~~

NASA TcBlTTRS Memorandum 100063

,5767

The Present Status and the

Future of Missile Aerodynamics
Jack N. Nielsen

(blASA-TH-loOo63) T E E P R E S E B l S T i A l U S A N D THE N83-29773

E L T U R E OF B I S S I L E AEPCCYNAEICS (AASA) 37 p
CSCL 01A
Unclas
G3/02 0 157 1 5 7

January 1988

NASA
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
 ~ ~~~ ~- ~

NASA Technical Memorandum 100063

The Present Status and the

Future of Missile Aerodynamics
Jack N. Nielsen, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

January 1988

NASA
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Ames Research Center
Moffett Field California 94035
 SUMMARY

This paper reviews some recent developments in the state of the art in missile
aerodynamics. Among the subjects covered are ( 1 ) Tri-service/NASA data base,
(2) wing-body interference, ( 3 ) nonlinear controls, (4) hypersonic transition,
(5) vortex interference, (6) airbreathers, supersonic inlets, ( 7 ) store separation
problems, ( 8 ) correlation of missile data, ( 9 ) CFD codes for complete configura-
tions, (10) engineering prediction methods, and ( 1 1 ) future configurations.
Throughout the paper, suggestions are made for future research and development to
advance the state of the art of missile aerodynamics.

SYMBOLS

a body radius at wing position

AR aspect ratio

b span, wing tip to wing tip

cA axial force coefficient

rolling moment coefficient

C effective dihedral, negative for stability

‘m pitching moment

C~~ normal force coefficient of fin

%F value of CNF at and fi a for wing alone

Cn yawing moment coefficient

L directional stability, positive for stability

“6
D drag of missile configuration

Kg NB(W)/NW, body lift interference parameter for 6f = 0

KW NW(B)/NW, wing lift interference parameter for 6f = 0

1
 constant used to express change in fin angle of attack caused by a0
coup1ing

kl b/(% tan a)

M, sin a, cross-flow Mach number

k3 (tan a)/AR

kw lift interference parameter for control; NM(B)/Nw with aB = 0,

aw = 6 f

L/D configuration lift-drag ratio

a. length of missile configuration

m
'
freestream Mach number

c' 9 Mn Mach number normal to body axis

Ma. local Mach number at a point in a flow

k, average Mach number across exposed span of fin

N configuration normal force

normal force on body caused by presence of wing

normal force on wing alone (wing alone = two fins joined at root
chord )

normal force of wing in the presence of body

freestream dynamic pressure

local dynamic pressure

qa.
average value of q, across exposed span of fin

r radial distance of point from body longitudinal angle

polar coordinates in crossflow plane

distance from body longitudinal axis to tip of fin

lateral distance from body longitudinal axis in plane of fins

2
 distance of fin center of pressure from leading edge of root chord
nondimensionalized by fin root chord

angle of attack of undeflected fin, uC cos @

angle of attack of missile body

eauivalent angle of attack, Eq. (5)

local angle of attack at a point in flow

average angle of attack across exposed span of fin

angular deflection of fin from zero position

deflection of fin 1, etc.

r o l l angle of right fin from its horizontal position, positive

clockwise

x taper ratio of fin, ratio of tip chord to root chord at wing-body

juncture

8 sideslip angle, 0 = a sin 4 or sin 0 = sin a sin I$ for large ac

C C

% semi-apex angle of cone

an interference factor slightly less than unity associated with

deflection of fin j

1. INTRODUCTION

In the six years since the last AGARD meeting on missile aerodynamics in
Trondheim, Norway in 1982, much has happened. The purposes of the present paper are
to describe the recent developments in missile aerodynamics, and to suggest areas
where future research could be fruitful.
The emphasis in the paper is on the U.S. experience in stability and control of
tactical missiles. The aerodynamic problems are discussed in generic terms so that
reference to particular missiles is not necessary.
The paper covers theory, experiment, and engineering prediction, but not radar
cross-section. The papers of the 1982 AGARD meeting are to be found in reference 1.

3
 2. OVERVIEW

Among the aerodynamic requirements for tactical missiles are range, maneuver-
ability, and speed. These requirements can be contradictory depending on the spe-
cific application. The search for range has led to much work on airbreathing mis-
3iles. As a consequence, there is an interest in noncircular, nonrolling mis-
siles. The desire for maneuverability has led to operation at high angles of
attack, which, in turn, has created serious stability and control problems. At the
same time, the use of airbreathers puts definite angle-of-attack limits under which
the engines will operate, and in this regard, range and maneuverability are in
conflict.
The trend toward higher speeds has brought with it new problems in hypersonic
aerodynamics such as wing-body interference effects and unusual vortex behavior. In
addition, there are the questions of transition and turbulence at hypersonic speeds
which are important in many applications.
Methods of calculating the aerodynamics of missiles have been improved and
recent developments have increased the accuracy of the Euler equations f o r calculat-
ing missile flow fields. An engineering method for the design of missiles has been
produced in MISSILE DATACOM (ref. 31).
Also an engineering design code which works to high angles of attack,
Missile 111, has been developed based on an extensive Tri-service/NASA data base
(ref. 2).

3. TRI-SERVICE/NASA DATA BASE

The Tri-service/NASA data base is being considered at this point because many
nonlinear aerodynamic phenomena are illustrated by data from this source. The basic
body for the systematic tests consisted of a cylindrical body with an ogive nose
3.0 calibers long for a total body length of 12.5 calibers. A series of fins
(fig. 1) ranging in aspect ratio from 0.25 to 4.0 was tested in a tail cruciform
arrangement with the body over the angle of attack and Mach number range (shown in
fig. 2 ) . The radius to semispan ratio was maintained constant at 0.5. The configu-
rations were all tested over the roll-angle range and, in some of the tests, the
fins were deflected as much as +40° about their hinge lines.
Six component force-and-moment data were taken for the configurations and
I normal force, root-bending moment, and hinge moment were measured for each fin.
These data form the basis of a prediction method for cruciform missile aerody-
namic characteristics, and are incorporated into a code called Missile I11
(ref. 2). In addition, references 3-5 make use of the Tri-service/NASA data base.

4
 4. WING-BODY INTERFERENCE

Wing-body i n t e r f e r e n c e h a s been a n i m p o r t a n t s u b j e c t f o r decades. A t h i g h

a n g l e s of a t t a c k i t h a s a n effect on t h e t o t a l normal force developed by a missile
and its m a n e u v e r a b i l i t y . For moderate a n g l e s of a t t a c k , and s u b s o n i c t o moderate
s u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers methods for p r e d i c t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e between midwing and
c i r c u l a r bodies are well known. T h i s i n t e r f e r e n c e for t h e wing is measured by a
parameter d e f i n e d by

Here NW(B) is t h e normal force on t h e u n d e f l e c t e d wing d i v i d e d by t h e normal force

o f t h e wing a l o n e a t t h e same a n g l e o f attack. For t h e normal f o r c e carried o v e r
o n t o t h e body from t h e wing, a n a n a l o g o u s r a t i o KB is d e f i n e d as follows:

The d a t a of t h e Tri-service/NASA d a t a b a s e are s u f f i c i e n t t o see t h e e f f e c t of

c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y on t h e v a l u e s of KW and KB. I n t h e r a n g e of a n g l e of attack and
Mach number c i t e d above, b o t h p a r a m e t e r s are f u n c t i o n s of a / s o n l y . What happens
t o t h e v a l u e of t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s a t h i g h e r v a l u e s o f a n g l e o f a t t a c k and Mach number
has been r e p o r t e d i n r e f e r e n c e 3 5ased on t h e Tri-service/NASA data base.

