Nose Cone & Fin Optimization

Nose Cone &
Fin Optimization
Tripoli Minnesota
Gary Stroick
January 2011
Purpose
Focus is on drag optimization to
maximize rocket performance!
Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry
Agenda
Definitions
Mission Parameters
Nose Cone Design
Fin Design
Summary
Appendices
References & Web Sites
1
Definitions
Drag Coefficient
Parasitic Drag
Form/Pressure/Profile Drag
Dependence upon the profile of the object

Base Drag
Due to Boundary Layer separation at base of airframe/fins
Skin Friction (Viscous) Drag
Friction of the fluid against the skin of the object
Interference Drag
Incremental drag above sum of all other drag components.

Created at protrusion intersections.
Induced (Lift-Induced) Drag
Due to redirection of airflow
Wave (Compressibility) Drag
Due to shockwaves when moving near or above the speed

of sound (typically leading & trailing edges)
Rotational Drag
Circumferential velocity from roll will thicken boundary

layer and result in increased drag
1
Definitions
Wetted Area
Surface Area exposed to airflow
Fineness (Aspect) Ratio

Nose Cone Length/Base Diameter
Bluffness Ratio
Tip Diameter/Base Diameter
Hemispherical Blunting
Meplat Diameter is a Flat Truncation
(e.g., bullets and artillery shells)
1
Definitions
Laminar Boundary Layer
Fluid streams move in parallel (negligible transfer

of momentum)
Turbulent Boundary Layer
Fluid streams transverse with velocity variations

around an average value
Boundary Layer Separation
Boundary layer separates from objects surface

creating an effective profile
Reynolds Number
Dimensionless ratio of inertial / viscous forces

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/reynolds.html
1
Definitions
Aspect Ratio (AR)

Fin Span / Average Fin Cord
Effective Aspect Ratio

Working AR due to Airflow Effects
Taper Ratio
Tip Cord / Root Cord
Definitions
Thrust Profile
Thrust vs. Time Curve
Velocity Definitions
Subsonic: < .8 Mach

Transonic: .8 to 1.2 Mach
Supersonic: 1.2 to 5 Mach
Hypersonic: > 5 Mach
Mission Parameters
Velocity
Coefficient of Drag
Thrust Profile
Total Mass
Altitude
Mass
Payload
Stability (CP&CG - Discussed Last Year)
Coefficient of Drag
Thrust Profile
Total and Coasting Mass
Material Volume and Strength
Payload
Available Volume
Stability Impacts
Nose Cone Design

Mission Dependent Variables
Payload
Stability (CP, CG)
Independent Variables
Atmospheric Density
Temperature
Wind Conditions
Surface Finish
Angle of Attack
10
Nose Cone Design

Assumptions
Zero Angle of Attack

Constant Surface Finish
No Roll
No Aerodynamic Heating Effects
11
Nose Cone Solutions

Subsonic1
1.
Elliptical
1.
2.
3.
Supersonic7
1.
2.
Transonic4
Eggers Minimum Drag

X Power Series
LD-Haack (Von Karman)

X Power Series
LV-Haack (< Mach 1)
Hypersonic8,9,10
1. Love Minimum Drag
2. X.6 Power Series
12
Fineness
6,7
Ratio
Increasing
Fineness Ratio
Decreases Wave
Drag
Increases Skin
Friction Drag
Optimum Ratio is
approximately 5
13
Bluntness
2,3,5
Ratio
Optimal ratio is .15

Provided length
remains constant
Applicability
dependent upon
fineness ratio and
velocity
Fineness ratio 5
Below Hypersonic
14
Coefficient of Drag (CD)

Subsonic1
Primarily Skin Friction Drag

Minimal Pressure Drag
No Wave Drag
No Interference Drag
No Induced Drag
Elliptical
Fineness Ratio of 2
15

Transonic4
Tangent Ogive
Conical
LV-HAACK
Von Karman
(LD-HAACK)
Parabola
1
1
3/4 Parabola
3
2
3
2
1/2 Parabola
1
3
x3/4 Power
x1/2 Power
1
0.8
1
2
2
3
2
1.0
2
1.2
2
2
1.4
1.6
MACH NUMBER
3
1.8
2.0
Comparison of drag characteristics of various nose shapes in the transonic-tolow Mach regions. Rankings are: superior (1), good (2), fair (3), inferior (4).
Wave Drag Increases Substantially

Pressure Drag becomes Significant
Fineness Ratio of 5 is Critical
16

Supersonic7
Pressure Drag
Decreases
Wave Drag
Decreases
Fineness Ratio
of 5 is Critical
17

