Aerodynamic Stability Technology For Maneuverable Missiles

AFFDL-TR-76-55 Volume I
05 LEV~kIvP
STABILITY TECHNOLOGY SAERODYNAMIC FOR
MANEUVERABLE MISSILES Volume I. Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics

MAR TIN MARIETTA CORPORA TION OR LANDO DIVISION P 0. BOX 583 7 ORLANDO, FLI.RIDA 32805
f-
MARCH 1979
TECHNICAL REPORT AFFDL-TR-76-55, Vol. I Final Report for period February 1975 - December 1976
C.2_
Approved for public release; distri ution unlimited.E
E C
JUN 22 I979
AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY AIR FORCE WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL LABORATORIES AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 45433
Reproduced From Best Available Copy
NOTICE When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely related Government procurement .operation, the United States Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the government may have formulated.. furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto. This report has been reviewed by the Information Office (O1) and is releasable to the National 7ecznJcal Information Service (NTIS). At NTIS, it will be available to the general public, including foreign nations. This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.
W. H. LANE Project Engineer Control Dynamics Branch
R. O. ,ANDERSON, Chief Control Dynamics Branch Flight Control Division
FOR THE COMMANDER
..
R. STANLEY, Col USAFk Chief, Flight Control Di sion Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
"If your address has changed, if you wish to be removed from otr mailing list, or if the addressee is no longer employed by your organization please notify AFFDL/FGC ,W-PAFB, OH 45433 to help us maintain a current mailing list". Copies of this report should not be returned unless return is required by security considerations, contractual obligations, or notice on a specific document.
AIR fORCE/56780/21 May 1979 - 55
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNCLASSIFIED
f" EPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

UOR 4~t&-..~-2.
READR CMINS
NO.
lIN
UNM F(
OVTACCESSION
ET'S CAT AL GV. NUMBE R
Aerodynamic Stability Tee ology for Co~ni.I. Maneuverable Missiles. figuration Aerodynamic Ch~aracterisitics,
7 A NOR(.I );'0TX'W
I5
i n7al . 417jw.c~hVN17 -47 27 t7R

RN UOR.
ER
Gennaro F./Aiello Michael CIaea

9
PERFORqMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
F33615-75-C-3O52
11o PROGIIAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA 4 RORK U NIT NUMIOERI
Martin Marietta Corporation Orlando Division, PO Box 5837 Orlando, FL 32805

I I.
CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESSREOTDE
U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratr Wright-Patterson Air Force Bass Dayton, Ohio
16MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADORESS~it dIjfto.~. f.. controling Offce)
rd*7
I~E OF PAGES
360
IS. SECURITY CLASS (0D IA,. o*po.f)
Unclassified.
IA
DISTRIBUTION
STATEMENT (of (hit
Rovart)
Ap proved for public release; distribution unlimited
I?
DisTWRieuUioN
STATEMEN4T (of IA. o.I,..t
orte,.d I. Mock 20. Of diII.,.ot I-~.
M.p.,f)
I0
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IV
KEY W011110 *r.non,,
,.
*.#do It
noe..wv aid Identiv~ by .inc.V.
IOuf
Transonic
Supersonic High Angle Predictions
A I0 c c.,, ,. mR. ild. It
Lcdowif,I~II end..r
P., bl"., k nrmn,
This study developed empirical 'methods to predict aerodynamic characteristics of body-tail, body-ving-tall and body-strake-tail missile configurations. Methods cover the Mach number range from 0.6 to 3.0. Methods COVIer Ehe individual body and tail characteristics at angles of attack from 0 co 180 degrees. For winged bodies the methods encompass angles of attack up to about 30 degrees. All mutual interference effects are accounted for, allowing accurate prediction of force and moment coefficients.
DD ~2~I ,~ P I OV 113 '.
ON'L~TI.UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD This report was prepared for the U. S. Laboratory, Air Force Flight Dynamics Dayton, Ohio, under contract
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
number F33615-75-C-3052 as part of Project 8219.
The work was performed Florida.
at the Orlando Division of Martin Marietta Aerospace in Orlando,
The reported effort began in February 1975 and ended with the submittal of the draft of this final report in December 1976. The principal investigators were J. E. Fidler and G. F. Aie'io. The
technical monitors for the Flight Dynamics Laboratory were Dr. Robert Nelson, Lt William Miklos and Mr. William Lane. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the aforementioned contract monitors for their guidance and support and recognize a special debt to Mr Lane for his extraordinary effort in reviewing this report and
the significant contribution towards the readability and overall quality of the report. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to for his cooperation Many Orlando
Mr. William Baker, Arnold Engineering Development Center, in providing easy access to the 180 degree,
body plus tail data bank.
sincere thanks are due the following associates at the Martin Marietta, Division: G. S. Logan, Jr., D. T,.Moore and R. L. Swarn.
ACCssio1 For DDC TAB
'nnouc(
11'IS G&UI ',
___________
Du D C
UN 22 1979
Avail and/or special
tii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Introduction..................................
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
1
7
Experimental Data Sources and Models .......