The v a l u e of KW and KB/KW have been e x t r a c t e d from t h e data base for

M, = 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5, and f o r a n g l e s of a t t a c k up t o 40°. These are t a b u l a t e d i n
r e f e r e n c e 3 f o r seven f i n planforms v a r y i n g i n a s p e c t r a t i o and t a p e r r a t i o . S u f f i -
c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e normal-force c o e f -
f i c i e n t s for the e n t i r e configurations.

P l o t s of KW v e r s u s a are shown i n f i g u r e 3 for a s p e c t r a t i o 2 wings as

f u n c t i o n s of Mach number and t a p e r r a t i o . The effects o f t a p e r r a t i o are small, b u t
t h e e f f e c t s of a n g l e o f attack are l a r g e . For small a n g l e s of a t t a c k , KW t e n d s
toward t h e s l e n d e r - b o d y v a l u e , b u t a t h i g h a n g l e s of a t t a c k i t moves toward one o r
t h e r e a b o u t s . Thus the f a v o r a b l e body i n t e r f e r e n c e on t h e f i n s t e n d s t o d i s a p p e a r a t
h i g h a n g l e s of a t t a c k f o r a l l Mach numbers. T h i s r e s u l t is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e
s i m p l e method o f f i n d i n g l o a d i n g on b o d i e s a t h i g h a n g l e s o f a t t a c k by u s i n g
Newtonian impact p r e s s u r e on a l l s u r f a c e s f a c i n g t h e airstream and assuming vacuum
p r e s s u r e ( 0 ) on t h e leeward s u r f a c e s . On page 509 of r e f e r e n c e 12 i t is s e e n t h a t
t h e cross-flow Mach number correlates KW f o r d i f f e r e n t Mach numbers.

A s e r i e s o f c u r v e s for KB/KW is shown i n f i g u r e 4 i n t h e same format as

f i g u r e 3 . The v a l u e s of KB a t low a t e n d g e n e r a l l y toward t h e s l e n d e r body
v a l u e of 0.55 or lower. There is a f a i r amount of scatter i n t h e data. A t high

5
angles of attack (a z 20°), the value of KB tends to small values, indicating a
loss of lift carryover from the fins to the body for Mach numbers from 2.5 to 4.5.
In connection with the value of KB/KW, these values pertain to the short
afterbody lengths of the present configuration. These lengths are not uniform. The
length of the afterbody probably can have a significant effect on KB. This problem
is a good one for further work, possibly using an Euler code.
Another problem which needs future attention: where is the center-of-pressure
location for the lift carryover onto the body from the fin?

5. NONLINEAR CONTROL EFFECT

The control type that will be of interest here is the all-movable control which
rotates about a hinge line perpendicular to the body. This information about all-
movable controls is also true to a considerable extent about other controls, such as
wraparound fins and retractable fins. Extensive measurements were made as a func-
tion of Ma, a, 6 , A, and AR of all-movable fin normal force, root bending moment,
and fin hinge moment. Some interesting effects were found in the Tri-service data
base as described in reference 4.
Because of the variation in local flow conditions about a body of revolution at
high angle of attack as a function of roll angle, the effectiveness of the fin in
producing normal force will vary greatly between the leeward and windward fins. The
local quantities affecting the fin normal force are the upwash angle, dynamic pres-
sure, and Mach number. As examples of how the effectiveness of a fin in producing
normal force varies with M, and Q, consider figure 5 (taken from ref. 4). For
$ = 90°, the fin is on the windward meridian and for Q = -goo, the fin is on the
leeward meridian. Examining the M, z 4.5 case first, we note that for constant
4, increases in fin deflection from -40° to +40° are always accompanied with
increase in fin normal force. At M, = 2 there is a peak normal force below
6 = 40" for Q, > -20". Thus there is a fin stall.
A second interesting feature is that at I$ go", a given fin deflection pro-
duces more change in normal force than it does at 41 = -90". This effect is partic-
ularly noticeable at M = 4.5 where the fin on the leeward meridian is operating
almost in a vacuum.
It is possible to correlate the data of figure 5 by accounting for the local
Mach number, dynamic pressure, and upwash angle.* These local quantities are deter-
mined by using an Euler code to calculate the body alone flow field. The average
value of these quantities over the span of the fin is determined in accordance with
the following formula

*The flow angle in a streamwise plane normal to the fin planform.

6
with analogous formulas for Using the values of R and ik to define a
uniform flow, we find the in this parallel flow !ran analysis or
wing-alone data. The CNF is then given as follows:
-
=C*k - qa
'NF NF w q, (4)

Conversely, the measured value of CNF can be used to calculate kw. The
value of kw should correlate the fin normal-force data for all roll angles and fin
deflections for a given Mach number. Such a correlation is shown in figure 6 by
using the data of figure 5. For the M, = 2.0 results, good correlation is
obtained for all the data except the 62 = +40° data near I$ = 0 " . These data
represent a stall condition on the fin as observed in figure 5. For M, z 4.5, the
data correlate well. For I$ between -90" and -60" the flow is separated, and Euler
equation solutions to evaluate n q , i,,and a do not give accurate results.
a
Thus kw is not approximately unity as expected.
The question of hinge moments of all-movable controls at large a and/or
large M, is also of interest. Sufficient data exist in the Tri-service/NASA data
base to form the basis of a hinge-moment prediction method. All of the data are f o r
fins having double-wedge sections of varying thickness ratios. A preliminary method
for estimating hinge moments at transonic speed is advanced in reference 7.

With regard to pitching moment, knowledge of fin normal force and hinge moment
is sufficient to determine the fin contribution to missile pitching moment.

6. TRANSITION AT HYPERSONIC SPEED

Transition from laminar to turbulent flow in missile boundary layers will have
large effects on the vortical separated flow field about the missile at high angle
of attack, as well as on the heat transfer to the missile itself. It is important
t o keep in mind that present methods for predicting the location of hypersonic
transition can be very inaccurate and this can lead to serious errors in
predictions.
Because of the reduced emphasis on hypersonics over the last 15 years, transi-
tion research for hypersonic flow has lagged that for lower Mach number flow
(ref. 8). There is a significant lack of information on the effects on transition
of three-dimensional flow, real gases, shock waves, and pressure gradients. This
void must be filled for the design of future hypersonic missiles and aircraft. In
the meantime an interim empirical approach to boundary-layer transition at high Mach
numbers is suggested in reference 8.