Hypersonic8,9,10
X.6 Power Series
Fineness Ratio of 5
or 6
Varies with
Fineness Ratio
No Blunting
18
Fin Design
Mission Dependence
Stability (CP, CG, Roll, )
Independent Variables
Atmospheric Density
Temperature
Wind Conditions
Surface Finish (Assumed Constant)
Angle of Attack (Assumed Zero)
19
Fin Optimization
Minimize Drag
Maintain Structural Integrity
Minimize Divergence
Minimize Bending-Torsion Flutter
Minimize Mass
Maximize Fin Joint Strength

Maintain Passive Stability
20
Fin Drag Optimization

No General Solution Unearthed
Computational Models Exist at Subsonic,
Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds
Solution Factors
Velocity
Density
Lift Requirements (Corrective Moment)
at Angles of Attack

Structural Strength
21
Fin
11
Count
Fin Count > 3

Skin Friction
Drag Increases
Interference
Drag Increases
up to Mach 1.35
Fin Count 3
but not always
22
Desired
Preferred
Fin Tip
1
Vortices
Vortices alter Fin Effective Aspect Ratio

Positive or Neutral Ratio Desired
Lower Angles of Attack for Given Lift (Increases Corrective and

Damping Moments)
Lower Induced Drag for Given Lift
Implies Fins with a Tip Cord > 0

Square Edge Tips
Desire Zero or Positive Effective Aspect Ratio

Ease of Manufacture
23
Fin
20
Flutter
NASA Safety
Factors
15% between
vehicle & flutter
velocity
32% between
vehicle and
flutter dynamic
pressure
24
Fin
16
Flutter
Stall Flutter not applicable

Choose Shear Modulus for
Material
Apply Contingency when
selecting Flutter criterion
Criterion then used with Aspect
Ratio to find Thickness Ratio
Multiple Thickness Ratio & Cord
to get Thickness
25
Fin Joint
1,12
Drag
Interference Drag
Minimized when fillet radius is
between 4% and 8% of fin root cord
10 Root Cord 1/2 Radius
Consider Structural Strength
Wing (Leading Edge) Fillets

Increase Drag in the Transonic
Region
26
Sweep
13
Angle
70 Sweep Angle Superior to Smaller

Angles in Sub, Trans, & Supersonic
Ranges
4 Fin Configuration Exception in
Subsonic Region
27
Fin
15,17,18
Thickness
Thinner Symmetrical Fins Result in

Lower CD in Sub, Trans, and
Supersonic Regions
28
Leading
14
Edge
29
Leading
14
Edge
At Mach 4
Sharp Leading Edge has Lower CD at all
Angles of Attack
Trapezoidal (Clipped Delta) has Lower CD
than Delta
30
Trailing
21
Edge
Trailing-edge Thickness up to 0.7%

Root Cord Reduces Transonic Drag
Does not Impact Subsonic Drag
Trailing Edge Thickness > 0.7%

Results in Increased Drag
Varies with Airfoil Thickness and
Optimum is < 0.7%
10 Root Cord 1/16 Thick Trailing Edge
31
Fin Cross
13,19
Section
Sub, Trans, and

Supersonic
Hexagonal
Lower CD than
Double Wedge
Supersonic
CD NACA 65A003
< 65A004 <
Hexagonal
32
14,19
Shape
Supersonic Data
Trapezoidal (Clipped Delta) Lower
CD than Delta
Delta and Diamond have Similar CD
33
Multi-Disciplinary Design
Optimization (MDO)x
Optimizing Individual Components may not

Result in an Optimum Design
Increasing Fin count from 3 to 4
Improving Nose Cone Fineness Ratio (3.5 vs. 7)
may Result in Increased Fin Drag at Some
Velocities
34
Summary
Optimal Nose Cones
Subsonic Elliptical
Transonic Von Karman (Blunted 15% of Base Diameter)
Supersonic - X Power Series
Hypersonic X.6 Power Series
Fineness Ratio of 5
Fin Count of 3
Fin Joints 4% to 8% of Root Cord
Thickness < 10% of Root Cord often between 3% & 6%
Trailing Edge Flat but < 0.7% of Root Cord in Thickness
Leading Edge may be Sharp
Sweep Angle between 45 and 70
Flat Fin Tips
Hexagonal Cross Section
Clipped Delta Shape
Fin Optimization
35
Appendices
Nose Cones
Nose Cone Geometries
Conical
Elliptical
Ogive (Tangent)
Parabolic
Power Series
Sears-Haack (Von Karman)
37
Nose Cone Parameters

CL
y
L
x=0
y=0
x
Dimensions used in
the equations
x=L
y=R
L is the overall length of the nosecone

