with a 0.58
square toter test section. The relatively small size of the tunnel dictates use of small moedls on the
order of 1130 scale (they have 1/28.5 scale Hawk aircraft. 1/30 Buccanner and Harrier aircraft. and 1/30
Scale Tornado aircraft). Because of svia11 tunnel size, the freedrop technique is preferred and its use
hss been optimized for their blow down tunnel.

iAe Irough has evaluated the pros and cons of the various scaling methods and selected light
model scaling. To compensate for the gravitt~tional deficiency associated withi this stailng method, a
unique Accelerated Nodel Rig (ANR) was developed. The function of the AMRis to accelerate the model of
the airtraft upwards during store separation. Using a 1/30 scale model, the ANR accelerates the
aircraft upward 299 during store separation. This 299 coupled with the 19 natural gravity field
approximates that which would occur In an Ideal 30g field. The upward acceleration of the model can be
maintained for about 20 milliseconds (an additionsa 20 mi lliseconds is allowed for deceleration to rest)
which equates to 0.6 seconds full scale. This is adequate for most stores to leave thie near field of
the aircraft. Correction of the gravitational deficiency using the AMRaccounts for the largest (first
order) as a resultwith
error associated
the aircraft light
of its scaling. Theand
modelacceleration,
upward other inducedofincidence
the source error Is of
thethe store incidence
induced as a resultof
of the gravitational deficiency. )o minimize errors from this source, BAe Brough has devised the
technique of adjusting the pitch rate of the ejector. The validity of the ANR has been established by
virtue of good comparison of predicted/actual store trajectory results. Data cotwarisons are presented
in Reference (37) along with a detailed discussion of the AMRdesign and construction det'ils.

Although BAe Brough has a viable AN4Rsystem, several improvements are planned. For example,
the ejection force simulation will be improved and end of stroke velocities will be measured using a
laser doppler technique. Trajectory analyses wi l be enhanced by implementing a data reduction system
that is similar to the US's Graphic Attitude Display System (GADS) used for cine camera film reduction
GADS will be discussed in a subsequent section. Use of this type of data reduction system in a wind
tunnel application would be entirely iew. It may be noted that at the present time, cine film is
reduced using either a one or two :amera solutior. BAe Brough is lo3king into ways of changing the
aircrcft incidence during aircraft acceleration (perhaps with a microprocessor control lIng the parent
aircraft rack and pinion system). This would eliminate the need for adjusting the ejection
force/moment. Lestly, they are evaluating increasing the maximum wind tunnel operating stagnation
presrure from 4 to 9 atmospheres. This would have the effect of increasin- Reynolds Number (RN) to 1/4
to 1/5 of full scale values. A final thuught on the AMR systen. It may be noted that the system can
only be used for single store releases due to the short time available for accelerating the parent
aircraft model. However, this has not proved to be a Lerious limitation for BAe Brough since most of
the releases that they are required to support are single releases.

BAe Brough also operates two other wind tunnels In support of store separation testing. The
Open Jet Wind Tunnel (2x2 foot test section) is used for free drop testing. Light model scaling without
gravitational correction is used. For 1/7 scale (typical) the acknowledged trajectory error is about one
me:er vertically at 0.5 seconds with an induced incidence error of auout one degree at Nach 0.5.
Nultiple store releases are made in this tunnel. Use of heavy model scaling was considered, and
rejected, because of the need to increase store density to high values that required models to be
constructed from exotic (and expensive) materials, and the need for high ejection forces.
The BAe Brough Low Speed Wind Tunnel is a continuous flow tunnel with a seven by five foot
test sect:on (velocities up to 250 ft/secl. Freedrop testing in this tunnel uses Froude scaling due to
low Mach requirements. Normal model scales range from 1/10 to 1/12. Testinn %i this tunnel is
primarily devoted to evaluating emergency jettison of stores during take-off and landing conditions.
The reader is encouraged to read Reference (38) which describes in some detail the store separation
methods used in the UK. Intuition, RAF.NEAR, light model testing, and the ANR are ell discussed in
this reference.

Aircraft Research Association (ARA)

ARA is an independent cooperative research and development organization set up in 1952 by 14

UK aerospace flims. It is non-profit and Is not government owned. ARA operates two continuous and
four intermittent wind tunnels. The focal point of store separation activities is the 9 by 8 foot
transonic wind tunnel (up to Nach 1.4). ARA utilizes freedrop testing using light model scaling (with
a simple vertical displacement correction factor incorporated into final reduced output data to
account for the gravitational deficiency).

ARA operates a Two Sting Rig (TSR) which is similar to the US's CTS. Figure 17 shows the
general arrangement of the TSR with a Tornado aircraft model Instal led. The TSR is described in
Reference (39). The TSR is used in either the trajectory or the grid mode. This system was validated
in 1976 by comiparison with flight test data and a US CTS. The TSR can be used up to Nach one. Typical
model scale is 1/1%. Position accuracy is advertised as plus/minus 0.05 Inches and 0.15 degrees.

ARA is very active in theoretical prediction methods. They believe that these methods are
needed to comlement wind tunnel work. ARA has used the Nielsen method (Reference (40)) and validated
it to high subsonic Mach. The method is used to support wind tunnel studies before actually conducting
testing. ARA is convinced that In the future there wil1 be an ever increasing use of theoretical
methods to complement wind tunnel testing. Incidentally, ARAused the Nielsen method to optimize
lateral soacinq of stores on a Twin Store Carrier (TSC). Because of these studies, subsequent wind
tunnel testing was much reduced in scope had studies not been performed. The reader is encouraged to
read Reference (41) which fully describes store separation testing at MRA. MA's opinion as to the
advantages and disadvantages of mathematical modeling, TSR, and freedrop are all discussed in this
S~reference.
, 4.2.3 Netherlands (NL)
The authors visited the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) which is a government subsidized
organization. NLR has extensive store separation prediction and test capabilities for aircraft used by
22

the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF). They have a comlete NF-S and F-16 capability. NLR is the
recognized authority on cometibility matters In the Netherlands, and accordingly, the RNLAF relies on
NLR for technical expertise. Basically, the RNLAF provides NLR with their certification requirements
and NLR then perform conpoetibi Iity analyses, and fcrmulates and orchestrates flight testing which is
performed by the NRLAF.
NLR can predict store trajectries using theoretical, grid, flow angularity and freedrop
methods. When wind tunnel testing is required, NLR prefers use of the grid method. This is because, as
mentioned in an earlier section, grid data can be used off-line to perform trajectory analyses.
Trajectories are calculated using a six degree of freedom computer program called VORSEP. VORSEP
accepts aerodynamic parameters as inputs. The mel can be operated in two ways: (1) to predict store
trajectories when aerodynamic coefficierts are obtained from theoretical studies, wind tunnel tests, or
from tests with the NLRfull scale captive store load measuring system (described in subsequent
paragraphs), and (2) to determine aerodynamic coefficients from store trajectory data measured in a
wind tunnel or from full scale store separation tests. In these cases, the model initially uses
predicted coefficients to produce a predicted trajectory and the coefficients are adjusted until the
predicted and actual trajectories coincide. VORSEP, the NLR panel method, and other prediction
techniques used by NRLare fully described in References (42) and (13).
In addition to the above, NLR has developed, and validated, a unique, full scale flIght test
captive store load measuring system This system consists of a support structure suspended from a boat
rack, a five component load measuring balance, and a replaceable store snape (which is made as light as
possible to minimize inertial forces). The system is designed so that in-flight airloads may be
measured with the store in a captive carriage position end in a displaced position (with a spacer placed
between the store and the carriage rack). Figure 18 shows an NF-5 test aircraft with a fuel tank
mounted on the captive store load measuring system in the displaced position. This is a well
instrumented aircraft for store separation testing. The instrumentation is described in Reference (44).
The basis for selection of this noarinal offset v~lue was NLR studies which show that interference
aerodynamic forces decay rapidly to small values by the time one store diameter is reached. This
correlates with USAF results. The system has been validated on the NF-5 using a number of low density
store shapes such as the BLU-1. NLRexperience is that store separation trajectories based on flight
test ful I scale captive loads are far more accurate than theoretical or wind tunnel based predictions.
Incidentally, NLR believes that this system is particularly suited'for their use since the NF-S carries
stores oi parent pylon and on multiple carriage racks and many stores are of the low density, unguided,
variety. The NLR captive store loads measuring system is fully described in Reference (40). As a
fol low-on activity, NLRis developing a self-contained instrumentation package that will allow tests on
normal operational aircraft. The present system must be used on a 9pecially instrumented aircraft since
data is recorded on the aircraft.
When a new certification requirement is received by NLR. an assessment is made to determine
if the store can be certified by analogy. NLR acquired an extensive aerodynamic data based for stores
certified on the NF-5 by the airframe contractor. This data base is very important to NLR and serves as
a basis for anal3gy type tertifications. If a new store fits within the analogy criteria, no further
analyses are performed and flight testing may or may not be conducted. If an analogy does not exist,
store trajectories are initially predicted using the NLR panel method. Results are used to identify
safe, marginal, and unsafe areas of the flight envelope. If results show safe separation throughout the
flight envelope, no further analyses are necessary and flight testing is conducted only as necessary to
validate predictions. If results show marginal or unsafe areas of the flight envelope, NLRmay request
that the RNLAF first perform flight testing using the captive loads system. NLR reports that three
missions are usually required to gather store airloads data for each configuration (one mission with the
store in the captive carriage position and two missions with the store in displaced position). Store
airloads are subsequently used in six degree of freedom computer program to predict store separation
trajectories. NLR reports excellent agreement between predictions and actual results. In fact, data
contained in Reference (46) show that for LAU-3 and BLU-l stores, trajectories predicted using the
captive load system compared very well with actual results. On the other hand, predictions based on the
NLR penal method and wind tunnel data did not compare nearly as well (particularly in the pitch plane).
In view of proven results, NLR naturally attaches high confidence to predictions using the captive store
loads measuring system. This system has enabled store separation flight testing to be performed with
lower risk and fewer missions than would otherwise have been possible. It may be noted that NLR starts
flight testing at a point judged to be very safe (based on experience). If there are any significant
differences between predicted and actual results, carriage loads are extracted from actual results and
used to update predictions. This process is continued until separation envelope goals have been
achieved.
Before closing this section it should also be noted that NLR has developed their own data
reduction program, called MILLIKAN, to support store separation flight testing. The program converts
store iaages on movie film to six degree of freedom digital data. This program uses a single camera
solution. The MILLIKAN system is fully described in Reference (47).
4.2.4 Canada (CA)
The development of a Canadian Forces (CF) store separation prediction and test capability has
been rather recent. Yet, the CF has already developed a baseline capability along with plans
for further growth. Historically, the CF certified stores on their aircraft by analogy to
stores certified on another country's aircraft or by performing flight tests. The problem
with the analogy method was that the CF frequently found that another country's flight
envelopes were too restrictive for their use. As no pre-flight predictior techniques existed,
the CF resorted to brute force flight testing. The CF found that this type of testing was too
expensive, too titneconsuming, and too resource expensive for their purposes.
The above operating procedure might have remained unchanged were it not for the decision to
enhance the CF-5 external stores capability. The CF-5 program provided the opportunity for the CF to
develop and acquire a prtict*on and test capability. The CF (through OFTEN 4-4, •Foffice of primary
 23

responsibility for stores compatibility) ware ware of, an liked, the m e in wtich stres wrs being
certified by the RNLAF an the NF-S with the assistanc of LR. This stimulated the CF to establish an
in-house prediction and test capability utilizing Canadian Indstry (Canadair LTD) In ceNQ wctien wtth
the goverumemt's National Aeronautical Establishmont (NME) NIgh Speed Aervd ics Laeratory, smi the
Aircraft Engineering Test Establishimnt (AETE) Initiall1, the CF establised a joint Canadair/ilR
effort to certify the SUU-25 end BL-7S5 stores on the CT. During this program Canndair obtained IU
prediction methodology and AETE developed Instrumentation and test techniques.
The first in-house application occurred in 1978 whan the CF was tasked to cortify the LAU-
5003 rocket launcher (with various weight warheads) on the CT-S Canadair performed prelimnory
trajectory analyses using their store separation medal to detemine critical cofigurations and to form
a basis for establishing a flight test plan. During AETE flight testing (using an instrumented captive
airloeds masuring system like that used by NLR) actual results ware compared with predictions and,
where necessary, predictions ware upgraded before proceeding to the next test point. Fo1bowing
successful completion of the Program, LAU-3 and LAU-5002 rocket launchers, AIN-9 missiles, and an
airborne instrumentation pod were certified by purely analytical means saving the CF substantial funas,
time, and resources.
The Canadair store separation model is described in Reference (48). This program is written
in Fortran specifically for use on Canadian computing facilities. Basically, it is a Nmsduelr six degree
of freedom program so that It can be used to support any compatibility program (its use Is limited to
unpowered axi-symaetric stores). It consists of a MAIN program which uti 1izes store and airck aft mess
and geometric input data an calculates and tabulates the actual trajectory. Subroutines consist of
ATHOS which processes altitude and velocity parameters, LIFT which processes store and aircraft
aerodynamic parameters as a function of flight condition, EJECT which converts ejection forces into
store forces and moments, AERO which calculates total (freestreem plus interference, or freestream plus
captive) store aerodynamic loads during the trajectory, and PLOT which plots the trajectory. In LIFT
the aircraft angle of attack remains constant during store separation; in EJECT ejection force Orecoil*
is Included. Forces are varied from pylon to pylon in AERO, captive store loads are decayed to
freestream by the cube of the aircraft wing aerodynamic chord. In addition, the simplifying assumption
is made that store froestream and interference forces can be treated independently. Accurate inputs to
AERO are obviously the key to accurate trajectories. AERO can accept experimental, theoretically
derived, or captive store airloads measured with an instrumented store (this has been done successfully
at AETE).
In the theoretical area, the MAE initiated a multi-faceted effort to develop and purchase
computer prediction codes and to acquire and fabricate wind tunnel equipment to support store separation
programs. Several codes are in use and development to generate store freestream asrodynamic forces.
The Jorgesen code Is used to predict forces and moments on slender bodies up to 180 degrees alpha
(subsonic and supersonic). This code is based on slender body and cross flow theory and has been
extended for use up to Mach three; a code termed AKCAX is being developed to predict the froestream
pressure distribution and drag for slender bodies at zero degree alpha and to predict side force at high
alpha. The Nendellhll code is used to predict freestreme forces and moments on wing/body/tail store
configurations up to 35 degrees (subsonic and supersonic). This code is based on lifting surface theory
which utilizes vortices shedding from the body nose and the wing edges. Plans are to acquire a cross-
flow code to be able to predict freestream forces and moments (subsonic and supersonic) up to high
alphL Interference forces and moments on a stove as It translates through the aircraft's flowfield are
predicted subsonically using the three dimension NLR panel method and transonical ly using the
equivalence rule/cross flow developed by MAE and solved by the NLR panel method. This method is
characterized by short computer times. The Dillenius code is used to predict store captive loads.
RAENEAR (valid for stores with circular cross sections) and NEAR(not limited to circular cross
sections) prediction progrms are also in use. Present plans are to compare predictions with flight
test data to assess prediction accuracy.
It is clear from the above that the CF has developed, and is enhancing, their prediction
capabilities to support current and future efforts such as for the CF-18 aircraft/stores compatibility
program. Current plans are for a contractor to perform trajectory predictions and provide flight test
support for initial baseline store configurations. This will establish a data base for the CF, and put
the CF in a posture to perform follow on certification efforts totally in-house begining in 198. Along
these lines, the CF is already planning on obtaining their own 6% CT-18 wind tunnel model. The reader
is encouraged to read References (49) to (53) which describes in considerable detail Canadian store
separation methodologies and capabilities.
4.2.5 France (FR)
During their short visit to France, the authors visited Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet (St. ii
Cloud).Dassault has extensive prediction capabilities utilizing both wind tunnel based grid, freedrop
(using light model scaling), Captive Trajectory System (CTS) methods, and theoretical methods. Because
of the wind tunnel's high cost, and the ability to perform parametric studies and pre-flight
comparative analyses, theoretical methods are preferred. t
The aircraft flow field is theoretically predicted: subsonically, using the singularities
method with a distribution of sources, sinks, and vortices on the aircraft surfaces and divided into a
large number of elements (this method requires high computing time); and supersonically, using the
finite difference method (which assumes isentropic flow and does not consider shocks).
When wind tunnel testing is performed, the French industrial wind tunnels are used. A
configuration analysis Is performed to determine which test techniques should be utilized. For exaple,
is the store stable or unstable, low or high density, located adjacent to another store, high or low
wing/tail aircraft configuration. speed regime, and so forth? Subsequently, the physical and "chemical
limitations of the wind tunnel and limitations associated with the test technique Itself are evaluated,
and based on results, a test technique (grid, CTS or freedrop) is selected.
 A rteent eplliCtIN of in-h se ctailities, has bs In support of time Mete -i program..
Ster* aepraties wind tunel testisg uaing 115 scale meals, e perfe~ma, asswlt PrWepsedlaW ge
yet 4Or tenta predicted n ectual results. to tU wind tame, the missile dose yawe
etwes
imbsrd
Now, heireas In flight, the missile 414 met y at all. This was srpritsing
amemolits vairs noed by the Air Force dories wid tunnel tott
to me authm,
performed is supportnetof
but
the A-3l flight test perem.

4.1.6 s (M )
Te autheor visited Dermier at Feadrichaofn an ft at Ottabruem dirtiastheir short visit
toT fir paer. cqetibility amlysma ead tastingwer o~atrect toha Semen
96e0 Fsr sirgrsft ia the dolegmet phas, U
aircreft and this contract incres the stares tihe arrft
em p um effice cetraets fee the
Nst carry ald eleas (baselln stores).
Durig the developmt phase, firm perform extnsive wind t el testing to optimize the shes
anomlly
of the aircraft to ensure successfvl integration of baselint stores. These test rsults are rviewedV
the aoryme geve -et represontative (military certification ency B-). On the bests of the test
results. S-I issues a preliminary flight test authorization as nece-sary to conduct the next mission.
Without a clearnce free.IS-. the firm is not allnwed to fly. If a new certification reqiNrement is
validated for anexisting (inventory) aircraft, S-IS decides whether the rm gevernment test center
will, or can, handle the task alone. Normally, if there is me saed to medify the aircraft, SVW4IS
decides that the Germo test center will perform the test. Is this event, the test center engineers
write a proposed test plea and discuss the test plan with SW-ISL. If SI1-IS. concurs, they issue a
liht on autherization
frev results end. to
test center to allow testing to start. Again, after each mission, Wi-IS.
upontheprogram completion. issues the final certification which allows the German Air
Force to fly within the certified envelope.

Two examles may serve to illustrate the operating relationship of SW-IS. with respect to the
firm. In the first case, there was a requirement to establish an Alpha Jet emergency jettison envelope
for a twin store carrier loaded with stores. The contractor recomended that wind tunnel testing be
performad before initiating flight testig. SW4-1. determined that flight testing could be Initiated
without wind tunnel testing, end this isin fact what was done. In another exaple, for a major new
missile certification effort on the F-4, NDS predicted missile separation characteristics. SW-NL then
reviewed these calculations and issued a flight clearance to the German test center. After each
mission, results were used to upgrade the calculations for the following mission. In this example,
SIB-NL. made the determination that a joint firm/government participative program was in the best
interest of Germany.
_W: l:S uses SSP (Store Separation Program) code which relies on flow fields, captive loads,
free flight aerodynamics and ERU-characteristics, all determined either by theory or by experiments. In
development since 1974, this code has been used to evaluate vest tlearances needed for the Tornado
fighter aircraft where it has been used to optimize the minima release intervals for multiple bomb
releases. For retarded boabs. the intervals were nearly halved by this theoretical optimization and
successfully flight tested within the operation envelope. The lBS-SPP has recently supported
multi-firings of the Tornado/li-1 Amunition. References S4-56 present an excellent discussion of the
MB8-SSP methodologies.
Dornier: Dornier •ploys a variety of prediction techniques such as grid, free drop, and
theoretical-7Tretical tc%.niques and free drop appear to be the centerpiece of Dornier's
methodology. Although a store data base is maintained, theoretical store separation predictions are
alwa*y made, even if a new store is analogous to a certified store. Dornier has had good success using
theoretical methods and free drop which are documented in References (57) and (58). An interesting
application described to the authors was in support of a tow target system. Problems were being
encountered during target tow. The system was modeled mathematically and parametric studies were
performed which Identified a fix. The fix was implemented. tested, and proved successful during
subsequent flight tests.
High confidence is placed on the accuracy of predictions using wind tunnel methods. However,
wind tunnel testing is rarely used due to high cost. In fact, it is the authors' undrrstanding that the
wind tunnel is used only when there is an order for a production aircraft to support the high cost of
testing. If wind tunnel testing is performed, free drop and grid (particularly for missiles) methods
are used. Dornier examined use of light, heavy, and Froude scaling. Heavy modal scaling is preferred
although light model scaling is used for low density unstable stores. Judgement is used in sele'ting
the best scaling method for the applicable task at hand,
5.0 STRUCTURING A FLIGHT TEST PR06RM4 BASED ONPREDICTIONS
This chapter is one of the mrre iportant in this report. This section describes an approach
toward structuring a separation program based on predictions in conjunction with safety criteria that
are not documented elsewhere. Although this approach may not be accepted by others as the best one for
every situation, it has been successfully used for the last 18 years by the USAF. and it is felt that
readers should seriously consider its adoption.
5.1 Safety of Fliseht Criteria for the Test Program
With rare exceptions, flight testing should be performed in such a mamnr as to minimize, but
not necessarily eliminate, the potential for aircraft-to-store contact during store separation. The
flight test program (mission summaries) should be structured so that if a store should contact the
aircraft, the contact will only result in superficial m that would not affect safety of flight.
Such store-to-aircraft contacts are categorized as Olow risk'. For exaple. a store that separates with
a greater than predictea nose-dow pitching notion might cause some store tall-to-aircraft pylon
contact. The possibility of such contact should be accepted if nothing mere than scratches are
anticipated. If the goal were to entirely eliminate the possibility of any contact, the number of
 25

minsiom would have tob drestically increased to leow for miniuml Chom" In ailsroft release
conditions
Whi
"Ithrs •nebetuge
In thhave to to
missime. costThisiS would
sayminimize
result in
isImportant
that It has bere their
significantly
INthe
aeporiew UAFthe
that t I probably
a now toot cast
-P I- ad is
to comlplete in eAetoot
the
tast tia.
admattoes, the
tos timely
oa r to o l toe s to override th ost aspect. Accordinly, the VW has motivated to
performig
€omreo s"• testig IN the mat
To elaborate expeditioun
an th forgingmamm possible
dicusion go lung
conide a veryapa•c
as theIL alawto risk'
Fipr Is met
simlis$tt
fashio•, this figure coo" th viw that if on vated to slutely Minimize risk, em weuld have to
conduct a large ner of missionS. OnThe ~ ter ha if on wore v 1I ! tecept a high risk, then
to
met mt net
established an
med
the
to comivt
basis of
W miSSION% analog
pred~ictions.
at alli to That
a
it, a sto
certified
sparatie
store, or jot
evelepe could be
Oegn0uarl" jodgmet.
Depaeding on one's record in predicting store separation characteristics using analyses, analogy, or
engimeering Judpnt. the actual risk mitt mNt be as high atoe might suspect. For USAF purposes, two
other parameters that were Mentioned earlier - cost and time - an considered of major iportaece.
4ast aeut every program with which the authors re feller oa expected to be completed in
the shortest tim possible Nary program were due to be completed 'Yestorday. That Is, upon receipt
of program po-head, the operational nsor was i1real askig why the amhenced capability that the
"prngrm was to produce had ot yet bhem receivedl This them wea mentlioned i Section 4 from the
standpoint of why a specific separation prediction technique was selected. The point also holds true
whon it comes to flight testig It is obvious that mere mission require more tim, and tim Is
something that Is usually in short supply. Similarly, more missions cost more money and unless the
prngrm is of the highest priority, cost must be kept as low a possible because of prevailing budget
constraints.
If one considers cost, time, and risk as interrelated. whet the authors call a 'performance
factor" my be derived If this factor is plotted as a function of the muber of missions, It is
apparent that there is an optimum miber of missions that yields the highest performance factor as shom
in Figure 20. This figure shows that there Is an optimu number of missions for given conditions of
cost, time, and risk. To the left of the optimum number of missions there is a rapid decrease in the
performance factor. This is due to the fact that risk Increases dramatically and dominates as the
number of missions decreases. On the other hand, to the right of the optimum Number of missions there
is a more gradual decrease in the performance factor. This is because as more missions are added, cost
increases dominate the combination of the two.
One should always strive to achieve the optima performance factor for each program. But.
how is this done? Unfortunately, there is no universal answer. Each country has its ow
"risk acceptance" or safety of flight criteria. In addition, each military service and each test
organization usually has its own safety of flight criteria. For exaple, one test organization may view
an accessional store-to-aircraft contact which may cause minor damage to the aircraft and/or store, but
not jeopardize the flight safety of the aircraft and/or pilot, as routine and acceptable. Another test
organization may view any contact as serious and unacceptable. Clearly, in the first instance the
engineering comunity would structure the test program far differently from the latter case - in which
more safety-oni.nclng build-up missions would be included. As for the time factor, the mission rate is
highly dependent on an array of variables. For exaple, test support requirements, aircraft complexity
(turn around time), store complexity (guided store or iron bomb). data reduction requirments and
processing timemust be considered. Similarly, each of these factors Impact cost. Too many times
engineers, in a building remote from the test organization, plan the test program oblivious to such
factors as risk, cost, and time. A basic key to structuring the separation program is to build these
parmeters in from the outset.
With the aforementioned discussion as background material, the constraints used to meet *low
risk" safety of flight criteria will be discussed. Basically, there are two primary constraints:
(1) No part of the store shall come closer to any part of the aircraft structure, suspension
hardware. and/or adjacent stores, then it was during captive carriage.
(2) Upon release, the store shall separate with a nose-down pitch rate and a positive
acceleration away from the carriage rack until completely clear of the aircraft flowfield.
Figure 21 illustrates the first constraint. Store A is In the captive carriage position.
Store I is shown with its fins having translated above the captive carriage position due to a large
nose-down pitching motion. This case is unsatisfactory even though, due to some lateral Movement, it
might miss the py on Store C Is shown with its fins having displaced below the captive carriage
position during separation. This case is what is strived for. and is satisfactory. Although we are
discussing store notion only In the pitch plane, the sam holds true in the other planes.
As far as the second constrairt is concerned a nose-down pitch rate and acceleration away
from the aircraft are the primary keys to safe separation. They are also tee most difficult constraints
to achieve. Store 0 In Figure 21 is shown with a nose-up pitch attitude. While this store may have k
separated safely to this point, with a nose-up pitch attitude it could generate enough lift (depending
on its s mic characteristics, weight, and release conditions) to Ofly" ba.k Into the aircraft. If
one recalls Figure 3 where the F-111 fuel tank was released. positive dwfnward acceleration initially
existed but not for a long enough period of time for the tank to clear the entire aircraft flonfield as
evident by the fact that it Oflew' up and into the aircraft. Clearly. positive acceleration will always
be present if the store separates with a nose-down pitching motion snd maintains a nose-dao pitch
attitude until clear of the aircraft. This Is why one should almost alw4ys select ejector rack pitch
control settings to impart an initial nose-down pitching rate to the store. If the ejector rack only
has one ejector piston and this piston is behind the center of gravity of the store oe has no choice
but to proceed with the test - very carefully. In this instance, the store separation envelope that can
eventually be cleared Is usually restricted because the initial pitch control neded to start the store
with the desired angular motion is not present. One last point on the importance of positive
 tcceloratiam dori stare 1aatlas, The OW requiree almest al1 steres to be released In a variety
of fligh conditioem tosluds W7 atmp dive anles. I a sixty deree dive (whic Is Come) the
InitiatM II~t leretelr
f| detoto gravity
pm
MM l 4U• acting
01V 9. Theam"ter
the aircraft ad the ster lataecst
M"O encoutere IN thm Blame
twol perpendicular
ad tinO WIN to
viit at high pSu41 Stares eoparite with favor11le Initial Mea-.tm pitching motiot and then.
thrtly ~Ar re ss pitch seet-op do to aircraft flufleld efects resulting IN the relative
acceleration between the aircraft nd the str becb ig naeative is very sart ede, The stare
fn iead hits the aircraft. The mral here Is that on ant he especially careful retaning stores
is stei dive alle boat muevers or Clio aglas (left imeavurs where the aircraft Is puiled ltoe a
te pclim ad ta aircraft lawd fntotr is redcesost prior to release) whore the relative
accelaration Between the aircraft ad the Store Is redced blow 01.0 1 at release.
As the start separates It usually has to Clear adjacent stares ad/ar air"rO.t structure to
its sidesi. IN gn-ral, N part of the store should come closer thisn inc to adjeceal
tm
stores/structure during separation. Figure It shin a typical alicraft/stors arrealngeat where the
stan has to clear adjacent stores during releses IM figure shas a typical CalIisiar, ha-udary for
the storm to ba separated Nete that the collIlas bouindary Is violated If the store fins translate
above the initial captive carriage pOsition indIf the stare yn to such an extent as to aMlow Its fins
to cam my Closer theam inhoto adjacent meunted captive Star"i.
5.2 Nethods fa Structuring Flight Test Program land a wradictions
Establishing aircraft/store collision boundorias is th first stop In structuring a flight
test program based ampredictions. In the simplast exampit, a collisiao broAary is established as
shown in Figure 23 An accurate (scale) drawing is prepared of the 4toro in the captive carriage
position on the aircraft (including any adjacent stores). Th•n the store is redrawn with its center of
Cravity displaced vertically a given distaice (usually every six inches for the first several feet and
tem every foot us to at least one store length). At each vertical displacement, the store is rotated
nose-dn a in sprato drawings until msy part of the store intersects the captive carriage
tnse-u
constraint (no port of the store shall came closer to the aircraft than during captive carriage). This
procedure Is repeated until the store can be freely retated without contacting any structure.
General ly, the store is draw oana transparency and superimposed on the aircraft drawing at the various
vertical locations to save time. As an example, Figure 23 shows the maximm nose-dun pitch that can be
sustained by a store without the store penetrating the captive carriage constraint. This constraint is
a key Ingredient to the go/no-go decision betwee flight test build-up mission$
and will be discussed shortly.