7
 A somewhat fuller discussion on hypersonic boundary-layer transition prediction
is given in reference 9. It contains some thoughts on how to predict transition on
bodies characterized by a blunt nose, an early frustum, and a frustum.
It is clear that much research must be done before prediction of hypersonic
transition can be put on a sound basis. Until reasonable correlation between wind
tunnel and flight data at hypersonic speed is achieved, one must be cautious in
using wind tunnel data.

7. VORTEX INTERFERENCE

Control problems on missiles caused by vortices can occur in several ways. We

first consider the classical case of asymmetric vortex separation on bodies of
revolution at high angles of attack, which can occur if the cross-flow Mach number
is subsonic. (This is a necessary condition for asymmetric separation, but alone it
is not a sufficient one.) A correlation is presented in figure 7 as taken from
reference 10 of the maximum side force coefficient caused by asymmetric body vortex
separation for bodies of revolution. It can be seen that the asymmetric side force
is negligible if t h e cross-flow Mach number is h i g h l y subsonic or supersonic of
about M, > 0.8. Asymmetric separation vortices are not to be confused with a
Karman vortex strut which can occur with symmetric separation.
A necessary condition for the existence of side force at zero sideslip is that
the angle of attack be less than a critical value which depends on Mach number. In
figure 8 the region of possible asymmetric side force is indicated. It is noted in
figure 7 that bluntness reduces the cross-flow Mach number above which asymmetric
side force does not exist.
It is clear that if a nonrolling missile is to operate in a region of vortex
asymmetry, the controls must have enough power to handle the side force developed by
asymmetric vortices.
Another effect with which the missile controls must cope is vortex switching in
which the side force quickly changes sign. It is hoped, however, that this severe
requirement can be avoided by making the missile antisymmetric in some way so that
vortex switching does not occur. However, means of avoiding vortex switching still
need investigation in a wind tunnel which does not have a strong asymmetry itself
both for the rolling and nonrolling cases.
The interference associated with symmetric-body vortices still exists at hyper-
sonic speeds. Little is known about the strength and position of vortices at such
speeds. For the present, the prediction methods for lower speeds must be used. A
combined experimental-theoretical investigation should be made of vortex behavior at
hypersonic speeds and large angles of attack. One question of interest is: since
density is very low on the leeward surfaces at high a and high Mach number, are
the vortex-induced forces significant for body vortex effects o r for wing vortex
effects on the tail?

a
 It is possible with existing tools to conduct an inquiry into hypersonic vor-
tices, and by using an Euler code, to calculate the entire flow field if the body
separation lines are known. This was demonstrated in reference 11 for the symmetric
vortices on a body of revolution at M = 3 and a = 15". The calculation uses the
separation-line position as input and imposes the boundary condition that the veloc-
ity vector is tangent to the separation line. To carry out the suggested work
requires first determining the body separation lines experimentally for symmetric
body vortices at a hypersonic Mach number. One can then carry out the Euler calcu-
lations to determine the entire flow field. It can then be seen if the cross-flow
field can be well represented by two concentrated vortices using the Biot-Savart law
in the cross-flow plane.
One of the variables that might influence the position of the onset of separa-
tion is the location of transition, especially at high altitude. The flow condition
for the onset of symmetric vortex separation at hypersonic speeds needs to be meas-
ured for bodies of revolution. It is not clear that the axial position of separa-
tion is necessarily behind the position f o r the onset of transition so that laminar
separation could occur.
Transition at hypersonic speed is thus of possible importance for vortex forma-
tion, besides being important f o r heat transfer.

8. AIRBREATHERS; SUPERSONIC INLETS

Rocket-powered missiles have specific impulses which are a small fraction of

those for turbojets, ramjets, o r scramjets. Turbojets are limited to a Mach number
of about 2 because of the pressure and temperature effects on the rotating structure
of gas-turbine engines, whereas the static structures of ramjets and scramjets can
stand much higher Mach numbers.
The specific impulse of the power package influences the size and weight of a
missile f o r a given payload and range. The chart of specific impulse versus free-
stream Mach number shown in figure 9 (from ref. 12) demonstrates the superiority of
ramjets and scramjets for hypersonic missiles. It also depicts the range of opera-
tion of the next generation of missiles.
Other than the TALOS and BOMARC, long since out of service, there are no air-
breathing tactical missiles in the U.S. military inventory. However, a large amount
of research has been done since World War I1 on airbreathing propulsion for super-
sonic missile airframes. Because of the reduction in weight and size for a given
payload or range, it is strange that more airbreathing missiles have not seen
service.
Airbreathing missiles are for the most part of the bank-to-turn kind rather
than the rolling kind. If the angle required for the flow to turn into a supersonic
inlet at high angle of attack exceeds a certain value (dependent on Mach number),
the flow will not turn into the inlet and the inlet will "unstart." For bank-to-

9
turn missiles putting the inlet on the bottom of the body yields higher inlet pres-
sures as the angle of attack increases. A ramjet is less sensitive to initial flow
nonuniformities than is a turbojet engine. Accordingly, a ramjet with the inlet on
the bottom surface appears to be a likely candidate for a hypersonic maneuvering
missile. The skid-to-turn missile is seen to deteriorate in performance as the
angle of attack increases. An example of a ramjet in normal service is the Sea Dart
of the Royal British Navy.
In accordance with the purpose of this paper, future problems need to be iden-
tified where possible. Inlet technology presents a ripe area for innovation and
invention for hypersonic propulsion. One area where future efforts should yield a
good payoff is the application of computational fluid dynamics to inlet design.
Some preliminary efforts in this direction using an Euler code have been promis-
ing. The code also determines the inlet contribution to the stability of the
missile.
A few years ago McMillan et al. made a detailed survey of the available infor-
mation on airbreathing inlets (refs. 13 and 1 4 ) . The papers contain descriptions of
the inlets tested, the testing parameters ranges, and the kinds of measurements
made.

9. STORE-SEPARATION PROBLEMS

Many tactical missiles are carried and released by aircraft. During their
release they can encounter destabilizing forces and moments caused by the aircraft
flow field which can be the most severe in their operating range. A possibility
exists of missiles even striking the aircraft.
Most missiles are mounted on external racks and pods and operate well up into
the transonic speed range. However, at high transonic speeds they frequently become
unstable when released. At supersonic speeds they have so much drag that new
methods of carrying and releasing the stores are necessary.
For supersonic aircraft a number of new carriage techniques have been sug-
gested. The methods include mounting the store flush with the bottom of the fuse-
lage (tangential carriage) and semi-submerging the missile in a cutout of the air-
plane. These methods will significantly reduce the supersonic drag. Another method
which has a number of benefits is storing the missile internally to reduce its
drag. As an approximation, the missile drag coefficient is the airplane drag coef-
ficient times the internal volume used by the missile divided by the total internal
volume of the aircraft, a figure which is a small fraction of the airplane drag.
There are no radar cross-section effects created by the missile, except at launching
the missile.
The design of cavities for containing missiles at supersonic speeds has been
extensively investigated by R. L. Stallings of NASA-Langley (ref. 15). It is impor-
tant that the cavity not become a Helmholtz resonator when its cover is removed to