Aerodynamic Data Trends............. ......
12
35 . .. 39 39
Formulation of the Aerodynamic Prediction Equations Aerodynamic Methods . . 5.1
...
...............................
Isolated Components........ . 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 Body Normal Force ......... ................ ...
39 61
Body Center of Pressure ...................... Body Axial Force .................. Fin Normal Force .... ........ ......... ..........
77 91 122 143 143 .161
Chordwise Center of Pressure .................
5.2
Body-Tail Configurations .l. ....... ................... 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 Tail-on-Body Normal Force .......... ............
Tail-to-Body Carry-over Normal Force ........... Tail-to-Body Cerry-over Normal Force ............... Center of Pressure.. ....... .............
.....
.. 171 190 190
5.3
Body-3trake-Tail Configurations ......... 5.3.1 5.3.2
Incremental Normal Force Due to Strakes Center of Pressure for Incremental Normal ForceDue to Strakes ....... .................
202 .. 220
5.3.3 5.3.4
Incremental Normal Force Due to Tails. ....... Center of Pressure for Incremental Normal Force Due to Tails ......... ................
... 232
JO PAM p
;W A
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) Page 5.4 Body-Wing-Tail Configurations. .. ........................259 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 Incremental Normal Force Due to Wings. ............ 259
Effective Center of Pressure for Incremental Force Due to Wings. .. ............................274 Tail Incremental Normal Force Due to Wing Vortex Interference .. ............................289 Effective Center of Pressure of the Incremental Tail Normal Force Due to Wings .. .......... .. .... 306
5.5
Thrust Vector Control Effects. .. ........................ 310 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 Incremental Body Normal Force Due to, Plume Effects. .............. .......................... 310 323 Effective Center of Pressure for Incremental Body, Normal Force Due to Plume Effects. ................
Incremental Tail Normal Force Due to Plume Effects. .............. ..........................334 Effective Center of Pressure of Incremental Tail Normal Force Due to Plume Effects. ................ 351
6.0 7.0
Conclusions and Recoimmendations. ............ .................. 356 References .. ......... .................. .................... 358
vi,
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Ia lb Methodology Requirements for TVC Missiles ..... Methodology -4uirements Controlled Missiles. ..... for Aerodynamically ................. .........
Page
5
.......... ................
6 9
2 3a
Schematic of Total Data Base ...........
Martin Marietta Main Body Model in the NSRDC 7' X 10' Transonic Tunnel at Sixty Degrees Angle of Attack ......... MartinMarietta Tail Models ...............
.10 11
3b 4
Vortices Produced by the Reattachment of Lower Surface Boundary Layer . . .................... Fin Normal Force Coefficient (M-0.8, Aspect Ratio ......................... Effects) ..................... Fin Chordwise Center of Pressure (M-0.8, Aspect ...... Ratio Effects)...................... .. Fin Normal Force Coefficient (M-2.0, ....................... Effects) ............. Aspect Ratio
.
13
5a
19
5b
20
5c
21
Sd
Fin Chordwise Center of Pressure (H-2.0, Aspect Ratio Effects)................................... . Fin Normal Force Coefficient (M-0.8, Taper Ratio .............. Effects) ........... Fin Chordvise Center of Pressure (M-O.8, Taper Ratio Effects) ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fin Normal Force Coefficient (M-2.0, Taper Ratio . . . ....... Effects)................. ... Fin Chordwise Center of Pressure (K-2.0, . . ................. Effects) Fin Normal Force (Mach Effects). ..
.
22
6a
23
6b
. .
24
6c
25
26
6d
Taper Ratio
. . . . . . . .. . .
7a
7b 8a
27 28
Fin Chcrdwise Center of Pressure (Mach Effects) ......... Variation of Induced Out-of-Plane Forces and Moments (M-0.6) ........... . ...... ................
29
vii
-LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
igurePa
8b Variation of Induced Out-of-Plane Forces and ....................... Moments (M-2.0) ........... Out-of-Plane Forces and Moments Due to Vortex Asymmetry (AR - 0.5, A - 1.0, d/s - 0.5) .... .......... Out'of-Plane Yorces and Moments Due to Vortex Asymetry (AR - 0.5, A 0. dis - 0.4) .............. Comparison of Tail Normal Forces ......... Comparison of Rolling Moments ........................ Compdrison of Experimental ond Predicted Results .............
... 30
9a
.. 31
9b
..
32 33 34
loa
10b
11
(C) B
12
Mach
0.6 .....................
.............
... 48
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CB ), Mach - 1.15 ................................ Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CN ), Mach - 1.30 .................................
.. 48
13
49
B.
14 Comparison of Experim~ental and Predicted Results (CN ), Mach - 2.0 ................... ............ Coefficients for Calculation of Coefficients for Calculation of Curves for Transonic C14 Curves for Transonic CM CM . .49 50 50 ............ 51 52 52 53
15 16 17a 17b 17c l8b l8b
NB
(A1 )
........ .... .
........
CNB (A2 )
(1N/d - 1.5) ...... (tN/d = 2.5)..................
Curves for Sransonic CN a (zN/d - 3.5) ................ .... Curves for Supersonic CNa (LN/d - 2.5)........... a Curves for Supersonic CM (L,/d - 3.0) ....................
a
18c
18c 19 20 21
Curves for Supersonic CN (1N/d
- 3.5). .....
.......... ......... o54
. . 54
Curves for Supersonic CN (IN/d - 4.0)... .. Correlation Factor for End Effects .... Variation of n withMach Number .....
............. ...............
..
55 55
Curves for Determining Transonic Values of n ... .......
.. 56
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
Figure
22a 22b 23 Basic Values of Cd ....................
Page
57 57
Crossflow Drag Coefficient (Subcritical Crossflow, MH90.4). Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results ................ (CN ), Mach - 0.6 ........
57
NB
24 Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results . .. ......... (CN ), Mach -1.15 ................. ... 58
B
25 Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results .............. .......... 1.30 ..... Machb(C"), Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CBN) Mach - 2.0 .... ... .................. Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results ................... (C ), Mach - 2.86 ............. 59
26
59
27
... 60
NB
28 Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results ............. (C). Mach - 0.85, 1.20, and 2.25 ..... B Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (IN/d - 3.5) .......... Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (t /d - 2.5) ......... Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (iN/d - 1.5) . Supersonic Tangent Ogive Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (fN/d - 4.0) ...... ... 60
29a
70
29b
70
29c
. . . ..
30a
..........
71
30b
Supersonic Tangent Ogive - Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressuce (t Id - 3.5) ...... .......... Supersonic !-ngent Ogive - Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure ( /d 2.5) ........... Increment'in Center of Pressure Between Angles of ...... ......... Attack of 0 and 20 degrees Polynomial Coefficients , Low Angle of AttAck ........ Polynomial Coefficients , High Angle Of. Attack ......... ... ...
71
30c
71
'31
72
32 33
73
ix
'!
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd) Figure 34 Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental Data XCP , Hach - 2.86 .. . . . . . . . . . ....
page
...
74
35
Comparisons Between Z,.dictions and Experimental ............... Date Xp, Mach - 2.25 . ..... . ...
....
74
36
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental *. . . . . . . . .. Mach - 0.85 ... ........ Data XCp,
..
75
37
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental 0.80 .... .................. DataX p., Mach
.......
75
38
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental Data XCp , Mach - 3.0 .... ... ..................
. ..
76
-- B d
39 Variatioi with Mach Number of 180-Degree Axial Force ......... ........... ............. Coefficient ........ Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental CA (Transonic) ...... ... .................. B ..... .... Curves for Determining CA (tN/d - 1.5) ....... . ... 84
40A (a-f) 41a
85 87
41b
Curves for Determining CA
(IN/d - 2.5) .......
......
87
lb
41c Curves for Determining CAb (IN/d = 3.5).... . ... ........ 88
42
Scaling Factor for C.A. .....
..................
.88
43 44
Variation of CA with Mach Number .....
.............
...
89 89
Basic Curves of f(M, a) Calculated from Power Series
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Cont'd)
FigurePage
45 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Data . ..... ............ (Supersonic) ............. C Power Series Pareters for Equation (24) ... 90
46 47 (a-d) 48 49
......
........ .........
.......
104 ... 105 .. 107
Lift Curve Slope for Taper Ratios 0-1.0. .... Variation of CN (w/2) with Mach 'Number ....
a, Angle of Attack Above Which ACN Must be Applied ........ ... .......... (Subsonic only) .......... Dimensionless CN Increment Above a.' ACI, .................
.. 108 109
50 51
Maximum Increment of Normal Force Above a' . . . . .......... ....................

,
(Subsonic Only) 52 53 54 55
..
110
Comparison of PredicLed and Experimental CN Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CMT,
Mach -0.8 110 Mach - 0.98 111 111
T
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental.C
,NMach
-i.02
T Variation of Fin Normal Force at a - 90" with ........... ............. Mach'No ........... Variation of Normal Force Coefficient, CN (30),
......... with
112
56a
Mach No., a - 3,0" (A

56b
0) ......
T....... ......
CN (30), . with
......
..
113
113
Variation of Normal Force Coefficient, Mach No., .a - 30' (A - .5). o . ...... Variation of Normal Force Coefficient, Mach No., a 30" (A - 1.0) ........ Variati.on of C
NC&
56c
CN (30), with To ..... ........... .........
. ..
113 114 115
57 58 59
(30)
with Mach Number .....
Power Series Parameters for Equation (26) Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CNT from 30 to9 0 degrees .... . ....
.......
116
60
Curves for Modifying CN Method, (X - 0, AR - 1.0, Subsonic) ............ ........... ........... .........
116
xi
/f
Figure
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 An Example Using ACN.
N
Page
. ...... ........... 116 AR - 0.5).
.
Comparison of Method and Test ,C
NT T
(A = 0,
117 118 19
Comparison of Method and testCN X0.5,AR=0.5;AO0,AR-l.O0
(C
Comparison of Test to Methods to 1807, Comparison of Test and Method, Comparison of Test and Method, Comparison of Test and Method, Comparison of Test and Method,
M = 0.6 (C)
T
M = 2.0 (CN
.... )
..... .
120 120
M - 2.5 (C T
.........
M - 3.0 (CN )(k=1.0,AR=1.0) 121 M - 3.0 (CN)(I- 0,AR-l.0) 121 136
to 180 Chordwise Center of Pressure Variation Degrees ................ .........................
70
Chordwise Center of Pressure Variation with Taper Ratio at Alpha of 90 Degrees ..............
....
136
XCp
71a Basic Curves for (0-180 Degrees, Basic Curves for (0-180 degrees, Basic Curves for (0-180 Degrees,
-
R
-.
at Reference Mach Number 0.98 . AR-0.5). at Reference Mach Number 0.98 1.0) . ............ AR at Reference Mach Number 0.98 AR - 2.0).. . . . . . . . .
137
71b.
CR C
137
71c
1..
72a
Basic Curves for CP at Reference Angle of Attack C, -R (M - 0.6 to 3.0, AR - 0.5) .... 175-180 Degrees
138
xCP
72b
72c stcurve ~
72c
Basic Curves for 175-180 Degrees
CR forxcp
-
at Reference Angle of Attack (M - 0.6 to 3.0, AR - 1.0) .... at Reference Angle of Attack (M - 0.6 to 3.0, AR - 2.0) ....
.
I3R
BasicDCurves for 1-180 Degrees
CR
138
73 74. 75
Power Series Constants Versus Angle of'Attack Mach Number Correction Factor for a, 90 Degrees Variation of Al(XCP/CR) with Mach Number at Alpha of 160 Degrees ..................
.... .
t39
40 110 141
76
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Center of M 1.15 ............... Pressure Location, X T R
dii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd) Figure 77 Comparison of Predicted and Experimental C.P. Location, XCP N - 0.80 ........ ........ CR 78 Comparison of Predicted and Experimental C.P. Location, X M - 1.3 ........ ................... CR 79
80
Page
..........
141
142
KT(B) Ratio at Zero Angle of Attrack
..
.......
(A 0 ) .
.
150
.
.
.
General Coefficients for Calculation of Rr(B)
11
81 82 83 84
General Coefficients for Calculation of '(B)
(A 1 )
152
153
General Coefficients for Calculation of RT(B) (A 2) " "
Interference Factor at Angle of Attackiof 90 Degrees Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results, CN ) ,H - 0.6 ........... ................... Compariso4 of Experimental and' Predicted Results, TH)' M - 3.0 ........ .....................
154
...
155
85
.... 156
86
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results, CNT , M 2.0 ...... ..... ..... .............. T (B) Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results, C (B), M -3.0 ..... ..........................
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results, , M M 1.15 .... .........................
... 157
87
158
88
159
NT (B)'
89 Comparison of Experinental and Predicted Results, CN , M - 0.8 ..... ....... . ................ T() Transonic IB(T)' Schematic ..................... a ...
160 166
90
91a
Curves for Estimation of Transonic I
(all A) ......
167
xiii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd) Figure

91b Curves for Estimation of Transonic Ib (all A and d) . . ......... Curves for Estimation of Transonic I (all A and M) . . . .. . . . . . . .
. . .
page
...... 167
91c
. .
. .
. .
. .
. ..167
92
Comparison between Predicted and Experimental
IT
. ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.....
168
168
93 946 94b 94c 95 96
Supersonic I(T) SCue for E,
Schematc .......
Curves for Estimation of Supersonic 12 Curves for Estimation of Supersonic 12 Curves for Estimation of Supersonic 13
.........
169 169 .. I(T) . ..