Before leaving the subject of collision boundaries, the reader will probably have already
realized that cases where stores separate with purely vertical meotion - without any lateral motion - aid
pure pitching motion-without iny yawing and/or rolling motion is rare. In the above collision boundary
examle, this is of course what was assumed for illustrative purposes. Combinations of linear and
angular motions during %tore separation obviously impact the collision boundary. One can calculate the
collision boundary for ay array of coabinations of store pitch, yaw, roll, and vertical and lateral
displacments. If this is done, hopefully it is done on a computer because it would be very time
consuming mnual ly. The authors have not found it Necessary to do this at all. Actually, stare separetion
trajectory predictions are reviewed and, based on these predictions, the appropriate collision
boumaries are generated. This avoids hayincm to prepare collision boundaries for un array of store
angular motions/positions that are not predicted. Of course, during the course of flight testing, if
predictions prove to be in error, then the collision boundaries are recalculated to correspond to actual
motions/positions.

Now it is time to integrate store separation predictions with the captive carriage
constraint. The most caoo? type of output for store trajectory predictions is store angular aid store
linear values as functions of time. Figure 24 shows a plot of predicted store vertical displacement and
store pitch attitude (with respect to the initial captive carriage position) as a function of time for
various airspeds. To be of use with the earlier constructed captive carriage constraint it is
necessary to transform these data into a plot of store pitch as a function of vertical displacement,
This is, of course, easily done and results are shown in Figure 24. The next step is to cross-plot
store pitch at specific vertical displacemnts as a function of airspeed As mentioned earlier,
vertical displacements of every six inches are used for the first several feet and then every foot
thereafter. The results of this cross-plot taken from the data in Figure 24 are shown in Figure 25.
The final step is to superimpose the captive carriage constraint, and this Is also easily done and is
show in Figure 25
"Let us examne Figure 25 more closely. The increasing spacing between vertical displacement
lines confirm that the store is separating with a positive acceleration away from the aircraft. Of
course this can be, end is, more easily ascertained by simply examining a plot of vertical distance as a
function of time. This plot shows that the maxius predicted release spee is 50 KCAS. If the store
is released at a higher speed. the store tail will contact the pylon. If one had completo faith in this
Prediction, the strem could be certified (that is published In the pilot's flight maNual) without any
tastin 6eetfully, Such Compete faith in these matters is not justified and, therefore, some flight
11.
testing is alnot alwys required Accordingly, this discussion will continue with how to structure
flight test missions.
In Figure Is note that the predictd store pitching motion increases very gradually with
nreatsing sped in additito, Stor pitching motion is always nose-down so one•an count on positive
accelOration away from the aircraft (at least initially). There are no abrupt discontinuities with
increasing SPOed IN Sech a& tuatinto a vary limited flight test program is usually required As an
initial tXOlie aSsum thae. the maxima aircraft carriage speed is 00 AS. In this case, since the
Predicted collision boundary is $00.KCA, there is no need to worry about exceeding the carriage
eONvope during th test Pr In the athors' opinion, an Initial release speed of 400 KCAS would
be Ideal. This speed Is 100 KCAS elo the predicted collision boundary giving substantial margin for
 27
error in the prediction. A lower id be even i cenervative but Is net doomed necessary in
this particular benign case If tie actual test results match predictions, the next release point might
logical ly be 480 KCAL If at this point, actual test reuslts match predictions. the authors, in
general, extrepolato test reslts to II CAS ad clew this point by aalpsis. AItheugh the actual
test results match pvteictlens, at S00 KCAS the store would separate satistfactorily but Just barely
clear the pylnm. Iscause of conem far maximiaing test safety, the authors would net chMOse to
deonstrete this point. tn fact the store would he certified to 475 ICAS to al Iw for a possible
"0ovelorsVt" of the muaimm release conditions on the part of the pilot. As metioned in on earl idr
sectlmn the magnitude of the oveaet margin Oependo so the release conditions (straight and level, or
dive delivery - which requires a higher margin) mid other related factors. What If the maximm aircraft
carriage speed we 400 KAt In this case, an Initial release speed of 315 KCAcould be used which is
consistent with the aformentioned philosophy of net testing at dend point* conditions. Evon though
there Is on ample speed margin ftra a separation standpoint, the exact captive carriage speed should not
be tested for oear of inadvertently exceeding this speed during the release maneuver. Accordingly, one
should test at a lower speed, the value of htich "altn depends on the type of aircraft and release
maneuver. In this later case, the situation exists where only one release mission Is required to
deontrate the envelope In a highly safe manner. One last note on this particular *xamle. In the
authers' experience, the situation wre the predicted collision boundary is at a higher speed than the
captive carriage spend is in the minority. In Short, maot of the tim, the aircraft most be slowed dawn
to safely release stores. Suffice it to say that in a comoat situation, pilots do not want to slow

hlow let us consider the case where predicted nose-down store pitching motion quickly
increases Oratically with increaslng airspeed as shom in Figure 26 In this exmple, the to' ision
boundary Is still 100 KCAS. However, because of th* steep slope of the displacement curves, a slight
error in prediction could make a big difference In the collision boundr. According, amo caution Is
celled for. In this case, flight testing should be started more than 100 KCAS below the Collision
boundary. The altnors would select on Initial release speed of around 350 KCAS, before the start of the
arem whwre the non-litnerty with speed begins. If actual test results matched predictions, the next
test point would be 400 KCM1,Just about on the edge of the speed discontinuity. Again, if actual test
results match predictions, a speed increase of no ooe than 25 knots would be attempted with 25 knot
speed Increases on each mission theroafter until reaching 475 KCAS. If at this point stores were still
separating successfully end actual test results still matched predictions, actual test results would be
extrapolated to 500 KCAS, and this point would not be tested as 41scussed earlier.
The most difficult, end perhaps most treacherous, case has been saved for last. Figure 27
shows store pitch-up below a given speed (in this case 210 KCAS) and store pitch-dow above this speed.
This case is typical of an unfinned end/or an unstable store. At low speeds, end high angles of attack,
such stores are prone to nose-up pitching-motions, and at high speed eand low angles of attack, are prone
to nose-down pitching motions. But, this is not a hard end fast rule, just a generality. Clearly. the
local floufeIld drives the separation motion. The authors have encountered several cases where the
store separates at low speeds with a nose-up pitching motion and as speed is Increased, nose-up pitching
motion continues to increase to the point where the store generates enough lift so as to "fly" back into
the aircraft. But, at least the pitching motion Is in one direction at aI l speeds. In this case, one
can anticipate increased nose-P motion and plan for it Just as was discussed previously for nose-down
pitch. The deal pitch-down and pitch-up motion creates a much more severe problem. Unless one knows
"exactlym the neutral point, one can select an initial flight condition that could lose an aircraft.
This is, in fact, what happened to the USAF In the late NOs. The pitch characteristics of a Multiple
Ejector Rack released with asemtrically loaded stores (to represent a rack malfunction mode) from en
F-4 as a function of speed the sao shape as shown in Figure 27. In this exale, the rack was released
at a speed Just above the neutral point (by luck). The rack separated with a very gentle nose-down
"pitching motion. In short, a great separation! The next test point consisted of releasing the rack 25
knots sliwer. The store pitched violently nose-up, contacted the aircraft causing severe damage,
the crew had to eJect, end the aircraft was lost. On hindsight, this contractor conducted progran should
have been structured differently. In the first place, the aerodynemic characteristics of the
asymetrical ly loaded rack were estimated and not measured in the wind tunnel. Therefore. the predicted
separation charecterisitics were not at all accurate. Once the nose-down separation motion had been
established, the next test point, in the Authors' opinion, should have bee at a higher speed, nnt a
lower sped so that at least the semblance of a "trend' could be established. At a 2S knot higher
speed, the very stee slope of the displacement curve should have alerted the test engineers to the high
probability that if this trend were extrapolated back to a lower speed, a severe nose-up pitching motion
might be the result. Then, with this steep slope as a caution flog, only a very sall speed decrease.
if any, would have been in order. One should never proceed into on area of nose-up pitching motion
unless one knows precisely the aerodynamic characteristics of the separating store, or unless the
dyna•ic pressure Is so low the store cannot possibly generate enough lift to rise. Failing this. one
must make very sal I speed adJustments between missions if one proceeds in a brute force mantner.
The proceeding method of usip' predictions plotted as a function of speed is clearly the
authors' choice. However, there is another method used by a nuber of infttry engineers which is quite
different, and which will be discussed for the reader's consideration. In this method a point in the
center of the desired mploymnt envelope is selected as a starting point for testing as show in Figure
28. The store Is released at this benign speed condition, at or near the maximu allowable load factor.
For example, the store may be released at 350 1CAS in t Gg syetric pullup maneuver. Actual results are
compared with predictions and if a good match is obtainedK the $es point Is repeated but at a lower 9,
perhaps half the original value. The procedure is repeated until lg is reached. Then, if a match is
still obtained, a release at the minimum "g is performed This ame procetwre Is then followed.
expanding the envelope in all directions, untl I points on al l corners of' the employment envelope have
been covered. The proponents of this method claim that le5s missions are required. This may be true,
but the less straight forward way of expanding the envelope may be more of a disadvantage than any pure
saving of missions. With the collision boundary method, one can mor easily relate to the envelope
as it is being %pened up'. In the latter method, it Is difficult to know just what envelope is
achieved as testing proceeds because safe separation may occur throughout the desired envelope, but only
at various a" levels. Such an envelope Weld be of little value to ftiqht crews. In effect,
additional cress-plotting of date is required to arrive at a vUable envelope for consistent VI" levels.

in attemting to decide at which

havev foun a simple technique which coanditit Is
is often useful. fliht
tegin
The ltof testing so as
is to monist"to the sloe'
equl
of the store lift curve times the anlle Of attack of the store times the dynaNIc pressure ties the
reforetceam of the stor Now ae can set the lift equal to the storew eight. The sloe of the
lift curve can be assumed high. The agle of attack of the store during separation can also be assumed
high. The reference arga of the store should be knom With these values, on can solve the equations
for dynamic pressure which can then be related to in equivalent airspeed Ve. This Ve is the one above
which the btore will moet probably rise, or 'fl , and endangor the aircraft. Below this airspeed there
is little or no probabilitythat the store wilfly. Thus this speed can be used for determination of a
safe first flight test point.
S.3 Role of Experience In Structuring Mission Summaries
There is no substitute for experience. The separation enineor must be faniliar with the
general flowfield characteristics of the aircraft. Once this experience is gained, certain general
rules can be followed to establish mission profiles regardless of the store being released For
example, regardless of what the predictions show, flight test experience has proved that on the A-10
a dranatic increase in nose-down pitching motion usually occurs for stores released from any station
of the aircraft at speeds above 3SO KCAS. Just about any stable store released at 3S0 KCAS or below
exhibits safe separation characteristics. However, above 350 KCAS, store nose-dawn pitching motion
increases drseatical ly, such as the trend shown in Figure 26. For this reason, missions are usually
performed at 375 KCAS. Similarly, when releasing stores from the F-IS, there is a unique *Nach
effects between certain Mach nouiers that was discovered quite by accident during a rather comprehensive
wind tunnel test program. As a result, testing oa this Mach effect is built into all F-15 test programs
because of Its significance (causes nose-up store pitching motions in a certain part of the flight
envelope). One last eaeople is on the A-iD. Stores released from the aft inboard station of a multiple
ejector rack on the center pylon always translate Inboard and pass under the fuselage; sometimes, very
closely. To summarize, even if one has a huge volume of predictive data, one may not know Just what to
do with It[ To be safe, the Inexperienced engineer could plan many missions, expanding the flight
envelope very slowly. At least this would be better than pressing on to the edge of the envelope and
hoping that the predictions are correct. If they are not, an accident may result. But with experience
the mission sumary process flows rather smoothly since the general characteristics of the aircraft are
usually unchanged regardless of whica store is inserted In the flowfield. This is because the
aircraft flowfield dominates the store and not the reverse. Expe.rience is the key ingredient necessary
to arrive at the performance factor mentioned earlier In this section. The authors wish the reader
could be given a cookbook for building a mission sumary, but quite frankly it cannot be done. The
inexperienced separation engineer (inexperienced from the standpoint of applying predictions to flight
test and not inexperienced in making predictions) is well advised to proceed cautiously until total
foailiarity with the aircraft Is achieved. Then the number of missions required can be reduced safely
for subsequent program. Go/no-go criteria should always be used between missions. For the authors'
purposes, the collision boundary charts do this because, if predictions do not match actual results to
the extent expected, the progran is halted.
Before closing this section, one last point needs to be made on the concept of "know your
airplane". From tim to time the authors have mentioned that prediction methods have not been found to
be of much value for ripple store releases (which is an almost constant requirenent during operational
conditions). It takes experience to know how to structure a test mission sumary to proceed from single
releases of a store to the minimum ripple interval release of Ill stores. Without experience, one would
be advised to start witha release interval of no less than 1000 milliseconds and work down in increments
(perhaps. 500, 250, 12S, end 60 if this Is the minimum value goal). Usually. the store-to-store
interference effects are not predictable during ripple releases at low intervals, and a brute force
approach is called for after safe separation his been established for single releases.
Lastly, assume that predictions show such superior separation characteristics that the
separation engineer does not believe that even a single mission Is required. In other words, the store
can be certified wit) almost complete confidence from a safety of flight standpoint. (he authors would
caution that for demonstration purposes, at least one mission should always be performed. This mission
is usually a small price to pay to corroborate those glowing predictions and to ensure that. once the
store is certified and in operational use, there will be no surprises. This is not to say that If many
configurations are required to be certified, every configuration needs to be testedL This is not the
case. But at least the worst case configuration should be tested to show that the store was safely
carried and released (with all associated fuzing, arming wires and/or other item required). This last
point about testing with associated fuzes, arming wires and lanyards installed cannot be over
emphasized. This is almost never done unless the testing organization is a military one - and even then
it is not always done. During comat, the USAF encountered innumerable Instances where fuzes did not
work, arming wires did not withdraw properly or became entangled with ejector pistons and swaybraces on
the ejector unit, or other unexpected events occurred during store separation. 'Close examination of the
circumstances unearthed the fact that, in almost every case, the store was cleared for operational use
by a test which did not include actually installing fuzes and hooking up arming wires and lanyards.
Since the late 126041, the USAF has made it a policy to always test stores for certification with inert
fuzes and/or arming wires installed, and the problems previously experienced in combat have not rectirred.
6.0 FLIGHT TEST PREPARATION$
6.1 Purpose of Comparina Flight Test Results With Analyses
The prediction of store separation trajectories, whether from theoretical or epirical
methods, is not os exact science. At best, it is an art, heavily dependent on experience. If store
separation prediction methods were exact, then there would be no need for flight testing. However,
sic such flight
that tslm
flight tasts
testing is neesry
should be kept toandaminima
uivverisally
W
with ...fligh40dsafety
is expensive
em thu and evarridii
dan•gevs, facter.
it follows
in
general, ist"r separation 11Wk testing should be paorti to vellt thb mulIte of pre-f I Ight. ,
preditton analysies, to eqlanmt the analyses in areas wehre predictive methods are not particularly
useful, (Nach as ripple relese of stores frm several stoatlt), and to doument the results of the store
separa tioes. q

Many hundreds of store separation trajectories may be generated by predictive methods for
less then the cost of on flight test mitssi If the results from a flight test separation of a store
were knom accurately ad in datoll, these flight test data could be used to validate the prediction
methd. Whisle the validation of the prediction at onel on or two sets of flight conditions will not
validate the entire store separation envelope, It does give the store separation engineer (and managers)
conf idnmc that the entire prediction method Is correct, mad It al low feaw actual flight test data
points to be seleted. Even If flight test results do not match predictions, the engineer can generally
mathematically omaipulteo the date base. forcing the prediction to match the actual test results. This
allows additional predictions to be made, using each flight test result to update the prediction data
base. Subsequent predictions wll lways be of higher confidenee, again aI lowing a cutting back of
fl ht testi ng. It should be stressed, however, that the flight tests so eliminated wvil alwIys be
"build-up* points. The outer corners of the l lowable store seoparation envelope should usually be
dmonstrated in flight tests. These are likely to be the mast dangerous spots in the envelope and these
points should not be cleared for everyday use by operational pilots without first having the points
demonStrated by test pilots using instrumented aircraft. In fact, the envelope 4 -nstrated by store
separation flight testing should be slightly larger then that cleared for operational use to a low for
slight off-condition drops experienced in everyday operational flying. This may not always be possible;
however, if flight tests have bee used to validate store separation predictions throughout the
allowable envelope, the predictions can then be used to investigate just how sensitive the outer
boundaries of the allowable separation envelope really are. If for exile, predictions show that a
store may be separated safely at speeds up to 600 KCAS,then the store should be cleared to a lesser
speed, say 575 KCAS, as a margin of safety. The margin of safety depends upon the aircraft and the
release maneuver. The margin of safety can be very smal• If the store Is to be released in level
flight. On the other hand, the margin of safety might need to be considerable if the store is to be
released in a sixty degree dive. In a similar vein, stores should not be cleared for separation at the
edge of the carriage envelope. For example. if the carriage envelope were 600 KCAS, one should not
clear stores release to 600 KCAS in a sixty degree dive. If many stores are being carried and released
together in a ripple mode, the first store eight be released at 600 KCAS but in all likelihood
subsequent stores would be released at higher speeds due to the fact that the aircraft's speed would
likely increase during the steep dive as more and more stores were released. For example. in general,
the carriage envelope of the A-70 with external stores is 600 KCAS. Since stores are routinely released
in dive angles up to sixty degrees, the store separation envelope Is limited to 550 KCAS as a margin of
safety to prevent overshoot of the carriage envelope. Similarly, the carriage envelope for the A-10A
with external stores is generally 450 KCAS and the store separation envelope is limited to 420 KCAS. If
stores are to be released in level flight, there is little need for a margin of safety since the
aircraft's speed would not abruptly change as stores are released.
As store separation prediction methods become mare sophisticated more accurate and most
Importantly, more reliable, even less flight testing may be required for validation. It Is highly
doubtful, however, If it will ever be a good policy to eliminate all flight testing, no matter what the
state of the art becomes in store separation prediction.
6.2 Analysis Requirements
The foregoing discussion on reducing flight testing by cowearing flight test data to
predictions assumes that accurate and detailed flight test data can be obtained. In order to be useful
In coeoaring actual data to predictions, the flight test data should include the following as a minimum:
Ster Iss Proerties: Store weight, center of gravity and moments of inertia. These should
be accurately rated prior to Flight testing for each store released.
"Aircraft Fli ht Conditions at Store Release: Altitude, airspeed. Mach number, attitude
(dive, pitch, yaw and rol angle), vertical and lateral accelerations, and time correlation with the
stores released.
Detailed Store Separation Trajectory Data: Store roll, pitch and yaw angles and vertical,
lateral, and longitudinal displacements with respect to the store's initial captive carriage position as
a function of time.
Many of those involved in flight testing make the erroneous assumption that only detailed
store separation data are necessary. This is not true. The aircraft flight conditions at release and
the stores actual mass properties are equally important. Some years ago, a l4'ge US aircraft coepany was
conductina store separation flight tests from one of its now aircraft. The stores to be released were
ordinary Vnert 600 pound bombs. To simlate the actual stores, the bomb cases were filled with wet sand
to the proper weight ad center of gravity and then scaled. Unfortunately, by flight test time (several
days afterward), the water in the send had evaporated due to heating by the sun leaving the bomb cases
now only partially filled with dry shifting sand. Onrelease at 550 KCAS, same of the stores actually
flaw over the top of the aircraft's vertical taill Some stores hit the aircraft's horizontal tail
causing substantial daage. Engineers could not understand how their store separation predictions
could have been so erroneous until some of the remaining stores were examined (by chance) and found to
be forty percent too light and have an unspecified center of gravity due to the shifting sand fill. As
a matter of routine, the USAF always fills inert bombs with concrete, taking care to achieve the proper
weight and center of gravity.
Aircraft flight conditions at release are equally important if the store separation is to be

I - ...
... ,
 -I

coped0 with predictions. if the release Is to be Oad at a specific altitudes In level uwacelerated
flight, it firly 0eay for the test Pilot to release storts At the reqired Conditions. •evover
is
even if an experienced test pilot Is asked to release stares at exactly WA0 feet, at exactly 660 KIAS,
in exactly a sixty degree dive, It Is very likely that on or ae parameters will be off-coditions.
SVis ena gh practice, the pilot can become proficient at that set of conditions. wever, It Is a very
difficelt task mad a ar" •munt of practice Is not usually practical or available. Alain, In straight
and level unacelerated flight, the pilot my be able to record his actual Conditions accurately. For
texmpalo 800 feet at SU KCAS of at 0000 feet at I0 KCAS,because parmeters are not changing
aidtea
rapidly. Nsemver, if the pilot Is in a sixty dgr dive at a high rate of speed, there is little time
to scn all of the instruments to lecr e"act talease conditions and as mentioned earlier, exact
release conditions mast be known to accurately ceopare actual flight test results with predictions.
For these reasns, in Accurate ground system should be available for pre-flIght twore mass
property detemination, and the aircraft should be Instrumented to enable actual flight conditions at
stores release to be recorded. Appendix C describes the Precision Neasurmet Facility - called the
•814-10 - which was specially constructed to accurately masure store mass properties at E91in AFN.
This description was prepared especially for this report and, hopefully, will be of Interest to readers
who wish detalIls on the actual Operation of the system
Whe it Is absolutely impossible to Install sophisticated Instrmentation, en over-the-
shoulder cockpit camera can be, end has bean, used with a fair degree of success. Unless the camera has
an automatic lens aperture, the results will usually be less than satisfactory. In addition, the
aircraft should be equipped with en onboard Camra system to record store trajectories. The allowable
accuracies of thes systems are very Important If iealistic coq•arisons between actual results and
predictions are to be made. Although there are no hard end fast rules, the authors offer the following
tolerances as being what we would desire:
Store eass
Properties:
Weight + 1%
Center of gravity 0.25 tnch
Moments of inertia T Is
Aircraft Fliht Conditions at Stores Release:
Altitude + 50 feet
Airspeed 5 KCAS
Dive and roll angles T 2 degrees
Acceleration in all axes To0.01 Yg
Yaw angle 1 degree
I
Store Trajectory Data:
Angular measurements in all axes + 2 degrees
Linear measurements in all axes I Inch
Time 0.01 seconds
The above tolerances are not hard and fast values. That is, if data obtained Is slightly
outside of the given values, it Is not thrown out completely. Rather. the tolarances are desired -
those used to design the particular instrumentation system. This Is particularly true in the store
trajectory data area. There have beftn many times where store trajectory data of even the accuracy
specified was not necessary for adequate trajectory analyses. One should strive for the accuracy
necessary to perform the task at hand - and no morel Engineers are used to working with exact figures.
and these figures usually bear no relation to the level of difficulty In obtaining their exactness. For
exaple, the tolerances given above for store mess property measurements are fairly stringent; however,
using almost any modern measurement device, they are relatively easy to obtain. On the other hand, the
detailed store trajectory data tolerances may soe to som to be inordinarily sloppy. But, they are as
tight as is needed to determine safe reliable separation of the store. Requiring more stringent
accuracy may necessitate a costly and sophisticated instrumentation and data reduction system that is
just not needed.
6.3 Casera Requirements
At the very heart of obtaining detailed store separation trajectory data lies the camera.
Selection of the proper film, camera. frem rate. lens, aperture, and cara locations are all
extremly important. The recent advent on the scene of modern digital television caares and their
special needs will be discussed separately later.
File:
Film is a users choice situation. hany organizations performing store separation testing use
black And white film Others use color. In the United States, som organizations, such as the Navy,
frequently use the negative of black and white film for analysis purposes. Detailed analysis of such
events as rming wire withdrawal from fuzes and fuse activation (for fuzes that function by rotating
airdriven vanes) can be seen much clearer on color file then on block and white filL. Color film also
l lows much more detailed store motion analysis because of the different contrasts and shadings
avaiIable. However, there are many instances where black and white film can be used adequately. Choice
of film type should then be dictated prim rdly by the data ned.

There is almost universal agreement that 1m movie cameras should be used. Nanufecturers of
 311
stc camera, however, Psdoece ras ranging in site fre that of a pac of Cigarettes to these which
weighover twenty pounds ad are Wvey 1a7g eA bulky. tachof these sties has Its use and the c•hole
Is usually dictated by the cmora tnstal atien location. The am Is true of lenses. Tee camwa
locatIon n the aircraft relative to the store being phet or ad I 1I likely dictate the Choice of the
lent and its tecal lengh. If possible. due to space and location requiremen t., the cinwe lens should
have a automatic aperture capability It Is almost Impeosible to predict. a the groVd what light
conditions will be best at the time of stores release. Iven a one O stop error can cause the fi I.to
be totall) moveble for data reduction. Automatic light cosponsatiol lenses era new available that are
Mch seal ler then these used In the past and can be instal led in may locations which heretofore have
beo Impessible. Mematter which brand or sin of cars and lens is selected. It Is extrmely
impertoot to real In that there we many large end omal errors that mest be cpensated for ff the fi I
is to be aalynte. Almost everyone
• in the flight test profession rcet nls that a particulnr camera
bedy and lens combination must be calibrated. If one changes lenses, the installation mast be
eelibrated. Again, moat people know that am Iense%distort the Image en the film and that this
distortien camalso be calibrated. However there are other very Iportant sources of errors in cameras
that wit be amcouted for If quality data Is to be abtained from the film. One of these errors is the
pessible offset between the physical and optical cators that has bee manufactured into each separate
camera. A complete discussion of all of these errors and hw to osate for then may be found in
Reference (59). Another Pod discussion Is contained In Reference GO).
Frm Rate:
There re may frame rates from which to chOos. However, 2M0 frams per second is
recomended as the optima for store separation analyses. A typical store will travel from Its captive
carriesp position to the bottom of the camera's view in 0.2 to 0.4 seconds (daepnding on the camra to
stare distance nd le). At 0 frames per second, this will produce 40 to 0 frtres of usable data.
Snte most lenses have somt distortion at their outer perimeter, the last few frames ma be
questionabla. If the store Is a heavy, high-density stable store, mst frames will be more thin
adequate for analysis. If the store is light and relotively unstable and moves rapidly. most frams may
only be barely adequate. Camera speeds below 200 frames per second are generally unsuitable for
producing data analysis quality fllm, but may be used for docuentary or quick look purposes. Frame
rates above 200 framis per second are generally unnecessary in term of store motion requirements, and
are very expensive in term of file use. This is of particular ioportance if the camera his a fixed
file capacity. In effect, film may be inadequate for many passes on the sam mission and this may
necessitate additional missions. It is mandatory for cameras to b energizd before the store separates
so that the camera will be up to Its operating speed and r'nning smoothly when the release occurs. In
the United States, the USAF has developed an instrumentation package which, when the store release
button is depressed, sends the electrical firing signal first to the cameras and then, after about 0.5
seconds (this is adjustable), to the store ejector rack. The 0.5 seconds delay has proven adequate to
allow camera speed-up but is not long enough to affect the pilot's action after the release button is
depressed.
Camera Positionina:
Store separation trajectories can be recorded uith cameras mounted external ly on the parent
aircraft, with a caera handhold on a chase aircraft, or with ground mounted cameras. Use of cameras
mounted on the parent aircraft is by far the dominant method used. Ground based cameras are primarily
used for store bal listic purposes. Chase aircraft cmeras are used primarily as a back-up to the parent
aircraft cameras, for special purposes such as to record missile-aircraft exhaust plume
characteristics, or to reword *ripple" stores release. In general. chase photography is used to record
events normally out of the field of view of the onboard cameras.
The position of the aircraft mounted cameras is usually dictated by the geometry of the
aircraft store Installotion. Ideally, cameras should be mounted directly to the side, front, and rear
of the stons, however, this is frequently not possible for a variety of reasons. For exaple, adjacent
pylons and stores may interfere with the mounting of cameras. Specifically, if stores are released from
an inboard wing pylon, a camera mounted on the wing tip may not be able to view the store due to stores
mounted on interm•diate pylons which block the view. Also, the swept wing geometry of most modern jet
aircraft prevents ideal positioning of cameras. The need to avoid mounting cameras in positions which
would disturb the normal aircraft floufield further limits the choice for mounting locations. Whatever
their position, the cameras themselves should not alter or influence the store separation trajectory.
It cannot be over emphasized that cameras mast not disturb the aircraft flowfield. To the casual
observer, it might not sem that wing mounted cameras can affect stores separated from adjacent wing
pylons, but they can. Recent USAF flight testing has shown conclusively that the presence of wing tip
cameras affects store separation in certain flight regimes. The only recourse in this event is to
remove the cameras at the sacrifice of photo coverage rather thin to degrade accuracy.

There is no optimum number of aircraft mounted cameras or locations. Some testing

organizations use three or four locations. Others, up to two dozeni Figure 29 shows the camera
location selected by NcDonnell 0ouglas Corp for use on the F-15. This multiple, redundant, location
selection is typical of most aircraft contractor flight test departments. It should be stressed that
not all positions are used simultaneously. The aircraft is wired and mechanically modifled to allow
cameras to be placed at any or a ll of those locations on any given mission. Normally, however, no more
than eight cameras are activatoe Figure 30 shows a close-up of the outboard F-15 wing mounted comera
pylon This is a special pylon built just to carry cameras and is used only for this purpose. Note
that one cersa is attached to the pylon In the photo. Two additional cmeras could be mounted to this
yMon at different orientations if neede Figure 31 shows a rear fuselage camera mounted on the F-15.
Is camera is set to study fin opening of the NK-2O Itockeye. This store is not stable until the fins
are OPeR, and they do not open until an arming lanyard Is pulled on separation. rhis condition has led
this store to be an extremely critical item in separating from any aircraft. This is why an extra camera
is specifically focused to record this critical event, Figure 32 shows another camera mounted on the F-
515which Is ale sat to record the fin opening event on the NK-20. Note that the cmra and its wiring

-
32

are exposed to the airstream although the camera itself is sealed. Such external mountings have been
used routinely by the USAF for years at speeds up to 700 KCAS.