10
separate the missile. This phenomenon is a function of cavity depth-to-length
ratio, Mach number, and Reynolds number. Also the pitching moment on the missile
should be nose down to have a clear separation of the store from the aircraft. The
missile may be given a downward linear velocity and initial angular velocity to aid
separation. It is important that a supersonic aircraft be able to separate its
missiles at subsonic and supersonic speeds.
Computational fluid dynamics finds use in the study of missile launching from
aircraft at both transonic and supersonic speeds. Panel methods can now model
complete airplanes. Missiles can also be included in the calculation. In refer-
ence 16 Deslandes has applied an Euler code at transonic and supersonic speeds to
predict carriage loads on external stores using zonal decomposition. In refer-
ence 17, Dougherty, Benek, and Steger apply overlapping grids to solve by iteration
for the interference field between several bodies at transonic speed. These authors
have just scratched the surface of possibilities for the application of CFD to
missile-airplane interference. Much remains to be done. Eventually CFD should
largely replace experiment in this application.
While Euler codes give good solutions for many aircraft interference problems,
some problems are Reynolds-number dependent so that the Navier-Stokes equations may
be called for. Such problems may include missiles at transonic speeds where flow
separation occurs because of the close proximity of the stores. Also, open cavities
might require the Navier-Stokes equations in certain instances. The field is open
for further research.

10. CORRELATION OF MISSILE DATA

While methods exist for calculating the complete flow field about many missile
configurations, such calculations are costly and often of unknown accuracy. Engi-
neering prediction methods based on data correlation plus analysis offer a cheaper
and faster way of prediction in many cases. Methods for cruciform missiles and
planar missiles exist but would benefit from further development.
We now discuss two correlation methods that are useful in engineering predic-
tion methods before describing the methods themselves.
The equivalent angle-of-attack concept (ref. 18) has been very useful in help-
ing to predict the normal force and center-of-pressure location of a fin in the
presence of a body. It has also been useful in predicting the amount of normal
force carried over onto the body. We will describe the concept here with minimal
mathematics and refer the reader to reference 19 for the details.
A fin mounted on a circular body is subject to flow normal to its planform from
at least four sources: (a) body angle of attack, (b) fin deflection, (c) sideslip,
and (d) vortices. The equation connecting these quantities (without control deflec-
tion) is

11
 ,. 4
tan a = KW tan ac cos 4i + -
A R K 4 sin aC cos aC sin d i cos 4 i + tan(Aav) (5)
eq i
Adding in control deflection, we have

A j=4

where is approximately unity for j = i and a small fraction for j f i.

'ij
Here (Aa, is the average angle of attack induced normal to the fins by the body o r
other vortices. The basic assumption here in determining the resulting angle of
attack of the fin is that the velocities normal to the fin are linearly additive
(fig. 10). We do not add component normal forces but use the tangent addition
theorem on the component normal velocities. If the normal-force curve of the fin
alone is linear, then we could add normal-force components. However, by the present
method, nonlinear wing alone normal-force curves can be used. The normal force of
the fin in the presence of the body corresponds to that for the wing alone at
a hl = aeq. Data in reference 20 show excellent correlation of both CN(F) and
(x/c) versus a for data from several sources. Further refinement of Equa-
eq
tion 75) considers the induced normal velocity at a given fin caused by the deflec-
t i o n s of the other fins through the Aij coefficients. It is also possible to
linearize Equation ( 5 ) and get good results in the moderate angle-of-attack range.
An example of the correlation of fin normal force achieved by aeq is shown in
figure 1 1 .
The other method of correlation which is useful for missile aerodynamic methods
is due to Sychev (ref. 21) as adapted by Hemsch (ref. 6). Hemsch has shown how the
modified similarity of Sychev can be used to correlate the normal force and center-
of-pressure position for wings and bodies up to high angles of attack, assuming a
supersonic cross-flow Mach number.t The normal force and pitching moment for a
slender configuration are given by the following set of equations.

cN
= fl(kl,k2)
sin2 a

where
b/a = Mm sin a
kl =G-i k2
Introducing a third parameter
- -tan
- a constant
k3 - A R - kl
tThis assumption turns out to be unnecessary for some reason.

12
the normal-force coefficient and center-of-pressure location turn out to be

IU

AR sin a cos a = f2(k2,k3) (10)

Hemsch applied the results to a systematic series of sharp delta wings tested
by Miller and Wood* (ref. 22). He first plotted the position for the various data
points in the k2,k3 plane as shown in figure 12. Four regions were found which
corresponded to four types of delta-wing flow. It is then shown that two fins with
the same values of k2 and k3 yield the same pressure coefficients in the form
Cp/sin2 a versus y/s. This assumes similar airfoil shapes.
A simplification was found for the wings of the Stallings-Lamb data (ref. 23)
consisting of wings varying in aspect ratio from 0.25 to 4.0 and with taper ratios
of 0, 0.5, and 1.0. An accur-ate data correlation was found in the form

B
cN = A -
tan a
AR sin a cos a AR
where

A = A(M, sin a) ; B = B(M m sin a) (13)

Hemsch found that three families of sharp-edged wings and two families of
smooth bodies had normal force curves as represented by equations (12) and (13). It
was also possible to correlate the center-of-pressure position of wings alone as
curves of i / s versus a/AR with Mm sin a as a parameter.

11. CFD CODES FOR COMPLETE CONFIGURATIONS

It is often of interest to calculate the pressure or flow field for a complete

missile or for a missile in the presence of an airframe. Various codes exist in the
United States for this purpose. The codes vary in their speed, range of applicabil-
ity, and the partial differential equation being solved among other ways. Four
codes are compared in figure 13. These four codes are: (1) PANAIR (ref. 241,
(2) TRANAIR (ref. 25), (3) DEMON (ref. 26), and (4) SWINT (ref. 27).