.
............... .. ..
169 170
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Curves for Determining XC Sp for Supersonic Speeds
with Alterbodiet
.......
183
97
Curves for Determining XCP
for No Afterbodies at
Supersonic Speeds
98 Curves for Determining XC. Speeds 99
........
B-(T)
...........
for Subsonic ............
.........
184
(Zero Leading Edge Sweep) ....

-
CR
. 185
Curves for Determining X
( 1(T)
for Subsonic
CR.
Speeds (Zero Trailing Edge Sweep) . . 100 Coefficients Required for Evaluation of . -PB(T M . XCP
. . .
. . . . . .
186
187
101
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Data
CNOT ..................
.............................
188
xiv
Figuree
102 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Data, X ....................... .
189
ST
103
ACN BS General Curve Form ....

ACN' Peak Factor K ...........
.................
196
104 105
..... .....
197 198
Coefficients for Calculating ACN ...............
BS
106
(a-d) 107
Comparison of Test Data and Method,
ACNBS
........
.
200
General Curve Form, XCPA,.S
...............
211
108
109
Straka Parameters . ..... ...........
.......
212
S . .. . . . 2i3
Polynomial Coefficients for Calculating XC
110 111
J and K Values for Calculating XP
.. XCp
. . . . ....
. 216 217
X ABS
Comparison of Test Data and Method, /d .......
ABS
112 Comparison of Test Data and Methol, XCp BS/d ........ Coefficients for Calculation of ACNBST 219
113
(A)
.....
...
227
114
Coefficients for Calculation of AC N
(A 2 )
......
228
BST
115 Coefficients for Calculation of ACNs (A 3 ) ......229
BST
116 117 KT(B) and %B(T) Ratios (Slender Body Theory),.. Comparisons of Predicted Results with Experimental Data, AC, BST . . . . . . .... 230
231
xv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd) Figure

118 119 120 121
Page KT(B) and KB(T) Ratios (Slender Body Theory) .

. .
...
. .
245 . 246
Tail Alone Center of Pressure at Subsonic Speeds . Tail Alone Center of Pressure at SuFersonic Speeds............ ............. ......... Curves for Determtning
. .
247
CPB(T) !or Subsonic Speeds CR
(Zero Trailing Edge Sweep) 122 Curves for Determining CR
.......
........
248
for No Afterbody
at Supersonic Speeds ......... . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Curves for Determining CR (Zero Leading Edge Sweep) 124 .. .... .
.... ..
249
for Subsonic Speeds
250
Curves for Determing XCPBMT with Afterbodies at Supersonic Speeds I CR. ...... ..... . Coefficients for Calculation of XCP, CR (A,) . . .
. .
251 252
125
126 127
Coefficients for Calculation of XCp. CR Coefficients for Calculation of Xcp1 CR
(A3 2) .. .........
253
(A3)
..
..
. ..
2.54
128
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results, XCP
EP ST
s/
M4-0.6 ...........
.........
355
129
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results, XCP BST/d,
4-0.85
............
...
256
xvi
Figure
130 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results, Xp /d, M-1.2 ...... ....................
Pg
CPBST
257
131
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results, XCPBST/d, M- 2.2 ...... .................. Comparisons of Existing Method Predictions vith Experimental Data, ACN.BW ........ ................ K Rt) Iato at Zero Angle of Attack .... .............
258
132
.. 266
133 134
267,
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results, AC BW, Configuration 2, H-1.1 .........
. ..
268
135 136
Configurations (Body + Wing) .......
..............
.. 269
Comparisons Between Experimental and Predicted Results, ACNBW, Configurations I and 3, M-1.- ......
....
270
137
Comparisons Between Experimental and Predicted Results, ACN , ?3.08 .. . .. .............. Comparisons ,Between Experimental and Predicted Results, ACNN , M-"9. .... ...............
271
138
. 272
BU
139 Comparison Between Experimental and Predicted Results, ACN . M- 0.85.. ..... ............. KI (B) and KB(W) Ratios (Slender Body Theory) .... Wing Alone Center of Pressure at Subsonic Speeds. Wing Alone Center of Pressure at Supersonic Speeds. Curves for Determining XCP I/CR at Subsonic Speeds. . 273 279
.
140
....... .
.
141
142
280 281
. ..
.
143
282
CB (W)R
144 Curves for Determining XCP (W)/CR with Afterbody
).
at Supersonic Speedi
...
283
xvii
Figure
145 146 Configurations (Body + Wing) . .............. Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental . . . .............. Data, XCPw/d, H-.0.85
Pae
284
285
"ABW
147 Comparidon Between Predictions and Experimental ...... Ip/d. M-.1................... Data, Xc 286
ABW
148 Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . Data, XCP, /d, M-21.9 . 287
. .
BW
149 Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental
Data, XC
Id,.M-2.86
......
. .........
. . .
. . . 288
150 151 152 153
Transonic Wind Tunnel Test Configurations Wing Vortex Location ...........
..
299 300
.................... .........
Wing Vortex Induced Tail Angle of Attack ..... Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental . .............. ........ Mi. Results, AC I TWV .
301 302
154
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental M-0.*7. ................... Results, C
NEW
303
155
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental ................. .1,W0.85 Results, CN.
304
156
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental ................. N 42.36 ..... ... Results, CBW,
.. 305
BWT
157 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental /d, M.0.85 ... ..................... Results, XCP 308
BWT
158 Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental ............... Results, XCP BwT/d, M..2.36 ...... ... 309
xviff
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded)
Figure
159 General Curve Form, AC P . .............
Page
317
IP
160 161 162 (a-e) Power Series A for Calculating AC ,.. ....... . ... 318
Amplification Factors for Calculating ACM 'P
.319
320
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental ...................... . Data, ACN
NBP
163 Comparison of Body Alone XCp /d (Jet-On and Jet-Off) 328
(&-.)
164 (a-.) Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental ............. Data,p B/d.................. 331
165
166 167a 167b 168
General Curve Forms, [AC
j3..........43
........ ....
.....
Amplification Factors for Calculating AC.NTp Pover Series A for Calculating ACM Power Series A for Calculating ACM
344 346 347
, M(<1.2 .......
* 1.2-44<2.2
CTp
(a-*)
169 (a-0)
Data, Ac.
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental . . . . . . ............. .. . . . ... T.
348
Comparison Between Jet-On and Jet-Off Tail Centers ..................... of Pressure ....
353
xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
_-0 AR AR a, I
AI,
A2 ,
A(a)
General coefficients Aspect ratio, (2b)

2
/S
(2 panels)
Strake aspect ratio Body radius

"-
inches
a,of al, a...