Figure 33 shows a double camera mounting on the nose of an A-lO aircraft looking down and
aft. This is an excellent view showing details of the fully exposed mounting. Note the azimuth plate
for accurate positioning. Figure 34 shows a good example of an externally mounted wing camera on the A-
10. Here, unlike the F-15 wing cameras which were mounted on their own pylon, the camera is partially
embedded in the wing. The A-l0 does not have an excess of engine power and camera drag degrades
aircraft speed performance; hence, the semi-submerged mount. This figure also depicts the problem of
releasing stores from several adjacent pylons. If, for example, the store closest to the camera in the
figure was not dropped, stores on the other, more inboatd pylons, could not be photographed easily since
part of each store is obstructed by those more outboard.

Figure 35 is a good example of a camera which, because of its position, must be enclosed in a
shroud. The figure shows a camera mounted on the fuselage of an F-16 just aft and outboard of the
engine inlet. It looks outward and downward only and cannot be adjusted, but it provides a good view of
the inboard wing pylon. Figure 36 shows a unique and imaginative method of camera mounting. One has to
look close to even see iti The F-16 wing is very thin, flexible, and has a short span. Mountihg of a
camera on the outboard portion of the wing (or on a pylon) proved to be unfeasible. Then, it was
realized that AIM-9 missiles are carried on practically every mission. Even though the AIM-9 is only
five inches in diameter, a small 16mm camera was found and mounted looking forward inside a dummy AIM-9
(real AIM-9 shell but with the missile components removed). A 45 degree mirror was then placed In front
of the camera lens, allowing It to look out at 90 degrees directly toward the pylon with an unobstructed
view. Only a small round hole is visible on the missile's surface. The entire dummy missile was
carefully bal lasted so that it simulated an actual AIM-9. As a result, the dummy missile had no impact
on the aircraft's captive carriage envelope. Such installations have been used by tie USAF before but
never in such a small size. This installation was designed by General Dynamics Corporation and has been
used during the entire F-16 flight test.

Figure 37 shows the wing and aft camera mounts on the A-7D. Note the rather unusual, and
seemingly flimsy, mount for the wing camera. In actuality this mount Is strong enough to al low
carriage to aircraft limits. There is one obvious disadvantage with this mount and that is its high
drag. Flight tests have confirmed that the wing cameras/mounts reduce the aircraft's top speed by about
50 knots. Incidentally, the wing camera is a Photosonic with a 400 foot film magazine and the fuselage
camera is a Millikan with a 200 foot film magazine.

Although the figures presented do not cover all possible types of camera mountings, they do
illustrate the most commonly used types, and even a show a few mountings that are unique. Obviously, if
one is going to photograph a store being separated from an aircraft and then run that film through some
sort of data processing scheme to produce six degree of freedom digital trajectory data, it would be
very desireable if one view could look directly at the store to be separated at 90 degrees from the
store's longitudinal axis. Most of the action occurs in the longitudinal-vertical plane and this view
is best for that. The more this view departs from 90 degrees, the more likely it wi 1 be that errors
are introduced into some parameters while others could be improved. For example, even though a good
perpendicular view of the longitudinal-vertical plane is desirable, this view does not give a very good
resolution of what the store is doing in the lateral plane (towards or away from the camera). For this
resolution, a view looking at the store from a 45 degree angle is better. In the USAF it is common
practice to film most store separations from one or two aircraft mounted cameras, plus one chase
aircraft. In most aircraft companies at least six cameras are generally used to photograph each release
from various angles. Despite the number of camera views, only one or two sets of film are reduced to
produce actual six degree of freedom digital store trajectory data.

Before closing this section, several points on the selection of camera mounting installations
should be reiterated. First, so long as the aircraft has adequate power and so long as the camera
installation does not adversely impact the aircraft carriage envelope, external mounting is much
preferred since this is a simplier installation and easier to maintain. If either of these conditions
are not met, then internal mounting (like the F-16/AIM-9) or semi-submerged mounting (like the A-
10/wing) should be used. The point is that addition of external cameras must be planned and engineered
onto the aircraft and not just added as an after thought when it is too late to develop an alternative
installation without delaying the flight test program.

6.4 Video Cameras

All of the discussion heretofore has concerned ordinary 16mm movie cameras using film.
However, within the past several years, a new phenonomen has begun to occur. Video, or television,
cameras have long been dreamed of to replace the 16mm flim cameras. But, because of the very nature of
a television camera using a vidicon tube and producing a television signal, the number of complete
television pictures produced per second has been limited to a maximum of 50 to 60 (depending on whether
a 50 or 60 Hertz television standard was used). This is too low for adequate analysis of store
separation trajectories. Now beginning to appear on the scene are various versions of digital video
cameras which do not produce television images through a vidicon tube, and arc not limited to the 50 to
60 fields per second (this term, common to television, can be equated for our purposes to a movie
camera's speed in frmes per second).

The United Kingdom at Boscombe Down, has pioneered the use of one such video camera - a
Charge Coupled Device (CCD) camera made by the English Electric Valve Company Limited (model P4320),

Simultaneously, the United States Navy at Patuxent River, Maryland, has been evaluating a video camera
made in Japan and marketed by the Instrumentation Marketing Corporation of California. the CCDcamera
developed in the United Kingdom will produce a complete field (or frame) in 1/1000 of a second, so it
will stop almost any action with a very clear view. However, only 60 of so of these 1/1000 or a second
"snapshots' may be produced in a second. It is a very small and compact camera which uses solid state
 S33 .

circuitry throughout to produce black and white video images. Egllin Air Force Base has just purchased
one of these cameras and has begin evaluation of store separation using the camera. Although we do not
believe this particular CCD camera will be able to completely replace 16= movie cameras, we do believe
it will allow us to write a specification for what we want In a video camera. The Navy evaluation of
the Japanese camera has produced good results. When the Japanese video camera is tied to a specially
modified video cassette recorder, true camera speeds of up to 200 frames per second can be televised.
recorded, ind played back at that speed. The Air Force plans to explore this equipment within the next
year. Neither camera under test has an automatic exposure setting lens.
Figure 38 shows the English Electric Valve company Video camera. This camera is only 19gmm
long, including lens, and is 66m square. It only weighs 868 gram, including the lens. Figure 39
shows the Japanese camera referred to earlier. It is 224m long, 90mm wide, and 114mm high, including
lens. It weighs only 2043 gram.

Video systems promise to revolutionalize flight test documentation. At a bisy flight test
facility such as Eglin Air Force Base, it has been conservatively estimated that video ýystems will save
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year over movie film systems. This savings occurs in not having
to buy and process enormous quantities of movie film in order to get small strips of usable data and
also in the avoidance of flying many missions. With a video camera, telemetry system, and video
recorder, engineers may view the store separation trajectory immediately and repeatedly. Then, engineers
may contact the pilot and tell him that the separation looked good (as predicted) and authorize him to
proceed to the next test point. Thus, many releases can be performed on the same mission which will
reduce the total number of missions required for each program. Such a process is not possible today
using film cameras, and it Is in the area of mission avoidance that the video system really has
potential for cost savings. Test reports of the United Kingdom camera prepared for the Royal Air Force
by Boscombe Down are contained in References (61) and (62).

6.5 Data Reduction Techniques for Cameras

6.5.1 Techniques Available

If cameras, whether video or film, are used to obtain slow motion views of the store during
separation from the aircraft, then this optical data must be reduced to angular positions and
displacements versus time for comparison to predictions. Basic to this solution is the knowledge of the
camera's position in relation to the store being released. If the camera's distance and angular
position relative to the store areaccurately determined, and a known point or distance on the aircraft
appears in every frame of the camera's view, then a mathematical solution may be obtained for successive
positions of the store during separation. This mathematical solution lies at the heart of every data
reduction technique now available. How this solution is obtained varies considerably from technique to
technique. The earliest solution used for store separation data reduction involved a purely
mathematical triangulation process. Although the actual program developed by different agencies or
nations varied in name, they could all be described by the term "photogrammetry" - or a photogrammetric
solution of the time-space-position probleo. Photogrammetric techniques require complex accurate
painting patterns on both the store and portions or the aircraft, as well as manipulation of the data
obtained in complex equations. Later improvements of these photogrammetric techniques lessened or
eliminated some of the painting patterns, and simplified somewhat, the data manipulations.
In the late 1970's, the United States Navy developed a photo-imaging technique called the
Photo Data Analysis System (PDAS). This provided a major improvement over photogrammetric techniques in
that no special paint pattern of either the store or the aircraft was required. PDAS did, however,
require the purchasing of some unique data reduction hardware and the training of personnel to operate
the equipment. After the one-time purchase of equipment, PDAS provided a significant reduction in the
time and cost for data reduction. It also provided an improvement in data accuracy. POAS has since
been widely used oy both the Navy, Air Force and several US aircraft companies. Because of its inherent
advantages in low cost and quick data turn-around, a group was formed in the US to seek improvements to
the PDAS. In the mid 70's, efforts resulted in a second generation photo-imaging technique called
Graphic Attitude Determining System (GADS). It too required the purchase of a unique machine for data
reduction and the training of operators, and has been in use at Eglin AFB for several years.

Another type of data reduction technique al lows the viewing cameras to be located on a
photochase aircraft instead of on the releasing aircraft. This technique, called CHASE by its
developers at MacDonnel1 Douglas Aircraft Company is highly complex, requires an inordinate amount of
pre-flight calibration efforts and many baseline camera runs. But, CHASE does completely free the
release aircraft from camera carriage, and the actual reduction of data is relatively straight forward.
Because of Its complexity, It would be of use only to large, well funded flight test organizations. It
offers an excellent quality alternative to the more conventional data reduction techniques. In the
following paragraphs, each of these data reduction techniques will be discussed in more detail.

6.5.2 Photogrammetric Techniques

By far the most commonly used technique for the reduction of movie camera film Is the
photogrammetric method. It is used by virtually every government agency and industry within NATO.
Although the detailed description of each nation's, or each company's, use of the photogrametric
technique varies, the basic method remains the same. In this method, both the store being released and
the aircraft pylon are painted with a background color and a contrasting color pattern of dots whose
positions are accurately known with respect to some specific point. Figure 40 shows a typical paint
pattern. Size and color of the dots are not fixed; they are optimized for accuracy and ease of film
reading. However, a minimum number of dots must be visible at all times in the film. Onboard camera
lenses are selected so that both the store being released and part of the aircraft's adjacent
structure (such as the pylon) are visible on the film. After the release, each frame of the onboard
gathered
geometric movie film is constants,
processed through
and physical such as alocation
film reader manually.
of the referenceThese
dots data, along with
with respect to aa series
specificof

*1
34

position, camera location and lens focal length, are input to a computer. The computer is programued to
solve the equations of motion and defines the store trajectory, printing out angular and inear motions
as a function of time. Although a two-camera solution is preferable, a one-camera solutlun can be used
most of the time and will provide accuracies of about + 2 inches for displacements and + 2 degrees for
angular motions. The photogrammetric computer prograCrequires starting estimates of tFe store and a
camera orientation with respect to the aircraft. A final iterated solution is then obtained which
achieves convergence for even poor starting values. After the first frame, the program employs previous
frame results as the estimate for the suceeding frame. Because of this, wing flexure and vibration are
automatically eliminated. The computer is programmed to print out the trajectories in both tabular and
plotted format, so that a direct comparison may be made between predicted and in flight trajectories.
Variations of the basic method, which are widespread, include the use of a geometric paint
pattern on the store Instead of rows of dots (Figure 41), the elimination of painted dots or references
on the release aircraft, and the automatic reading of the film by machine. A good basic description of
the photogrammetric data reduction process may be found in Reference (63). Utilizing the improvements
mentioned earlier, several agencies have been quite successful in the employment of the phocogrammetric
technique. Any reader desiring to learn more about the employment of this technique should consult the
NLRreport at Reference (60). It is a basic handbook for the user of the technique and is an excellent
source document. Another excellent source document for the reader who wishes to delve deeply into the
actual mathematical representations of the equations of motion is the NLR report at Reference (64). A
typical set of film strips obtained by NLR for data reduction is shown in Figure 42. Figure 42 also
shows the value of having an automatic exposure camera lens. Note the difficulty in reading the right-
hand strip versus the left one - all obtained under similar conditions. Had an automatic lens been
available, the quality of the images would have been more uniform and data reduction greatly
facilitated. Reference (65) contains a description of an automated film reader which asserts that it is
ten times faster and seven times more accurate than manual film reading. It Is a computer controlled
system specifically designed for the analysis of pictoral data. This system reduces the data reduction
time, a major drawback of the basic photogrammetric process.

An interesting report on the inherent accuracy of a single-camera photogrammetric solution to

the store separation problem is given in Reference (66). In this report, an actual store (an empty
rocket pod) was set up in a hangar on very accurate mountings and then, using a surveyor's transit, was
moved through a known set of displacements and angles, being photographed at every step using a 35mm
camera. The resulting 35mm slides were then used as the frames of a movie would be and run through the
photogrammetric computer solution of the equations of motion. Over 900 photos were taken and processed,
and both the accuracy of the photograimetric method and optimum camera angles for obtaining best
solutions were established.
6.5.3 Photo Imaging Techniques

POAS
The first major alternative to photogrammetric data reduction techniques was developed by the
US Navy in the 1960's and, as mentioned earlier, is called PDAS. It offered the major advantages of not
requiring any painting of the store or aircraft, reduced data reduction time, and enhanced accuracy.
The USAF also adopted this method in the early 1970's in support of the A-l0 and F-15 store separation
flight test programs. On the one program, the A-lO, because of the large number of aircraft pylons
(eleven) carrying stores, many hundreds of stores would have had to be painted with a highly accurate
paint pattern if the usual photogrammetric technique had been used. Because of the accuracy of painting
required, the lack of adequate painting facilities, and the large number of stores involved, just
painting the stores would have taken months. By adopting the PDAS technique, flight tests were
simplified and a large cost and time factor was eliminated.
PDAS utilizes an image matching technique to obtain spatial position and orientation of
photographed objects with respect to recording cameras (Figure 43). It consists of projecting
each frame of the onboard flight gathered data film through an optical system into a high resolution
video camera and displaying the resulting image on a television monitor located on an operator's
console. Another high resolution video camera is positioned near the console to view an exact scale
model of the store. The store model is mounted on a remotely control led six-degree-of-freedom model
positioner mechanism. The video signal from this second television camera is fed through a video mixer
and the resulting image is simultaneously displayed on the same television monitor as that from the data
film. The operator can adjust the position and orientation of the store model through the use of a
set of levers on the console. The store model is adjusted by the operator until the image of the store
on the positioner is exactly superimposed on the image of the store from the data film (a process
similar to using a camera range finder). Once the two images are exactly aligned and superimposed, the
operator presses a button which transfers the encoded frame count and position data to a
computer data card. Each frame of the film is similarly reduced, until a card deck is generated. This
deck is input to a computer program - just as in the photogrammetry process - to solve the spatial
relationships. The output from the photo-imaging technique is a set of tabu.ar data and selected plots
which accurately define the store separation trajectory to compare directly with predictions. This
technique produces extremely accurate data Lj 0.1 foot for displacement and + 1.0 degree for angles).
Because PDAS does not require painting of the stores, the overall cost of dara reduction is less than
one-half the cost of data reduction using photogrammetry.

At the time the USAF decided to adopt the PDAS technique, only two system existed - one at
the Navy Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California, and the other at the Naval Weapon Center,
China Lake, California. The system at Point Mugu was chosen for the A-l and F-15 programs. The PDAS
lived up to every expectation. During the course of the A-l0 and F-15 programs, im;,ovements in output
data format were made. Specifically, pictorial computer-generated trajectories were created. A sample
of the PDAS graphical trajectory output Is shown on Figure 44. Data reduction time was Indeed
shortened, and the data quality for several hundred store releases over a two year time span was
excellent. As the PDAS became used in quantity, even the cost per run of reduced store separation data

____
 35

was lowered to a value significantly lower than that of a corparable photogrammetric trajectory. A
complete detailed description of the Point Mugu PDA$ can be found in Reference (67).

GADS:

rc eAlthough the USAF and US Navy were well satisfied with the results from POAS, both services
recognized that considerable improvements could be made - particularly with the availability of
V powerful. mini-computers. As a result, a working roup was fuomed to incorporate all these desired
improvements into a specification, and this specification was then offered to Industry (in 1978). The
GADS, which emanated from this specification, was purchased and installed at Eglin AFB, Florida where
* it has been used for store separation data reduction activities in hundreds of tests. It has proven to
be a major improvement to the PDAS technique. Unlike the PDAS which requires an exact scale model of
each store to be placed on a manually operated positioning system, the GADSuses a self-control com-
puter to generate a video image of the outline of the store, thereby eliminating both the mechanical
positioning system of POAS and the manufacture and storage of the exact scale models of the stores. The
GADS also incorporates a much improved joy-stick-operated store image manipulation system. thereby
making the operator's task easier and quicker. A photograph of the GADS equipment at Eglin is shown in
Figure 45. During preparation of this report, the authors discovered that there had been no paper pub-
lished which described in detail the operation of the GADS. Accordingly, a heretofore unpublished
report of the GADS prepared for in-house use is included as Appendix 0 along with a sample of the data
output taken for a MK-82 general purpose bomb released from an F-15 at 560 KCAS in a 62 degree dive.
Photo-chase Techniques

The above techniques all require cameras to be mounted on the aircraft releasing the stores.
They also all depend for their accuracy In the exact knowledge of the geometrical relationship (angles
and distances between the cameras and the store and the reference points. It was, therefore, quite a
revelation when, in 1975, the McDonnell Douglas Company announced the development of a technique that
positioned the cameras not on the release aircraft, but on the photochase aircraftl Since the exact
distance between the photochase ai,craft and the release aircraft could never be ascertained, the
general testing community looked upon this new technique with great skepticism. However, the system,
appropriately termed 'CHASE", was proven during F-15 flight testing. A complete description of the
technique can be found in Reference (59). The technique proved to be very successful, primarily through
the results of some innovative mathematics, elimination of all assumptions, and very precise optical
calibrations. However, it also proved to be a highly complex and demanding system to operate. It is
still used upon occasion, but is not known to have been taken up by other testing organizations.

6.5.4 Consideration for Selection the Right Technique

There is one factor which must be stressed here. All of the methods described provided
accurate and useful quantitative data, both in tabular and plotted format. We have run comparisons of
the methods by processing the same film strip fram a particular store release and ccmparing the output
plots. Ho useful purpose could be served by presenting the comparison in this report as the super-
imposed data results in essentially the same line. This brings us to an important conclusion. We
have examined several methods of reducing flight test data, the kinds described abovi, and others
developed by various airframe manufacturers. All of them are inherently accurate enough to provide
good, usable data. The degree of mathematical accuracy attained is not as important as hc.a many of the
error-causing factors are accounted for by the method, and whether the factors are compensated for or
corrected. Data reduction accuracies of + 2 or 3 Inches and degrees can be absolutely adequate if the
error-causing factors are corrected for. Of all the error-causing factors, the ones which seem to be
* the most important (and most difficult to correct) involve those connected with the camera optics.
Errors caused by lens/camera alignment, calibration, internal manufacturing aberrations and uncertain
optical centers are among the most important. Although great care must be exercised in developing a
data reduction method which properly accounts for as many of the error-causing factors as is possible,
equal care must be used in insuring that the method does not Introduce other, larger errors through the
human factor. A method which requires an inordinate amount of human input and manipulation of data
prior to and during computer reduction is extremely prone to errors, particularly it no built-in-test
features are incorporated.

From this discussion, one can see that there Is no "right" or "wrong" technique. The right
technique Is the one that best fits the users requirements. The photogrammetric method requires no
initial one-time outlay of funds for expensive data reduction equipment, but does require more time
(both computer run time and workhours). It could be the "right" selection if store separation tests are
not performed in large numbers. If the testing organization is a major activity, constantly producing
large numbers of tests and data, then the purchase of the data reduction machine can be amortized over
Sthe large number of tests. In such a case, even with the cost of equipment, photo-imaging can provide
data much quicker and at lower cost.
A word about video data processing. All the discussion above has assumed that the store
separation data was acquired by 16m. movie film cameras. If, however, 4igital television cameras
replace movie film cameras as the onboard data gatherer, then the reduction of this data offers even
more alternatives. First, since the data is already in video format, a step in the GADS could be
skipped (conversion from photoqraph tn video) at a considerable cost savings and simplification. Also,
the reading of the video data, since it was initially gathered in digital format - could be processed
electronically. Ard, since this video Image is now being superimposed by the GADSon another computer- T
generated video image of the store, all this could conceivably be processed by computer with no manual
manipulation. This would indeed be an order of magnitude increase in the state of the art, and is not
out of the realm of the foreseeable future. For the present, the U.Ited Kingdom at Boscombe Down is
the only agency tto the authors' knowledge) processing video data, and their description of this may be
F found In References (61), (62) and (68).
36

7.0 COMPARING ACTUAL TEST RESULTS WITH PREDICTIONS

This section describes the basic approach used to compare actual flight test results with
predictions during store separation testing and how subsequent flight test points are adjusted based on
this comparison. Also discussed isanapproach for performing "brute force" testing where one does not
have any predictions per sa (no analyses) - flight testing isplanned and conducted based on expected
store separation characteristics. Clearly, brute force testing must only be performed by experienced
personnel to minimize potential safety of flight hazards. Inbrute force testing, the experience and
judgment which corn with experience are essential Ingredients toa successful program.
7.1 Iterating Between Flight Test and Analyses
There are generally two levels of comparison. Inthe first level, flight test six degree of
freedom digital trajectory data (obtained from GADS or another data reduction system) are compared with
digital predictions at each test point. Ifactual results (based on judgment) do not closely match
predictions, subsequent test points may be adjusted from the original test plan. Between each test
point, the predicted collision boundary isrecomputed and adjusted to reflect actual test results to
that point. Figure 46 shows the general process by which this isaccomplished. Note that at the first
test point actual test results exactly match predictions. Accordingly, the next test point would be
performed asoriginally planned. At the second test point the store pitched nose-down slightly
(judgment) more than predicted. Inthis case, test point three would also beperformed asplanned.
However, inaddition, the predicted collision boundary would berecomputed byfairing (extrapolation) of
actual test results using predicted trends asa guide. Obviously, this requires engineering judgment.
This process is performed between each test point and, as a result, the confidence as to the accuracy of
the final collision boundary will ultimately approach 100%. Incidentally, before proceeding any
further, the reader isreminded that the above process isalso performed for store yawing and rollIIng
motions. The process for these motions isidentical to the pitching motion and is,therefore, not
presented herein. For illustrative purposes, store pitching motion seems to be the easiest to describe,
and this iswhy itwas chosen. To continue, assume that results for test point three isasshown in
Figure 4L. Upon recomputing the collision boundary, itcan be seen that the fourth point isoutside the
boundary. At this point, one of two things should be done: the test point should be adjusted tobe
Inside the boundary, or ifthe fourth point isjust inside the bou ndary, one might not conduct the test
point. For example, assume tnat the last test point was at 480 knots and the recomrputed collIision
boundary taking results up to this speed into account is500 knots. Inall likelihood, another test
point at 500 knots should not be performed right atthe predicted collision boundary. Data could be
extrapolated one more time and, assuming the recomputed boundary did not change (or changed very
slightly) the maximuim safe store separation would have been established speed without actually testing
the final end point. But, Iftesting isperformed very close tothe end point, the end point might
actually be tested Ifithappens to coincide with the collision boundary.
Now assume that the results at the second test point are asshown in Figure 47. Inthis
case, the store pitched nose-down significantly more at test point two than predicted (judgment). At
this point flight testing should either be stopped until additional analyses are performad, or the next
test point adjusted to a much lower speed. Itwould be foolhardy to perform the next test point as
planned because little confidence would exist as to the extrapolated trend. In most cases, the next
test point should be adjusted to a lower speed and testing continued rather than to delay the test
program. As stated earlier, practically all USAF programs must be completed inthe shortest time
possible (time isof the essence). For these USAF programs ithas been proven that additional test
points can be flown more quickly than the time ittakes toperform additional analyses. Therefore, the
test program isnormally continued utilizing more test points. The rigorous engineering approach would,
of course, be to perform additional analyses 'Anchoring" subsequent predictions on actual results to
date. This Isonly done when one believes one cannot safely proceed to the next, closely spaced, test
point safely. Such a case might be during the test of a lightweight or unstable store which has a known
nose-up pitching motion trend. Here an error inselecting the next test point might cause the store to
"fly' up and hit the aircraft. Ina conservative test environment one would be ill-advised to take a
chance a'going to the next test point inthe interest of expediency. Accordingly, testing should be
stopped, additional analyses Performed, And then the analyses used asa basis for selecting the next
test point. The next test point might be the same point that one would have selected (asmall increase
in speed) without the benefit of analyses. However, the Important difference now is that ifone
proceeds to the next test point and has a problem, everything possible would have been done from an
engineering standpoint and judgment would have been eliminated ina critical test area. In short, there
would be an audit trail to the next test point. To reiterate, the occasions inwhen such store
separation motions for lightweight or unstable stores occurs isinthe definite minority. Infact, the
authors have not stopped a program to perform additional analyses because predictions did not closely
match actual results for the last several years.
Inthe second level of coimparison, predictions ina graphical format are compared with
actual test results Ina qualitative manner. The engineer compares predictions (normally generated
using a computer graphics program) with the store separation trajectory ?btained directly from the
onboard movie film. Inthis method, the film Isnot reduced using GADS or any other processing system.
Ifinthe engineer's judgment the actual store separation trajectory closely matches predictions, the
Znext test point
rmarkable isperformed. While this method requires an experienced engineer, ithas been used with
success. With proper training, one can general ly do a very good job inestimeting store
angular motions at various estimated linear positions. By eliminating the data reduction step entirely,
testing may be Accelerated by a factor, of two to three from one to two missions a week to at least five
missions a week. The cost savings gained by eliminating the data reduction step isnot a factor;, the
time savings is.
There isan intermediate level of comparison between fullI data reduction of onboard movie
film and no reduction at all that Is worth mentioning. The authors have frequently been In situations
where no data reduction system is available (or one can assume that the GADS or another system being
used has broken down), and yet testing must go on. But at the sam time, store separation motion Is of
concern to the engineer, and some herd data Is needed to compare with predictions. In such a case, the
film is commonly projected frem by frame on an appropriate blank piece of paper. The pylon and store
 37

are sketched in the captive carriage position as references. Then the film is simply advanced a
specific number of frames (a stop action projector in conjunction with time-coded flme is always used)
and by tracing around the projected store image, the store Is sketched In the nrw position. This
process is continued to the extent necessary. When the store is in the captive carriage position it Is
usually very easy to locate Its center of gravity. Assume In this exmple the center of gravity is
between the carriage lugs as shown In Figure 48. The actual diameter of the store is known so the
length of a store diameter sketched through the store center of gravity can be easily scaled and used as
a reference length. In the second store position, assume that the carriage lugs are no longer visible
(the store has rolled). Good Judgment most now be used in locating the store center of gravity. One
could draw in on the sketch a cross section of the store at the center of gravity in proper perspective
to the orientation of the store. Subsequently, the center of gravity could be located as shown. The
length of the line drawn through the center of gravity would now be compared to the actual reference
diameter. The average of the scaled length from the last position (in this case the captive position)
to the next position is used to arrive at the scaled length to make the vertical displacement
calculation. For exmple, assume a true diameter of 18 inches (full scale) which is 1 inch when drawn
on the paper. Then assume that in the separated position shown on the figure, the diameter Is .9 inch.
We would use an average diameter (drawing scale) of .95 inch. Further assuming the distance (drawing
scale) between the store centers of gravity (captive position to separated position) is 0.5 Inches, a
ratio Is applied to arrive at a full scale displacement of 9.47 inches. The process is continued, as
mentioned earlier, as long as is necessary. The figure shows sketches that would be made from a wing
tip camera. If the store separated with substantial yawing motion, store pitch should not be estimated
from this camera position; an aft or forward fuselage mounted camera would be usedL But, again assuming
the Ideal case of store pitch without appreciable store yaw, a protractor is simply used to measure the
angular difference between the store longitudinal axis (one has to establish the store longitudinal axis
by drawing a line as shown on the figure) and its original position . An important point Is that
displacement and angular values are always calculated with respect to the initial captive carriage
position so a cumulative built-in error is not established. While all of the aforementioned discussion
might appear simplistic to the reader, it must be emphasized that this method has been used successfully
on innumerable occasions as an expediency when there is no other way to obtain herd data.
7.2 Brute Force Testing

In the previous section the authors discussed an approach for continuing testing when actual
results do not match predictions. In this section an approach will be discussed for performing testing
when no predictions exist at all. However, first some boundaries must be placed on what is defined as
brute force testing. In the truest sense of the word, brute force testing would be to perform testing
for a previously untested store without any prediction of what might happen. The authors would never
perform such brute force testing since it would violate all of our requirements to maintain high
safety of flight criteria. What is meant when brute force testing is referred to is the structuring and
conduct of testing with a solid foundation based on past experience with similar stores and/or aircraft.
The simplest exmple of "brute force" testing would be a store that is analogous to one that has already
been flight tested and certified in the aircraft flight manual. Assume that the NK-82 low drag general
purpose bomb (LDGP) with conical fins is certified on the A-7 and it is desired to certify the same bomb
with retarded fins. Figure 49 shows a comparison of these bombs. They weigh about the same and are
approximately the same length. A review of the free-stream aerodynamic characteristics of the two bombs
would show that the MK-82 with the retarder fin (Snakeye) closed is slightly less stable than the WK-82
LDGP. Because of the relatively minor aerodynamic, physical, and geometric differences, the two bombs
are considered analogous. Accordingly, without the benefit of hard predictions, but with the knowledge
of the demonstrated separation characteristics of the W(-82 LOP bomb, a brute force flight test would
be performed for the WN-82 Snakeye.
The way time and money may be saved using the brute force method can best be Illustrated with
a faw examples. During the initial test program of the NK-82 bomb on the A-7, extensive wind tunnel
testing was performed using the CTS method, end then trajectories were validated by performing five
release missions which cleared the store throughout the desired flight envelope (speed up to 500 knots
and dive angles up to sixty degrees). By using the brute force method the MK-82 Snakeye was cleared
(with the fins closed) in four missions. Even if time consuming wind tunnel and/or off-line andlysts
were performed prior to flight testing, it is doubtful that more than two missions would have been cut
from the program. In all likelihood, only one mission would have been cut from the program. Between
each mission, onboard film was reviewed quantitatively and since actual results matched expectations,
testing was continued to a successful conclusion. Next, brute force testing was used to clear the MK-82
Snakeye for releases with the fins open. In this mode, a lanyard Is extracted from the band which holds
the fins closed and frees the fins to open after stores release. If CTS or grid wind tunnel testing
were performed, a model of the store with the fins closed woult be used first. Then, at the appropriate
distance corresponding to the desired lanyard length, the tunnel would be shut down and a model with the
fins open would be substituted. This Is a time consuming and somewhat inaccurate process in that the
transition of the fins between closed and fully opened Is not tested. The time for this to occur on the
real bomb varies with airspeed. At low spends, the fins open only partially, and at high speeds the
fins open fully, with attendant differences in the bomb's drag characte; Istics. Finally, if the lanyard
length is changed, the wind tunnel data is compromised since in the wind tunnel only one lanyard length
is normally simulated. For these reasins, It is easier to just go out and flight test (presuming we
have experience with the functioning of the MK-82 Snakeye as a result of flight tests on another
aircraft). An initial lanyard length is selected to allow the store to fall a safe distance below the
aircraft. Sometimes a ground static ejection test is performed for the purpose of defining optimum
lanyard lengths. Testing is tegun at an aggressive speed since the store would already have been
cleared with the fins in the closed mode. During the course of testing, the lanyard length my be
adjusted, as needed. This was required during A-7 testing because fin opening at high speeds resulted
Sorde~o
in ar flow disturbance over the aircraft's
o+5o+7gs.Accordingly. horizontal
the lanyard causing
tailwas
length a severe
adjusted until aircraft reaction
this problem on the
was elimiate~d.
To this day the authors are convinced that this problem would never have been uncovered during wind
tunnel tisting or during off-line analyses.
3.