PANAIR (ref. 24) is a code intended to solve the linear aerodynamic theory (the
Glauert-Prandtl equation) f o r complete configurations of some complexity. Although
developed f o r airplane use, it can easily be adapted to a missile in flight. It can
also handle a separating missile still within the influence of the airplane.
 PANAIR can be used through the subsonic and supersonic speed range except in
the nonlinear transonic range. For this purpose, TRANAIR was created for applica-
tion to aircraft in the nonlinear transonic region (ref. 2 5 ) . It is applicable to
missiles. The code solves the full potential equation for the entire flow field.
It can be adapted to apply to an airplane-store combination.
DEMON (ref. 26) is a supersonic panel program based on the Glauert-Prandtl
rule. However, nonlinear compressibilities effects are accounted for in an engi-
neering approximation. It handles both body and fin vortices, and it is applicable
when calculating interference between missiles and airplanes.
Finally, SWINT (ref. 27) is a supersonic marching code based on the Euler
equations. It employs a grid with radial lines from a center somewhere in the
body. The radial lines in the cross-flow plane are allowed to intersect the surface
of the missile only once. This limits its application to a class of missile config-
urations. The important aspect of SWINT is that it is based on the Euler equations
which handle nonlinear compressibility effects precisely.
There are gaps in the application of the foregoing codes. The difficulty in
some cases, which is due to the mesh of the Euler code just discussed, can be over-
come, and this problem is a good one for future work. At the same time, it might
also be modified to handle multiconnected regions. If the Mach number in the march-
ing direction becomes subsonic, the Euler code "blows up" (this usually occurs at
some limiting angle of attack). A method for handling small regions of embedded
subsonic flow with the Euler equation would be of interest.
A l l the codes have been or can be adjusted to account for vortices in an engi-
neering fashion. The rigorous treatment of the vortices awaits a Navier-Stokes code
to handle the vortices from first principles. There are a number of Euler solvers
besides SWINT for solving flow problems of supersonic missiles.
In fact, four different Euler solvers have been compared by Priolo, Wardlaw, and
Solomon in reference 28. SWINT has a number of shortcomings including geometric
limitations, occasional instability in calculation, use of special means at leading
edges, trailing edges and tips, inability to reproduce sharp shock discontinuities,
and use of artificial viscosity. MUSE is an extension of SWINT to handle fin thick-
ness and more general geometrics. ZEUS E is a first-order code using the Gudonov
method while ZEUS H is a second-order code using the Gudonov method. The Gudonov
method can remove most of the instabilities occurring in SWINT. It does not need
artificial viscosity nor special procedures; it gives sharp discontinuities associ-
ated with shocks. While these advances improve Euler codes, further advances are
needed to handle viscous effects in a rotational inviscid way.
A supersonic panel code has been coupled with a NASTRAN code to determine
static aeroelastic forces and moments as well as deformed shapes. This work has
been accomplished by Dillenius et al. and is reported in reference 29. The combined
program has been provided with an optimizing capability. One application under
consideration is how to design a fin to minimize hinge moments. McIntosh and

*Miller and Woods obtained similar results using different parameters.

14
Dillenius have written an aeroelastic tailoring procedure for reduction of fin hinge
moments. The code (ref. 30) makes use of McIntosh and Dillenius' DEMON code.

12. ENGINEERING PREDICTION METHODS

It is not economical and, in certain cases, not currently possible to calculate

the aerodynamic characteristics of complete tactical missiles using CFD. Therefore,
much preliminary design is done by engineering prediction methods. Many companies
have their own engineering-prediction methods which are not in the public domain.
However, there are several engineering methods that are in the public domain and
which we will discuss: (a) MISSILE DATCOM (ref. 3 l ) , (b) MISSILE I11 (ref. 32), and
(c) Schindel's Code (ref. 33).
We are discussing MISSILE DATCOM for purposes of completeness and comparison.
MISSILE DATCOM is a collection of empirical, semiempirical, and theoretical methods
mostly applicable to ordinary missiles. An "ordinary" missile is defined as either
a planar or cruciform missile with an axisymmetric body. Two pairs of fins are
included which are in line or are interdigitalized by 45". We will not discuss the
methodology which is described in reference 31.
MISSILE DATCOM was used to predict the coefficients CN, CM, and CA for a
large number of missile configurations. The tolerances allowable in the predictions
were:

CM: 220% or 25% L

CA: 210% or 22 CD/CA COS a

At w i t h i n t h e t o l e r a n c e s 60% of t h e t i m e ; for a 5 40°,

a 5 20°, t h e method f e l l
40% of the time, Clearly the method is not a high-a method. For closely coupled
wings and tails, it does not handle wing-body interference well; however, this
matter can be rectified. It is not well adapted to handling a-6 coupling of all-
movable fins or to handling asymmetric I$ settings well, o r the effects of a and
M on KB and KW. Reference 3 gives systematic data sufficient for updating the
effects of a and M on KW and KB.
The next computer code, MISSILE 111, supplements DATCOM in some instances. It
utilizes a newly available systematic Tri-service/NASA data base previously
described. It covers the Mach range 0.6 to 4.5, fin aspect ratio from 0.25 to 4.0,
angles of attack up to 45", and arbitrary roll angles. It contains also a set of
data for systematic variations of I$ and 6 , for a number of fins over an a and M
range. These data are sufficient to handle a-6 coupling as well as 6i-6j coupl-
ing, assuming this latter quantity is small. The program's disadvantage is that it
does not handle drag.

15
 The data were taken at a/s = 0.5. For a/s = 0 there is no wing-body inter-
ference so that KW = 1 and KB = 0 . For other a/s ratios, a linear interpola-
tion is made between a/s = 0 and 0.5 for KW and KB as is approximately true from
slender-body theory. This assumption has never been clearly investigated and would
be a worthwhile subject of future research. The generalization of a/s = 0.5 data
to any a/s gives the data base,an additional parameter of freedom. Also the
effects of putting a wing and tail on a missile are handled by providing a wing-tail
interference method in the program. In these ways, the applicability of the data
base is vastly expanded.
It is clear that anything that can be accomplished with MISSILE I11 could also
be added to MISSILE DATCOM.
A number ( 6 ) of suggestions for the extension of MISSILE I11 are included in
reference 32.
In reference 33 Schindel has produced a computer code for preliminary design
and screening of missile airframes. Its virtues are that it is fast and applicable
to waveriders. It also includes a plotting routine for the results.

13. SOME FUTURE CONFIGURATIONS

As a result of future trends in tactical missiles, a number of new concepts are

being advanced to fill the needs. These configurations include waveriders, noncir-
cular bodies, airbreathing engines, etc. We will examine a number of these future
configurations.
Consider first the waverider which is now receiving much attention. Figure 14
illustrates a waverider at its design point. It is the type of waverider known as a
caret wing. Its upper surface consists of two triangular planes joined at a hinge
line. At the design condition, the hinge line is parallel to the freestream direc-
tion, and no pressure exists on the upper surfaces. In the chordwise direction, the
airfoil sections are all wedge sections of a uniform wedge angle. The flow under
the wing is all parallel flow at oblique shock pressure. The reyion between the
bottom of the waverider and a plane containing the apex and wing tips is at uniform
pressure. We thus know its lift/drag ratio from oblique shock theory. Waveriders
have higher L/D ratios at hypersonic speeds than the usual cruciform missiles by
about a factor of 2 . Waveriders were seriously considered for designs of hypersonic
aircraft by Kucheman (ref. 34) and his associates in England about 25 years ago. It
is only recently that waveriders have been given serious attention for hypersonic
tactical missiles.
A large variety of waverider configurations is possible (Schindel, ref. 35).
The use of waveriders as missiles presents a series of aerodynamic problems such as
adding a propulsion system, controls, and a radome to the basic waverider, hopefully
without seriously degrading (L/D)max, It is clear that considering the large number