-
Polynominal expansion coefficients General coefficients Exposed semispan 1 inches
o b
B0 ,
B2 , B(a),
c1 i
CA CA CAlb C
c2,
...
General coefficients Axial force coefficient Axial force coefficient, Basic value of CA A1 omitting base effects
CAbase
Axial force coefficient due to base effects
CA
CA 1+ CA ~1 CAbase
Drag coefficient Pitching moment coefficient Normal force coefficient, CNBP based on Sref
Cd C CN CNB
Body alone C., jet-off and jet-on, respectively
Body + strakes normal force coefficient
BES
CN B(ST)
,
CN B(ST)P
Total CN on the body in the presence of strakes and tails, jet-off and jet-on. Normal force coefficient at a
-
Cu
CNx
90"
xx
LIST OF SYMBOLS (CONT'D) CTotal CN of four strakee in presence of body, totall CNT .TTotal T (B)total
-
ttal
Jet-off and Jet-on Single tail panel alone normal fo:ce coefficient
S.. body, jet-off CN of four tails in presence of

T(B)Ptotal -CT T(B)P and jet-on Single tail panel normal force coefficient in the jet-off and jet-on
( T(B)
presence of a body, Root- chord A inches
CR CR Cs d dnoz K5 5 K160 , K10' 160160
Strake root chord length
ev inches
Base stagnation pressure coefficient. Body cross-sectional diameter 1v inches Nozzle exit diameter
%
inchra 55%, ll0, and
Amplification factor at - f(M)
K. 7o K-.. 5
F(HACH)
Value of AC
/MR at a - 70" (-f(M)3

[-f(M)]
Value of ACNBp /MR at a - 1453
Mach number cornection used in conjunction with SMIq
<90
Vertical distance between wing vortex core and tail surface at S Coefficients for transonic range of IB(T) Coefficients for supersonic range of I B(T) Strake contribution to zarryover CN on body, jet-off and jet-on Tail contribution to carryover CN on body, jet-
Ia,b,c 11,2,3
IB(S)P I I(S), 1(5W
"I B(T)'
1
I B(T)P
'3(T' 'BT)Pcff
B(ST)' IB(ST)P
and jet-on
Total carryover Cm on body due to strakes .%nd 'tails, Jet-off ana jet-on
xxi
-.
LIST OF SYMBOLS (CONT'D) AC@a *(S .8 AR
JNs
2 a
0".K(W)+((B()) ref
(- AR
Scale factor for XCPABS at a-600 Amplification factor, peak value of ACNBS a - 57 and 135". Scale factor for XCPABS at a-600 Value of XCPB/dREF at a - 120' at
KT(B)
Ratio of normal force on tail in the presence of body to tail aloae normal force Ratio of normal force on body due to tails to tail alone normal force Ratio of normal force on body due to wings to wing alone normal force Ratio of normal force on the ving in the presence of body co wing alone normal force Mean value of ACN B, 80O < < 120O
%B(T)
KB(W)
%(B)
Length ou 1/d
L
inches
Fineness ratio Missile total length inches

'
'A
Length of missile cylindrical asction nose length I inches
Inches
SHMissile
Le
Distance between wing trailing edge-and tail leading edge at a lateral distance Y Freestream Mach number Jet momentum ratio - q /q. Missile station (inches from the nose) Normal force - lbf
M MR M.S.
xxrii
LIST OF SYMBOLS (CONT'D)
p qj
Tail seemspan,
measured from body centerline inches - lbs/sq. ft.
Je;t dynamic pressure at nozzle exit
q., q R RaReynolds RT RT(B) RW(B)

r
lbs/sq. ft. Freestream dynamic pressure u' Tangent ogive nose rad',s at m - 60 %.inchenumber Tail area ratio
-
or value of
CP 5
d
ST/Sref
lIterference factor (CNT(B)IT) Interference factor (C,),/%)

Body radius
",
inches
rv S
Sp Sref' or SB
Radial distance measured from vortex core u inches Area N sq. ft.
Body planform area P'sq. ft. Reference area - wd. 1.sq. ft. 4 Strake single span exposed area %,sq. ft..
SR , or S RS a SSB
T
Aree of two strakes + planform area of body between strakes Tail single panel exposed area %' sq. ft. -Wing single panel exposed area % sq. ft. Total tail span including body Value of
XCpS
Sw' s T
at a - 120"
d V
X
Vortex tangential velocity at a distance r

Axial distance, %,inches
X X A
Ditanci to center of planform area inches Location of forward strake segment centroid relative to LE
xxiii
xB
Location of aft strake segment centroid relative to LE Location of net strake centroid relative to LU. Center of pressure of carry-over loading on body measured from tail root chord leading edge Center of pressure of the tail measured from the body nose Chordwise center of pressure of tail in the presence of a body neasured from tail root chord leading edge
xS XCP XCP X CPT(B)
Cp
Strake CP location at a - 0*
0
X A CBS XCPS , CPs X Body alone center of pressure station, jet-off and JeL--on , relative to the nose Body + strakes center of pressure, relative to the nose Center of pressure of a body-strake-tail combination,
BST
XCP9X , CPp C P xX CP I(S) x CP 1(T) XCp XCP
BSTP
jet-off arnd jet-on

Effective center of pressure (M.S.) of total carryover CN die to strakes + tails, jet-off and jet-on Effective center of presaure (4.S.) of strake carryover on body CN, Jet-uff and jet-on Effective center of pressure (M.S.) on body CN, jet-off and jet-on of tail carryover
I(S)P
1(T)P
Center of pressure of AC Ns, relative to 'strake
SLE
XCPABS
NBS
Center of pressure of ACN BS, relative to the nose,
XC FR
CP ABf
Center of pressure of AC s as a percentage 1
-f
N ST
root chord measured from the wing root chord leading edge C-nter of pressure of AC measurcd in diameters from the nose NBW
XCp
-T
ABW
xxiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS (CONTUD)
Effective center of pressure of
.T
CIP
xCP /CitChordvise
ATWV
center of pressure (nondimensionalized by panel root chord, C ) Center of pressure at a i degrees i
xCf Q-1 XrpjTail a - 160 M'-0.98 XCP
center of pressure at , basic Mach - 0.98
160" for
S~XCaPI
"
a,-
16corrected 160
Tail center of pressure at a for Mach nu.ber

C
160*
R,-
Ao.XC
M-0.98 H Effective center of pressure of the incremental XCZS(T) force on a body strske-configuration due to the addition of a tail
C .10.90
20
Initial slope of tail chordwise center of pressure at a - 160"
XLE a a,
Strake leading edge station from nosetip Angle of attack Angle at which linear variation of X begins
CPS
4=4-17 or
wCBP Incremental CN on body alone due to Jet
-
CN P - NB
ACNB-S BS ACN Incremental normal force coefficient due to strakes Slope of AC vs a curve
-
3AC
/ga
xxv
AC N ,IR/ ACNS
Increment in aormal force due to the addition of wings to a body Incremental CN on strakes due to Jet CN N SP SNs Incremental CN on tails due to jet
=
=
ACNT
CN
CNT
ACN T(BS) AC Tr
Increment in normal force due to the tails of a body-strake-tail configuration Total incremental CN on body + tails configuration due to jet effects on tails - (CN +IB(Tp) (CNT + IB(T))
ACN WV AlB(ST)P
Incremental normal force coefficient produced on a tail due to wing vortex interference Incremental interference C on body due to jet effects on strakes and taiLs - IB(ST)P I(ST) Incremental interference CN on b'ody due to jet effects on tails .IB(ST)P - IB(T) Spanwise distance'between wing root and location of trailing vortex
Al B(T)p
AX CP~
Change in CP location of strake + tail interference CN duv to the jet - XCP - XCP IP I
AXCP
I(S)P
Change in CP location of strake-on-body interference in CN due to the Jet - XCP - XcCP ,(S)P I(T)
AXCp IP(s)
Change in CP location of strake + tail interference CN due to jet effects on XCpS
AX I (T)
Cha-ige in CP location of the strake + tail irterference CN due to jet effects on XcpT Change in strake CP location due to Jet effects = XCP S XCpT
AXCi' S P
xxvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS (CONCL'D)
"AXC
cPCPTP
^X jDifference " Ia<90 CR
Change in tail CP location due to jet effects
x.
x CPT
betveen tail chordwise centers of pressure at a -90* and any a < 90,
CR (au90 CR cIac90
Dif".rence between tail chordvise centers of
C 1 a> 90 pressure at a -175
-
175" and 160",
R in6
Mach number correction used at a+ = 160*
Ax
c r . A
Change in center of pressure