Another area in which brute force testing is used almost exclusively is in support of store
separation from maultiple bomb racks, and from multiple pylons in the ripple release mode. Except In the
case of guided stores (e.g. the GU-8, 10 and 12), practically all unguided stores (e.g. the NK-82LDW1,
CIU-US and MK-20) are operationally required to be released In the ripple mode. The reason for this is
quite clear: one mast release a large number of unguided stores, centered on the target, to Increase
the probabil.•y of target kill. Ripple release would not be a problem from a store separation
standpoint were it not for the fact that, a a general rule, stores are required to be released in the
minima interval possible. Most multiple bomb racks such as the MER-10 and TER-9 can function (that is
step from rack station to station) down to intervals as low as SO-70 milliseconds. In addition, mout
USA; aircraft can step from pylon-to-pylon In 20-30 milliseconds. These are small intervals that have
large stare separation rmifications. Unfortunately, the authors do not have confidence in the ability
to model rack dynamics and store-to-store interference during ripple release, both of which can
significantly affect store separation characteristics. Multiple bomb racks such as the MER-10 are quite
flexible. This flexibility results in different effective ejection forces at each of the six rack
stations. On one ground ejection test, six MK-82 Inert bombs were ejected from a MEN-10 at a low ripple
release interval. From high speed photography, individual store ejection velocities were measured.
Because of rack flexibility, velocities varied from a maximum of eight feet per second dram to zero (the
rack actually bent auay from the store, and ipported no ejection force). Static ejection testing
provides the force at each station for use in predictions but lack %he effect of aerodynamic forces.
Unfortunately, the force further varies with the weight of the stores loaded on the rack. To date a
complete ejection force data bank for l 1 of the aforementioned combinations of factors which ippact
ejection force does not exist in the USAF. The other major ares mentioned earlier that causes
considerable problem during ripple release is store-to-store interference. It should be readily
apparent that when two stores are released from tandem (one behind the other) rack stations (as from a
MER-10), the store released from the forward station disrupts the flowfield (in an unknown way) for the
store released from the aft station Imediately behind. Wnen A-10 testing was being performed, it was
found that stores released from the forward HER-10 stations separated with a strong nose-down pitching
motion which caused the stores to translate rapidly aft resulting in nose-to-tail collisions with stores
released from the aft MER-10 stations. The aft stores separated with a very mild nose-down pitching
motion, and hence, little aft movement in the near field of the aircraft. The difference in the
relative drag between the forward and aft stores due to the magnitude of the nose-down pitching motion
was directly responsible for the collisions. However, predictions, using the grid method, showed that
the aft stores would separate with the same nose-down magnitude as stores released from the forward
stations. The reason the aft stores did not pitch nose-down as predicted was due, in our view, to the
disturbed airflow caused by the forward separating stores. Using brute force, various combinations of
interval and speed were tried and a combination that was acceptable for operational use was never found.
That is, the low interval desired could never be successfully achieved at a high release speed. As a
result of these tests, the MER-10 was never certified on the A-10. As the reader can see this can be a
significant problem. Because of the unpredictable effects in situations similar to the above, the
authors tend to rely on the brute force method. Our usual approach Is to begin reduced interval testing
at the end point condition where stores separation in the single mode has already been demonstrated.
For exmle, on the A-10 safe release of the NK-82 LO6P bomb from the MER-10 was demonstrated at the
maximum desired speed of 420 Knots in a 60 degree dive in the single mode. Then, at that same
speed, releases were performed at progressively reduced intervals until the minimum interval was reached.
Had a problem been encountered, airspeed would have been reduced and then testing would have been
resumed at the last successful interval. This type of process should be continued until enough data are
acquired to formulate a certification recomendation. In the case of the A-10, the authors had a choice
of a 420 knot speed (with an interval which was determined to be too high for operational use) or a
lower airspeed (which was also determined to be too low for operational use) with the minima interval
desired. The A-10 operational community did not want to back off from their requirements in term of
needing high speed and low interval and, therefore, as mentioned earlier, the MER-10 was deleted from
the aircraft. To show how totally dependent store separation is on the aircraft's flowfield, It may be
useful to mention that low Interval releases of MK-82 LOOP bombs was demonstrated on the F-15 at speeds
up to 700 knots without a single probleml
In addition to releases from an individual multiple bomb rack in the ripple mode, the store
separation engineer must also consider possible store-to-store interference when releasing stores from
multiple pylon stations. Most tactical aircraft have many pylons and these are normally all loaded with
stores which are then released in a predetermined sequence from pylon-to-pylon. The A-10 has eleven
pylons, the A-7 and F-16 have six, end the F-15 has three air-to-ground pylons, so the possibility of
store-to-store contact is always present; particularly when stores are loaded and released from multiple
bomb racks such as the NER-10 and TER-9 where shoulder stores are ejected at an approximate angle of 45
degrees from the vertical. Figure 50 shows a certified configuration of MK-82 LOWPbombs on the A-7.
In the ripple pairs mode one bomb is released from each side of the aircraft simultaneously in the
sequence shown. Note that the number 5 bomb is ejected towards the number 7 bomb which is released two
intervals later (if the interval selected is 70 milliseconds, the number 7 bomb would be released 140
milliseconds after the number 5 bomb). The separation engineer must be aware that, under som
conditions, the number 5 bomb may be below the number 7 bomb Just as the number 7 bomb is ejected and
the two may collde. In addition, the probability of collIsions between stores released from opposite
sides of the aircraft cannot be ignored. Consider the possibility of contact between the number 11 bomb
on the left wing and the number 9 bomb on the right wing. It was mentioned in an earlier section thst
on the A-7, stores released from the aft Inboard station of a MER-10 have a strong tendency to translate
inboard towards the fuselage. Accordingly, stores released from these stations mast be closely
monitored. In short, it should be apparent that with thirty-two bombs released in a minimm Interval,
some store-to-store contact Is likely to occur. In the authors opinion, the best way to establish the
presence or absence of store-to-store contact with specific Intervals is by brute force testing. It is
recommended that the store separation engineer use a sketch such as shown in Figure 5O to highlight
those rack 4id pylon stations where store-to-store contact is likely to occur. In this way, the scope
of the test program can be structured to concentrate in this area. Once a safe interval has been
established, then a full-up ripple release test where stores are released from all pylons can be
performed as a demonstration. However, there is no need to release, In a case such as that on the A-?
configuration, all thirty-two bombs on every mission.
 4

8.0 BLLISTIC TEST CONSIOtCATIOS ANDMETHODS:

It was mentioned It the beginning of this report that the aility to hit an intended target
must be considmi during all store separation pregr . If the store separates from the aircraft
satisfactorily but cannot be made to hit Its Intended target, the prgram Is really a failure from an
operational standpoint INour experitece, many people do net make ballistic analysis and testing an
integral part of store separation test programs, and when they do, It is not performed in a rigorous

In the OAC,the engineers who formulate and conduct store separation program work closely
with the engineers who develop store ballistic, safe escape, end delivory tables This situation is
fostered because al personnel are part of the sa office and work in adjacent roams. Because of this
arrangment, whenever a new store separation progrem Is started, ballistic analysis and testing is made
an integral part of the program. Ballistic delivery and analysis engineers review each new program to
determine whether or not additional data are required or If available date (for the si store but in a
different carriage configerailon and/or on a different aircraft) are adequate. Whem It Is determined
that additional data are required, bellistic delivery and analysis engineers work hand-in-hand with
store separation engineers to structure a flight test program to obtain an mauch data as possible on a
non-interference basis. In a great many cases, a majority of ballistic date are obtained in just this
way. One can easily appreciate, therefore, the advantage of close cooperation between the groups of
engineers.
In 1970, the USAF performd a theoretical study of the sensitivity of various paramters to
ballistic ar.urway for a namber of conventional stores (Reference (69). The results of this study are
quite inter.ting. Table IV was prepared by extracting data from the study results. The values in
Table IV show that if a N1K42 LOge store is released from a "generic" aircraft at S00Mfeet (above the
ground) in straight end level flight at 450 and 860 knots. maximum (if all of the sensitivity parameters
are additive) miss distance on the ground is 501 and 1113 feet respectivelyl While the magnitude of
these values are quite large, what Is surprising Is their source. Note that those parameters related to
the aircraft flight conditions at release (altitude, airspeed, dive angle and heading) account for 5?7
of the total miss distance at 4S0 knots and 405 at 860 knots (the overall effect of errors In aircraft
relase conditions is less sensitive at higher speeds) On the other hand, those paramters relating to
the store itself (store weight, diamter, dreg coefficient, and inertia) account for only 10% of the
total miss distance at 450 knots but 31% at 860 knots. This emphasizes the need to maintain store mass
properties within allowable tolerances, and the smaller the tolerance the better. Lastly, those
parameters due to store separation from the aircraft (variation in e*ector end of stroke velocity, pitch
rate, and store pitch and yew) account for 30% of the total miss distance at 450 knots and 21% at 860
knots.
The authors interpretation of these figures is that store saparation from the aircraft itself
plays a part, but a small part, in the overall miss distance. The store separation engineer can attempt
to minimize ballistic errors due to ejector pitch rate. but the store separation engineer has no control
on mass properties of stores used operationally or in errors in flight conditions at stores elease.
The results of analyses such as the above are clearly quite valuable In structuring a flight
test program because itprovides the store separation engineer with hard data upon which to ake
decisions as to whether or not itis worthwhile to perform additional testing to "fiae-tune" ejector
performance and other parameters. For exaple, Table V also presents data for the saw store released
at 800 feet (above ground level) in a 45 degree dive at 450 knots and 860 knots. At this condition,
parameters relating to stores release account for 401 of the total miss distance. Because this value is
subst'• ',. It may well be worthwhile to Ofine tune* ejector performance to minimize store
pert.. ons at release under these conditions.
The authors have uncovered little information on how various organizations actually perform
ballistic delivory and analyses. As a result, Appendix Ewas prepared especially for this report. It
summarizes the approach and methods used in the USAF for performing this type of work. It is hoped that
this information will be of assistance to the reader.
9.0 FUTURE TRENDS
By this time. it should be apparent to the reader that store separation Is a serious proble-
one which requires the careful attention of dedicated, experienced engineers, and the application of
continuously evolving state-of-the-art technology and sophisticated testing techniques. Because itis a
problem with life-or-death implications for the aircraft flight crews, itmust be given the most Intense
scrutiny by all organizations involved, both by the testing and evaluation comunity who determines the
acceptable store separation limitations, and by the operational commnity who must operate within
these limits and who -"•t know the consequences of exceeding them.
..tore . on is largely an aerodynemics driven probleL Although the majority of
Ij'v'.ms
occur I .-AVn speeds (usually high subsonic or transonic), severe problems my also occur at
rmlatively odeb airspeeds. For example, the severe problem discussed erlier that occur on the A-10
aircraft at 350 KCAS are due primarily to its very thick high camber airfoil wing, which reaches
critical Mach at around 0.6K Store separation problems are also exacerbated by such things as
flexible, maltiple bomb racks, high winged aircraft, close spacing between pylons or stores, and local
aircraft floufield irregularities. Ironically, the worst problems have occurred on US aircraft, caused
primari ly by a method i? store carrie largely designed by US engineers, flexible multiple bomb ejector
racks In the late I ' . early 1U 6s,USpolitical and strategic policies shifted from a nuclear
strike role to one o.r le response, including emphasis on the delivery of conventional stores.
Almost imediately, ... effort was made to equip the already existing USAF and US Navy nuclear
strike aircraft wtt, c.apability to carry and deliver large nubers of conventional stores, end the
Multiple Ejector Rack (HER) was born Because aircraft were now flying at much higher speeds than those
used only a few years before, stores had to be ejected rather then gravity released. Little thought was

I
40

iven then to store separatim. Over the years, US policy has kept the reuirem t for delivery of
arge ambers of conventional stores, while cost considerations have required that US tactical aircraft
be multi-missioned, thus assuring that the aircraft be equipped with removable exterfia pylons and
multiple racks. In the past 20 yers the stress on developing aircraft with the mximua clenw or air-
to-air combat performance In the US has produced aircraft that are nothing short of marvelous. Bt,
this policy has also assured that air-to-grovnd store carriage techniques and equipment were never
allowed to develop to their potential, and INOs vintage Multiple Ejector Racks are still being used on
the latest USAF and US Navy fighter and attack aircraft (usually with significant flight limitations).
Fortunately, this situation in the US has begun to change. The store separation problem gaerated by
the use of these flexible HERS have historically been primarily US only, stince the other nations in NATO
have generally retaled the single carri)ge (ono store per pylon) carriage concept. Recent years have
been marked with the development in Europe of a few twin-store or multiple store ejector racks, but by
and large, the European members of NATOhave chosen the orwesimple and more aerodynamical ly clean store
carriage methods, and this trend continues today and for the foreseeable future.

European engineers have not had to face, at least not on a routine basis, the complex store
separation situations which bedevil their US counterparts. And now, fortunately for the US store
separation engineers, US aircraft design policy has begun changing and rapidly so. The USAF recently
announced to Industry that all aircraft In the future vill utilize some fore of conformal carriage of
stores. Even the aircraft in development today, the FP1KE Dual Role Fighter and the F-16 with the
cranked-arrow wing, will both employ the semi-conformal, or tangential, carriage method as shown in
Figures 51 and 52 respectively. Also, the use of the existing multiple racks on existing USAF aircraft
such as the A-1O, F-4, A-? and early model F-16s will be minimized with the emphasis on oan store per
pylon. The US Navy has net yet followed suit, primarily because of aircraft carrier operations
requirements and the ned to rapidly reconfigure aircraft from air-to-air to air-to-ground and vice
versa. However. the use of conformal carriage for new US Navy store-carrying aircraft now on the
drawing boards is being seriously considered.

With the development of conformal carriage and now bomb Ejector Release Units (ERUs) with
such features as automatic sway braces, better ejection forces and built-in store pitch control, stores
may now be rapidly loaded on at a time on an aircraft and then safely carried and released throughout a
large part of the aircraft's achievable flight envelope. Conversely, flexible multiple bomb racks with
stores ejected both vertically and slanted, have historically severely limited the allowable store
separation envelope. Figure S3 shows the allowable flight envelope for an F-4 aircraft loaded with 12
HK-02 501b bombs. On the left is the envelope allowed when the bombs are carried on existing multiple
racks, and on the right the envelope when conformal carriage Is use. The contrast is striking.
Incidentially, the data contained in this figure cam from an actual joint flight test performed in 1973
by the US Navy and USAF in which a pallet containing 12 ERUs was attached to the F-4 fuselage which
allowed 12 stores to be carried in a conformal arrov of four stores across three in each row. Although
this was a highly successful validation of the conforual carriage concept, it has taken another decade
for these improvements to begin to emerge operational ly.

Carriage of stores conformally contributes two significant Improvements relative to store

separation that are so significant chey dominate all other effects. First, the stores are ejected
vertically and the aircraft structure to which the stores are attached, and from which they must be
ejected, Is much more substantial structurally with little flexibitIity. This allows the a•plication of
more effective ejector forces. And second, the floufield around stores carried conformally, whether on
the fuselage or on the wing, is much more linear and unlikely to have the large perturbations so commn
when multiple racks are used, thus allowing safe separation over a much wider variation of conditions.
Figure 54 demonstrates the clean separation of multiple bombs from an FlBXL at 550 KCAS.

In spite of the above, the authors observe that, even for future aircraft, some designers are
tending to try to stick to the old adage of "design the clean aircraft for optimm performance (or
perhaps In an air-to-air configuration), and then hang the stores on wherever you cane. Fortunately,
most aircraft designers now recognize that the aircraft should be capable of operating with stores
attached in almost the sm maneuvering envelope as the clean aircraft. To do this, the stores carriage
methodology and provisions oust be designed Into the aircraft from Its inception. While some designers
have opted for true conform|Tcarriage of external stores (including the use of specially shaped
blended-body stores), others have rediscovered internal carriage of stores. Bomb bays for tactical
aircraft have been tried In the past, and in almost every case have not been effective. Not only is the
internal space in a tactical aircraft very limited, but the shape of air-to-ground stores, with their
fuzes and fins and other protuberances do not land themselves to efficient internal-bay packaging.
Last, but not least, an Internal bay is at the very best only USOefficient on each combat mission.
After the stores hove been expended, the aircraft must return to base with a large empty volume, which
nevertheless still has the saw drag as when it was full. In the US, the jury is still out on whether
internal carriage will re-emerge. It may reappear only for the carriage of air-to-air stores on
supersonic persistent fighter aircraft.

USAF design studies still show that the mot efficient method of carriage for air-to-ground
stores is external conformal carriage utilizing specially shaped blended-bodies. For this reason, it
appears that, at least for future USAFaircraft, conformal carriage is the method most likely to emerge.
USAF aircraft designers are currently designing their aircraft with large flat areas on the botton
surface of the wing and/or fuselage. Stores designers are designing and testing blended-body shaped
stores with a flat upper surface that are capable of being flush mounted on the aircraft. Store
ejector units wiI be built in to the aircraft structure to allt. flush mounting. USAF aircraft with
this type of weapons carriage should emerge in the 19lNs, as design efforts are already well underway.
Although the authors cannot speak for the other services or nations, we are convinced that such designs
will, for the first tin sice the Initial emergence of the high-speed jet, put the emphasis on stores
delivery and effectiveness rather than on store separation. This is a healthy trond; on which we hope
will grow rapidly.
 41

10.0 COUCLgliOI
In conclusion. the authors hope that this report has succeeded in presenting new store
separation enginers n4 manaer with a valuable discussion and bibliography of the methods used for
performing store separation unalysis and flight tostiW The authors have attempted to present some of
the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and have tried to make the reader saare of the
requirements and constraints affecting a store separation program that might influence the choice of these
methods. There is net non nor is there ever likely to be, any one method of either prediction or
testing that is superior to all the other methods In every situation or case. Rather, there are a
number of good, proven, methods end techniques available to the store separation engineer. and these
must be mashed with particular requiremets (including cost and time) to determine which method is best
for ones individual situation.

The methods that are in use in Europe are modern, effective and are responsive to the
specific constraints placed on the organizations engaged in store separation. The sme is teue of the
methods used In the US. However, because of the sheer volume of store separation testing in the US, the
urgency of the situation to certify stores on many aircraft quickly, and the use of multiple carriage
rocks, store prediciton and test methods used in the US have not been the sow as these chosen in
Europe While the US over the years has relied heavily on empirical, wind tunnel, or lbrute force*
techniques, the Europeans have placed more emphasis on analytical or theoretical methods. Analytical
methods, even today, are most accurate and reliable when used in simple situaticns of one store per
pylon, and with stores of relatively simple geometric shape. Although remarkable improvements have
recently been made (both in the US and in Europe) in the ability of analytical techniques to handle
complex store shapes and cenfigurations, it will be years, in the authors' opinion, before such
techniques will be capable of handling complex stores carried on several closely spaced multiple
racks, and they may never be able to handle large numbers of stores released siaultanaously, or in rapid
ripple sequence The trend in the USAF towards conformal carriage will, no doubt, have some effect on
bringing the methods closer together. But, for the foreseeable future, the need to perform many tests
in the shortest time possible (at the minimm possible cost) will dictate that the US continue to
emphasize wind tunnel prediction methods (primarily grid and CTS). along with a judicious blend of
"brute force' flight testing.

Table I - Store Separation Traininq Syllabus Outline

Forward

Purpose/Objectives

Lessons

I. Store Seperation as a Discipline - Introduction

I1. Getting Situated in the Work Environmnt

III. Aerodynamics and Kinematics of Stroes Release

IV. Aircraft, Stores, and Racks

V. The Local Computer

VI. Wind Tunnel Testing

VII. Store Trajectory Computer Simulation/Analysis

VIII. Additional Analysis Aids/Computer Programs

IX. The Aare Nm - Technical Report

1. The Flight Test Recomeendation - Flight Testing

Ii

i
42

-
0
- M M
* S( (

y
II
-
in

U.
I I
I
Si.

.- 14 54 54 '4 - 54 54 - 541 54 - -.

I
*
- - a
Si
I Li
Si

U.
, - 54 54 - - - 54 -j 54 54 3
U.

--- 7 54

- 54 54 54 51 -

.-

54
-

-
-

-
-

54
-

54
-

54
-

54
-

-
-1- 541 54
-

54

* - -

- 54 - C 54 54 54 54 < 54 54

in --
4..
Ii
I-
I, e C
1. 4. 4.i
Si S C Si
I-. 0 5.
C U
0 Si.
C C C
Li - 0 C V.
C Si
Si. Si, 4
.i - I- 5 3
4.i S 4.

-
.0
-
5.
a
I..

Si
V.
.k
Si -
C
- 3 in 3
U. 54

* Li u Li
-
ua
Liin
5. 5.

US
a
in =
a
in
5.
 43

TABLE III AIMUFT/STKES CENTIFUTION FLOW CURT

W"n

a
noun
mum
wn
Tm MM
Mo
WAMm mom
INT j"O'"'Mom"
MM
NM
"NEO

"MOM
alm
AVAPOU

P"?WMm

RVw ILITRI
WIN

"Tw
"MM10-

PON

Mal smi

mfflý
ývwjnRw "A

no

""ME xrgcsý=&

wag."am"
am mom

WOM
Eý- Er
i
44

wC z*
n gE4 %n m

41.
~
51~ &n ~ 2.0..e.
x 12%
.alamam

'to- - -
-l
un J X u~~
-N N
a
~ L. n .

ol CL- - ap a-: a -
Li m "e n- L

ac CI

W C4
9.L-
 43

JJ301 zu ants t

43U4 *S5 A 2

-A0J
S %S E(U .t

-N
.. n.Ia. Il -"

u%*Jpt
.JOJ.A3 010

In-S
46

Foi mb

Figure 1 - Store to Aircraft Collision: BLU-l Firebomb Released from F-lOS

 47

Figure 2 -Store to Aircraft Collision: MK-77 Firebomb Released from A-7 Aircraft
48

Figure 3 - Store to Aircraft Collision: Fuel Tank and Pylon Released from FB-111
 49 I

Figure 4 -Store to Aircraft Collision: Fuel Tank Released from A-37

50

SFigure 5 - Erratic MK-20 Rockeye Separation and Collision with A-7 Due to Uneven Fin Opening
 200

NOTE: Data based on releases

4J at 450 knots

S100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time After Stores Release Seconds

Figure 6 Time for MK-82 Snakeye Bombs Released from Tandem NER-1O Stations to Collide

I .
52

Figure 7 - Store to Store Collision: BLU-8O Stores Released from A-4

 1 53

II
Si/

i Figure 8 - Unsatisfactory Separation of AIM-? Launched from F-iS

S. E!
¶
34

TMK N-62 COU-58

Figure 9 - Parent Pylon Carriage of Stores on A-I

Figure 10 Rultiple Carriage of Stores on A-7

 GSU-IOA/B

Figure 11 -Geometric Comparison of GBU-lOA/B and GBU-IOC/B Stores

Camera control.Cmr o

Inst control Inst launcher Fuselage shear/beading/

Roll/pitch/sheer torsion measurement

Flutter exoltatie. Pemel Norz stab acccii

Noseboom
(angle of attack/

Rudder pos

antn 12 mr N Hstail accel

- pDASIL flapperon pos

Camera pod Roll/pitch/sheer measurements

fFigure 12 -F-16 Flutter and Loads Instrumentation

 -!1 I

., Ill +.i-
- I,

-'I

: Kl

-4 -
I÷I
II
a
- I .-

I
, II
.3

i0

US , fi
r
57

U
i
I
ill
Id

lq
/14 /

+4-

jI I 4

I ++

I IIIi C

I -
'--S

I
+ -4..
I I Iii
'4

I
- I

I I
q3
I I I
q
I I
U
I I
U

Imel UuLW uwS

SI

I I I I
I 3 3 I NI
II I
II II I
II II
II II
jT - 'K'
I' I

- - - - -

I 4+ ++

4 4 4. 4
Ii -.

I -4

Ii 44.
I + + I..

-4+ ++
44 U

9 ____ 3
_______ - _____ V

'I
A-
I + + ++
-I) ++ -4+
/
/
 S9

Figure 14 -F-1ll Aircraft Model Installed on Captive Trajectory Rig in AEDC Wind Tunnel

TRANSLATIONAL AND ANGULAR DISPLACEMENTS

GRID TESTING LOCATI N : GRID

IWYAW

Figure 15 Grid Wind Tunnel Testing Technique

60

Figure 16A - Enhanced Computer Graphics Depiction of Predicted Store Separation Characteristics:
Three Quarter View

Figure 166 - Enhanced Computer Graphics Depiction of Predicteu Store Separation Characteristics:
Rear View
 61

Figure 17 - Tornado Model Installed on Two Sting Rig in ARAWind Tunnel

Figure 18 - Fuel Tank Hounted in Displaced Position on NLR

Captive Store Load Measuring System on NF-5
62
Hi gh

Risk

Low

Low Number of Missions High

Figure 19 - Risk as a Function of Missions

of Missions
Optimum Nuimbr
Perfrmace

Factor

Performance Factor: Function of;L Cost and Time

Low
LOW Number of Missions High

Figure 20 -Performance Factor as a Function of Missions

 63

Aircraft
S • Constraint

0(

A- Captive Carriage Position

B- Unsafe: Violates Physical Constraint
C- Safe: Small Nose-Down Pitch Attitude
D- Marginal: Large Nose-Up Pitch
Attitude

Figure 21 - Captive Carriage Store Separation Constraint

iearance
I in'ch
1 inch clearance

Figure 22 - Illustration of Typical Captive Carriage Store Constraint

64

Position

Store Vertical Displacemienlt (Feet)

1 2 3 4

10
Store Pitch Angle 20
(Degrees Hose-Down) 30
40
so
60
70
80
90

Captive Carriage Constraint

Figure 23 -Development of Captive Carriage Store Constraint

 65
60 6
600 KCAS

40 5

Store Pitch . Vertical 300 to 600 KCAS

deg 400 ftis-

20 300 2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6

0 Time -sec Time -sec
60
600 KCAS

40 500

Store Pitch 400

deg
20 300

20

0 02 44
Vertical Disp - ft

Figure 24 - Development of Store Collision Boundary: Store Pitch Versus Vertical Displacement

Airspeed

1 Vertical Displacement

Store Pitch 4

Collision Boundary

Figure 25 - Store Collison Boundary Plot: Smooth Speed Continuity

66

Airspeed
350 400 450

ft v~rtical displacement

Store 3f
Pitch

Collision
Boundary

Figure 26 - Store Collision Boundary: Abrupt Speed Discontinuity

60 14
f
2ft
40 3 ft;
Nose Up - deg Safe speed range

Store
Pitch
0 4
100 200 300 400 500
Spe KCAS

20

Nose Down- deg

40

6o

Figure 27 - Store Collision Boundary: Nose-Up and Nose-Down Pitching Motion

 r4
67

AltitudeHigh Load Factor '

KCAS

Hach

Figure 28 - Alternate Store Separation Test Approach

*12
Figure 29 - Cmra Locations Available on F-lB Aircraft

A
68

Figure 30 -F-15 Wing Pylon Mounted Camera Installation

Figure 31 -F-15 Right Hand Rear Fuselage Mounted Camera Installation

 69

Figure 32 - F-15 Left Hand Rear Fuselage Mounted Camera Installation

Figure 33 - A-l0 Fuselage Mounted Double Camera Installation

111
I
 70

Figure 34 - A-10 Wing Mounted Camera Installation

Figure 35 - F-16 Fuselage Mounted Camera Installation

A -
 71

Figure 36 - F-16 Wing Tip Camera Installed in Dtummy

AIM-9
72

Figure 37 - A-7D Wing and Fuselage Camera Installations

Figure 38 -English Electric Valve Company CCD Camera

 73

* 9 -

I
I
iiI
I-

0
(a
(a

0
4..