16
of waverider configurations and the above aerodynamic problems, a large and fruitful
opportunity exists for research and development in this field.
An interesting study in the optimization of hypersonic waveriders is given in
reference 36. In this study, a class of waveriders was optimized for maximum L/D
ratio considering skin friction and blunt leading-edge drag. At M = 6 an L/D
over 8 was calculated and at M = 25 an L/D of about 4.5 was calculated.
One virtue of the conical waverider is that its center of pressure remains
constant at supersonic speed as long as the flow is attached. Of interest is how
much the L/D is degraded by adding the necessary components to make it into an
airplane.
With the introduction of airbreathing missiles to achieve range, it becomes
possible to use noncircular bodies which do not roll continuously. This possibility
opens up the design space and allows increased performance and increased stability
and control. While rocket powered cruciform missiles usually use skid-to-turn
maneuverability, airbreathers utilize bank-to-turn maneuvering. Possible advantages
claimed in the use of noncircular bodies include higher lift, better storage,
improved carriage, better separation, and improved stability and control.
A nonplanar missile on a noncircular body represents an interesting new design
possibility which can have different stability and control than the usual cruciform
missile. A few examples with noncircular bodies are now presented.
A circular body can develop rolling moments by skin friction but they are of
small magnitude. It thus has zero effective dihedral, CQ . A noncircular body
under sideslip can have rolling moment and side force as 8 result of pressure
forces, yielding finite values of and Cn . Figure 15 shows the effective
cQB an ellifltical body as compared to a circular
dihedral and directional stability of
one of the same area distribution. Note that the elliptical body has good effective
dihedral while the circular body has neutral stability. Both bodies have poor
directional stability, but the elliptical body is less unstable than the circular
body and will thus require a smaller vertical fin.
Many investigations have advanced configurational ideas for improved hypersonic
missiles (refs. 37-39). A number of these configurations discussed in reference 37
have flat tops and are presented in figure 16. The maximum L / D ratios are pres-
ented there f o r both flat top and flat bottom orientations. The difference in
maximum L/D between the two orientations is not very large. It is thus possible
t o provide volume below the wing to house the engine. Also, the positive pressure
gives the engine more thrust. The maximum L / D ratios shown in figure 16 are below
the empirical limit given by Kucheman in reference 34.

The stability and control characteristics of monoplanes with elliptical bodies

generally provides a good balance between longitudinal and lateral-directional
stabilities. Too low a profile, looking normal to the body in the horizontal plane,

17
reduces the directional stability. It also causes unporting of controls at high
deflections with an attendant loss of control.
Hunt and his coworkers (ref. 38) have studied hypersonic missile airframes
capable of housing a scramjet engine. The studies showed engine/airframe integra-
tion to be a significant problem for this class of missiles. Also the engine can
have a significant effect on the missile's stability and control. In reference 39
Spearman analyzes the aerodynamics of some unconventional missiles and considers
their applicability to certain missions. The classes of missiles considered are:
( 1 ) delta-wing bodies (fig. 17), (2) ring-parasol wing bodies (fig. 18), and
( 3 ) monoplanar missile with circular/elliptical body (fig. 19). Spearman's objec-
tive was to indicate the types of mission suitable for various configurations. The
requirements for various missions include full load carrying capability, low drag,
low detectability, ease of carriage and stowage, low cost, etc.
Spearman's candidate for a tactical penetrator capable of high speed, low-
altitude overflight with downward spray of warhead fragments is the thick delta wing
and a semi-conical body with delta wings. This configuration, being small and
slender, is hard to detect. High-speed, high-altitude concepts with good aerody-
namic efficiency for volume and range are a possible approach to strategic penetra-
tion. The parasol wing concept appears to be applicable to this mission. It pro-
vides high-lift capability at low angle of attack by utilizing favorable interfer-
ence flow fields.
A monoplanar wing in connection with an elliptical body is a good candidate for
a maneuvering missile such as required in air defense or air combat missions. Its
high L/D makes it a good candidate for longer range air-to-surface missions.
In this section we have considered four general categories of missile types:
(a) waveriders, (b) flat-top monoplanar missiles, (c) missiles designed for scramjet
propulsion, and (d) missiles suitable for particular missions. Although a number of
stability and control problems have been mentioned in connection with these missile
types, a great amount of research and development will be required in the future.
A detailed discussion of waveriders is to be found in reference 35 and of bank-
to-turn missiles with noncircular bodies in reference 40.

14. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this paper a wide range of subjects in missile aerodynamics has been covered
from a general point of view. Certain subjects such as aerodynamic heating, drag,
radar cross-section, and real gas effects have been neglected because of space
limitations or classification restrictions. The first two subjects are well covered
by chapters IX and X in the book "Tactical Missile Aerodynamics,'' Vol. 104, AIAA
Series Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics.

18
 15. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am grateful to Dr. Michael Hemsch, who reviewed the document and made a
number of helpful suggestions.

REFERENCES

1. "Missile Aerodynamics," AGARD-CP-336, Restricted NATO, presented at the Fluid

Dynamics Panel Symposium, Sept. 20-22, 1982, Trondheim, Norway.

2. Lesieutre, D. J., Mendenhall, M. R., Nazario, S. M., and Hemsch, M. J.,

" Aerodynam c Characteristics of Cruciform Missiles at High Angles of Attack,"

AIAA Paper 87-0212, 1987.

3. Nielsen, J N., "Supersonic Wing-Body Interference at High Angles of Attack

with Emphasis on Low Aspect Ratios," AIAA Paper 86-0568, 1986.

4. Hemsch, M. J. and Nielsen, J. N., "Extension of Equivalent Angle-of-Attack

Method for Nonlinear Flow Fields," J. Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp. 304-308, May-June 1985.

5. Lesieutre, D. J., Mendenhall, M. R., Nazario, S. M., and Hemsch, M. J.,

"Prediction of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Cruciform Missiles Including
Effects of Roll Angle and Control Deflection," NEAR TR-360, 1987.

6. Hemsch, M. J., I'Engineering Analysis of Slender-Body Aerodynamics Using Sychev

Similarity Parameters," AIAA Paper 87-0267, 1987. (To be presented in J.
Aircraft, 1988.)

7. Nielsen, J. N., Goodwin, F . K., and Dillenius, M. "Prediction of

F . E.,
Cruciform All-Movable Control Characteristics at Transonic Speeds,"
NEAR TR-321, 1984.

8. Reshotko, E., Bushnell, D. M., and Cassidy, M. D., "Report of the Task Force on
Boundary Layer Transition," NASP TM-1007, 1 987.

9. Stetson, K. F., "On Predicting Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition,"

AFWAL-TM-87- 160-FIMG, March 1987.

10. Wardlaw, A. B., Jr. and Morrison, A. M., "Induced Side Forces at High Angles of
Attack,'' NSWC/WOL/TR 75-17, 1975.

11. Klopfer, G. H. and Nielsen, J. N., "Euler Solutions of the Body Vortices of
Tangent Ogive Cylinders at High Angles of Attack and Supersonic Speeds,'' AIAA
Paper 81-0361, 1981. Also NEAR TR-130.
12. Tactical Missile Aerodynamics, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
Vol. 104, Martin Summerfell, Series Editor in Cheif, Chapter 4 , Inlets, by
A. N. Thomas, Jr., the Marquandt Co., Van Nuys, Calif., pp. 129-167.

13. McMillan, 0. J., Perkins, S. C., J r . , Perkins, E. W., and Kuhn, G. D., "Data
Base for the Prediction of Airbreathing Missile Airframe/Propulsion System
Interference Effects (U), I 1 NWC TP-6136, 1980, Limited Distribution. (Prepared
under Contract N60530-78-C-0098 (Confidential Report).)