Vortex 'induced angle of attack at the tail Crossf.ov drag proportionality factor Sweep angle Taper ratio, tip chord/root chord
x S~CP SUBSCRIPTS A B
Nondimensionalized center of pressure
/d
Afterbody Body
base
Basic, b BS BST BT B(T) BW
Base
Basic Body-strake Body-strake-tail Body plus tail Body in the presence of the tail Body plus wing
xxcvii
SUBSCRIPTS (CONT'D) B(W) BWT c D.P. a I I L.E. N n p POT ref S SF 7 S.P. T T(B) T.E. V W W(B) a ABW v/2
t
Body in the presence of a wing Body plus win& plus tail Crossflow Double panel Exposed
1
n(T)
General indicator Leading Edge Nose Nonlinear Planform area Potential Reference Strake Skin friction Single panel ,Tail Tail in presence of body Trailing edge Vortex Wing, or wave drag Wing in the presence of a body Denotes differentiation with respect to a ACNBW a - 900
a-180
xxviii
//
SUBSCRIPTS (CONCL'D)
0
16
20 160
0z
C = 00.,
a=16'
20*
Gi-1600
xxix
SUOIARY
This repozt doecribes the construction and use of methods for predicting the pitch plane aerodynamic characteristics of a class of missile configurations. The configurations include body alone, body-tail,
body-strake-tail and body-wing-tail configurations at high angles of attack. An assessment is also provided of the effects of a rocket exhaust
plume on the pitch plane characteristics for a range of thrustqr conditions. The methods, semi-empirical in nature, were developed through corre-
lation of test data obtained during several independent test programs. These data, when taken together, form a rather extensive data bank in
which configuration geometries and flow conditions are systematically varied. Except for the methods pertaining to winged missile configuraall methods are In several in
tions, which are limited to 30 degrees angle of attack,
applicable to angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees.
instances lack of test data imposed Hach number limitations; however,
"the majority
3.0.
of cases the methods apply to K:tch numbers between 0.6 and
Methods are provided to predict the characteristics of isolated components and interference effects produced when various components are combined. The methods pertain to bodies of circular cross-section. When
tails are added, they are mounted in cruciform (plus attitude) with the tail trailing edges in line with the base of the body and undeflected.
Forward lifting surfaces (strakes or wings) can also be a~ded. The methods enable the user to estimate the normal force and center of pressure of a variety of configurations by calculating the characteristics of individual missile components and their mutual interactions
xxx
produced when in combination.* Where possible, predictions have been compared against data which were not used in the development of models. In general, these comparisons have demonstrated good agreement.
xxxi
1.0
INTRODUCTICN
"A recurring problem in missile engineering is the lack of accurate methods

for predicting configuration aerodynamic charaeteristics, at high angles of attack. for all Mach numbers,
The situation is aggravated by the long term trend

Historically,
toward increased missile maneuverability and angle of attack. maximum angle requirements have increased steadily.
The greatest increase
has occurred relatively recently to meet advanced air-launched system

-
-~
maneuverability requirements. even 180 degrees.
These now dictate angles of attack to 90 and
The missiles which fly at these very high angles are usually of the slewing .type, i.e., their angle of attack is generated by thrust vector control (TVC) Aerodynamically they tend to be somewhat
(for example, AIR SLEW and AGILE).
simpler than missiles which achieve high maneuverability through use of

aerodynamic surface deflection because of the large control forces available from the deflected TVC nozzle. Non-TVC missiles usually can deploy wings and
canards as well as tails, and their maximum angles of attack are limited to about 40 degrees. Air slew missiles usually deploy tails, but any forward strakes). Basic aerodynamic
lifting surfaces are generally small (e.g.,
prediction methods are required for both types of vehicles. The aerodynamic performance of TVC type vehicles is cated by plume interference; therefore a method is further compli-
required for calcu-
lating this effect in addition to methods for estimating the basic aerodynamics. It has been well-established (References 1, 2, 3, and 4) that the best
means of constructing methods for estimating basic aerodynamic characteristics at high angles of attack is through correlation of experimental
data generated by testing over systematically-varied ranges of the relevant geometric and aerodynaalc parameters (Reference 1). This report describes
the generation of methods using that technique.
The methods deal with
the aerodynamics of aerodynamically controlled missiles and TVC missiles with and without plume effects. ment of the methods is A summary of the d-ta u.sed in the develop-
presented in Reference 5. to to
The objective of this work was to evaluate existing methods, improve upon these existing methods if
possible, and, where necessary,
develop new methods to predict the pitch-plane aerodynamic characteristics for aerodynamically controlled and TVC missiles. were applicable to the configurations, ranges indicated in Table I. Table I Scope of Methodology Requirements The m%,thods addressed
angle of attack and Mach number
"Control Mechanism
V CONFIGURATION Aerodynamically Control TVC a - 0 - 300 ai-O0 - 180" M - 0.6- 3.0 M - 0.6 3.0 Jet Interference Effects Included
Body Alone Body-Wing-Tail (Canard) Body-Tail Body- Strake

Body-Strake-Tail
I.
/
1
/
Prediction of the aerodynamic characteristics for the configurations indicated in Table I requires methods for predicting the aerodynanmcs of individual
/ components and mutual interference effects. Figures Ia and lb show the
extent of existing capabilities prior to this contract with respect to total methodology requirements. Although it Is not shown in Figures la and b, a certain level of In general, the accuracy
capabilities existed in each of the areas indicated.
of these methods is poor at angles greater than a few degrees; therefore, these methods were not indicated. developed to fill Figures la and b. Under the present work, methodology was
In the gaps indicated in the overall requirements of The methods developed are of an engineering type and
include charts, graphs and formulations which facilitate ease of use by hand. By and large the methods are empirical and therefore are limited to the range of test conditions and geometric parameters tested. The specific
conditions tested are discussed in Section 2.0 and the Mach number range of interest, namely 0.6 to 3.0 is case, adequately covered. However. as Is usually the
the flight combinations of Mach and Reynolds numbers were not achieved Therefore the resulting methods do not
in the wind tunnel test programs.
contain all the effects of Reynolds ni-mber variation that might be desired. Until better matching of flight conditions is achieved in wind tunnel tests, the user of such methods must exercise care and Judgement with regard to this point.
/3
//
/z
Finally it
is noted that methodology was developed to predict Induced
yaw forces and moments and induced rolling moments,* and was provided as pert of, this program.
-.
Reference 39 describe* the development of the methods
and the computerized version of the methods. The general layout of the report is as follows:
First, a general
description of the equipment and models used in data generation is given in Section 2.0. 3.0. Then a limited amount of data analysis is presented in Section
folloing this, Section 4.0 describes the forimulation of the aerody-
namic prediction equations and the terms for which methods are constructed. The methods themselves are described in Section 5.0. Where applicable each'
description includes background discussions, treatment of data, approach of construction, use of methods, and where possible, checks of method accuracy against data not used in the construction.
Existing Methodology
Methodology
Requirements
Body
Strak-Take l Body
18 -90
Angle of sl o
Body Tall1
-- 0. 1.5 .-. 3.0
"
0.6 1.3
(Mach)
OMach)
Figure la.
Methodology Requirements for TVC ?fisalles
Exis ting Methodology Methodology Requirements
dy Wing (Canard) Tail ar)Wody
Angle of Attack (deg)
70.
1.3 (Mach)
1.
Figure lb. Methodology' Requirements for Aerodynamically Controlled Xisuil..
2.0
EWUERIENTAL DATA SOURCES AND MODELS
The majority of data available for correlation (see Figure 2) were generated using either U.S. Air Force or Martin Marietta, Orlando Division, supplied models. Reference li, is which is based on 485 hours of testing in The TVC data are Typical
tunnels 4T and A at AEDC,
the primary source of data.
taken from a 312 hour test program in tunnels 16T and 16S at AEDC. missile compotents were tested separately and in combination.
A Martin
Marietta supplied reflection plane and fins were tested to provide isolated fin data to 180 degrees angle of attack. tail Isolated body and non-rolled body
data were generated using both Air Force and Martin Marietta models. shown in Figure 3a with the selection The Air Force
The Martin Marietta main body model is
of tails which can be mated to the body shown in Figure 3b.
and Martin Marietta models are both 10 cilibers in length with tangent ogive noses but the Air Force nose is the Martin Marietta nose. are 1.25 and 3.75 inches, geometry, 2,.5 calibers compared to 3.0 calibers for
The Air Force and Martin Marietta model diameters respectively. Tails of identical planform
arranged in cruciform and undeflected, were tested on each body. asptct ratios and diameter to span ratios were varied
-
Tail taper ratios,
between 0 - 1.0, 0.5
2.0 and 0.3 - 0.5,
respectively.
Angles of
attack varied from 0 to 180 degrees.
The maximum angle of attack attained Through
by the Martin MarieLta sting mounted model was limited to 60 degrees.
a combination oi stings and struts, the Air Force model was tested to 180 degrees. The Martin 4arietta model was equipped with four 3-component tail balance for the Air Force model. These
balances compared to a single tail
f/
balances measured t'ail normal force,
hinge moment and rLot bending moment.
Six-component main balance data were' available from each model. Body-wing-tail configurations were tested to 30 degrees angle of attack at a non-rolled altitude using the Martin Marietta model. Data consisted This
of 6-component main balance atid 3-component fin balance outputs.
model can accomodate sets of half wings mounted in cruciform at several different axial stations between the shoul'ar and after body section containing the tail balances. The wings are not attached to recording balances. Wings
tested were of constant aspect ratio 2.0 and taper ratio 0.0 with diameter to span ratio vatying between 0.35 and 0.5. A more complete description of the sources of test data, test conditions and model configurations is contained in the Data Report (Reference 5) Item No. AO05). submitted
as part of this study contract (CDRL
//
"/ i
0oz
0U
oc
92
0a
/~a /14
41
tv
'4
/
1
41
W9&
Figure 3a. Martin Marietta Main Body Model in the NSRDC 7'xlO' Transonic Tunnel at Sixty Degrees Angle of Attack
10
Figure 3b., Martin Marietta Tail Models
"3.0
AERODYNAMIC DATA TRENDS
Before proceeding to the various methods, some of the test data will be presented.
a qualitative analysis of
The discussions are intended to
illuminate the basic phenomena underlying model aerodynamic behavior and provide the user with more than simply a recipe for calculating the v.rious force and moment quantities. presented in References 2 and 3. sake of convenience. Many of the basic ideas used were
They will be sumarized here for the
The discussions here will be limited to isolated configurations.
fins and bodies and body plus tail
"3.1
Fin Aerodynamics Most of the disaussions in this section are based upon those of
Reference 2. material. treatment.
No attempt will be made to reproduce all of the previous referred to the original document for a detailed
The reader is
The discussions center on the effects of fin geometry (planform taper and aspect ratios) and Mach number on the aerodynamic characteristics. Fin flow patterns are discussed briefly along with the associated stall '" r characteristics. The implications for fin normal force coefficient and Discussions begin
chordwise center of pressure location are outlined. with a consideration of delta fins.
ii1'
12
st ANGL2 OF A17ACK-DO.
LOCUS OF URATTATCUIINT
Figure 4.
Vortices Produced by the Reattachment of Lower Surface Boundary Layer
At high angles of attack the flow aroui:d delta fins is characterized by the presence of large upperesurface vortices fed with vorticity from the boundary layers which separate at the leading edges (See Figure 4). Stall on such wings is brought about by vortex "bursting".
This is accompanied by a breakdown of the well-ordered vorttx flow and a sudden pressure increase at and downstream of the "burst" point. Upstream
the pressure in the vortex remains low and produces a suction which increases the normal force. As angle of attack is increased the "burst" When it crosses the edge,
point moves upstream towards the trailing edge.
stall begins and is characterized by a loss of normal force and a forward, movement of the center of pressure. angle of attack decreases. at transonic speeds. As aspect ratio increases, the stalling
These effects ore shown in Figures Sa and 5b
The figures also show the following:
13
.1) The normal force curve slopes, CN, are numerically equal Slender Body Theory. it) At a - 900,
-
at a - 00 and 1800
this result is predicted by
the centers of pressure and of area very This is inituitively obvious.
nearly coincide. iii) At a - 1800
the centers of presiture of these delta fins This bears out the
lie right at the "leading" edge.
Slender Body Theory result that all of the loading on a fin occurs over the region where the fin span is (increasing). changing
The predicted effect of retreating side
edges (i.e., -to push the center of pressure upstream) is not evident. fins also. Still confining the discussions to delta fins, Figures 5c and d show their behavior at supersonic speeds. ling is visible at thisMach number. from which these data were obtained, supersonic Mach numbers, It will be seen that no stalA similar result is found for non-delta
During the reflection plane tests it was found that near a - 900 at
the fins behaved like forward facing steps, reAccordingly, the CN value at a - 900 was
sulting in low values of C..
obtained from Reference 6 and the data faired through that point as shown. Also worthy of note is a - 1800. When the fin planform is not triangular, the upper surface vortices the center of pressure behavior, particularly near
referred to earlier are modified or joined by yet other rotating flows.
14
For rectangular fins, the large suction-producing vortices now spring from the side edges, while a laminar separation bubble can exist at the leading edge. When stall occurs on such a fin, it is frequently a high
result of laminar bubble lengthening, pressure flow over the upper surface.
spreading low-velocity,
The result is a loss of normal A clipped delta fin
force and a rearward shift of center of pressure.
'displays behavior somewhere between that of a delta and a rectangular fin. ,1