I-
0
(a
0(
C

*1
I-
(6

C
C
4..
*6
4..
C

4..
(A
C

4.
I-
01

ii II
NE! ii
 ýj

74

LUO AIRCRAFT PYLON

STOR9 FORWARD
MAITER DOT
4-

"I

TW04NCH 0""Im VOT

Z- "WTI VMS

TYMCAL ITORK

Figure 4U Typical USAF Photogrammetry Store Paint Pattern

l- - AL
PYLON MML -,a

C
D

x
H-- r r
MRWARD y
OF
I1/.LUG GRAVITY zZZ

10
AL

rigure 41 Typical MLRPhotogrammetry Store Paint Pattern

 75

Figure 42 -Typical Film Strips Used by NLR for Data Reduction: Separation of LAU-3 Rocket
Launchers from NF-S with 25 M~illisecond Release Interval Between Frames
 76

"M WOU"M am

=M' x rum9 "WM

bum PMMT KM MNWA
VM
COMM

IWANOW04"WAN OAVAM an
811amm-w-
MMLP= DO PJ6EOWMAML4kL
P"700)

So.
WJAL
MW
SOPIAV

cad"SPRUM -W

Figure 43 PDAS Major Components

Mission Test Type o f Pylon Station Dive Normal Air Altitude

No. Date Store No. No. Angle Accel (g) (.ft/MSL)
207 9/16/76 CBU-58 9 TI 60 0.5 426 9500
r-r= t _"111kLillialikill - 11tal
H+ -1 .... ..........
. .. ......... -FT-rT- - +4++- -4H! 11
Id
"+f-+H4+4
I Ti
--------
- 1111.
J..

IT I
I ii ýT

T- -ýttrlt

+ If

-Note: Numeral within store

-denotes time in hundreds of
isecon s after store

J r +
IMF-
....

--- ----

VA

Figure 44 Typical PDAS Graphical Data Presentation

(k

77

Figure 45 - GADSOperator Console

Planned Test Points

SAirspeed
1..ft v ~tical
. deplacemento
. / •

Predicted
Collision
3 •Boundary

Store
Pitch
Angle Predictions

Actual test results

Recomputed collision boundary XI•

based on results of test points 1-3

Figure 46 - Comparison of Actual Test Results with Predictions: Good Agreement

78

Planned Test Points

vertical dipacmn
Ift

-• ~~~~2ft dslc~t-€

Store
Pitch Predicted
Angle 3f

Boundary

Predictions
Actual

test results

Figure 47 - Comparison of Actual Test Results with Predictions: Poor Agreement

 79

Pylon

- .- rt~inch drawing $c- .

18 inches full scae.

4 5 inches
drawing scale
Full scale .(Do + DO/2(411 ,. 1 ,
Vert Disp -- l scale ) Z1

•..0 + 0.9)/2 (18)

= 94.7 inche

Store pitch angle rela:t *,9 inch drawing scale

to captive carriage Ion

Figure 48 - Manual Scaling of Store Trajectory Data from Film

MK-82 LDGP

MK-82 Snakeye '..

Length Diameter W Pitch Inertia Center of Gravt

MK-82 Ln•GP ,UgT
-. !+F6.
510F-- 37.5 slug-ft" 6,6 in aft of f u9
2
MK-82 Snakeye 95.7 in. 10.8 in. 550 lbs 48.0 slug-ft 9.3 in aft of fwd lug

Figure 49 - Comparison of Geometric and Physical Characteristics of MK-82 LDGP and MK-82 Snakeye Bombs

Pylon station 6 7
1 2

Forward Cluster Multiple

M BombRack

Aft Cluster

Q Numbers denate release seqluence of stores In the ripple pairs mode.

Figure 50 - Potential Stations for Store to Store Collisions In the Ripple Release Mode on an A-7
80

Figure 51 F-15 with MK-82 Bombs Carried Tangentially

Figure 52 -F-16XL with MK-82 Bombs Carried Tangentially

 81

Stores Carried Conformally

50

40
ALTITUDE StoresNirre on
(I00FT) Thm
Shýý lti le
30 Coventiona/
Convention Bob Racks
stores \
Carriage
20

10

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH-NUMBER

Figure 53 - F-4 Flight Envelope Extension with Twelve NK-82 Bombs Carried Conformally
 ~-4-

Figure 54 -MK-82 Bombs Separating from r-i6XL at 550 Knots

 p8
11.0 REFERENCES
1. Program Management Directive for Aircraft/Stores Compatibility (PHD No. 5077), Department of
the Air Force, Headquarters USAF/RDQA, Washington, DC. (Undated)
* 2. Report on Air Force Aircraft/Stores Certification Program. Air Force Systems Commiand,
Aeronautical Systems Division, Ernest L. Pyne, Lt Cal, USAF, Wright-Pctterson AFB, OH
I March 1974.
3. Research and Development; Baseline and Follow-on Aircraft/Stores Certification Programs,
Department of the Air Force, HQ Aeronautical Systems Division (AFSC). Regulation 80-1,
Wri ght- Patterson AFB. OH, March 1977.
4. Aircraft/Stores Interface Manual, Joint Technical Coordination Group for Munitions
Development, Working Party for Aircraft/Stores Compaiibility. JTCG/MD WP-12-1 (Aircraft
ManuaI)r*JTCG/MD WP-12-3 (Stores Characteristics), and JTCG/ND WP-12-4 (Suspension
Equipment), Department of the Navy. Naval Air System Command (AIR-0530), Washington, DC,
September 1975.
S. Military Standard, Ground Fit and Compatibility Tests of Airborne Stores; Procedure for,
MIL-STD-1289A, Department of Defense, Washington. DC. November 1976.
6. Airborne Stores, Associated Suspension Lugs and Aircraft/Stores Interface (Carriage Phase);
General Design Criteria for, NIL-A-8S91, Department of the Navy, Naval Air Engineering
Center, Lakehurst, NJ, January 1979.
7. Research and Development, Aircraft/Store Compatibility Program (SEEK EAGLE), Department
of the Air Force, HQ Air Force Systems Command, AFLC/AFSC Regulation 80-28. Andrews AFB,
MD. January 1983.
8. Military Handbook, Guide to Aircraft/Stores Compatibility, MIL-HDBK-244, Department of
Defense, Washington, DC, August 1975.
9. Military Standard, Aircraft/Stores Certification Procedures. MIL-STD.1763, Department of
Defense, Washington, DC, November 1979.
10. Tinoco, E.N., PAN AI ANalyIs of Supersonic/Subsonic Flows About Coplx C2nfigurations,
Paper presented at Coputational Fuid Dya icsWrkshop, University of TeRnneiisse pace
Institute, 12-16 March 1984.
11. Dix, R.E., Margret, C.H., and Shadow, T.O., Anltica and Experimental Techniques for
Determining the Distribution of Static Aerodynac LodWcigo treAD-R8-2
CsPan Fiel services, Inc., Arnold Engineering Development center, TN, October 1983.
12. Nadir, S., Dell, N.J., and Shaw. P.D.. Modification to the NEAR Subsonic Store Separation
PreicionCoe ad ppli,1cjtions to the ACIND Missile, NWC TP-64S9, Naval We~apons center,
Ch-uinaL ake CA Setme 18.
13. Kaupp Jr, H., An Aircraft Store Dat~aMnagemnt System, AEOC-THR-82-P17, ARO Inc., Arnold
Engineering Development Center, T . Api 1982.
14. Vukelinch, S.R. and Jenkins, J.E., Devgelomegnt Nofsa
Missile DATCOM Handboo ad Cmuer
froram.Paper presented at AGARD Sympoimo isl eoyais Thirondhem,C1Norway
20-22 September 1982.
15. Baker Jr, W.R. and Artesbury, R.L. Interactive Graphicls AccEess to Semi-Empirical
AeodyNami Coefficient Predictio Program with Critica Revie. of Prgms __ CT-8-6
C. span" ield Services, Inc., Arnold Engineering Development Center. TH, May 1983.
16. Allee Jr, E.G., Store Sepairatioi Testing Technqe a h Anl EngineringDevelopment
ED-TR-7_9-TI A~b1ric. Volm IV rod Engineering Deveomn etr
Cne, N
June 1980.
17. Carmen Jr, J.B., Hill Jr, D.14., arnd
Christopher, J.P., Store SeprtooetigTcnqe
at the Arnold Engineringv l~~opment Center, AEDC-TR-79-1 Vouea ,At n. Arnold
ENgi ne-ern -9eD veloRpment Ce rTN. June 1980.
18. Carman Jr. J.B., Store SeparatinTsigTcnge tteAnllniern eeomn
Center,' AEDC-TR-79-1, VolueI lOIcAnl niern Dvlme Ct ene,1,
!
Au'gust 1980.
19. Korn. S.C., Matthews, C.B., and Pinney, C.W., Store Separation. Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development, AGARD CP270. HQ NATO, Bussels Bei um, undated.
23. Schindel, L.H., Store Separation, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development,
AGARD-AG-202, HQ NATO, Brussels, Belgium, June 1975.
21. Hill Jr. D.W., Development of aVeloI ty Al rithm for Controllin a-DF Capti ve
T Model Supprt, AiDC!-TRR!-83-PV16 TN,
riild Engineering Development2 Ceniter,
 22. Kier GM.An Analysis to Determine the Amount of Wind Tunnel Grid D Reurd
"t to
Prov ide tcepabirae y Simulation__Accuracies__atMinimum__ Cost,_ W AR M
ARnc.. ArnodE ngneigovlpetCneYDc~e 9
23. Korn, S.C. Validation and %!
nson of he lo A~ngulgrit Techiu, orPaiti tv

24. Meyer, R.,Cenko, A., and Yaros, S.,An Influence Function Method for Prdctn Store
AerodynaIS Characteristics During WeIaon Seaaioa;weet avy
Smposum o
Aeoalitics David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, MD. 1981.
25. Tessltore, F., Cenko, A.. Meyer, R.,and Waskiewicz, J., Grumman Aerospace Co., A New
Approach to Weapon Separation-Aerodynamnics, Paper No. 81-1654, August 1981.
26. Koen. K. Scott, Economical Influence Function Calibration sn h itiue od
Code. Calspan Field Services, Unpublished Paper. (Undated
27. Paulk, R.A., ExperimentalS Iv-7tlgati n of the Effect of Various Scaling Laso the
Quait
o te reDo tre Sea ion Simulation, AEDC-TR-76-4 AROIn. rold
Engineering Development Center, TN. September 1I6
28. Marshall, J.C., and Hill Jr. D.W., Recent Deveomnsi tr eaainTsiga EC
Presentation at Fifth JTC6 Aircraft/Stores Coptbility SYmpos2um, Sptember go8.
29. Mott. D.M., Six-Dere fFedo lgt Simultin of Aircraft Store Separation Dynamics,
General Resea&r-chCo'r~pora2tionE, CRE-240-799(2)11 January 1983.
30. Rockwell International MSD Rpt No. C75-1312/034C. A Launch Transient Analysis Digital
Simulation Program, 25 Jul 1975.

31. ood J.H, Sore SepRato GrahiSPrga Progrn 6!r' Manual/User's Guide, General
Research Corprtio6naCR08-4A
_ 1D R~evIT August 194
32. Pinney, C.W. Evaluation of the MtiCrig BobRc JeisnCoptrSmlin
AFATL-R-79-69, Volumes adI. AirFre Amiment Laborstory, Egli11n
&R AFB,SFL, Augu'st 1969.
33. Pugh, P.6,and Pete. J.W., A User's Guide to the RAENEAR Method for the Prediction for the
bf the Trajectories Store is Released from Aircraft at Subsonic Speeds, RAE Ae4.WAIr/T9,
Bedford Untd
, Kingdom, December 1980.
34. Sadler, A.J,. The Status of United KindmMthd4o2Peitn Stor C arie and Release
at rasoicS~i~7IU4.AI/18,Beford, United Kingd. Cauay194
35. Petrie, JA.H., The Brogh Tr~4oy thod Based on the Pae Progra SPARV, BAE Note YAD
AAircra~IiiGrou T
348 MOM gh Division, Unit Pingdm Mach1T 4
36. Extensions to RAENEAR. RAE Ae4.WAIS/66, Bedford,
Sadler,' A.J., Prorsad Modifications an~d
United Kingdom.Wgst9l
37. Burns, R.E., Wind Tunne Tes Tehiues fnr the Simulation of Store Separation~r1ectories
at BAE Brou gh with Particular Rfrn'ce
i to Recen tDevelopments in Accalrae Model
Technique, BAE Note YWT 1657IiR, British Aerospace C. United Kingdom. March 1982.
38. Pugh, P.9. and Pete J.W, The Use and Validation of Ground Based Techniques for the Prediction
of the Traectgories of Stores Released from Aircraft at Subsonic speeds, RAE Tech Aero 1862,-
Befrd, Uited Kingdom, August 1980.
RAE,
39. Morton, D. and Eycers, K.J.C.. The Two Stn i ytmfrCpieTa ector* Testin gat ARA,
Volumes I and III. ARA Memo 226, Arcraf ReerhAscain nteU K ng m uy 90
40. ere~e ofFreedom Store
Goodwin, F.K., Dillenius. M.F.E., and Nielsen. J.N., P.'ediction of S ix
SeartonTrj~ res at& Sed Uptthe Cic Sed AFLTR7.8 Voues I and 11.
al
AiFrc Fligilt Dnmc Laoary igtPtero A, ON, 1972.
41. Landon, RH. Aircraft Model Store Trajector' Testing at ARA, ARA Memo 208, Aircraft Research
Association.:London United Kindm Noember 1979.
42. Van Nunen, J.W.G., tr eaainAnlssadFih Test Summerl E7-0,NR
National Aerospace Laoaoy Te etrlds, Deember 1977.
43. Alders, GJCearance of New Stores for Militar Aicat n Overview of the Techniques
Naion-al Aerospace Laboratory. The Ntalns
Use,iR. ac 96
44. Hollestella, P.M.N. and Alders, G.J., The NF-SA-K3001 Test Aircraft, NLR Memorandum VV-77-017L,
National Aerospace Laboratory, The Netherlands, April 1977.
45. Alders, G.J., In Fligh Mesurement of Aerolynamic Loqads onCative Stores, Description of
the Measurement EupetadCompariso o sltwihDafro Other sources, NLR
MP-77-, National Aerospace Laboratory, The Netherlands, April 1977.
46. Alders. S.J., In Fni If PesueNn Ps

47. ytsma, JL.". Store S aation FTimN .M r .W nmu

VV-79-022L, Mal on M Mosac a~ma ar
48. Canadair, CF-B Store Separation Model, Revised Deoamtatlmea ndNW Getifs IM iUt.15
Canada, February 1982.
49. Kemp. 6.6., Lt Col, Canadian Forces, StyrsCeme l' A1111113 Cmf. 9.
5O. Herbert, R.A., Canadian Forces, StrsCri isti k iesa ag
Reduction Techniques, AETE, CF4"nO~ew, Am e ~
51. Greer. W.G, Canadian Stores Cit O via k 11410916 190010
Headquarter ' . !niW iju3
LIEV624tiwi
52. High Speed Laboratory Aircraft External Store Certification and ImF11I1a Naetmak Meso
Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, May 1163.
53. Potter, MN.., Capt. Canadian Forces, National PAermmtical Istli týats9
OD,0MNOR, Ottawa Canada, May 1963.
54. Deslandas R., Kurz Wi.,
Messerschmi tt -BIJkow- )oh~m. Sff
otrti

55. Duslandes R., Messerschmitt-BIlk~ow-Bo'hm. Evalu ti fi rftI f s

56. Deslandes, R., Messerschmitt-86'lkow-Blohm, A Broad Bae eted Evl

57. Van Der Decken, J. Erch, P., and Fritz. W., Th ticIe i 1 1I
Methods for External Store Separation lrjcore
Federal Republic of Gaermany, undated.
58. Schmidt, W., Berner. W., Fritz, Wi., and Kapp. R.. Nmb~erical Studies emSaet R Ies
And FlihtU Path of External Stores, Dornier 6148H. FrieoricR1~~m Wco
ermay. Undated.
59. Aden. A., CHASE-The Optimum Photoana~l sis System Volume 1, Paper *19. Aircraft/Stares;
Comaptibility Symosu rceings Septembr 197S. pp. 461-498.
60. Str eaainFilm Processin Prgr MIikan
I Users Manual LR MeammrandulVV -79-022L.
NaioalAP erospoace Laboratory. The Nethera.-lanlids, February, 1f.-
61. Coleman, D.A., FLTLT R.A.F., Test Report on A Mehanical ly Shuttered CCD Caea Oeatd from
aHelicopter, AWEE, ARM1018/03, Armame&-nt ivsooscombe Don, unite kndmAugust I i'¶
62. Bednall, M.P.,hn mrRAF raetFih etn nteUie oriae
~p eteenThory
roch
ndated.rR
;AndPrctc.Armament DliviinqME
t~lin.~g~teUl~t~ ocm i~~itdii
-8C~dlae

63. Epstein. C.S..AicatSoe oatbiiyA

Compatibility Sypsu rceedngs, o. eI ayjý~l
atme17,p~5 ~~etw, icatSoe
64. Van Nunen S.W.6.,Store Separation Analysis and Fl~ight Test Sumawiry NLR Memorandum AE-77-
006, National Aerospace Laboratory, Ih 'ehrlands,13ecemer 1977
65. Instrumentation Marketing Corporation, Automatic Film Reading Digital Analysis System,
Model 78-1. Spec/Data Sheet, July 1982.-
66. Bowers, Rawling and Fanning, The Limitations and Tolerances of the, S~t2o_'eS~eparation
Nhoo2 amtric Tec-hnique. Aircraft/Stores Compatibility Symposiu roedns, volume 6,
Nv r 19,pp4-6
67. Cooper, Gand Kingery R, Naval Missile Center Photo Data Analysis of,Sto eS,,aration Fi1lms.
Aircraft/Storas Compati Ility Symposium Proceedings, Volue2 ptbr19, pp. 51-106.
68. Armament Division A E EStores Release Assessment end Facilities Status Paper, APM 1019/02,
1oscomb Down nnte
aigdm,
AprilI 1982.
69. Gonzales, J.M.and Denney, A.R., Lt. USAF Theoretical Sensitivit Anal sadSystam
Delivery Accuracy Comutations for Hit and Low Drag eaons at erlUbjbjiic
4
ond Sueronc elvey ondtos. AFA1L-lK-1U- I I , Air force Armament Lto~ratory, Egl in Air
Fogrcebas,
To. OICtoIbIerr
191U.
 66

12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The authors would lIIke
to CallI
special attention to the Aircraft/Store CompatibilIity
Symposium Proceedings (1- 5). These docurents contain many valuable papers which shculd be of interest
to the reader of this report. The source from where these proceedings may be obtained is provided.
1. Aircraft/Stores Compatibility Symposium Proceedings. 2 Volumes. Department of Navy, Naval Air
Systems Command (Al
ft-530212), Washington DC. September 1971.
2. Aircraft/Stores Compatibility Symposium Proceedings, 3 Volumes, 7-9 Dec 71,Air Force Flight
Dynamics Laboratory, Applications Office, Wright Patterson Air Force Bese. ON4 45433.
3. Aircraft/Stores Compatibility Symposium Proceedings, 6 Volumes, 19-21 Nov 69, (out of print-
selected papers available on request from 3246TE5TW/TY, Eglin Air Force Bese, FL 32542).
4. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Aircraft/Stores CompatibilIity Symposium. 26-28 Oct 82, Naval
Surface Weapon Center. White Oak, MD.
5. Aircraft/Stores Compatibil1ity Symposium Proceedings, 4 Volumes, 18-20 Sep 73, (SMAMA/MME,
McClellan Air Force Base, CA 95652).
6. Black, R.L. end Picklesimer, J.R., CaptiveTraýictor, Wmrveent of Store earation Studies
winWn Tunneil Convair Aerospace ivio,5nr DnmcCorportio. F. Worth

7. Sevin, L.. PaEtmt fthe Effect of MEt S ntrucual .Dynamics on Store Separation. NWL
TR-
3097. Noy, eApos aboaory. Indian ""ad aU
Fbury 1914.
8. Madsman AP., Mind Tunnl Testinga end Flight Simulation, General Dynamics, Ft. Worth,
TX., 19t.
9. Narboug, 6.W. Copt, UISAF
Carris en eease of Stores at Transonic Speeds. Air Force
Arument Laboratory, EglinW
AFU Ocf 83
10. Epst*114 C.S., raftsi tone
Aibit atgt etig Air Force Armament
Lalrstory. mrrre Ws0
11. Nmm,.F, v tite fSboi anSursonic Release Characteristics of anExgteurpnall,
CernFuel ren"ali17 Icubee" ou a rp era, TM-3. Naton ernu cand

12. Covert. E.E., Wind Tuonnel

Si.mlation of Stores Jettison with the Aid of an Artificial Gravity
Generated by Magnetic Fields, AIAA Journal of Aircraft. Volume 4, No. 1.
13. Covert. E.E.. Conditions for Safe Separation of External Stroes, AIMA 81-4216,
Journal of Aircraft Volume 18. No. 8, Aug 1981.
14. Sandabl. C.A.. and Fagot, M.A.. Similitude Relations for Free
Nodal Wind Tunnel Studiels of Store Drop In. Problems. National Advisory Commi ttee for
Aeroautis, r-17, Washington ut. Undated.
15. Ryon. B.M., Moeker, R.E., and See lay. L.W., StoreSe6a!tion Stateof the Art. Stimmary
Report. NWC TP5530. Naval Weapons Center, .hnae
... June19
16. Neihouse, A.L., and Pepoon, P.W., Dnic Similitude Between a Model and a Full-
Scale Body for ModneluInvestigation at u-li.3cale Mach Number. TN-ZO5Z_. Natio~nal dvisory
CROmet orAonuics, Washington, D(C, 1150.
17. Beechem, L.S., A Technique for Wind Tunnel Simulation of Store Release at High Speeds, CP No.
856, Ministry of Aviation, Condon, United Kingdom, 1955.
18. Aircraft Research Association Limited, Facilities Brochure, London, United Kingdom. September
19e1.
19. Pugh, P.6., and Sadler. A.J., Weapon Aircraft Interaction: Lecture delivered At Cranfield
Institute of Technology, RAE Tech Memto 1859, Jul 80, Bedford, United Kingdom, Sep 1980.
20. Rljzebel, K.R.,Separation of External Stores. NLR Memorandum VV-81-0167, National Aerospace
Laboratory, The Netherlands, May al.
21. Clearance of Mew Stores Configurations for Military Aircraft, NLR, National Aerospace
Laboratory. The Netherlands. Sep 1973.
22. Instrumen tation Marketing Corp. Automatic F1Ilm
Reading Digital Analysis System, Model 78-1,
Spec/Data Sheet, Jul 198.
23. Aircraft External Stores Certification and In-Flight Release, High Speed Aerodynamics
Laboratory Capabilities, Canada, Unpublished.
24. Kapp. R.,and Jacob, 0.,Launch1 Investigation of an Air-to-Air Missile, Dornier, GMBH,
Friedrichshafen. Federal' Republic or Germany, May 1979.
25. DeslIandes, R., and Thomas K.. SIIet Relfs UntPromneF8 RM
Muchen, Federal Republic or Gemay tia le Uiterormnc NP1 61mM
26. Baker, Jr, W.R., Stirn rt Tr, at Prdction Urin!W esio Anal 19 of Grid
Data, mo nnne_D-T4
g osn e r n
27. Greer, W.G., A Canadian Stores Certification Capability, Update Status. 1961, Unpublished.
26. 1rown. D., Currant and Near Future Canadian Work on Transonic Carriage and Release of
External Stores Relevant to KTA-4, MAE. Ottawa. Canada. Jan 1364.
29. National Research Council of Canada, Facilities Brochure. National Aeronautical
Establishment, Ottawa. Canada.
30. Le Centre D1Essais En Vol, Delegation General. Pour; Armament, Facilities Brochure, France
CEL 81.03.7447. Nay 1981.
31. High Speed Aerodynamics Laboratory, Facilities Brochure, National Research Council, Canada,
Undated.
32. Bill ingsly. J.P.. Burt, R.H.,and Root, J.T.. Store Sprto n
ortn~chiuso
the Arnold Enoineerino Develpmn* Cntr AEDC-TK-1911, Vlm IADIcAnl
Engineering DavelIopmet Cantern, Wn,March 1979.
33. Cenko, A.,Tinoco, E.N., Oyuor, R.D., and Dejoh gh, J., 'NAIR Applications to Weapons Carriage
and Separation,0 Journal of Aircraft, Volume 11, No. 2, February 1981, pp. 128-134.
34. Gomillion, G.R., C rison of Wind Tunnel Aerodyamic Dt o 9ad 0 cl
F-16 Aircraft, Stor and Sow-Ejector aC Modes. A - nol Engineering
yie
eopmen in Agust 99
eanter,
35. Maeia. E.R.,
P 'on MnEra Baflance Development. Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Unpublished Peer, Undaed.
36. Heim, E.R. and Anderson, C.F.. Data Productivity Irennt Throu h Automatic Model

37. Hetsberg. P.L. and Cline, V.A., WnStrPofield Measurement aTrnncSpeeds

Using a Laser Velocimeter. AEDC-TR-79-;, Arnold Engineering Developmen 52n9hr im, Apr 1979.
38. Hill Jr., D.W.. Evaluation of Several Error Sources Associae ihCpieTaetr
Testing. AEDC-irl7-7 ARU Inc., Arnold Engineering Development "Cenlter,
VTN, F'eob
1l91~9.
39. Lawrence, P.C., AWind Tunnel Test to IngestigteN _
th1eodn 1c,
Forces and Moments
of the B-28. B-61.M-SZ C." adSA nteFofedo th I-1 Aircraft. AEDC-ISR-83-
P-0, Caispan Field Services, inc.. Arnold Engineering Development Centeir,- ineb 1983.
40. Martinez, A.,Lt, USAF. F-4 H1ARM Missile/LAU-llBA Launcher Combination Jtio nlss
AEROMeow 84-6, Air Force Office of Aircraft Compatibility, Eglin AH lrd p 9
41. Military Standard, Aircraft/Stores Certificaton Procedures, MIL-STD-1763, United States
Department of Defense, Washington DC, November 1979.
42. Orrs, J.D., SeparationAnalsis Report oF1/30Gallon Tank Plus Pylon Wind
Tunnel Test Data for AMAMLoadings. Ap Wo 1 P3901, General Dynamc Corp, Ft. worth, TX,

43, Rodriguez, J.R., Capt. USAFand Payne. J.S., Lt, USAF, P-16/CBU8 SepaainAayiAR
Mem 849.9 Air Force Office of Aircraft Compatibility, TgTl-in AF, FLb Oct 9
44. Van Den Brock, G.J., 'The Use of a Panel Method in the Prediction of External Store
Separation,' Journal of Aircraft. Volume 21, No. 5. May 1984, pp. 309-315.
45. West. K.0. Ioearson of Fre Fl pht Spark Ranpe and Wind Tunnel Test Data for a
Generic Misl Cofgrtona c umbersfo 0. to Z.* ArATl-l.7-8-87,AiFoc
Armament Laboratory, Eglin Are. Florida, October
1981.
46. ReilIly, T.J.,Photogremetry Techniques Utilizedob Gru n During the F-14A Weapn Separation
FlgtTest Program. Grummean Aerospace Corporation Pr.Pt Mugu, CA, SeventhitAnnual
SymoiumliProceedlings, Society of Flight Test Irngineers. Aug 4-6, 1976.
47. Carman Jr.,J.6., Store Separation ardware ManLj~, AC-TM-PCW-OO1O, Volume IV, Arnold
Engineering Deveiopment Ceor, %MAugust 1984.
49. Luchuk, W. and Hill, D.W.,Evaluation ofithe Aeirog jamic interferences of the Tunnel 4T
C e ctory staem on th begarstlo Whrceitcs
or the *L-Z Store.
AECCTW-75-4 Arnold Engineering Dvelopment center, TN.November 176
50. MACDermott. W.N. and Johnson, P.W., Calculation of Forces on Aircraft Stores Loaded
in DisturIed,Plowfields for Application In Store SeaalnPeitonAD-N7-8,M
rnld ngn*ring Development Center, IN, Noveme 1r1
Thc,
51. Kaupp Jr., H . AnAircraft Store DaaMngmnt S.ystem AEDC-TMR482-PI6, Calspan Field
Servics. Inc. Arnold Engineering Center, TH, April 1982.
-eeo-pment
52. Heltsley, F.L. and Cline, V.A., Win/tr FlofedMasrmn atl Transonic Sped
Usin ! Laser eloc-Iitter. AEOC-IK-79-5, OIn Arnold Engineerin Deoment center,

53. Tolbert Jr.. R.H. and Lawrence, P.C., A Wind Tunnel Test to Obtain a Proof of Concept
for TContinuous CTS Store Movement inTunnel 4T Utili-zing eoct Conzrol.AEuC-TSR-79-P24,
AROInc,
Anol Enineering Development Center, TN, Merck 41979.
54. Korn, S.C., Use of the Flo Anuai0*ehiu for Prdictin0 Store Serto
4 'oiei.FI-H7-4,ArFreAmmn aoaoy gi Ara, Florida, October

55. Hume Jr.. R.A., Sup*roi eivrof Saboted Conventional Munitions from F-4
and F-l111 Aircraft. AFAT l v-elr-7
9ir oc Ammn Laboratory, Egl inAll, Florida, May

56. Baker Jr., W.8., Store Seaato PrdcinUigRgeso nlsis

arjtr
of Gri DaaAO-N-0PAOIcAnl nini~eeFringDelopmn Cente, TN,

57. Baullinger, N.C.Advanced eapon Carriage Technolog fo Grud.Attack Aircraft, Volume 1,

The Boeing Aerosprace Co. WepnCniura Selcton ad eon carriage
Fpii Feil
Trades, APFDC-TR -76-90, Air Force Flight Dynbamics Laboratory, Wright Patterson AFB 0ON,
October 1976.
58. Gallagher, R., Brickman. J.. Bruno. D.. and Alexander. T., Advanced Wee ons, C ~arre
Technology for Ground Attack Aircraft. Vought Corp, AFFDL-TR-7615-7 i c lnam cs
-so~tory. Wright Patterson AF5, OK,'November 1976.
59. Brooks, D.L., "Weapon Separatior Clearance Procedures for the F-1ll Aircraft," Aircraft/
Stores CornPtibility Symposium Proceedings, Volume 11, December 1971, pp. 45.66.-
60. Modern Data Analysis Techniques In Noise and Vibration Problems, Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development Report No. 700, H40NATO, Brussels, Belgium, September 1981.
61 Modeling the Lowest 1 Km of the Atmosphere, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and
Development (AGAR~ogreph No. 267), HQ0NATO, Brussels, Belgium, November 1981.
62. Test Facilities Hanbook (12 ed.), Volume. I, Test and Evaluation Planning, Arnold Engineering
Development Center, TN, March 1984.
63. Alders, G.J., In-Flit Mesrmn fArdy+nai Loads on Captive Stores, NLR-MP-77028J,
National Aerospece Laoratoruy_,Theel
Neherlan SepembEr 197.
64. Mainquist, R.S., Capt, USAF and Smith, W.B., Capt. USAF and Smith, W.B., Capt, USAF, Flutter
Instrumentation Validation of F-16 80-0573, AD-TR-83-62. Armament Division, Eglin AFr~T-
5eptember 1983.
65. Darrell Jr.,E.W.Interactive Granhics Analysis Program AIDRlO828, AEDC Comaputer User's Guide
for TEKPLOT, Arnold Engine~ering Deelpn Cne, TN. September198
66. Jones III. D.A., Some Aspecsfth Aircraft Store Separation Problem, NWL 1R-2206, Naval
Weapons Laborator-y. Chin~aLaOke,
CSeptember 190a.
67. Whiting, S., The Use of an InteractiveCmur to m a hotolra hic Data
Acquisition VSytem, Technical-Re-p-o-rt N. 5~i,
Sceyo M1,i~Eir-
h in~eers, October 1970.
68. Epstein, C.S., j
Aircraft/Munitin tblt .. ArFoc rjc SE AL' i
Force Armament Laboratory, fginsAPIFL, Rnated
ilA .SAiFoc retmEKEGL' Ar

69. Sadler, A.J., The Status of UK Methods for Predicting Stre Csarriacie
and Release at
Transonic Speeds, RAI IAI~38, Bedford. United Kigdm 2anury 1984.
70. Parker Jr.., R.L. and Erickson Jr., JC,, Status of Three Dimensional A ter-Wrall ITest
Section Davomnk at AbC..AIM PaperN.8-54 Calspan Field Se
W
Engineerin Deveomn center, TN, Undated.
71. Kuntavanish, N.A. and Cancel, R., Lt, USAF, Low Level Deie rgm
a - Correlation of
Wind Tunnel/Sled Track Test Separation Results_, AIM PaperF
NO. 83-27, November 1953.
72. Articulated Sting Improves Wind-Tunnel Testing, Design News. November 1982.