14. Perkins, Stanley C., Jr. and McMillan, 0. J., "A Handbook of Experimental Data
for the Effects of Inlet Systems on Airbreathing Missile External Aerodynamics
(U)," NWC TP-6147, 1982, Limited Distribution. (Prepared under Contract
N60530-78-C-0201. ) Vol . 1 , Overview and Summary ( U ) (Confidential ) ; Vol . 2,
Configuration Data: Inlet Type Effects (U) (Unclassified, but Limited
Distribution); Vol. 3, Data Classified by Inlet Type, Part 1 (U)
(Confidential); Vol. 3, Data Classified by Inlet Type, Part 2 (U)
(Confidential).

15. Stallings, R. L., "Store Separation from Cavities at Supersonic Flight Speeds,"
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 20, pp. 129-132, March-April 1983.

16. Deslandes, Ronald, "Zonal Decomposition: An Advanced Concept for Euler Codes
in Order to Predict Carriage Loads of Non-Trivial External Store
Configurations, Paper No. 2, AGARD CP-389, 1986.

17. Dougherty, F. C., Benek, J. A., and Steger, J. L., "On the Application of
Chimera Grid Schemes to Store Separation, I t AGARD CP-389, 1986.

18. Smith, C. A., Nielsen, J. N., and Hemsch, M., "Prediction of Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Banked Cruciform Missiles at High Angles of Attack," AIAA
Paper 79-0024, 1979.

19. Hemsch, M. and Nielsen, J., "The Equivalent Angle-of-Attack Concept f o r

Engineering Analysis," Chpt. XI, "Tactical Missile Aerodynamics," Vol. 104,
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, 1986.

20. Hemsch, M. J. and Nielsen, J. N., "Equivalent Angle of Attack Method for
Estimating Nonlinear Aerodynamics of Missile Fins," J. Spacecraft and Rockets,
Vol. 20, pp. 356-362, July-August 1983.

21. Sychev, V. V., "Three-Dimensional Hypersonic Gas Flow Past Slender Bodies at
High Angles of Attack," J. Appl. Math. and Mech., Vol. 24, pp. 286-306, 1960.

22. Miller, R. S. and Wood, R. M., "Leeside Flow Over Delta Wings at Supersonic
Speeds, NASA TP-2430, 1985.

23. Stallings, R. L., Jr. and Lamb, M., "Wing-alone Aerodynamics Characteristics
for High Angles of Attack at Supersonic Speeds," NASA TP-1889, 1981.

20
24. Derbyshire, T. and Sidwell, K. W., "PANAIR Summary Document," NASA CR-3250,
1982.

25. Samant, S. S., Bussoletti, J. E., Johnson, F. T., Burkhart, R. H., Everson, B.
L., Melvin, R. G . , Young, D. P., Erickson, L. L., Madson, M. D., and Woo, A.
C., "TRANAIR: A Computer Code for Transonic Analysis of Arbitrary
Configuration,'I AIAA Paper 87-0034, 1987.

26. Dillenius, Marnix F. E., "Aerodynamic Predictions Using Supersonic Paneling

Methods Accounting for Vorticity and Nonlinear Effects," AIAA Paper 86-0569,
1986.

27. Wardlaw, A. B., Priolo, F. J., and Solomon, J. M., "A Multiple-Zone Method for
Supersonic Tactical Missiles," NSWC TR 85-484, 1986.

28. Priolo, F. J. and Wardlaw, A. B. Jr., "A Comparison of Inviscid Computational

Methods for Supersonic Tactical Missiles,I* AIAA Paper 87-0113, 1987.

29. Dillenius, M. F. E., Perkins, S. C., Jr., and Lesieutre, D. J., "Modified
NWCDM-NSTRN and Supersonic Store Programs for Calculating NASTRAN Forces Acting
on Missiles Attached to Supersonic Aircraft,'' NEAR TR 369, 1987.

30. McIntosh, S. C., Jr. and Dillenius, M. F. E., "Aeroelastic Tailoring Procedure
for Reduction of Fin Hinge Moments," NEAR 374, 1987.

31. Vukelich, S. R. and Jenkins, J. E., "MISSILE DATACOM: Aerodynamic Predictions

of Conventional Missiles Usi-ig Component Build-up Techniques," AIAA
Paper 84-0388, 1984.

32. Lesieutre, D. J., Mendenhall, M. R., Nazario, S. M., and Hemsch, M. J.,
"Prediction of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Cruciform Missiles Including
Effects of Roll Angle and Control Deflection," NEAR TR-360, 1986.

33. Schindel, L. H., "A Preliminary Design and Screening Process for Missile
Airframe Configurations," AIAA Preprint 87-0211, 1987.

34. Kucheman, D., The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
pp. 448-510, 1978.

35. Schindel, L., Waveriders, Chpt. 6 in "Tactical Missile Aerodynamics,'' AIAA

Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 104, 1986.

36. Bowcutt, K. G . , Anderson, J. D., and Capriotti, D., "Viscous Optimized

Hypersonic Waveriders," AIAA Paper 87-0272, 1987.

37. Krieger, R. J., Gregoire, J. E., Hood, R. F., Eiswirth, E. A,, and Taylor,
M. L., "Aerodynamic Configured Missile Development--Final Report," Vols. 1-5,
AFWAL-TR-80-3071 , 1980.

21
 Hunt, J. L., Johnston, P. J., Cubbage, J. M., Dillon, J. L., Richie, C. G., and
Marcum, D. C., Jr., '!Hypersonic Airbreathing Missile Concepts Under Study at
Langley, AIAA Paper 82-03 16, 1982.

39. Spearman, M. L., "Unconventional Missile Concepts from Consideration of Varied

Mission Requirements," AIAA Preprint 84-0076, 1984.

40. Jackson, C. M., Jr. and Sawyer, W. C., "Bodies with Noncircular Cross Sections
and Bank-to-Turn Missiles," Chpt. V, pp. 168-187, in "Tactical Missile
Aerodynamics,'' Vol. 104 in AIAA Series "Progress in Astronautics ana
Aeronautics. I'

22
 FIN 12
AR=%,X=%

AR = %, x = 'h i FIN 31
AR = %. x=0

2 2
FIN 42
FIN 33
,AR=%,X= 1

AR=I,A=%

F"5m
FIN 51

D
AR = 2, X = 0

A AR = 2, X = 'h

t
FIN 62
FIN 53
AR = 2, X = 1

AR = 4, X = 'h ah, = 0.5

FOR ALL TEST
RESULTS

Figure 1.- Test fin geometrics.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ~

0 1 2 3 4 5
MACH NUMBER, M
,

Figure 2.- Mach number and aspect ratio ranges and maximum angle of attack f o r T r i -
service data base.

23
 X FIN
0 0 F51
0 0.5 F52
0 1.0 F53
X SLENDER-BODY
THEORY

Y
a-
1.3
0
a
U.
W 1.2
0
z
W
LT
W 1.1
U.
a
W
5- 1.0

.9

L
Y
a- 1.2 -
e
0 -
a 1.1
U
W
0
5a 1.0 -
W
U
Le .9 -
W
I-
z .8
(c) M,=I 4.5
1 1 I 1 I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ANGLE OF ATTACK, a, dag

Figure 3.- Effect of taper r a t i o on interference f a c t o r KW f o r aspect r a t i o 2

fins.