/
This behavior is
shown in Figures 6a and b at transonic speeds. 00 and 180". They At
Note the centers of pressure for the rectangle at a - 0
lie right at the "leading" edge as predicted by Slender Body Theory. a - 1800, all three fins show this predicted behavior. As before,
the
supersonic data show no visible stalling and have been faired through CN /2 from Reference 6, Figures 6c and d. to move the
The effect of increasing Mach number on a delta fin is vortex "burst" point downstream. Thus a fin which is
stalled at one This behavior .s
Mach number may be unstalled by simply increasiug Mach. * shown in Figures 7a and b for an AR - 2.0 delta fin. behavior at M - 0.8 is 3.2
The stalling
entirely removed at M - 1.3 and higher.
Body Aerodynamics As in the case of fins, the aerody-.amic characteristics of stpa-
bodies at high angles of attack are largely influenced by viscous, rated flows. The discussions below deal with these,
especially in the
case where the body wake takes the form of an asymmetric vortex pattern. This phenomenon has recently become of considerable interest for high
15
incidence missiles (Reference 7). When a slender missile body is placed at angle of attack in a uniform flow,' the boundary layer generally separates on either side of the body and forms a lee-side wake. Separation usually begins near the rear The wake takes
when the missile reaches about 6 degrees angle of attack. the form of a pair of symmetrically-disposed,
counter-rotating vortices As angle of
fed by vorticity shed from the separating Loundary layer. attack increases, increase also.
the axial extents, sizes and strengths of vortices
When the body angle of attack reaches about 25 degrees, rical nature of the wake disappears.
the symmet-
The two vortices are joined by a and the wake becomes asymmetric. As
third, beginning again at the body rear, angle of attack is :-
increased further, more vortices Join the flow until the A section
wake contains several which have been shed from the body. taken through the wake shows it'to
resemble the von Karman vortex street,
well known in the literature on two-dimensional flows. The asymmetric nature of the wake produces an asymmetric distribution
"of pressure
forces along the body.
This results in out-of-plane forces
and moments being induced, not.
whether the body has lifting surfaces deployed or requiring special
These forces and moments can be significantly large,
means to be found to counteract or remove their effects (Reference 8). Figure 8a shows the force and moment coefficients induced #. a body at Mt's 0.6. The effect of increasing Mach number to supersonic values is This may
u~tidly to reduce those effects to negligible prcportlions. be seen in Figure 8b for M - 2.0.
Later discussions will illustrate the
16
"
"
"
1'/
"./
",
"additional effects
of adding lifting surfaces to such a body.
The steady, At higher
asymmetric wake persists up to angles of about 50 to 60 degrees.
angles the wake becomes unsteady and vortices are shed asymmetrically. 3.3 Body Tail Configuration Aerodynamice The addition of tails to a body generally increases the out-ofplane forces and moments induced by &symmetric vortex effects as well as produring rolling moments.
/
Several examples will be given of these