R is the radius of the base of the nosecone
y is the radius at any point x, as x varies from 0 at the tip
of the nosecone to L
The full body of revolution of the nosecone is formed by
rotating the profile around the centerline (CL)
38
xR
L
Conical Nose Cones
CL
R
L
The sides of a cone are straight lines, so the diameter

equation is simply, y = Rx/L
Cones are sometimes defined by their half angle, = tan1(R/ ) and y = x tan
L
Cp=L/3
V=R2L/3
S= R(R2 + L2).5
39
Elliptical Nose Cones
CL
R
L
The profile of this shape is one-half of an ellipse, with the major

axis being the centerline and the minor axis being the base of
the nosecone
This shape is advantageous for subsonic flight due to its blunt
nose and tangent base
2
It is defined by: y = R(1-x /L2)
Cp=3L/2
V=2R2L/3
S=L2+[R2/[ln{(1+)/(1-)}]]/2 where =(L2+R2)/L
40
Tangent Ogive Nose Cones

R
CL
Ogive
Radius
This shape is formed by a circle segment where the base is on

the circle radius and the airframe is tangent to the curve of the
nosecone at its base
The radius of the circle that forms the ogive is: = (R2 + L2)/2R
The radius y at any point x, as x varies from 0 to L is: y = (2-(xL)2)+R- where L
Cp=V/R2
V=[L2 - L3/ (3 - R2)sin-1(L/)] where =(R2 + L2)/2R
S=?
41
Parabolic Nose Cones

R
CL
L
Full Parabola K=1
Axis of Symmetry
The Parabolic Series nose shape is generated by rotating a

segment of a parabola around a line parallel to its axis of
symmetry.
y=R{(2[x/L]-K[x/L]2)/(2-K)} for 0K1
Cp=L/2
V= R2L/2
S=R2/4L
K=
K=
K=
K=
0
.5
.75
1
for
for
for
for
a
a
a
a
CONE
1/2 PARABOLA
3/4 PARABOLA
PARABOLA (base tangent to airframe)
42
Power Series Nose Cones

CL
R
L
Power Series
The Power Series shape is characterized by its (usually) blunt tip, and by the fact that its base is not
tangent to the body tube.
The Power series nose shape is generated by rotating a parabola about its major axis. The base of the
nosecone is parallel to the latus rectum of the parabola, and the factor n controls the bluntness of the
shape. As n decreases towards zero, the Power Series nose shape becomes increasingly blunt; at
values of n above about .7, the tip becomes sharp.
y=R(x/L)n for 0n1
n=1
for a CONE
n = .75
for a POWER
n = .5
for a POWER (PARABOLA)
n=0
for a CYLINDER
Cp=?
V=?
S=?
43
Sears-Haack Nose Cones

CL
R
L
Sears-Haack
Not constructed from geometric figures

Mathematically derived for drag minimization
Not tangent to body at base
Rounded not sharp nose tips
y = R{-[sin(2)/2]+Csin3()}1/2/()1/2 where 0C and = cos-1(1-2x/L)
Cp=L/2 Von Karman; Cp= .437L LV-Haack

V=?
S=?
C = 0 minimum drag for given Length and Volume (LV)

C = 1/3 minimum drag for given Length and Diameter (LD - Von Karman)
44
Nose Cone References