73,Shoch D.L. Sto eSeparaion From the Naclonnell-Douglas F-4 hircraft. Macoonnel
Douglas Corp. Publshe Paper, Undted.

74.
Metir, J.V,Predic tore Spratio Tr~ectories at the Naval Weapons Center, Eighth
iono
Navy Symposium on Aeroballs s Chia LeCundated.
 99
75, Schmidt, W. and Jameson A.WaetDvlget n iieVlm i-eedet
Tachniaus frTwo nd The = iesoa Von W11111"
On.sni instit for Fluid
.Lectr. SeieSIah982-u4, March MrK.
Dy-namfics,1
76. Jaffe, B. and Rao, S.V.R., Studyof, GnralIIzed Saf anh Bons o1xtra St.e Naval
Ship Research and Developement aarc,1W '&tr
iofe i,
77. Cooper. 6.6., The Use of Polarized.LIg inPhoto Instr04ntatio oMissile
Separations$ unpublished Paper Ion
Nv'ugIF
Ai Saio CA MrhN199.
78. Gairrone, A., Bucciantini, 6., and Barhanini. Comments on Wind Tunnel/ liht
Corre latiuns fofrEternal Stores Jettison Testo h F-104 and 61 V Al frcrf EIAI
SPAT-u-rin, IaY. may 1V/*.
79. Keen, KI.S., Economical Influence Function Calbra,,tin UI nthDirbueLodCd,
Calspan Field Sevices Inc., Arnold Engineering DeeometCnerh N Udtd
80. Siegel, R.B..A CseAgainst Co uter-Aided Flight Testing, Society of Flight Test Engineers
Technical Paper No. 2, Octoer T 7V
81. Potter, ).K., Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Flight Flutter Testing, British Aerospace Corp. Ltd.,
Warton, United Kingdom, 1975.
82. Reed, J.F. and Curry, W.H.. A Comparigspn, Bewe aransonic Wind Tunnel and Full-Scale
Store Separation Characteristics, 5adi Loratre, As iquer' :e,KiMl 1969.

83. Brooks, 0.1., "Store Separation From High Speed Aircraft With Emphasis on Comparisons of
Predictions and Flight Test Results," AIM Sixth Aerodynamic Testing Conference, AIM Paper
No. 71-294, March 1971.
84. Brooks, 0.1., "High Speed Store Separation - Correlation Between Wind Tunnel and Flight Test
Data,' AIM Third Aerodynamic Testing Conference. AIM Paper No. 68-361, April 1968.
85. Bamber, N.J., Two Methods ofObaiig irratStorre Tara. cories Frow. NW1nd
Tunnel
Investig Jn AR REpr A10 UT Oavi V.Tyo oe ai erodynamics Laboratory,
Washing onJanuary 1960.
86. Bamber, .. Store S~eparato InetgtosB rdMto sn idTne ata& AERO
2202, SMDavid w. Taylor Moe astint I Iahngo
Aeoynais aoaoy
hC, 966F April
87. Curtis, F.A., Veal, M.B., and Barnes, K.H., 'Aircraft Weapon Comapatibility - The Tradeoffs,'
General Dynamics ASTN. June 1967, pp. 38-45.

E. ovet, GE.. 'Wind Tunnel Simulation of Store Jettison with the Aid of an Artificial
Gravit enerate bMagnetic Fields.' Massachusetts institute of Technology, 1955.
89. Deslandes, R. and Kurz, W., Investigqation of Different Release Conditions to Match
ver laplementations During Missile Separation from a Fighter Aircraft. MBB,
Weapon DelIi
TedigiV-Re lic or Germany, Kay 1980.
un ciTl
90

APPENDIX A

AERO MEMO 84-06

F-4/HARM MISSILE/LAU-118A LAUNCHER COMBINATION

JETTISON ANALYSIS

OFFICE FOR AIRCRAFT COMPATIBILITY

3246 TEST WING/TY

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542

APRIL 1984

NOTE: For the sake of brevity, only typical, representative,

plots are included herein.
 INTRODUCTION
TAC certification request 1982 formulized a request to certify the
AGM-88/LAU-188A (HARM missile with launcher unit) for carriage and jettison on
stations 1, 2, 8, and 9, of the F-4 aircraft. The desired carriage limits are
a minimum of 550 KCAS/1.1 and the maximum limits the highest attainable limits
for the missile/launcher combination. Maximum obtainable jettison limits were
desireo. Certification objectives established by DLCJ and OLCA were clarified
with a desired limit of 650 KCAS/1.3 Mach.
The purpose of this memo is to predict the jettison characteristics of the
HARM missile with its launcher and to recommend a flight test plan. This
analysis considers only jettison of the HARM missile with its launcher and not
the actual firing of the missile.
STORE CHARACTERISTICS
The AGM-130 missile is a High Speed Anti-Radiation Air-to-Ground Missile
(HARM). The actual store considered in chis analysis is the combined missile
with its launcher (LAU-1l8A), with a combined weight of 879 lbs. Table I lists
the mass and physical properties of the missile/launcher combination.
AERODYNAMIC DATA USED
Freestream and grid interference aerodynamic data for the missile/launcher
combination were obtained in the four foot transonic (4T) wind tunnel at Arnold
Engineering Development Center in a test in August of 1983. The captive
trajectory test (TC746) is documented in Reference 1. Trajectory data were
also collected using the Captive Trajectory Support System (CTS). The
configurations tested are listed in Table 2. The drawitigs for the HARM
missile/launcher combination model used in the wind tunnel test are in Figure
1. The missile/launcher combination simulated a wings fixed missile during
release as a conservative approach. The missile in actual flight would have
wings operating in trail to the local flow field.

The freestream aerodynamic data of the missile/launcher combination were

compared to the freestream aerodynamic data of the HARM missile without the
launcher. This was done to better understand the effects the launcher has on
the missile.
The addition of the launcher to the HARM missile reduced the normal force
and pitching moment of the missile. The pitching moment at - 0 cegrees (Cný)
for the missile alone is nearly zero. The addition of the launcher changed Mo
of the missile to a negative value for all Mach numbers. The missile itself
does not display much aerodynamic stability and the addition of the launcher
unit does not change this fact. However, the misile itself is stable at
large angles of attack; likewise, the missile/launcher combination is also
stable at large angles of attack. Essentially, the stability of the
missile/launcher combination is very similar to that of the HARM missile alone.
APPROACH
The trajectory sVuulation of this analysis used th3 DLCA six degree of
freedom grid trajectory simulation computer program. The program uses
freestream aerodynamic characteristics of the store, as well as the measured
flow field (grid) interference coefficients induced by the parent aircraft to
predict the separation trajectory. In Appendix A, thee is a representative
control card string and input list to initiate the simulation program.

The trajectory is then represented using a graphics computer program which

produces three orthogonal sets of pictures of the store separating from the
aircraft. This is a useful tool in helping to determine collision boundaries
92

and separation characteristics of the store. All separations are illustrated

as right wing releases even though some of the configurations tested are on the
left wing of the wind tunnel model. These left wing releases were mirror
imaged onto the right wing only for illustrating the separation of the store
from the F-4 aircraft.
As a first step to verify grid data used inthe simulation, the grid
simulation trajectories were compared to representative full CTS trajectories
acquired on line during the wind tunnel test. These isdone to verify the grid
aerodynamic data and ascertain that the program has been properly initialized.
Using the trajectory program, a sensitivity analysis was completed to
understaod configuration effects, Mach number effects, altitude/dynamic
pressure effects, angle of attack effects, damping derivative effects and
varying mass properties effects.
The configurations tested inthe wind tunnel and simulated inthe program
are representative of the configurations requested by the TAC certification
recommendation. All the configurations were simulated at an altitude of 10,000
feet with a load factor of 1.0g in level flight. The calibrated airspeed in
knots/Mach number ranged from 350/1.75 to 860/1.3. Inthe subsonic regime, the
angle of attacks ranged from zero to four degrees in increments of two degrees
and in the supers~nic regime, the angles of attack were zero and two degrees.
All the configurations test'ed simulated a MAU-12 cartridge/orifice settings
of two 863 cartridges with orifice settings of .156 (fwd)/blank (aft). This
type of cartridge/orifice combination provides a total ejector force of 3250
lbs and creates a positive (nose up) ejector moment of 562.25 ft-lbs.
As inthe wind tunnel tests, the store was modeled as a fixed wing store
during Its release. This approach ensures uniformity for comparisons of the
simulations with the CTS data.
Of the six configurations tested, four of them had CTS (trajectory) data in
order that comparisons could be done with the simulation program to verfy the
program ability to predict trajectories accurately. Figures 2 through 7 show
representative plots of the grid simulation trajectories versus CTS
trajectories for two of the tested configurations. Figures 2, 3,and 4
demonstrate the grid simulations program predicted pitch and yaw quite well,
for configuration 101. Infigures 5,6, and 7 the program predictions are very
accurate for this configuration - configuration 104.
Although only two configurations are presented here, the other two
configurations displayed similar results. This proves that "limited grid" can
be used to predict store trajectories as well as *full grid" or CTS. Once the
store angle of attack exceedes 26 degrees, the accuracy of the simulation
decreases rapidly and, therefore, isnot dependable beyond this point.

SIMULATION RESULTS
The three view illustrations of four representative configurations are
included infigures 8a through 11b for selected ,jettision conditions. InallI
cases, the store pitches down even tho'rgh the applied ejector force causes a
positive (nose up) ejector moment and the store rolls inboard and yaws
outboard. This downward pitch of the store is a desirable trait for safe
separation of a store from an aircraft.
a) Cunfiguration Effects
Figures 12a through 13c demonstrate the effects different configurations
will have on the store's trajectory. Inall cases configurations 102 and 104
 93

show a larger downward pitch than in configurations 101 and 106. The
difference in pitch between configurations 102 and 104 and configurations 101
and 106 can be up to 15 degrees at a point four to five feet below the
aircraft. Once again, Configuration 104 displays larger outboard yaw of all
four configurations. Configuration 102 did not display any real pattern. This
di fference in yaw in Configurat ion 104 from all the others can be up to 15
degrees at a point four to five feet below the aircraft. The difference in
configurations do have a very significant effcct on the store trajectory. In
terms of pitch and yaw rates, the worst configuration would be Configuration
104. From a physical standpoint, Configuration 106 can be considered a worst
case. The store inthis case is released from the inboard station and is
required to clear a larger area than inConfiguration 104.
b) Mach Number Effects
Figures 14a through 15d show Mach effects for four configurations at two
different angles of attack. The calibrated airspeed inknots (KCAS) was held
constant at 600 KCAS for each Mach number and angle of attack.
Inpitch, Mach number has some effect. Between N a .95 and N -; 1.3 maximum
difference inpitch isabout seven degrees, five feet below the aircraft and
12 degrees, eight feet below the aircraft. But mnost of the configurations
display smallI differences inpitch. Ingeneral, as Mach number intcreases, the
tendency is for downward pitch to remain the same or decrease.
Mach number has a different effect on yaw. Between N - .95 and N - 1.3 the
maximum difference in yaw is about 20 degrees, five feet below t.he aircraft and
30 degrees, nine feet below the aircraft. In almost allI cases, as the Mach
number increases outboard yaw increases.
Pitch rates and yaw rates were investigated to determine the effects Mach
number may have on these rates. The Mach number had little effect on the pitch
rate, although the yaw rates inthe supersonic regime were significantly
different from the yaw rates inthe subsonic regime.
c) Altitude/Dynamic Pressure Effects
'Figures 16a through 18d demonstrate the effects altitude/dynamic pressure
has on the store's trajectory for all the configurations and selected aircraft
angles of attach. The altitude/dynamic pressure does have some effect on the
store's trajectory, although it's only slight. The tendency isfor the store's
downward pitch and outboard yaw to decrease with increasing altitude.
d) Anale of Attack Effects
Figures 19a through 21d IllIustrate the effects on pitch and yaw of the
store as the aircraft angle of attack is varied, both pitch and yaw are
affected. At M a .95 between AOA a 0 and AOA a four degrees, pitch differs by
about eight degrees and yaw differs by about 12 degrees, five feet below the
aircraft. At N - 1.1 and M- 1.3, between AOA a 0 and AOA a two degrees, pitch
differs by about six degrees while yaw differs by about five degrees, five feet
below the aircraft. Ingeneral, as the aircraft angle of attack increases,
downward pitch decreases and outboard yaw increases.
e) Damping Derivative Effects

The values used for the damping derivatives where those estimated values
for the HARM missile without its launcher. These values came from reference 2.
To account for the launcher and the approximated values obtained, Cnr and Cmq
were varied to determine possible effects '-nese damping derivatives may have on
the store's trajectory. Figures 22a thruu.gI 24c show that changes inthe
damping derivatives have little effect on the store's trajectory.
94

f) Varying mass properties Effects

~5The Center of Gravity (CS) of the store was varied to determine the effects
onthe store's trajectories. The minimum CG limit used was 6.9 feet from the
noeof the missile. The maximum C6 limit used was 7.9 feet from the nose of
the missile. Figures 25a through 27d show the CG effects for aircraft angle of
attack of zero degrees.
The variation of the store CG has a significant effect in pitch and yaw.
Between CS a 6.9 feet and CG a 7.9 feet, the maximum c'ifference in downward
pitch is 13 degrees, five feet below the aircraft and 23 degrees, nine feet
below the aircrafrt. Within the specified limidts, outboard yaw differs by a
maximum of seven degrees, five feet below the aircraft and 20 degrees, nine
feet below the aircraft. In general, as the store CG position moves aft,
downward pitch and outboard yaw increase.
FLIGHT TEST RECOMMENDATION
In the subsonic regime, the trajectory simulations of all four
configurations lookced at displayed smooth characteristics of the store. The
downward pitch is not excessive and there is little or no yaw of the store
after release. This is not the case in the supersonic regime. At 625 KCAS/1.1
and 735 KCAS/1.3, nose downward pitch and outboard yaw trends are considerably
more rapid than in the subsonic regime.
Another item to consider is the acquisition of the required flight test
assets. These assets are very expensive and difficult to obtain. Therefore,
it would be desirable to keep flight test costs to a minimum.
Also, recent flight test films were reviewed of a similar missile to the
HARM and the AGM-45 missile. The AGM-45 missile displayed a very smooth and
excellent release up to 550 KCAS/.95 from the F-4 inboard station. Although
this missile did not have the launcher released with it,it's expected that a
comparison can be made between the HARM missile and the AGM-45 missile. The
AGM-45 missile is a lighter weight vehicle release without vertical ejection.
In view of this information, it is desired not to flIight test at 550
KCAS/.95. But this is not the case in the supersonic regime. For safety
considerations and, also, because it's general philosophy that supersonic
jettison of a store be demonstrated, flight testing will be required inthe
supersonic regime.
Two flight tests will be required. The first test should be at 600
KCAS/l.l with the HARM missile/launcher combination being jettisoned from the
inboard station number 2. The second test should be at 650 KCAS/l.3 with the
HARM missile/launcher combination being jettisoned from the inboard station
number 2. This second flight test should be done after films from the first
flight test have been reviewed. All releases should be at l.Og loading and in
level flight. Figure 28 illustrates the configurations and flight profiles for
these flight tests. GADS data are requested for all the missions.
SUMMARY
Based on the trajectory simulations, it's expected the HARM
missile/launcher combination can be jettisoned safely from an F-4 aircraft.
The initial tendencies are to pitch down and yaw outboard. Upon successful
completion of proposed flight tests, the HARM missile/launcher can be cleared
on the F-4 aircraft to possible limits of 650 KCASP1l.3 at 1.0g loading for
jettison in the requested configurations.
 Iable I

URN AGN-88 wita LAU 118/A Mass and PI•ical Propertie#

Store Veglht (fte) 079.0

Diameter (ft) 0.833
oeferm*c Area (ft 2
) 0.545
Length (ft)
13.667
wd lug location 7.150
Aft of the none (ft)
Center of Gravityr Location
2.925
Aft of fd lug (In)
Rolling Kmment of Inertia
7.2
Xxx (alug-tt 2 )
Pitching Mment of Inertia 345.00
Iy (alug-rO)

Yawing Moent ot Inertia 340.00

2
Is% (slug-ft )
Cross Product of lnertia
3., 2

4 Boll Damping Derivative -100.00

CLP (1/radiar)
* Pitch Damping Derivative -1000.00
CNQ (1/radimn)
I Yaw Damping Derivative -100000
CMr (1/radian)

* NOME Dempiz•g Derivatives are for the EARM missile vithout

its launober.

tI

'4
 CONFIG OUT8O INB CNTRLINE iNBRO OUTWIN

Io Z EMlPTY fAQ- ue/q

lo 4 f 1 9 448•
I00 C8U-W5 L4Cl-6 U
FOPTY
/ 0z PTYT'Y
nEroel ,,•

/O• &MPrY qnPT,-8Y/

L.i 0 .- ,.--rle _

* DENOTES METRIC STORE CLEAN DENOTES PYLON REMOVED

0 DENOTES DUMMY STORE EMPTY DENO:'ES NO STORE ON PYLON

'7 DENOTES TER OENOTES MER

"Tabt, I
Wind Thnnel Test (Cont'iguratiunt4

' LA
 di
NLO

4i~
98

IACN .16
Aa 0 f
OCIVIS 101

OAF INIX X 21

.95
MIACH
AOA 0 DEG
CONFIG 101
ALT 10K
OAF INDEX 25

Figure Sa- Trajectory Simulations

(Cool is 101)
 F ,4G/HARM
MACH 1. 1
AOA 0 DEC
COF IG 101
ALI 10K
OAF INOEX 27

-44

F-4G/HARM
NACH 1.3
AGA 0 DEG
CONFIG 101
ALT tLO
OAF IND•X 31

Figure Bb- Trajectory Simulations

(Confi8 101)

I+

L __________
100

U.

a- z

x zR

u u.

(00 AVA 00
LL

11~ 00 0

'r a

9
!1- 0 0

~DLL w z

1100

LL<U
 SN (30) 4VA

L'.U)t-c Z
c.< ZL)0

cr OW - U-
LD 0 U-

UAOcW.
102

(00 MY) 0

" e- ' D ,,

.4---.-
•D.
- ----F - - C

ld 0

3 .- rL

• ""~

lot
3U6__
0 .4

-. _
 103

r
cr

tD:
U
-.-
I.0

<i
-

1100

ww

(DZ.
7: Digi-
N,

LL3r~-
104

In

. 4 t *,ý
 103

(p(nlU
r-LOW - L
cr-C W
Nr .IILLW
LD-<Z
U.. L <Li Li

"uSp

S (930)Hlild9 Y9

N1
.LL W

ULT.ZCJU
106

CONFIG OUDD 1143.0 CUTRLZHE ZNDD OuTB3D

1 30 Gal 4 Us a~~t MeA V370 Oa1tk

Confiqurations

COtIFIG MISSION PA~SS RBLEASF KCAS/MACM

I I P2 600/1.1

1 2 1P2 630/1.3

Flight Profile
 107

APPENDIX B

AERO MEMO 84-09

F-16/CBU-89 SEPARATION ANALYSIS

OFFICE FOR AIRCRAFT COMPATIBILITY

3246 TEST WING/TY
{
Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32548

OCTOBER 1984

NOTE: For the sake of brevity, only typical, representative,

plots are included herein.

4
108

INTRODUCTION
SACMBOIND.

The F-16 SPO requested TY to support the TAC requirement for certification
of the CM-89 on the r-16 aircraft. The desired release limsits for this
weapMn OR the P-16 area 600 K10S/1.2 Hoch on parent oarritqp and 550 KCAS/.95
Mach on multiple carriage.

The purpose of this memorandum is to arulyse the CBU-89 seperation

characteristics and to prepare a flight test plan ftr an F-161CBJ-89
certification. This report will mynthessle the data analysis accomplished in
ordet to develop a flight test plan for store olearance. The test plan
reoommendation is also included in this document.

SCOPE.

The flitht test rocomendation will he hesed upon CBU-89 separation

computer simulations. The conrigurations to be oertirled are shown in
Figure 1. Figure 2 deplete drawings of the CIU-89, COU-58 and NK-20 model
used In the wind tunnel to gather free stream data. This data shows the
aerodynamic similarities between the stores.

STORE CHAJACTERISTICS.

The CBu-89 Is a aluster munition which enters a spin mode after release,
using centrifugal force to disperse submunitions. This spin mode, activated
by canting the deployed tail fins, occurs after the store has fallen clear of
the aircraft. The rotating ta•l fins open within 150 as after release and
will, therefore, be taken Into consideration with respect to the separation
analysis. However, beause of the timing of the spin mode, the mat of the
fins will not be considered in the analysis. Mass properties of the COU-89
are listed In Table 1.

FRE SI4WA CHARACTERISTICS.

Although TYE has not oonduoted a wind tnnel test with the CM-89, free
stream data for the store is available thrtugh the Free Stram Data Retrieval
System. By studying the mss and physi"al properties of the CBU-89, an
engineering assessment Is that this store has a combination of the
characteristics of the CBU-58 and the 1I4-20. In particular, the CB0-89 is
similar in size and weight to the CBU-58 and resembles a IK-20 shape. In
order to depict how the CBU-89 is analogous to the combined characteristics of
these two stores, Figures 3 and 4 show example plots of the normal force and
pitching moment coefficients versus store angle of attack. All data are for
closed fins and oonsistent store orientation.

The same comparison was conducted using open fins configuration. See
Figures 5 and 6. This time only CBU-58 and COU-89 were plotted. As seen by
the plots, the CBU-89 has fins closed free stream characteristics In the
transient range between the CMU-58 and the 1M-20. Nevertheless, for the fins-
open configuration, the CBU-89 is shown to be more stable than the CBU-58.
The next section will discuss the separation charaoteriattis of the CB3-49
using CDU-58 interference coeffioients.

APPROACH.

The Six-Degree-of-Freedom grid simulation program wa used to generate the

trajectories presented on thit analysis. In this program, total coefficients
were derived from the CM1-89 free stream data combined with Interference data
 109

from COU-58. This last data was collected during wine. tunnel t*.t TC-524
conducted by AM3 in M~T14T (MMD-DR-78-42). Trajectories are depicted as
three view drawings of the store as It @oearates from the aircraft. All
* reparations are st~wta as right wing releases. The CBU*-89 separat'*ins analysis
simulated releases from a parent pylon on stations 3 and T. In addition,
* simulated releases from TIfs on stations 3, 4, 6 and 7. Table 2 shown the
ejector forces and momenta used in the Six-Degree-ct-Freedom program.
PREVIOUS FLOW, TEST.
The CDO-89 was previously released on the F-16 aircraft. It in documented
in AN-TR-83-32. This teat evaluated single carriage and release of the COU-89
on pylon stations 4 and 6. The release conditions for these were as followas
airspeeds between 529 and 695 KTASI altitudes from 1,830 to 15,770 teet AOL;
and dive angles up to 60 degrees. It also evaluati)d mul tiple carriage and
release (slant 4 configurations) of the CBU-89 from TERs on pylon stations 4
and 6 of the F-16 with centerline fuel tank, mhe release conditions tested
for this configuration ranged from 9,250 to 12,000 feet AOL In altitude, 525
to 610 ETAS, and 30 to 60 degr~a dive angle. Ripple release for slant 4
configuration was performed at T0 and 300 mý1lisecond Intervals.
31HULA TION RESULTS.
The CVS-89 simulations were conducted on parent carriage and multiple
carriage cornfigurations. Figura 1 shows the configurations simulated.* The
altitude range on the s1imlation was from 1,000 teet to 20,000 feet.
Similarly, the Mach umaber was varied from .6 to 1.2 for parent carriage and
from .6 to .95 to,- multiple carriage.
AOA v,#s varied from 0 to 6 deogrees an all simulation configurations.
By using the altitude and Mach number variations, the simulation was built
up to the desired goal of 600 KCA3/1 .2 Mach on parent carriage and 550 KCAS/
.95 Mach on multiple carriage. These simulations were conducted at 0 degree
and 60 degree dive angles. The results are shown In Figures 38 through 47. 1
center of gravity (COG.) sensitivity analysis was also conduate'3 to
investigate store stability. Figures 8 through 37 are examples of the CDO-89
pictorial and ga Aphical Y.ev3 of the store's separation which were generated
by thw Six-Degree-of-Freedom program.

a) Cc&Tiguwtion Effe(nts.
(1) For all simulated conditions and configurations, the CBU-89
shrowed safe separation oharaoteris~tios.
(2) For releases from outboard shoulder on inboard pylý.n, the store
tended to translate outboard a% lower speeds but tended to translate Inboard
for hipner spoods.

b) Mach Erfeots.
(1) For all conditions and configurations simulated, an Increase in
spedf the same angle-of-attack tended to slightly inornaso
Z-trennlation and negative pitch. Yawing was not significant enough to cause
any concern about collisions.
(2) As a general rule, the trajectories became more pertarbed as the
Mach number increased.
110
c) Aircraft Anale-of-Attank.
For all ocnfigurations, an inoreaSe in angle-Gt-attack for the me
oonditions tonded to slightly Increase the CBU-89a pitch and yawl it also
decelerated the store's Z-translation.

d) The C.O. sensitivity analysis illustrated In Figures 38 throg 47

ohms very little change in the separation oharacteristic of the store.
e) The dive angle analysis Illustrated in Figures 48 through 57 indicates
no significant change In separation oharecteristlas.

a) This analysis demonstrated the separation characteristics of the

CBU-89. Due to lack of wind tunnel data, interference coefficients from the
CBU-58 were utilised to conduct the CMI-89 sianlations. A comparison of free
stream data for both fins-olosed and fins-open oonfigurations, and the ract
that both stores are very similar, Justified the use of CDU-58 Interference
data in conjunction with Coo-69 free stream data for the analysis. In
general, all simulations showed se separations. An Increase in Mach number
for constant AOA slightly increased the pitch rate, Z-translation and yawing
moment. An inorease of &OA for constant Mach number Increased the pitch and
yaw but decelerated the store's Z-translation. The C.G. sensitivity analysis
indicated no significant effset on separations.

b) The 60 degree dive angle release indicated very little effect on

the store's separation characteristics.

c) A review of AD-TR-83-32 corroborates the safe separation

predictions. This report intiludes flight test information on C90-89 releases
from the F-16 aircraft.

d) Film review of previously released CBU-89 and CBU-58 stores from

the F-16 aircraft were oonduoted. These show the same separation
oharaoteristics as those simulated in this analysis.
FLIGHT TEST RECOMMENDATIONS.

Due to the safe separation oharacteristiCs exhibited by the CBU-89 from

the F-16 aircraft, the following release demonstrations are recomended (see
Figure 7):

MISSION PASS RELEASE KCAS/KACH DIVE CONF.

1 1 Pylon 3 500/.95 -60 1

2 1 Pylon 3 550/1.05 -60 1
3 1 Pylon 3 600/1.2 -60 1
4 1 Pylon 3 5501.95 -60 2
TED/I
4 2 Pylon 3 550/.95 -60 2
TER/2
5 1 Pylon (3-7) 550/.95 -60 3
Ripple Pair
Release (70s)
6 1 Pylon 550/.95 -60 3
(3,4,6,7)
Ripple Pair
Release (TOms)
 itt

TABLE I
CDU-89 MASS AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

NIXWr (lbs.) 680 + 5%

LEOTE (ft.) 7.6T
DIARUTIM (in.) 15.60
FED HV rrTIC
T LU (in-aft of nome) 35.00
CQ (In-aft ot t lug) (iLs.) T.6 + 0.5
NOUN air ZIITIA

lIt (alug - ft 22 ) 1.10

Iyy (slug - rt ) 83.20
2
Its (slug - ft ) 83.20

TABLE 2

FORCES AND MON•ES USED FOR THE CBU-89 SIMULATIONS

(Inputs In the Six-Degree-or-Freedom)

COmP. PARENT CARRIAGE CHIN STATION SHOULDER STATION

602 FIWCZ 7233 LW

T
BMW 1501 FT LW

402,.ORCZ • 1200 LWt

EIONT 140 FT LI?
502 EFORCZ 8
88.4 LW
EFORCY 888.11 L
P4ONY a 99.0 FT *Lit
ZM4Z a -99.0 FT * LW
601 2FOPCZ a 1200 L~t
.NMI 1110 FT. LIt

T01 DWORCZ a 848.4 LW

OM aa99.0
•lmN 8118.1
FT LBf?
LoIt
P4MZ a -99.0 FTo Li

• Cartridge and orlitic oomblnation

AaD-863/AlD-116
.081/.110 (inches)

. ..
.. --L
-Z I
* A
112

STATION LOADING LOOKING FORWARDn

j2 3714 5 16 7 &

602

60 a 0 0 0 07
CV,. CONF.