-
important effects.
Figures 9a and b show out-of-plane quantities at M
0.6
for two typical sets of cruciform tails fixed to the 10:1 caliber body ("plus"'attitude). It is of interest to note the correspondence between the The angle of attack has generally been limited
peaks of force and moment. to 90 degrees because:
/
i) By 90 degrees the wake flow is unsteady and the out-of-plane quantities fluctuate rapidly. ii) Above 90 degrees, the presence of the strut support might cause
alterations in the wake pattern and its effects. By the time Mach number has reached 2.0, no induced effects are visible (not shown here). Another illustration of the asymmetric wake effect is Figures lOs and b. contained in
Previous testing on a MO( model with four instrumented Complete
tails yielded the forces and moments on the individual tails. configuration rolling .wment instrumentation. ( 45")
was obtained from separate (main balance) forces for a "cross" configuration If the moments of these tail
Figure 10a shows the tail
at angles of attack to 60 degrees.
17
-/K
"forces about the missile axis are summed and the result -%spared "balance reading, the comparison of Figure lOb is obtained.,
with the main
Clearly, the induced
roll Is generated by the unequal tail forces, which thenselvee are induced by the asymetric wake.
;//
00
~
0a
00
GOO$ a 0
0-000
0
0 0
000 g0~OC* =00* BO Io
.4
-oo
8,9
00
0"
10
c~~0
00000
a~
0*
I 0.10 0
004
4C
aw~jLoo
xi/na!)NaY3l MU 3NVIICI-d0
20
14
4.
,19
&SO0M0
2310
7MN
21
00 00 0
'II
~0
00 ~
000
aVR)1(dIagnMM
oa90I
01 '
~~22
.4
00 00
0 0
&00 0 a Do 0 0
0
0000 00 o0 00 0 0
000
~00
000
0.4 00
%00
C13
13V
23
0 0
00 00r
o00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
0
0a
C5
-4
a
u0
0
0.
aN
00
$110
0 0
av
000I
00
00
00
J
a*
00
0'
(MOR00
4*
CINJR~aoir Hl OIDI
* 00
024
00
'.C4
0 00
CIO
C;
.4 INSIOIJAZO3~~ I 33U.IVH
.4
25S.
/.
o.
00 00
00
0 0
..
U4
aa
P44
0~ 0
000
00 0U
r/ I
0'4
04
26.
00
a 0
* N0 OO 00
a
0
o'
0 0
-4
00 0
0 0
00
o
S 0 0
0
0Io~ 0 0 0 0
00
27
.0
00
AD
oou
00
0 0
0~
a.
00
MOOIdNA30
ONM
o-aM4yol--
02
U 00 4114
-4
000
-4 M313jazo als 3003 KV
~aII,94300lN3W
ONMY
290
00
"44
4J4
"r4
1w
IQ
0
o
PI
0
r44
C4
"4
44
300
41
41
o u
x 1-4 F
tic
1-4
Dk
ot
0Pk
331
0
'-4
j
0
'-4
5' I
I I
I:
g :
a
0. .4
I.
'-4
'U
[
gIn
00 03
4 04 0
a'.
.j
.4
0.
--
04,4 1w
*
-4
--------
0..
6
V . .
.. t*--
* c;.i
- - --
a.--
04
4I
SJ.NHWON Dt4ITIOI
aiiv
NIMVA
UNY 3DOA
UIS
AO S1NI3IAA3O
32
/4
"
~282r'
2_ 23
M - 0.8
45 Degrees
20
44
16
... /
-).
-IQ
10
20
30,
40
50
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure l0a. Comparison Of Tall Normal Forces
33
-/o
0 Main Balance
0
j.
t (Fin Force x Dist To Model Centerline)
S-0.8 5 -,Degrees____ -4
10
230
40
50
60
._
U
10
31 0
4-s-6
-2 -6
-114
ANGLE 01 ATTACK-DEG.
Figure lob. Comparison Of Rolling Moments
34
4.0
FOIMULATION OF THE AEROODNTAMIC PEDICTION FUATIONS
Because of the nature of the information available, the following formulations of body-tail. body-etrake-tail and body-wing-tail configuratlon
"pitch-plano serodynamtc
characteristics are necessary.
These formulations
will vary dependirg on whether the configurations are to be aerodynamically or thrust vector controlled (TVC). Aerodygmically Controlled
"ody-Tail
C Br CN B + CRT 2 (B),ST_ + B(T) SB
NT B
(1)
Body-Strake-Tail
"CH
BST ,Cs
CH + 'C" +
B as BX+ xC
&C.s BST
BS
(3)
+ AC~ SST BST
-
(4)
"1RST
II&
N C man
2 ANTS Xp *Xcp~iw +NWB+ P
ST + B(T) +
n(5) 5 Tj +iI+ +T(B)

SB d
+.
...__!
d
C B
+T
CFd
2()j C
NTWRr()L X'
M.x B3(T)
+ ACWv xCP TV
(6)
35
Thrust Vector Controlled Body-Tail, CNB aCNB + ACNBP + 2 CNT RT(B)ST + ACNTp + 'B(T) (7)
""B
"ITz~
B d, cB + "D
S
x + 2 Nr: T(B)T s
c T B~) +
(8)
"ACNTp XCPTp + 'B(T) XCPI(T)

/Id d.
Body-Strake-Tail
CN BST SC + ACN + ACN + AC1 B IPS + S l 1ST &CN (Bo)
xx
S 1C PBT+ d BHP+ d NCT (0
Hence, the following quantities are required in order to conduct
"aerodynamic analyses on body-tall, body-wing-tail, or bedy-strake-tail

-I
configurations which are either aerodynamically or thrust vector controlled. *The section of this report In which each quantt.cy is developed is listed as follows.
36
. *.-
Quantity
Section
Page
CNB
5.1.1
39
xCp
5.1.2
61 91
T XCPT
5. 1. 4
5.1.5.
122
"RT(B)
I B(T)
5.2.1
143
Use in either Aerodynamically Controlled or TVC modes
5.2.2
161
Xcp
5.2.3
171
5.3.1 XcpBS
190
5.3.2
202.
'NBST
xCPABST
5.3.3
5.3.4
220
232
ACNBw XC~P Bw
5.4.1 5.4.2
259 274
289
".5.4.3
XCPTWV 5.4.A
306
37
Quantity ACN BP
Section 5. . 1
Pais
310
xcpP
5.5.2
323
TVC Mode Only
AC,33
XcP'P 5.5.4 351
As indicated above, certain of the quantities are applicable to the equations for aerodynamic control ar well as the equations for TVC. are used only in the TVC model. Others
Limits of applicability for each method are
indicated in the appropriate sections.
38
/'
5.0
AERODYNANIC METHODS
5.1 5.1.1
Isolated Components Body Normal Force
Summary A method is presented for predicting body normal force coefficients, CB , for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees and Mach numbcrs
B
from 0.6 up to 3.0. Comparisons between predicted results and experiThis'method represents an improvement accurately predicts CN both transonically mental datashow good agreement. over existing methods in that it and supersonically. Background The aerodynamic force directed normal to a body in its pitch plane Using
can be separated into potential and viscous flow contributions.
slender body theory, Munk found the potential flow contribution to be equal to sin 2o, where 2 is curve at a w 0 degrees. the slope of the normal force coefficient it wan shown
In later work by Ward (Reference 9),
that this force is actually directed midway between the normal to the stream and the normal to the body axis. Taking this into account, poten-
tial contributions to body normal force can be expressed as: C oT sin 2a cosa (11)
At very low angles of attack, force. However,
this potential term dominates body rormal
for angles of attack greater than 6 degrees, viscous Existing
effects are introduced and rapidly become the dominating factor. theories do not adequately predict viscous effects.
Empirical procedures
39
have been developed based on the early work by Allen and Perkins10 and Kelly U which introduced the concept that the viscous crossflow around
inclined bodies of revolution is analogous to the flow around a circular cylinder normal to the flow. In accordance with standard'notation, these
empirical procedures relate the viscous normal force contribution to Cd c the crossflow drag coefficient defined by analogy with two-dimensional flow. Thus
S
C C
*
2 d n -P sin a dc Sref
(12)
Experimental data have shown Cd crossflow Mach numbers.
to be a function of both Reynolds and C Values of ihave been determined empirically
from two-dimensional and finite length cylinder data. Combining the theoretical potential and empirical viscous contribution results in the following expression for body total normal force
coefficient: CM - sin 2a cos + Cd Sp n--sin 2 a (13)
12 This iS the same expression used by Jorgensen to predict transonic and
supersonic values of CN for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees. The procedure outlined by Jorgensen in Reference 12 was found to be inaccurate at transonic Mach numbers when predicted results were compared
r^-.
the data of Reference 13.
These comparisons are presented in
figures 11 through 14.
Accuracy is only fair when all Mach numbers and but does improve with increasing Mach
angles of attack are considered, number.
Two avenues are available to improve accuracy.

method to improve transonic capabilities.
First, develop a new
The second, and perhaps most
40
desirable approach, would be to develop a single procedure which would be accurate both transonically and supersonically. Method Development A power series approach is used to develop a method which predicts the combination of potential and viscous effects on body total CN' Boundary conditions were sought which would adequately define the characteristics of CN between angles of attack of 0 and 180 degrees. aCN C and Values of
at a - 0, w/2 and w were taken as boundary conditions.
Experimental data indicated that values of CN at a - 0 and a - r are zero. Also from experimental data, it and W. was observed that
--
- 0 at a -
w/2
8CN The remaining boundary conditions, i.e., CN at a - '/2 and

-
at a
0.
were retained as free variables. Applying these boundary conditions to the expression: CNB oa +aa+ a2a '2 + a3a 3 + a4a 4 + asa 5
yielded 2 3 4 a
itNw/2
which can be rewritten as
C
CN
B
where
A1 CN
+A2CN + 2 N
W/;2an
Sref
Sba
(14)
A1 ,
6a 2 + I3a3 13a
12a w
+ 4ct5
16a A 2 .' 2 W2
32a3 X3
16a4 4
41
...
Values of A
and A2 are plotted'as functions of angle of attack in Values of C and CN still require definition.
Figures 15 and 16.
x/2
Transonic values of CN presented in Figure 17 as a function of
Mach number, nose length and afterbody length were taken from References 14 and 15.
0
Supersonic values of CN
presented in Figure 18 were taken
from Reference 16 as a function of Mach number, nose length and afterbody length. The data, of Figures 17 and 18 represent improvements over Linear literpolation is required for values'of
existing correlations. C
N
between Mach 1.2 and ].5.
Values of CNw/2 can be calculated with Equation
13 recognizing
that the "potential" teim goes to zero and utilizing the published data for values of n (Reference 17) and Cdc(Reference 0 valueb of n (shown as no 12). The available
n Figure 19) are derived from subsonic test
data and are typically assumed to apply up to croseflow Mach number (Mc) equal 1.0. Above Mach one n is normally assumed to be 1.0. Rather than
continue to use such a discontinuous rapresentationa procedure is employed here which produces an estimate of the variation of n with M through the transonic regime. as follows: The potential component of normal force Is Equation 11 with the change that CN
N
The transonicvariation of n is developed
still
defined as in The intent is to
replaces the 2.
make use of the test data (Reference 13) as a source for CN rely on the theoretical value of 2. the normal force is defined as
rather than
Then the viscous contribution to as follows:
"CvIS
42
CN
CN
si
(CN
ax)cos (a/2)
and CN
. . . "CDC -
are both obtained from the test data.