24
 X FIN
0 0 F51
0 0.5 F52
0 1.0 F53

I I I 1 I I 1 1

.5 r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ANGLE OF ATTACK, a,deg

Figure 4.- Effect of taper r a t i o on KB/KW for aspect r a t i o 2 f i n s .

25
 2
[ cyc = 20"
M, = 0.68
62 = 20"

-2 -
(a) M,= 2.0
-3 I I I I I I 1 I I

1 I I 1 I I I I 1
-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90
ROLL ANGLE, @, deg

Figure 5.- Effect of roll angle and fin deflection on the normal force generated by
fin F2.
M, = 0.68 62, deg
0 -40
0 -20
1.6 0 20
A 40

.4 c
I (a) M,= 2.0
h

I (b) M,= 4.5

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90

deg

Figure 6.- Effect of roll angle and control deflection on k, for all-movable
controls.
26
 A SHARP TANGENT OGIVES
0 SHARPCONES
0 PARABOLOIDS
A BLUNT TANGENT OGIVE
BLUNTCONES

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
Mn = M, sin (Y

F i g u r e 7.- Effect on c r o s s f l o w Mach number on t h e s i d e f o r c e of c o n e s , t a n g e n t

o g i v e s , and p a r a b o l o i d s .

40 -

30 M, 2 (0.8)
NO ASYMMETRIC VORTICES

0 20

\
'
0
d
M, = 0.S
10 '- ASYMMETRICAL
POSSIBLE

VORTICES
L I I L 1 I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
M,

F i g u r e 8.- Boundary between symmetric s e p a r a t i o n and asymmetric s e p a r a t i o n f o r body

of revolution.

27
 .
P
-
n

3000
TURBOJET
9
-4
LL
J
w LIMIT
3

t
Y
c 2000
RAMJET
HYDROCARBON
a
w SCRAMJET
n
L

5a 1000 -
I NEXT GENERATION
I-
REQUIREMENT
ROCKET

0 2 4 6 8 10
FREESTREAM MACH NUMBER, Mo

Figure 9.- Specific thrusts of various propulsion means.

li

Figure 10.- Addition of velocity components normal to fin defining equivalent angle
of attack.

28
 1.6' 0 5
AR = 3.50
0 10
I- - x =0.06 0 15
2 a/s, = 0.40 0 WING ALONE DATA
W
4 1.2 - I n o
U
Y
W

8
.E '

a
2
L
2 . 4 .- &
K
0 b
z
(a) M, = 0.6
1 1 I I I I

t - -
z
w
E 1.2 -
Y
U
w -
8
.E-
K
P -
i
CT
.4-
&
0
2 - P
(b) M, = 1.3
I , I I 1 I I I

EQUIVALENT ANGLE OF ATTACK, deg

Figure 11.- Correlation of normal force coefficients with the equivalent angle of
attack for moderate aspect ratio fin.

29
 .35 -
0 0' 0

CLASSIC VORTEX
.30 - PLUS SHOCK

.25 -
CLASS1C
VORTEX

9i -
. .20

0 0
SEPARATION
BUBBLE
EIPLUS SHOCK
m
C
c

.15 -
P" El
0

SHOCK ONLY OR

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.o
M, sin CY

Figure 12.- Classification of Miller-Wood delta wing flow field data using the
Sychev similarity parameters.

PANAI R I TRANAIR I DEMONIII I SWINT

PANEL OR
PANEL FIELD PANEL FIELD
FIELD

BAS1C GLAUERT GLAUERT

EULER
EQUATION - PRANDTL POTENTIAL - PRANDTL
MACH NUMBER -0.9
0.6-0.95 M 2 1.1 M>1
RANGE 1.2-2.5

BODY
VO RTI CES
NO
I No
1 YES
I No
WING-TAIL MUST MUST
INTERFERENCE INPUT INPUT YES ?
VORTEX VORTEX
POSlTI ON POSlTI ON

Figure 13.- Characteristics of computer codes for calculating the loading on

missiles or aircraft.
 vca

PLANAR SHOCK

Figure 14.- Sketch of a simple waverider, a caret wing.

CROSS SECTIONS
_____ ELLIPTIC
a

-.08 t M, = 2.0

I /---
.-------
-.08

I I I t I I
-8 0 8 16 24 32
a. deg

Figure 15.- Comparisons of effective dihedral and directional stabilities between

Sear-Haack bodies of circular and elliptical cross section.

31
 , 4
r
M, = 4.0

KUCHE.... .NN UPPER BOUNDARY

SYMBOL
L1.

a
-
CONFIGURATION

-33

.1 .2 .3 a 4
~213
-
S

F i g u r e 16.- Shape effects on maximum l i f t - d r a g r a t i o s b o t h r i g h t s i d e up and u p s i d e

down.

(a) SEMICONICAL BODY WITH DELTA WINGS

0
A-A

-
BASE

(b) THICK DELTA WING CONCEPT

F i g u r e 17.- Some d e l t a wing-body c o n c e p t s of Spearman.

32
 (a) RING-WING-BODY CONCEPTS

(b) FLAT BODY WITH SWEPT PARASOL WING

Figure 18.- Ring wing-body and parasol wing-body concepts of Spearman.

33
 (a) MONOPLANAR MISSILE WITH CIRCULAR BODY

(b) MONOPLANAR MISSILE WITH ELLIPTICAL BODY

Figure 19.- Monoplanar missiles with circular o r elliptical bodies.

34
 Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
VASA TM-100063
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
January 1988

P---
The Present Status and the Future of Missile
4erodynamics 6. Performing Organization Code

I
7. Author(s1 I 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Jack N. Nielsen
18-87289
10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

11. Contract or Grant No.
lmes Research Center
loffett Field, CA 94035 I
13. T ..
v w of ReDort and Period Covered

>
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Technical Memorandum
Jational Aeronautics and Space Administration
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Jashington, DC 20546-0001
I
15. Supplementary Notes

'oint of Contact: Jack N. Nielsen, Ames Research Center, MS 200-1A

Moffett Field, CA 94035 (415) 694-5500 or FTS 464-5500

16. Abstract
This paper reviews some recent developments in the state of the art in missile
ierodynamics. Among the subjects covered are (1) Tri-service/NASA data base,
12) wing-body interference, (3) nonlinear controls, (4) hypersonic transition,
: 5 ) vortex interference, (6) airbreathers, supersonic inlets, (7) store separation
iroblems, (8) correlation of missile data, (9) CFD codes for complete configura-
;ions, (10) engineering prediction methods, and (11) future configurations.
ihroughout the paper, suggestions are made for future research and development t o
idvance the state of the art of missile aerodynamics.

'actical missiles
jtability and control
teview of present and future missiles Subject Category - 02

19. Security Classif. (of this repor5 s page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price
Jnclassified Unclassified 35 A03
1
NASA FORM 1626 OCT 86