COIIF. 4O?/502
l oAM-
CONF.601/701

AI119 * Dmrkoned %tortsMean these are to be dropped.

0 *o-s

O . 370 GALTANK

G.TER

Q 3M GA.TANK

Figure 1
 01.14 4!sM~

#10-" ee..t
m e- oam ,,M. 609 m stoat

Lee.
"mstee

- e4Its 4111Ce
C41 lo
04411--
Se101141

41.e1110 gox
a...1

magmeme
=n.

41.4140,1

CW--I
114

FREESTREAM DATA RETRIEUAL SYSTEM

EGLIM AFB, FLORIDA

C
L--1

-5 -$ ~ ~ 10 -I. - Is5 E)
20 255 3

ALFA

RECORD DATA
SYMBOL I LIME NUMBER SETS X-VARIABLE DATA NAME Y-UARIABLE DATA NAME
29 1 ALFA CLM (CBU-58(+) M-. 60)
----- --
---- --
--- 18 2 ALFA CLM (MK-20(+) M-.80)
18 1 ALFA CLM (MK-20(X) M-.80)
-.--.---------- 3S 72 ALFA CLM (CBU-89(X) M-.70)
0-----------0 3S ?3 ALFA CLM (CBU-89(+) H-.70)
Wrats LINES UITW ATTHE
awm AK m• ;i(+) - Fins at 0 deg
(X) - F.ns at 45 deg

Figure 3- Pitching Moment vs

Store Angle of Attack
 II
115
-
FREESTREAM DATA RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
EGLIN AF8, FLORIDA
3 -

a - -

,-.,

-S 0 S e 25 2S 30

ALFA

RECORD DATA
SYMBOL & LINE NUMBER SETt X-UARIABLE DATA NrAE Y-UARIABLE DATA NAME
29 1 ALFA CN (CBU-58(+) 1-.60)
&------------A 18 2 ALFA CN(MK-20(+) M-.80)
-- 35 72 ALFA CN (CBU-89(X) M-.70)
-.------------- s 12? ALFA CN(MK-20(X) M-.70)
-.---------- O 35 73 ALFA CN(CBU-89(+) M-.70)
mv u S SI W J&Tt" a CUM P11S. (+) - Fins at 0 deg

(X) - Fins at 45 deg

Figure 4- Normal Force vs Store Angle of Attack

 116

STATION LOADING LOOKING FORWARD

,2 3 4 5 6 7 8

,CONF 1 o0 0 ý0
ECM
Dod
CQNF 2Iý

CONF 3 oo

( AIM-9

0 " CBU-89

"O 370 GAl.TANK

V - TER

- 300 GALTANK

Figure 7. Flight Test Confinurations

 117 -

F-16 C8U89 ANALYSIS

MACH 0 .85
A LT 1 0 00 FT
AOA 4 DES
TC 524/CONF 602
OAF 30
3

1 1 A II n

I , III IIf p I

Il ,11
I l* t I
ipl L.Ut

.6K00 ...... .S .2 2.
. ." ..

111 IL 'SIC

Figure 10
116:

F- 16 CBUG9 ANALYSIS

.KOA - 2 DEG
TC 524/CONF 602

O~ I I N0 4011

D IA I L

.6 LH A IL . . .. ..L U 6
'r ---

F-16 CBU89 ANALY(SIS

AOA a2 DEG

TC 524/CONF 602

AF 44
OA03

LSLA1IL1 1

-1 1
A - 1-

J-LL ~ ~ ~
I ti eucaIH .1

AT"~igr 14 1 11J

_ it _ _I__ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __
CONF 601
0.6/15K

I-

Z OISP(FT)
I NORMAL cr. . 2 IN
G Cr -2 IN

Figure 44

F- 16 CBU89
CG SENSI-
TIVITY
CONF 601 __-
0.95/8K

0.

Z DISP(FT)
0' NORMAL A co -2 IN
0 C. -2 IN

esgmr 46
 ¼i

II

DIVE AMAL
ANALYS
CONF 601

t,'P,

* r
U

II

Z DISP(FT)
0l DEG DIVE

Figure 54

F-16 CBU89 '--

DIVE ANGLE
ANALYSIS
,COWF 601

0.358K m [_

-iam
Z ' ") '
'1SP

itISDEG DIVE!5
* 60 DEG
DIVE

i.Figure - - -
 APPENDIX C

GRAPHIC ATTITUDE DETERMINING SYSTEM

OFFICE FOR AIRCRAFT COMPATIBILITY

3246 TEST WING/TY

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542

APRIL 1984

NOTE: For the sake of brevity* only typical, representative,

plots are included herein.
 UWMIC ATTITWI mfhINIs SUIM 2

The graphic Attitude Determining System (MA) Is a topuebased systo for Col looting and
with a video display generated by the cbmputer, and presmats the superimposed Imamp to a video Mnitor.
The operser them omends W mtw on slip too Images at which petint the lecatinat e the store Isj
knewn. The hardwar "a del I yt n.i codeewihedtie pcfo

AllI methods of stare saparstiem date reetime, which noes single canares, wre based on the
omMprinciple Specifcally,. they OMe Ma af the fact that distante informatlmio n cIded in the
filimgaas7perent distertlem of the Iump due to perspetive. This Odistortisn denlete because as
a objectunovasrwther freethe cmm It sobteads amem t lor ogle within the tetal field of view of the
comoma. This is to"e csens the object to r to shrink toward tha optical eanter ot the camera with
lacreftim V168iag distante. The nooat aef'trtoa of the image Is related Net only to the
distancebu also the focal length of the comera lees. That is, shorter focal lsegt lease (wider
field of view) Increase the perspective while lang focal length leases (telephoto) flatten eot the
Iampg. By kaewis9the fotal length of the lees and the preetle pesitiamal relatlenthip hetwean several
fixed paints a en stare it is possible to retrieve this distante intferuatlen with aufficliet points
It It possible te resolve the data iato the six degrees of fr*wda "Wiredto characterize the
seperation of' the stare.
The phetogrtmmric method uases precisely paiated spots am the surface of the store as
reference paints. These sptat are thean umsared within eah trim of tils. The data from the Mtore
prier to separatiom is then used to locate the position of the comera with respect to the store. The
la&ter frunes can thee be reduced with respect to the camrer and thee transl ated and rotated back to the
coordinate system Of the store prier to release.
The Photo Data Analysis System (PADS) developed at the Naval Nissile Center located at Point
Nupe, CA does away with the need for paiated spots. Instead an enact model of the store is placed an a
mechanical positioning system. The model is than viewed with a video comea using the sam lens that was
use 0 the focal
on caMera
airornlength Doing so dulicates the swat Of pespective i%the 1ap and thus
elimintates as a variable. The video Is thee mined with a video impg at the filIs and the
are than displayed an a video monitor. The operator thee moves the model, using
iueipsdlmpgs
the system, to obtain a precise match of the two Images. The position of the model can then
16positinn
be recorded and later scaled to obtain the actual position of the store.
The BADS uses a -op1uter to generate a video image of the outline of the Mstr. This video
is thee mined with a video image of the film and displayed on a video monitor. An operator thee
supplies commands to the computer to move the Image of the store until the two inages are aligned.
To make this possible the coIuter must calculate the amovnt of perspective. based an the location of
the store with respect to the cow&.a and distort the image by an appropriate amunt. To do so the
computer test knew the characteristics of the coorer.

In early 19746 a specification for the BANS was developed by the System Engineering Broach of
the Directorate of Computer Sciences at Egl in AFL. This specification was based in pert on a
feasibility study which had been Performed by S. Walters. During the study. Nr Walters wrote a program
for the IIM-360 to display an Image of a store (a a Vector General display. Positioning of the imag
was controlled through a function keyboard. A 16GN movie projector was than used to project fromes of
filmn directly on the face of the display. The computer generated image was then moved to achieve
superposition. The data collected during the test compared very wellI with the data resulting from the
phaotgraometric solution and therefore indicated that the basic method was feasible.
While conducting the feasibilit study, one problem are became very apparent. This
concerned control of the computer Image Th method that had bean used was to use function keys to
start. stop, and change the direction of motion of the image in its sin ft a of free-- While this
was not a problem in X. T, and Z. It was very difficult to control roll, PItch ad yaw. Specifically.
it was very difficult for the operator to relate use of the controls to the direction that he wanted to
rotate the store In. This was compounded by the fact that if, for example. the store were to yew such
that It points in the opposite direction, then the rollI ad pitch'controls reverse direction. That is,
a Motlom of the control which used to cause pitch up. Now causes pitch down. It was apparent that using
Joystcks as had bee planned would not be such bettor for cosoall1Ing the rotations. Based largely on
idect formulated by VAS. Clements. the design for the special purpose attitudef control shamn in Figure 1
took shape. IN this desige the rod represeets the store with one and designated as the nose and other
as the tail. This rod is free to rotate apprenimately plus or minus 30 dop~r#4s on each of three aOc.
These three moveoets supply three analog voltage levels to the computer which are thee interpreted as
rotatianoin a bdout the three axes. Each axisIs sprin loaded to ausetItetoreturn teIts nro
position when the oprator releases It. This allows the attitude control to be used asa velocity
rather than a positional control. That Is, tUe more the control isý displaced the faster the computer
image is rotated. IN addition to the spring loaded rotations, the control was specified to have detests
every 15 degreso an the pitch and yew mase. This allIows the control to be positioned in approximately
the SOMPosition as the Store so to WeANce the ability Of the operator to relate control movemets to
imag vovamets.
The block diagram of the system specified in the final statemnt of wort appears In Figure L
All specified componants, with the exception of the attitude control ad the packaging of the system were
to be Off the shelf equpeent. ON6 NOY ISM1 the contract NU SMen to MA System Ing, In Nelbeuree
FL.as 4 cMngtitive bid.Th Wsyswas actual ly del ivered 0 S F0Pabse 19M. It has SInce been
eMApadd IN-t6ouse through several additional ceqetitive bide. The current configuration of the systom

The IV uses a System IElinmorif1 Laboratories UL 31ill computer systak It Is a 31 bit

I Terminet-30 teleprinter (System Console) General Eiectric

2 Model 9742600 Myte disk drive Control Data
I T.1140A 46ips 1I UP! Tape Drives PertatcComputer
I AIR-la Orogremers Terminal Leaw Stagier
I "oft) 1012 4 color drum plottur Calcoop
I Nada1 7410 Anal"ogl~iital Subsystem IlL
1 M6cop Card Meador True Data Corp.
OPERATOR'S COMIWE
The VA5 operator'n console del ivered by NBASystema Inc., Includes the graphics Generator.
and the video subsysem The video atern is a 1000 Ine Usysn consistin¶ of a video mooltor. two
cumeras. and a vide mixer. The graplos systam asee builIt byenisco Coqvop.rs Inc. and consists of a
4
IM 4by IONtraster scan system wth 4 wary planes. This a low up to If gay levels to be generated.
inclede
else~~I e c*aricter/wector geneator as wellI as the standard programmable
M~-hrift
grapicsprocsso. aoptics system consists of two file transports projecting directly onto the face
of the video camore. Three film transports (1-urnm and 2-16m) are available for mounting on the two
transport staticns. These transpi)rts mey be either menal ly or computer controlled. Also Included in
the conale is an analog/digital subsystem which interfaces the two s/y Joysticks. the attitude control.
the footswitch. and the filma transport controls to the computer. the actual cooponents included are as
fol lows;
a l1on f1Ilm transports Vanguard Instr.
1 35 Nof1Ilm traneport Vangard! nstr.
1 6CT-100 graphics display system lenisco Computer&
1 Alphanumeric keyboard lenisco Computer
2 7120 high Mesvideo cemeras Cohu Electronics
1 210 high resolution INV monitor Conrec
1 video miser NA System
1 Attitude control NRASystems
2 s/y joysticks Krafts System
1 footswitch LimNeRster Switch
INFRARED CONOL
In late 119,9 components wer procured to build an infrared profiles analysis console In-
house. The function of this console is to process infrared profiles (recorded on video tape) using the
CADS computer system. A black diagram of the console Wpears in Figure 4. It operates In a manner
similar to the SAMS console in that It mises video data with computer generated graphics to allow the
operator to interact with the data. It Is however, a NTSC compatible 525 line color stem. The
cooputer graphics generator Is capable of displaylinup to 256 colors frem Its 4096 color set
simultaneously on a raster by rater basis. The graphics generator has 8 memory planes in a 410 by 512
raster confiquiration. It also Includes a high speed hardware charactar/vacter gen#'atr. The
ceopoments Inclut~d in the console wre as foll)ows.
1 GCT-300 color graphics system Genisco Cooputers
1 GCT-3031 color video miser lenisco Computers
1 GCT-3071 alphanumeric keyboard Senisco Computers
1 OCT-3073 3-axis Joystick Sonisco Computers
1 1t inch color smoitor Nitsubishi
1 VOhlD video cassette recorder Sany
1 EFS-lA video disc recorder Echo Science
1 PSS-311 color sync Generator Lance Inc
1 PCO-363 NTSC chrema decorder Lance Inc
1 I O 45 UTCN chrome encoder Loen, Inc.
I Video switching logic In-house
$CF-TAE
All applications software ruuming on the MS wasuritten at ADAM~ The software Is written
almost entirely in Fortran IV and runs under EL's RTA operating system, Version LL0 The software
consists of three primiary prepeom and several smaller Program.
NM- DIFIUITION PRMMA
busdfrThe Nedel Definition Progr (NSP) Is an interactive pagesr for defining Geometric models to
busdfrreducing data on the VL The pregrm Is general purpose andl not restricted to defining
stores. the program is written completely Is ANSI Fortran IV with al system dependent code Isolated to
seven subroutines, naking the proigram very my~ to transport to other system. The original version of
the progrom was written ond debugged on teCCK4600 prior to del Ivory of the UKA.
 125

NIP hes a very fleaable comend set. Cum"s have been chosen to be a moeaingl al
possible. All I Iput uses throught a parsin subroutime which atleft the user to abbreviate commands to
decimal poinst. Parameters may either be entered ane par lIme,& Ioalem Ie lIme, or nythitaL~beteeem.
If the Weare runs aut of parameters, the user will ha popatd for the meat rwequre oweme.mke
it easy for someeme to lao" the commna while net slowing down the experienced WSW with a lotg
questioning af answer session. Additionel ly, 11.1 t checking is ,ete eo all 1411114 and
appropriate error messages a"e printed foren llegel entries. 0ie
1 win Is a brief summary at the
&Voiltable clomadwst
CuTE Wetn 112 center of a Item
CcP" Cy definitien of a tites he mother item
DELEEkete som attribute of an item
DISPLAY Grabically display the object
DUPICATE Weno It"e as a doplIcate of aether
DEO DeINe aedg
FOCAL. Mime th viewimg tecal length
1113 Set current item amber
LIST List urn attributres of the object
NUMBER Re-number Item to compress deleted attributes
ORIENT Cheapgrientation ot an Item
PLANE Doeitin a Plane
PRINT Print a listing of all attributes
QUIT Exit the program
RADIUS Mime radii
ROTATE Rotate the displayed impg
SAVE Save the moedl data base
SCALE Scale a-Item
TYPE Define an item's type
VERTEX Meime the vortex
WINDOW Define the viewing scala
? List all commands
< Abort this command
When using MOP the user mest decompose the object into sub-ceoponents which are reoered to as
items. Item may ha either of two types, geometric or cylindrical. Geometric solids are items which
are composed of corners and straight line sepents. To define a geometric item the user first specifies
X. Y. sod Z locations of the verticies. One can then specify edges as existing between any two
verticies. Finally. one may optionally define planos to assist inhidden line removal infuture program
versions. Alternately. the user can define an item as being a cylindrical solid. Essentially this type
of item consists of a cylinder whose axis is alongthe X-axis. The user may specify the radius of the
Item at my two or mere points along the I-axis. TIs allows objects lIIke a store's body to be defined
as a single itoo by changing sufficient radii to duplicate the taper of the body. The coordinate
system used for the item detfinitions is shown in Figure 5. Once an item has been defined Its
orientation may be changed with respect to the object center. This is done by using the center commnd
to offset itin X. Y. and/or Z or by using the orient command to change its roll, pitch, and/or yaw.
Additionally, there are copy and duplicate commands. which when combined with CENTER and ORIENT, allow
body features such as four Identical fins to be specified very quickly.
1MOPprovides full editing capabilIity for model s. ItallIows the user to insert
Items. verticies, edged. planes. and radii at will. It also can list or delete any of these. The entire
model data base may &Ilso be saved or retrieved from disk. Additionally, WOallows the user to
graphical ly display an image of any or all items on the opersatorts console (Tektronix 4014 terminal for
CDCversion). The user has the option of setting the orientation (roll, pitch. yaw) anvd viewing
parameters (focal length, scale) prior to displaying the object. The ability to actually see the object
is very useful In determining the correctness of the model since minor errors caused by typographical
errors often stand out very clearly when viewed from certain orientations.
The nmbser of items, verticies, edges. etc., in the date base are essentially limited only by
the meount of memory available. The program is currently configured to allow up to 50 Items. All
verticies, edges, planes, and radii are contained inone array with each (except planes) requiring one
element per entry. The maximum number of entries is set to 1000 at present.
ATTITUDE DETERMINATION PROGRAM
The Attitude Determination Program (ADP) is the primary data collection program for the
Graphic Attitude Determining System ADP consists of a main sepent and seven overlays. The overlays
and their functions are as follows:
ADPN main sepent
ADPPR Pre-processing of data base
AIPPA loginnin of pass processing/calibrations
AWDPISP Ineractie display of model
AIIPCMI eboard coa pocssn
ADPI.OG Logging data samles/film advance
ADPEOP End of pass processing/data storage
ADPEXIT End of job processing

The main segment is always core resident and controls which overlay are loaded into memory
and executed The first overlay executed is always the pre-procossor (ME.This overlay begins by
Identifying the current version and requsting operator and mission identification Information. The
 Is aedrwIN the Model date haes.
lastlos s:Atwhe Medal Idestificatlesamoe the fIle
motering thagoe to gamti wjssed septial of radii by 5-Arnie = !t"ee

e IAMPPS'
fOverlor
ow.
an than leaded end emoutad. This overlay tMil by sigfrtepa
satrm4the conrolwillbe NOMto overlay AV IT for Prora termimatien.
Otherwise th do" tseg ti t I Ibe I Mrr~f,eM Itop the teropeIdlog pass member. It 1`10 1 thedato
IIIbeleaded lmt$ the reANads. mess wsry file. Thel o
Macs whether theresAle~
- date to the t fil a a result of a ab6o1ma termiations. it so it gives the e"eaterth
?Ieor
optiem of Mawv, Inghs date. It this Is aNo poestthe __grm ull ask fortheNmber of
Calibration lines. If less thea eight than there we insff irelet limes to calibrate the Sstem. In
ticatthe program willI request the I center V center, focal 1 ngth, end wimdow size whic h
if tailibretles are oval lable the opstater wil he promted for
rthis mstuply
smae inInchesu has source
another
from which been previously read emthe Telereeder. A crashahir is them
displayed which the operator positions emthe sides of the calibratiem cube shawn, in Figure L Once
these measuremets have been made, the computer uses the data to solve for the optical center of the
comers In twon of displ ay screen coordinates, themagnification of the GARl epticel aystm in screen
coordinates. end the foacl length of the coamra. AP taiitallizes several other variables and
retorns to the maIN sgent.
Control is now passed to overlay ADPDISP. This overlay than beging by determining whether or
not the program Is in the edit mode. If so. the program reeds the previously measured attitude data
from the temporary data filIt d positions the model appropriately. If net in edt made the program
will locate the requested number of fixed froms points. These points may be used In a later data
reduction program to remove the affects of wing flexure from the data. Alterately. a %Woaate model of
the aircraft wing could be matched to precisely determine the location of the camera ineach frame The
"p rograthen begins a loop where itcleats allI points Ina Sonisco nwoy plane; draws the geometric
solift; drams the cylindrical solids; writes the attitude parameters; enables d~splay of the memory
plane just written into; enables writing of the other plane; updates the A/D reading% of the controls;
chocks for wanprocesses function keys; and then repeats the cycle. Itwill remain in this loop until, a
key,. function button. or the footswitch is pressed. Pressing a key will cause control to pass to
ovela AOPCND. Pressing a function button will cause either a change In the state of various displa
functions. or will cause control to pass to overlaoys ADPEOP or ADPEXIT. Pressing the footswitch will1
cause control to pass to overlay ADPLOG to log the data from the current froma,
Upon starting overlay ADPLOG. allI attitude information is saved ina buffet which is then
written to the random access temporary data file. The program then advances the proper film transport.
Ifthe auto predict mode is enabled. the computer will than predict the next Image location based on the
last two points and the error for the previous prediction and set the initial coordinates of the display
for the nest frame. Control is then passed back to overlay AWDOISP.
When the and of pass function button is pressed, overlay ADPEOP is invoked This overlay
scans through the existing date fi le to locata the current pass. If it alIready exsists, the program
replaces itwith the new Oata Otherwise, itwill insert the new pass into the data filet. This filet is
sequential by pass number. Control isthen passed to overlay AAPPASS to Initialize a new pass.
Overlay ADPMIT is invoked for job termination. It makes an entry containing the number of
frame read and the elapsed time in the accounting file, produces an optional raw data dump. and then
restarts or terminates the program.
SYSTEN OUTPUT PROPAN
WINS
The eob System Output Program (USOP) is currently the primary data reduction program running
on the GADS.The progrom, written by MA. Smith. inputs data from the Attitude Determination Program.
translates the data to the center of gravity of the store, and then references all data to its pro-
release position. The program also changes the coordinate system from the one shown in Figure 5 as used
by ADPto the one shown in Figure 7. In this coordinate system Y., rollI. end yaw are all defined to be
positive for outboard motions. Thus their signs depend on which side of the aircraft the store is
suspended. These conventions are based on current projects and can be easily changed for others. After A,
translation the date can optionally be smoothod by fitting the data to either a qubic or a quadratic
equation. Smoothing is selectable over 3 to 99 data points. ISOP produces two types of output, listings
and plots. The listings currently available show raw position date, smoothed position data. and/or
velocity data for the six degrees of freedom on a frome by frmat basis. Currently aval able Plots show
the six degrees of freedom as either smoothed or raw positional data versus time and pitch, yew, and/or
V distances versus Z distances. Figure 8 Show$ a SOMPie Plot.
 1.4'
HAN RWS 2
S. -

tt

YAW DETENT
EVERY 19

ATTITUDE CONTROL DEVICE

DRAWING - S
Figure I

FILM I FILM 2

COMPUTER AND G2RAPHICS - -

PRPEASGENERATOR CARICAMERA&2

•1SUPER PCMT!ON Ofl

GRAPHICS AND IMAGE " -,

DISPLAY SYNCHRONIZATION AS NECESSARY

OPERATORS ATTD

COWTROLN TITD
KEYBOARD CTROL

FOOT SWITCH

Ftlow% t - RAnttgml 41"e Ot lm

.4I
126~

aa

uj <
ata
c-
"4 ~0

0, ow

czý -j41

UL 43

Le.

wU R
 F

129

I!

6I

2C
a a a

.4-
oL
a-

0
.4-
C

a.
U.

I
'-4
130

YAW

x
ROLL

PITCH
z
Figure 5 - MOP Coordinate System

Black Square 2
25")
(12.31
F1
RIack
Square 1
.
(12.315")
-o- Plexiglass Cube

CAEAFigure 6 - Calibration
Setup Y

PITCH

x el x
PITCHX ROLL RL
DIRECTION YAW
Y,
AW OF FLIGHT

z z
LEFT WING RIGHT WING

Figure 7 - BSOP Coordinate System

 131
Ft

7 7Jii2 1

iFtit K. -4
- YI
f. - I-.- i I
*1 j-

- (1

0 -t -K-
+ - 4-h
-+ 4

2--fr t. jq
.4
L'.J

_ _ _ I
I:

7.". A

L.
 132 *1

0
-I

a I
CI. -

4
U
I-

-I
 133

7-4

'V.u

I77
134

144

I.-
 i

APPENDIX D

PRECISION MEASUREMENT FACILITY

OFFICE FOR AIRCRAFT COMPATIBILITY

3246 TEST WING/TY

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542

APRIL 1984

NOTE: For the sake of brivity, only typical, representative,

plots are included herein.

.1

ii
!|
136

THE PIECISION MEASURIIENT FACILITY (PNF)

Th. Precision Measurewnt Facility at located at building 900 on Eglin AF1. The outward
appearance of this facility and its surrounding ares is that of a isolated shop with little
significance. However, after a closer loo, one will discover quite the contrary. Upon entering, the
first thing to catch the eye is the 861/1 Airdyne Ness Properties Measuring Unit ('ig-I .). This is an
impressive place of equipsent and is essential for the PNF to fulfill its mission.

The mission of the personnel assigned to the PWF is to determine and provide the accurate
weight, Center of Grat Ity (CC), and the moets of inertia for stores as required. The mission is a
short one, but the accomplisheemnt of it requires a great deal of technical knowledge and hands-on
experience. The equipment used to determine this Information Is complex and sensitive. The information
provided by the ¶816-0 is vital. Prior to its operation In 1967, there were problems encountered
during some flutter tests. After a post-flight investigation, it was determined these probloms occurred
as a result of Incorrect information concerning the CS and moment of inertia of stores. The operation of
this facility provides the project officer with a source for determining whether or not the stores meet
the specified tolerances prior to flight. It Is impossible to estimate the number of problems and costs
created by out of tolerance stores whtch could have been avoided. However, it is safe to assume the
OBIG-I has saved the Air Force a good deal of money since it's inception

There are six essential items required in order to determine a store's weight, CC and moment
of inertia. These items are the *Big-I0, surveyor's transit, hoist, torque wrench, calculator, and a
wall ruler. Defore the operating procedures are explained there are a few things one should know about
the IBig-['.

The 81g-1* consists of 3 parts. The first of these is the measurement table. The
measurement table Is where the store is actually placed. It is accompanied by two separate adapters.
The primary adapter is a modified MJ-3 bomb rack. This adapter was designed so the table could handle
stores of a cylindrical shape. The second adapter is used to accomodate narrow flat surfaced stores.
The second mjor part is the control console. This item is equipped with the 532A Hewlett Packard
counter-timer. The counter-timer is where the function settings and reading displays are located. The
third and final part is the stress guage. This piece of equipment is used to weigh the store. It
provides the counter-timer with the reading needed to obtain the weight. The "jig-P0operates on a dry
nitrogen gas system and requires at least 12S psi. The accuracy rate of the *Big-I* is outstanding and
the limitations are few (See Table 1). The assurance of the accuracy rates are maintained by a weekly
CC calibration and a monthly calibration of the moment of inertia.

The operating procedures are broken down into three areas: warm-up, actual work performance,
and shutdown procedures.
During warm-up, the transit is sighted in with reference marks on the measurement table.
There are also calculations performed using formulas I and 2 of Table 11. It is essential to obtain
these numbers to assure the *Big-I" is properly warmed-up and to perform the actual work. The time
required for warm-up ranges from one to two hours. This time varies according to the outside
teperature. (the colder it Is the longer it takes)

The following is a step-by-step explanation of how the weight, CS, and moment of inertia are
actually determined. A photo sequence of the operation is provided so that it may be more clearly
understood.

1. The store is first hoisted with the stress gauge. There it is suspended while the
information is taken from the counter-timer to determine the store's weight (Figure 1). The weight is
determined by using formula 3 listed in Table 11.
2. The stress gauge is then replaced by a bomb sling to prevent it from being demaged. The
store is then transported along the hoist rail and positioned on the measurement table. (Figure 2)

3. The store is then sighted in and a reference point is marked on It. This is done by using
a small ruler and the transit (Figure 3). As this is being done the counter-timer is being set to
acquire the necessary readings for determining the CS (Figure 4).

4. Next, the measurement table is supplied with 100 psi of gas pressure an the table is
lowered onto the gas bearings (Figure 5).

5. The table is then rotated tc 90 degrees and 270 degrees (Figure 6). The readings are
taken from each of these locations and calculated using formula 4 of Table I1 (Figures 7 and 8). The
result is relayed to personnel at the measurement table.
6. Using the ruler and the reference point marked in step 3, the CS is marked. Whether the
result is a positive or negative number vill determine whether the CC is forward or aft of the reference
point (Figure 9). During this step, the settings on the counter-timer are once again changed to
obtain the required readings for the moments of inertia.

7. At this time the table is positioned at zero degrees and torqued to 400 inch-pounds. The
item is then oscillated at 4 degrees. While the store Is oscillating, three readings are obtained to
determine it's yan. This is done from calculations using formulas 5 and 6 of Table 11.

8. The store is then rotated on the table to a 90 degree anglye and once again oscillated at
4 degrees. Three new readings are taken and again calculated using formulas 5 end 6. The results of
this will determine the store's pitch.