1.
Topics in Advanced Model Rocketry; Mandell, Gordon K.; Caporaso, George J.;
Bengen, William P.; The MIT Press; 1973
2. Investigation of the Drag of Various Axially Symmetric Nose Shapes of Fineness Ratio
3 for Mach Numbers from 1.24 to 3.67; Perkins, Edward W.; Jorgensen, Leland H.;
NACA Research Memorandum A52H28; 1952.
3. Investigation of the Drag of Various Axially Symmetric Nose Shapes of Fineness Ratio
3 for Mach Numbers from 1.24 to 7.4; Perkins, Edward W.; Jorgensen, Leland H.;
Sommer, Simon C.; NACA Technical Report 1386; 1958.
4. Transonic Drag Measurements of Eight-Body Nose Shapes; Stoney, Jr., William, G.;
NACA Research Memorandum L53K17; 1954.
5. The Effect of Bluntness on the Drag of Spherical-Tipped Truncated Cones of Fineness
Ratio 3 at Mach Numbers 1.2 to 7.4; Sommer, Simon C.; Stark, James A.; NACA
Research Memorandum A52B13; 1954.
6. Pressure Drag of Bodies at Mach Numbers up to 2.0; Nelson, Robert L.; Stoney, Jr.,
William, G.; NACA Research Memorandum L53I22c; 1953.
7. Bodies of Revolution having Minimum Drag at High Supersonic Airspeeds; Eggers Jr,
A. J.; Resnikoff, Meyer M.; Dennis, David H.; NACA Technical Report 1306, 1957.
8. Hypersonic Aerodynamic Performance of Minimum-Wave-Drag Bodies; Spencer, Jr.,
Bernard; Fox Jr., Charles H.; NASA Technical Report R-250; 1966.
9. Longitudinal Aerodynamic Performance of a Series of Power-Law and Minimum-WaveDrag Bodies at Mach 6 and Several Reynolds Numbers; Ashby Jr., George C.; NASA
Technical Memorandum X-2713; 1974.
10. Performance and Dynamics of Aerospace Vehicles; Love, E. S.; NASA SP-258; 1971;
pages 103-174.
45
Fin References
11. Effect of Number of Fins on the Drag of a Pointed Body of Revolution at Low Supersonic
Velocities; Mastrocola, N; NACA Research Memorandum L7A08; 1947.
12. Transonic Drag Characteristics of a Wing-Body Combination Showing the Effect of a Large
Wing Fillet; Cheatham, Donald C.; Kurbjun, Max C.; NACA Research Memorandum L8F08;
1948.
13. Damping in Roll of Models with 45, 60, and 70 Delta Wings Determined at High Subsonic,
Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds with Rocket-Powered Models; Saunders Jr, E Claude;
NACA Research Memorandum L52D22a; 1952.
14. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Two Delta Wings and Two Trapezoidal Wings at Mach
4.04; Dunning, Robert W.; Smith, Fred W.; NACA Research Memorandum L53D30A; 1953.
15. Results of a Flight Investigation to Determine the Zero-Lift Drag Characteristics of a 60
Delta Wing with NACA 65-006 Airfoil Section and Various Double-Wedge Sections at Mach
Numbers from 0.7 to 1.6; Welsh, Clement J.; NACA Technical Note 3650; 1956.
16. Summary of Flutter Experiences as a Guide to the Preliminary Design of Lifting Surfaces
on Missiles; Martin, Dennis J.; NACA Technical Note 4197; 1958.
17. The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the Variable-Density Wind
Tunnel; Jacobs, Eastman N.; Ward, Kenneth E.; Pinkerton, Robert N; NACA Technical
Report 460; 1948.
18. Tests of 16 Related Airfoils at High Speeds; Stack, John; Von Doenhoff, Albert E.; NACA
Technical Report 492; 1935.
19. Free-Flight Measurements of the Zero-Lift Drag of Several Wings at Mach Numbers from
1.4 to 3.8; Jackson, H. Herbert; NASA Technical Note D-395; 1960.
20. Aeroelastic Optimization of Sounding Rocket Fins; Simmons III, Joseph R.; Air Force
Institute of Technology; 2009.
21. NASA Supercritical Airfoils; Harris, Charles D.; NASA Technical Paper 2969; 1990.
46
MDO References
1. Results of Flight Tests at
Supersonic Speeds to
Determine the Effect of Body
Nose Fineness Ratio on Body
and Wing Drag; Katz, Ellis R;
NACA Research Memorandum
L7B19; 1947.
47
Selected Websites
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/e
ducation/rocket/guided.htm
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp
http://www.apogeerockets.com/
Peak-of-Flight_index.asp
http://www.rocketmaterials.org/
http://www.aerorocket.com/
48

Nose Cone & Fin Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationNose cone design and optimization For the design of high speed missile or fighter

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nose Cone & Fin Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nose Cone & Fin Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nose Cone &

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Dependence upon the profile of the object

Skin Friction (Viscous) Drag

Friction of the fluid against the skin of the object

Incremental drag above sum of all other drag components.

Induced (Lift-Induced) Drag

Due to redirection of airflow

Wave (Compressibility) Drag

Due to shockwaves when moving near or above the speed

Circumferential velocity from roll will thicken boundary

Fineness (Aspect) Ratio

Fluid streams move in parallel (negligible transfer

Turbulent Boundary Layer

Fluid streams transverse with velocity variations

Boundary Layer Separation

Boundary layer separates from objects surface

Dimensionless ratio of inertial / viscous forces

Aspect Ratio (AR)

Effective Aspect Ratio

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Subsonic: < .8 Mach

Stability (CP&CG - Discussed Last Year)

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Nose Cone Design

Nose Cone Design

Zero Angle of Attack

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Nose Cone Solutions

Eggers Minimum Drag

LD-Haack (Von Karman)

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Optimal ratio is .15

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Coefficient of Drag (CD)

Primarily Skin Friction Drag

Coefficient of Drag (CD)

Wave Drag Increases Substantially

Coefficient of Drag (CD)

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Coefficient of Drag (CD)

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Maximize Fin Joint Strength

Fin Drag Optimization

Fin Count > 3

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Vortices alter Fin Effective Aspect Ratio

Lower Angles of Attack for Given Lift (Increases Corrective and

Implies Fins with a Tip Cord > 0

Desire Zero or Positive Effective Aspect Ratio

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Stall Flutter not applicable

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry

Wing (Leading Edge) Fillets

70 Sweep Angle Superior to Smaller

Thinner Symmetrical Fins Result in

Copyright 2011 by Off We Go Rocketry