9. The table is then untorqued and returned to 315 degrees (which is in line with the
 13?

transit. Then the table is raised from the g" blarlags d the goi pre&sure is cut off.
10. The stre Is them remved from the table ad returned to the trailer. There it is
stenciled with the Informatison4 tied dMn iures 10 sad II).
After all required star. have bee copleted the Ogiple Is shut dun

Tale I
I. Accuracy:
a. Weight • + 0.2O
b. Center of grevity - + 0.0060

c. Moments of Inertia -,+ O.U

2. Limitations:

a. Store length must raep froe V' to 20'

b. Store weight mist rap from 50 to 4000 pounds.
c. Store shap• - sometimes shoe or special construction mode It impossible to position on the
table. lecause of the "lig-s' versitality, this is an uncmn occurnce. end can only be determined
by actually trying to work with the store.
Table 11
1. Term Used:
a. Constant - K: This is a mumber derived during the warm-up. It is used to calculate weights and to
ensure the "Big-I" is properly warmed-. Whem Ks 4M1to p9270 the Olig-1" is ready for use.
b. PIT: This Is the term used to refer to the empty weight of the stress gauge.
c. TAs: This Is the result of a calculation performed from oscillating the table without a store
on It. It is used when calculating moments of Inertia.
2. Nathematical Formulas Used:

a. Formula fl. aT- XT

mass (MO), 231.3 4•N- K
b. Formula #2. Total of 3 Readings 3M.,Squared (X-) a T
c. Formula #3. Store Weight - NT x K - Store's True Weight

d. Formula 94. go - 270* x 15900 Store's True WT-36.16 - x hemory recall -

e. Formula 95. CG " 12 (X.) Memory +,store's true WT 36.16 x
x
Memory recall - "(resuTfT- l-ld in memory and recalled in Forumla 96)
f. Formula #G. Total of 3 readings •- 3000 (x-) - T', __ x 7.so -
recall -moments of inertia. -- " - .M
NOTE: The above formulas were derived by the Miller Research Corporation.

i4
F1gurit I

Figure 2

_____

__ _ _ __ __ '

Figure 3
 139

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

------------------------------------
------- -
140

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9
 141

Figure 10

Figurt 11

-. b
142

APPENDIX E

V(

USAF STORE DELIVERY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

OFFICE FOR AIRCRAFT COMPATIBILITY

3246 TEST WING/TY

Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542

APRIL 1984

NOTE: For the sake of brivity, only typical, representative,

plots are included herein.
 143

USAF STORE DELIVERY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
In order to aim a store so that it will hit the target, It is necessary to know the flight
characteristics of the store as it travels the required distance to the target. This appendix discusses
exterior ballistics of unguided stores released from fighter as well as bomber aircraft. This
discussion covers the USAF method of test considerations, data collection. data reduction, and data
analysis.

TEST CONSIDERATIONS:
Flight characteristics of a store are obtained by conducting controlled tests. Factors to be
considered when designing the test are the store release envelopes, the types of data to be collected,
and the necessary number of stores to be released. The release envelope is usually determined when the
store is developed; however, this may be outside of the operational envelope of the using community.
The number of stores required to gather the necessary flight characteristics data will depend upon the
type of store tested. Basically. there are two types of stores. The first is a store that has a
cylindrical shape, usually with stabilizing fins, that remains intact until it impacts the targeted
area. The second type is a container, that may have stabilizing fins, designed to function at a
predetermined time after release or at a designated altitude to dispense submunitions. Either type may
have other events that alter the store trajectory. The functioning type store will require more testing
because the submunitions form a pattern that must be determined. The type of data required is the same
for all stores except for impact pattern data and such modifications as chutes or other retardation
devices.

COLLECTING TEST DATA:

The aircraft and store are tracked by, a minimum of three, cinetheodolite cameras operating
at 30 frames per second with Integrated Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) time to record azimuth and
elevation data. The aircraft is tracked from five seconds prior to release to two seconds after
release. The store is tracked from release to impact for intact types, and from release to functioning
for functioning types. Submunitions are usually too small to track. In addition to cinetheodolites,
the aircraft and store are tracked with a medium speed tracking camera operating at 90 frames per second
with IRIG time to record the time of store release as well as other event times. Other methods of
obtaining release time have been used but were not found to be accurate. Since submunitions are too
small to track with cinetheodolite und medium speed tracking cameras, Milliken or other type fixed
cameras with IRIG time are positioned along a grid impact area to obtain impact time, velocity, and
angle data. The fixed cameras are used only if the functioning type store contains a few submunitions
(approximately 30 or less). The reason being that the camera readings must be correlated wi~f ,'.
submunition impact points. The grid impact area is used to obtain polar coordinates of the individual
submunition impacts. The dud count for High Explosive (HE) submunitions are obtained during impact
scoring. The weight of each store is obtained and correlated with the aircraft/rack station for each
drop. Meteorological data is obtained on each misison. The atmospheric properties (temperature and
density) are obtained from daily standard base upper air observations. The wind direction and velocity
data are obtained by tracking a Pilot Balloon (PIBAL) at the test site with the cinetheodolites.
REDUCTION OF TEST DATA:

The cameras and associated film records provide azimuth and elevation data and film images at
precise time intervals with an accuracy of approximately .005 degrees. The exact position of each
cinetheodolite site is determined by first order geodetic survey, and the cameras are located and
properly oriented in a topocentric rectangular coordinate system. Precise camera orientation is
accomplished and checked by on-site leveling procedures and calculations utilizing fixed boresight
targets. Multiple station solutions for individual space position points are obtained. Spacial
position accuracy to one foot has been realized; and, depending upon geometry, accuracy of better than
five feet is usually accomplished using three to six cameras.

The time to start the reduction is determined and associated with the frames to be read.
These readings are recorded on magnetic tapes containing mission identifying information, frame numoers
used for time correlation, aziumth, elevation, and X and Y tracking error from the center of the frame
to the point tracked (normally the nose of the aircraft). These tapes, as well as Information pertaining
to the mission, are inputs to a data reduction program.

The data reduction program first corrects the azimuth and elevation angles from each camera
for tracking and boresight errors, such as horizontal and vertical collimation and zero set to give
4 azimuth measured from true North. Next the coordinates of each camera site with respect to the origin
are computed is well as the rotation matrices necessary to reference the measurements to a common plane
containing the origin.
The data from the first two cameras with readings for a point are rotated to a common plane
and a two-station Bodwell solution is performed to obtain an estimate of the poi0tion. The Bodwell
solution minimize; the square of the distance between the two lines of sight to arrive at the best
result. This preliminary position estimate is used to compute a refraction correction for each camera
with readings for this point.
The direction cosines from the refraction corrected angles are rotated to the common plane,
and another two-station Bodwell solution is determined which gives the initial values for a Davis
solution, an Iterative procedure which minimuzes the sum of the squares of the angular residual; i.e.,
the difference between the corrected input observations and the true angles to the computed point.
144

After the Davis solution has converged for a particular point. the angular residuals are
examined in order to eliminate stations or cameras with bad readings. The final solution either has all
residuals less than 0.02 degrees or is the best possible result from the input.
The convarience matrix from the final iteration and the unit variance (sun square residuals
divided by the degrees of freedom) are combined to give the error in position for the point.

Error - (Wit ~,)V

As the data are read into the editing segment of the program, the position error is compered
to a standard value so that samples can be eliminated which have an error larger that the standard.
This standard is the mean plus three sigma value of the position error for all points in the pass for
which a reasorable solution was found. Additional editing is performed by fitting a moving arc
polynomial of second or third degree to the coordinates and correcting values which fall too far off the
curve.
The final step is to fit the moving arc polynomial to the corrected coordinates to obtain
smoothed position. The first and second derivatives or the polynomials give velocity and acceleration,
and various other parameters are computed from these.

The smoothed aircraft Time-Space-Position-Information (TSPI) is normally printed at 0.2

second intervals and contain such parameters as position, velocity, acceleration, Mach number, dynamic
pressure and flight path angle correlated with time. Release time (T-0) being the time of first
movement of the store from the aircraft is determined from reading the medium speed tracking camera
film.
The store TSPI data are obtained using the same reduction method as for the aircraft. The
store event times are obtained from reading the time-correlated medium speed tracking film. These event
times include such things as fin opening, chute deployment, chute separation, fins canting, and time of
impact. For functioning type stores, the time of impact is obtained from reading the fixed camera film.
The submunition impact velocity and angle data are computed by correlating the surveyed impact point
with the fixed camera readings. Due to the correlation of the surveyed impact with the film readings,
impact velocity and angle data cannot be obtained on most of the functioning type stores because of the
number of subiunitions.

Individual submunition impact points are surveyed in polar coordinates. These polar
coordinates are transformed to the same rectangualr coordinates as the aircraft and store.
The PIBAL tracked cinetheodolite film data are reduced using the same method as that for the
aircraft and store. The position and velocity data are then translated to wind direction and velocity.
The temperature and density data are obtained from the atmospheric observation nearest the time of the
mission.

ANALYSIS OF TEST DATA:

An unguided store ballistic analysis is the development of the store ballistic data (drag
coefficient, event times, etc) for use in a mathematical model to predict the flight path of the store
from release to impact. The analysis also develops the methodology and necessary data to predict the
impact pattern for functioning type weapons.

In order to analyze the ballistic performance of the store, theoretical trajectories are
computed using an in-house "Unguided Store Ballistic Analysis Program%, with the following information.
1. Positions and velocities of the store at release (T-O) as determined from the TSPI data
for the aircraft. The positions are corrected to the position of the store on the aircraft (since the
cinetheodolite film measurements are made on the nose of the aircraft).

2. Velocity at which the store is ejected from the aircraft (ejection velocity).
3. Store diameter and observed weight.

4. Drag coefficient (KD vs Mach number or time).

5. Meteorological data (temperature, density, wind direction and velocity).

6. Observed event times that affect the drag of the store.

7. The 'Particle" equations of motion.

The 'particle" equations of motion assume that the only forces acting on a store are (a) the
drag force which acts in a direction opposite to that of the air velocity vector of the store, and (b)
gravity.
The drag force, D, is then:

OD'me fk,A'V' where

0 ' drag force ( lb - ft/sec

m • mass of store (lb)

kr

145

a . acceleration of store due to drag (ft/sec

p - air density (lb/ft
k - drag coefficient (dimensionless)
d - store diameter (ft)

v - air velocity of store (ft/sec)

C * used by many aerodynemicists, is related to K) by the formula
It

and drag, D, may be expressed as

Dr YkfCbV~v7
where S • * cross secitonal area.
The 'Unguided Store Ballistic Analysis Computer Programt conputes point mass three-
dimensional trajectories using the modified Euler integration method.

Using the above program inputs, theoretical trajectories are computed and compared with the
observed trajectories (TSPI). This comparison is usually at 1.0 second intervals as well as at impact
or trajectory termination. If the delta range and time (observed minus computed) deviations for each
store are large and biased in one direction, it must be determined if the deviations are due to drag or
separation effects. Separation effects are due to the interaction between the weapon and the airflow
about the aircraft. In order to make the distinction between drag and separation effects, additional
trajectories are computed using the positions and velocities at some time T-1 after release. Time T-1
is usually 1.0 second but should be far enough along the observed store trajecatory for the store to
settle down. If the comparison of the T-1 trajectories with the observed produce large and biased
deviations, the initial drag must be adjusted or derived.
After adjusting or deriving the drag, trajectories starting at time T-O with the new drag are
computed. If the comparison of these trajectories with the observed produce large deviations, a
separation effect analysis must be accomplished. If the deviations are smal I this portion of the
analysis is complete.
If the comparison of the T-1 trajectories with the observed produce smal 1 deviations, the
initial drag is applicable. The large deviations obtained when coneparing the T-0 trajectories with the
observed are due to separation effects. Therefore, a separation effect analysis must be performed.
As mentioned earlier, the separation effects are due to the interaction between the store and
the aircraft flowfield. When a store is released from the aircraft, it is immersed in the common
flowfield and its motion is temporarily dominated by the flowfield interaction. The interacting flow is
not uniform around the store as it would be in free flight in an unperturbed atmosphere, and the store's
trajectory may be significantly perturbed.

The store is in the aircraft flowfield for only a short time (less than a second) before
entering freestreem conditions. When the store moves away from the flowfield interaction region, it is
usually oscillating in pitch and yaw as well as changing its roll rate. As the store continues along
its trajectory, it motion damps to trimmed conditions. When the store's motion achieves quasi-steady
conditions, it falls along a point mass trajectory to impact or to its functioning point.

Several methods of analyzing the motion of the store due to aircraft flowfields have been
studied. The most accurate method would be to use a 6-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) dynamic simulation. A
6-DOF simulation would require a large data base and is not cost effective when generating ballistic
tables for the Aircrew Store Delivery Manual (-25 anq -34 series T.O.).

The method currently used is a second order polynomial or least squares fit of the horizontal
and vertical velocity differences at time T-1 with T-O Mach number and dynamic pressure respectively.
An attempt is made to have one curve for a given store from all delivery aircraft.
After the store drag has been verified or derived, theoretical trajectories starting at time
T-0 are computed to obtain the difference in the observed and computed horizontal and vertical velocity
components at time T-1, time T-1 being the trajectory start time when verifying or deriving the store
drag. The velocity differences are then rotated to horizontal through the store release angle obtained
at time T-0. A curve or straight line is then fited to the rotated horizontal velocity differences and
Mach number. A curve or straight line is also fited to the rotated vertical velocity differences and
dynamic pressure. The coefficients of the curve or line fit are then used in an algorithm to compute
the release adjustment to be applied to the store's velocity components at time T-0. This adjustment
will force the theoretical store trajectory to have the approximate position and velocity as the
observed at time T-1. This method works well within the range of test data and is cost effective when
producing aircrew store delivery manuals. Therefore, it is important, when designing the test, to cover
the operational range of the store from ail aircraft.
The analysis of the test data to predict the flight path of intact and functioning types
stores Is complete. For functioning type stores, the observed impact patterns must be analyzed to
determine the patern prediction methodology and/or data.
To analyze the patterns, the first thing is to determine their shape (circle, ellipses, etc.)

.. . . ................•i
and dimensions (diameter, major and minor axis. etc.). The USAF has looked at statisticr! methods of
determining pattern shapes and dimensions. In almost all patterns there are outlying submunitions.
Outlying submunitions are those that, for some reason, do not follow their designed flight path. The
outlying submunitions that are greater than three sigma from the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) are
rejected. After rejecting the outliers, the circles that contain eighty and ninety percent uf the
submunitions are calculated. The centers of the circles and ellipses are the MPI. This method works
well if you have a uniformly distributed pattern. If the pattern has a heavy population of submunitions
in the front or back, right or left side, the MPI is biased toward this area. Using the bias MPI to
calculate the circles and ellipses will result in an area within the circles and ellipes that does not
contain submunitions. Most patterns are not uniformly distributed; therefore, this sethod is not used.
The method used is to first eliminate the outlying submunitions by visually inspecting the
plots of the impact patterns. An attempt is made to have ninety percent or more of the submunitions to
remain within the pattern. This pattern is defined as the effective pattern. At the time the outliers
are eliminated, the geometric shape of the pattern is determined and drawn on the plot to encompass the
effective pattern. The Geometric Center of Impact (GCI) being the center of the geometric shape (i.e.
center of the circle, ellipse, rectangle, etc.). Now the effective pattern dimension must be determined
by measuring the diameter of the circle, the major and minor axis of the el lipse or length and width of
the rectangle. Now that each observed pattern has been analyzed to determine the shape and size, the
pattern prediction methodology must be developed. There are several methods of predicting patterns.
The two primary methods are the angular dispersion and forced ejection. The angular dispersion method
of predicting patterns assumes that, as the functioning munition opens (dispenser opening) and the
submunitions are exposed to ram air, the submunitions slightly separate from each other and follow their
individual trajectories. This results in the submunitions departing from dispenser opening with a
characteristic angular displacement about the normal dispenser velocity vector. This displacement does
not provide for natural or designed dispersion of the submunitions induced during their free flight.

To derive the displacement angle(s), theoretical trajectories are computed using the
dispenser opening conditions (positions and velocities), adjusted, in both the vertical and lateral
planes, by the displacement angles(s) and the necessary submunition data. The theoretical pattern
dimensions are then compared with the observed effective pattern dimensions. This process is repeated
until a vertical and lateral displacement angle is derived so that the theoretical patterns closely
approximate the observed patterns. The vertical and lateral displacement angles may or may not be the
same. The angular displacements may not be used in the functioning type munition model to predict the
pattern dimensions.
The forced ejection method of predicting patterns assumes that the submunitions are expelled
or ejected perpendicular to the dispenser velocity vector. The tangential velocity is a function of the
submunition ejection system (i.e., gas generator, explosive charge, spinning dispenser, etc.).

Theoretical trajectories are computed in the same manner as for the angular dispersion method
except the velocity vector at dispenser opening Is adjusted, in both the vertical and lateral planes, by
the tangential velocity vector. The theoretical pattern dimensions are compared with the observed
pattern dimensions, and if necessary, the process is repeated until a tangential velocity is deritved so
that the theoretical patterns closely approximates the observed patterns. The tangential velocity may
now be used in the mathematical modeling of function type stores to predict the pattern dimensions.
Once the ballistic data to model the store flight path and to predict pattern dimensions for
functioning type stores have been developed, the analysis is complete.
 Al-I

Annex I

AGARD FUGHT TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND FUGHT TEST TECHNIQUES SERIES

1. Volumes in the AGARD FIuht Test matemnmtatlonSeu AGARDogp 160

Volume Publication
Number rideeDat

1. Basic Principles of Flight Test Instrumentation Engineering 1974

by A.Pool and D.Bosman

2. In-Flight Temperature Measurements 1973

by F.Trenkle and M.Reinhardt

3. The Measurement of Fuel Flow 1972

by J.T.France

4. The Measurement of Engine Rotation Speed 1973

by M.Vedrunes

5. Magnetic Recording of Flight Test Data 1974

by G.E.Bennett

6. Open and Closed Loop Accelerometers 1974

by l.Mclaren

7. Strain Gauge Measurements on Aircraft 1976

by E.Kottkamp, H.Wilhelm and D.Kohl

8. Linear and Angular Position Measurement of Aircraft Components 1977

by J.C.van der Linden and HA.Mensink

9. Aeroelastic Flight Test Techniques and Instrumentation 1979

by J.W.G.van Nunen and G.Piazzoli

10. Helicopter Flight Test Instrumentation 1980

by K.R.Ferrell

11. Pressure and Flow Measurement 1980

by W.Wuest

12. Aircraft Flight Test Data Processing - A Review of the State of the Art
by LJ.Smith and N.O.Matthews 1980

13. Practical Aspects of Instrumentation System Installation 1981

by R.W.Borek

14. The Analysis of Random Data 1981

by D.A.Wiiliams

15. Gyroscopic Instruments and their Application to Flight Testing 1982

by B.Stieler and H.Winter

16. Trajectory Measurements for Take-off and Landing Test and Other Short-Range Applications 1985
by P.de Benque d'Agut, H.Riebeek and A.Pool

17. Analogue Signal Conditioning for Flight Test Instrumentation 1986

by D.W.Veatch and R.K.Bogue
 AI-2

At the time of publication of the present volume the following volume was in preparation:

Microprocessor Applications in Airborne Flight Test instnumentation

by MWickett

2. Vala•emss b d AGARD Fllgt Tea Tclmlqe Sell*

Number 71tk Pubkvion

Date
AG 237 Guide to In-Flight Thrust Measurement of Turbojets and Fan Engines
1979
by the MIDAP Study Group (UK)
The remaining volumes will be published as a sequence of Volume Numbers of AGARDograph 300.

Volume
PUb-adon
Number TDae
I. Calibration of Air-Data Systems and Flow Direction Sensors
1983
by JAJ.Lawford and K.R.Nippress
2. Identification of Dynamic Systems
1986
by RE.Maine and K.W.niff
3. Identification of Dynamic Systems Applications to Aircraft
1985
Part 1: The Output Error Approach
by R.E.Maine and K.W.Itiff
4. Determination of Antenna Patterns and Radar Reflection Characteristics of Aircraft
1986
by HBothe and D.Macdonald
5. Store Separation Flight Testing
1986
by RJArnold and CS.Epstein

At the time of publication of the present volume the following volumes were in preparation:

Identification of Dynamic Systems. Applications to Aircraft

Part 2: Nordinear Model Analysis and Manoeuvre Design
by JA.Mulder and J.H.Breeman
Flight Testing of Digital Navigation and Flight Control Systems
by FJAbbink and H.A.Timmers

Technqiues and Devices Applied in Developmental Airdrop Testing

by HJ.Hunter
Aircraft Noise Measurement and Analysis Techniques
by H.H.Heller

Air-to-Air Radar Flight Testing

by R.E.Scott
The Use of On-Board Computers in Flight Testing
by PLamnlade

Flight Testing under Extreme Environmentsl Conditions

by C.L.Hendrickson

Flight Testing of Terrain Following Systems

by C.Dallimore and M.K.Foster

* I
 AVAILABLILFUIGHfFT11T HAND300KS

This annex ispresented to make readers aware of handbooks that are available on avariety of flight teat subjects not
neessarily related to the contents of this volume.
Requests for A & AEE documents should be addressed to the Defence Researc Information Centre, Glasgow (see
back cover). Requests for US documents should be addressed to the Defense Technical 'rnformation Center, Cameron
Station, Alexandria, VA 22314 (or in one case, the Ubrary of Congress).
Numnkbr Author Tise Date
NATC-TM76-ISA Simpson. W.R. Development of aTime-Variant Figure-of-Merit for Use 1976
in Analysis of Air Combat Maneuvering Engagements
NATC-TM76-3SA Simpson, W.R. The Development of Primary Equations for the Use of 1977
On-Board Accelrometers in Determining Aircraft
Performance
NATC-TM-77-IRW Woomer, C. A Program for Increased Flight Fidelity in Helicepter 1977
Carico, D. Simulation
NATC-TM-77-2SA Simpson, W.R. The Numerical Analysis of Air Combat Engagements 1977
Oberle, R.A. Dominated by Manieuvering Performance
NATC-TM1-77-ISY Gregoire, 14.G. Analysis of Flight Clothing Effects on Aircrew Station 1977
Geometry
NATC-Tht-78-2RW Woomer, G.W. Environmental Requirements for Simulated Helicopter/ 1978
Williams R.L. VTOL Operaton from Small Ships and Carriers

NATC-TM-78-IRW Yeend, R. A Program for Determining Flight Simulator Field-of-View 1978

Carico, D. Requirements
NATC-TM-79-33SA Chapin, P.W. A Comprehensive Approach to In-Flight Thrust 1980
Determination
NATC-TM-79-3SY Schiflett, S.G. Voice Stress Analysis.a aMeasure of Operator Workload 1980
Likith, GJ.

NWC-TMt-3485 Rogers, R.M. Six-Degree-of-Freedomt Store Program 1978

WSAMC-AMCP 706-204 - Engineering Design Handbook, Helicopter Performance 1974
Testing
NASA-CR-3406 Bennett, RI. and Handbook on Aircraft Noise Metrics 1981
Pearsonst, K.S.
- Pilot's Handbook for Critical and Exploratory Fliht 1972
Testing. (Sponsored by AIAA & SETP - library of
Congress Card No. 76-189165)

-A & AEE Performance Division Handbook of Test Methods 1979

for Assessing the Flying Qualities and ?erfarmance of
Military Aircraft. Vol.1 Airplanes
A &AEE Note 2111 Appleford, JJ Performrance Division: Clearance Philosophies for Fixed 1978
Wing Aircraft
AZ-2

Number Author 71*1 Dat,

A &ABEENote 2113 ssue 2) Norris, EJ. Test Methods and Flight Safety Proceduresafor Aircraft 1980
Trials Which May Lead to Departures from Controlled
Flight
AFFrC-TD-75-3 Mahium, R. Fliht Measurements of Aircraft Antenna Peatten 1973
AFFTC-'flH-76-1 Reeser, K. Inertial Navigaio Systems Testing Handbook 1976
Brinkley, C.and
Plows, L
AFVFC-TIH-79-1 USAF Test Pilot School (LJSAFPS) Flight Test Handbook. 1979
Performance: Theory and Flight Technque
AFFI'C-7IH-79-2 -USAFTPS Flight Test Handbook. Flying Qualties: 1979
Theory (Vo~l.) and Flight Tedt Techniques (Vol.2)
AFFI'C-TIM-81-1 Rawfingp, K., III A Method of Estimaing Upwssh Angle at Noseboosa- 1981
Mounted Vanes
AFFTC-TIH-8 1-1I elws, Land Aircraft Brake Systems Testing Handbook 1981
Mandt, G.
AFFTC-71H-81-5 DeAnda, A.G. AFF`TC Standard Airspeed Calibration Procedures 1981
AFFTC-7IH-81-6 Lush, K. Fuel Subsystems Flight Test Handbook 1981
APE WC-DR 1-81 -Radar Crors Section Handbook 1981
NATC-TMt-71-ISA226 HewettM.D. On Improving the Flight Fidelity of Operational Flight/ 1975
Galloway, R.T. Weapon System Trainers
NATC-TM-TPS76-1 Bowes, W.C. Inerutiuly Derived Flying Qualities and Performance 1976
Miller, RN.- Parameters
NASA Ref. PubI. 1008 Fisher, FA. Lightning Protection of Aircraft 1977
Plumer,JA.
NASA Ref. PubL. 1046 Gracey. W. Measurement of Aircraft Speed and Altitude 1980
NASA Ref. PubI. 1075 Kill, F. Magnetic Tape Recording for the Eighties (Sponsored by: 1982
Tape Head Interface Committee)
The follo wing handbooks are written inFrench and are edited by the French Test Pilot School (EPNER Ecole du Personnel
Navigant d'Essais et de Itdception ISTIES - FRANCE)ý to which requests should be addressed.
Number P~c (1983)
EPNER Author 7-Tie French Frnc Notes
Reference
2 G.Lcblan Lanayse dimensionnelle 20 R66dition 1977
7 EPNER Manuel d'exploitation des enregistrements d'Essais 60 6cmo Edition 1970
en Vol
8 M.Durand La me~canique du vol de l'hdlcopt~re 155 1Ure Ed4fition 1981
12 C~aburthe Mecanique du vol de l'avion appliqude mix essais en 160 Rdd6dition en cours
Vol
15 A.Hiser La prise en main d'un avion nouveau 50 16re Edition 1964
16 Candau Programme d'essais pour ledvaluation dun hilicoptere 20 2eme Edition 1970
et d'un pilote automatique d'hlacopt~re
22 Cattanco Cours de mdtrologie 45 R66ditinn 1982
 A2-3 -__

Nwmber ~ I'
EPHER Alihor Tkk
lw 19 Noo
hwAkc
Rteiftw~v
24 OJFYsss Praqw do em n vol(on3 Tomes) T I - 160 Wbe Edition 1973
F-Cousson T 2-160
T3-120
25 EPNER Pratique des musala en vol hdlcoptbm (on 2 Tomes) T I - 150 Edition 1981
T 2 - 150
26 J.C.WaNne Hung sonique 60
31 Tamnowkid Inartie-verticale-sbcuritd 50 1&re Edition 1981
32 D.Pennmccltioni Airo~ansticd - le flottesnent des avions 40 16re Edition 1980
33 C1lA~iC Les villes et leurs sas 110 Edition 1981

37 S.Ailnic Eiectricit &bord des &&onefs 100 Edition 1978

53 JLC.Wanner Le noteur d'avion (en 2Tonies) R66difion 1982
*TILerdmetur................ 85
*T2Le turbopropubeur 85
55 De Cennival Installation des turbomoteurs stir hdIicopttres 60 2Ume Edition 1980
63 Gfremont Aperpa stir ies poeurnatiqucs et leurs propnidtcs 25 3bnve Edition 1972
77 Greniont LUatternssAge et It probImw du freinage 40 26me Edition 1978
82 Auffret Manuel de mddicine aironsutique 55 Edition 1979
85 Monnicr Conditions do calcul des structures davions 25 1Ure Edition 1964
88 Richard Technolooge hdicopt~re 95 R66dition 1971
 REPOR1T DOCUMEWNATION PAGE
1. 3.dpkat's Uhhmme 2. 0d~uuiar Wauere 3. Furthe Reairnce 4. uwtamch
AGARD-AG-300 ISBN 92-835-1523-4 UNCLASSIFIED
Volume 5
5.Oi4Oww Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development
North Atlantic Treaty Organiation
7 rue Ancelle, 92200 Newilly sur Seine, France

STORE SEPARATION FLIGHT TESTING

7. Pr usat

3. Athe~s)/ite~s) RJArnold and C.S.Epstein ~Dt

edited by R.K.Bogue April 1986
10. AuthorWuEdhwsr' Address 1. P""e
Various 160

12, Dkobnd Stmft" This document is distributed in accordance with AGARD

policies and regulations, which are outlined on the
Outside Back Covers of all AGARI) publications.
13. Keywordu/Deecptors
Bomb ejectors Missile launching
External stores Ballistic trajectories
Attack aircraft Flight tests

14. Abstrac
This volume in the AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series treats stores separation testing from
the overall systems standpoint. All aspects of tr sting are described from the time of identificatioh
of a particular aircraft/store requirement throagh all steps leading to the establishment of a
satisfactory employment envelope. Considerable emphasis is placed on the planning and execution
of the flight test phase of the stores clearance programme, including the definition of a basic
structure, and a set of procedures which will maximise the safe and efficient execution of such a
programme.

This AGARDograph has been sponsored by the Flight MclI Panel of AGARD.
 4 01

I >1 III
I

-i "iiii..'.I.
Il

II 1111111
i jlit
 -w

ii ii
I u
11 1
ii Ii
III 1!j
1111 ii I

iii I ill I
I
II II
.3;

11
u
I
'1
A

ii ii '9
4

iii
vi

ill
iii
I;II
ji .1
I.
j
I
VI

.111 1 iI.
ta 0

_____________________ ** .(
 4A A mark W.
194WA

~CLAF
.134Vb
E~AY_
aw flw
.NWW* Z1 uf

amp'utU&8 4 Hd~ow'.AW nPvv411,Uc

2IAL2A. pt Doom*AYwv bwm .jLw
b4Aus W
RD'A"PXhtIlo.
Ntuv? .:Sdr 4
64%W A.fonucts.-
Spamn

*~~~~-H db D4$gVAMva~
w0F$S~n
JS

&$t KINDD0 ~~~~= "S2~t

:18,A'w0 A"
afts~~'flTh STAýafvwhki
aguoc AM'r n parAqhrtu(

t
mctt ,tt" MO*a MU~O (~4j N p~Sr 54Nf