DC S IS 2 _. si2a i a ' P s
Then
ref The quantity n CDC was calculated utilizing this expression at crossflow Mach numbers ranging from 0.2 to 2.0. Values of Cd. were taken from
Reference 10 at the corresponding Mach numbers to permit solving for n. The curve faired through the values of n which result from this exercise is shown in Figure 20.
-
The subsonic value is seen to apply up to about A
C.8 with the upward ,trend continuing to about M. a 1.4.
polynomial expression was then derived as follows to represent the variation of n with Me,
c - 0.0 at M n - n
-0.8
atid 1.4
at Mc -0.8
-
n - 1.0 at Mc
1.4
Applying these boundary conditions to the following expansion:

n a+
aM elc
+ a,"
-~M a3 --
a3Hc
yielded n no (-9.0741 + 31.1111 Hc -30.5556 me2 + 9.2593

+ (10.0741
-
a 3)
31.1111 Mc + 30.5556 M 2
9.2593 Me 3
which can be rewritten as: SBo n + B I(16)
43
wh're
"B - -9.0741 + 31.1111 HM
-
30.5556 1 2 + 9.2593 M j3
92593
1
1
-10.0741
- 31.1111 H
C
+ 30.5556 H 2
CC
Equation 16 is
applicable to croseflow Mach numbers between 0.8 and 1.4 Values of 1% and B1 are pre-
Values of n0 are contained in Figure 19. sented in Figure 21. Values of Cd
from Reference 13 modified on the basis of the These data cover a
results of Reference 3 are presented in Figure 22.
wide range of croseflow Mach numbers and come from a number of different sources. Using the above information and Equation 12, it is now possible to required for the calculation of Cbetween calculate the value of C
N /2bewn
a - 0 and 180 degrees. Methr._d Evaluation Check cases were made using the same configuration and conditions represented in Figures 11 through 14. Figures 23 through 26 show com-
parisons between these predictions, experimental data, and predictions using Jorgensen's procedure (Reference 12). These comparisons indicate
improved accuracy at high angles of attack in the transonic Mach regime and equally good accuracy at all angleo of attack in the supersonic regime. Use of Method The method for predicting isolated body normal force in applied in the following way.
44
Depending upon the Mach number, determine C
use either Figure 17 or 18 to
as a function of nose and afterbody length. /2 using Equation 12.
Calculate the value of C a
Use Figure 22 to determine C determine the value of n.
bDepending upon the Mach number, .
For M. < 0.8, use Figure 19 to determine n as a function of LId.
For 0.8 < H 1.4,
1.4,
use Equation 16 and iigure 19.
* For HM
3
1.0.
Using Equation 14,
the results of steps 1 and 2,and Figures 15
and 16, calculate the values of C Numerical Example
NB
from 0 to 180 degrees.
Calculate CNB between 0 and 180 degrees at H M the following characteristics:
2.86 for a body with
"-i
L d ;Re
3.0 (tangent ogive)
6.0
ref
1 2
10.2
Usins Fiure 18b,
3.05/rad Cw/2
Use the followinp equation to calculate
N Nw/2
S Cdc n z
Sref
45
I.
'
..
~*
.... P
S~C
a b c 3
From Figure 22, Cd For M - 2.86,
- 1.34
n = 1.0
Therefore CNI2 - 13.67
Using the following equation and Figures 15 and 16, calculate
CKB iACNO + A2 CNw2
SrefinS.ase
"A,
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 165 170 175 180 Data Comparisons 1.0 0.074 0.123 0.153 0.167 0.162 0.13 0.09 0.051 0.023 0.005 0.001 0.0 0.001 0.004 0.015 0.026 0.034 0.037 0.033 0.022 0.014 0.007 0.002 0.0
A22; 0.0 0.01 0.045 0.095 0.155 0.305 0.475 0.645 0.79 0.905 0.975 0.99 1.0 0.99 0.975 0.905 0.79 0.645 0.475 0.305 0.155 0.095 0.045 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.989 1.76 2.63 4.66 6.89 9.09 10.95 12.44 13,34 13.54 13.67 13.54 13.34 12.42 10.88 8.92 6.61 4.27 2.19 1.34 0.636 0.143 0.0
The results of the numerical example are compared with experimental data,(Reference 18) in Figure 27. Because these data were not involved In the
development of the method, this comparison represents an independent check of the method. Agreement is quite good throughout the angle
46
of attack range transonically.
Figure 28 represents further Independent
checks of predicted results against experimental data from Reference 19. Comparisons between predicted results and experimental data have shown the method of this section to be more accurate than the Jorgensen method In the majority of cases. However, the Jorgensen method has proven more accurate in the 0 to 40 degree angle of attack range transonically. Therefore, it is recommended that the Jorgensen method be used in this region and the method of this sectlon in all others.
47
dI
ii4
RN4.134 x 101
12 Cs
____
(M.
12)
12
4
i0
40
60
so
100
120
140
160
ISO
MI3I Of ATTACK, DIM233
Figure 11.
20
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CNB)
Mach - 0.6 K
010
--
3.010
-0
44
g2
20
40
/"O
021 s 0
r0 S
Of ATAC
-, w"asts
/T
0
200
A
R
OS
4.149
' 05
A ,
"
Cl. /
10T
12 0 lf
II
0' A
_d
_II
(IV?. JORGKENSEN
12)
20
40
40
100 80 AWGLS OF ATTACK, DIgIcZS
120
140
160
ISO
Figure 13.
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CN)
,Mach-
1.30
o........
.40.
80
137700
80S
20
14
1
( 1
*
0 20 40o 60
80 100 ANlCLEI OF ATT'iACK. DE:IUiIS
120
140
10
ISO
Figsure 14.
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (CNB
.... ' '.. .... .. : ......... .
.,.o'
Mach
-2.0
d "0
0/
49
0.1
0.06
0.02 0 0 20 40, 60 so 200 120 140 .160 te
AIIOLE OP AtTTA". OuagS
Figure 15.
Coefficients for Calculation of c%
.0.
0.7 0.4 0.3
0.2
20
40
so 0 to 120 AMLSL OP ATACXt, DINRtx3
240
160
Ito
Figure 16.
Coefficients for Calculation of C
waS
10
0.8 .4
1. 09
1.2
OGIVE MOSES) (TANIGENT
Figure 17a.
Curves for Transonic
I. N/d
-15
51N
............
10
_5
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Figure 17b.
Curves for Transonic CN. (LN/d a
2.5)
10
1.1
OGrVZ NOSES) (TANGENT
Figure 17c.
Curves for Transonic CN
NId -3.5)
52
).3
3.21 3.0
_
3.0
).10 102.
-2.4
Figure 18a.
Curves for Supersonic CN
(I /d'
2.5)
3.'
- -
--
3.0_ -
-.-.
.~~~~~~~3.1 0 --
--
2.9 -----
-10-------
--
2.62.5-
2.8
2.6
---
---
Figure 18b.
Curves for Supersonic CN al
(IN/d
-3.0)
53
3.3 3.2 3.1 L"*%
3.C
43.0
2.9
2.8 2.7
Figure.18c.
2.
(9../d
3.5)
-A-
2.3 -7-d.4.0 3.2 3.1
3.0
iI
./
C%
2.9
Figurel8d.
(IN/d
3.5)
54.
%a
Figure 13d.

a
(tN/d -4.0)
54
0.8 0.6
10
L/d
20
30
40
Figure 19.
00
Correlation Factor for End Effects
o11
1.0
0.I
"0
0.4
Iv.. .I 1.2 1.6 0.6 caossvtov MACH mMMU, K
I.
2.0
2.4
Figure 20.
Variation of n With Mach Number
55
'I
S,,+,!
~~.
..
..
......... ..
....
[.
..
0.4
0.4
o
-
-.
i
*-
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.S 0.1 +0 o
0.3 6
.. .
.. .
. -
....
... ...
..
.. .. . ...+.- -
. .
. ..
a . +
--..
0.4
--
"0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
SCOSSPILV
Figure 21.
RACKIJMilMf,
MC
Curves for Determining Transonic Values of tj
56
2 01.2.3.
Fiue2aCaicVledfC
C'
.2
---
01.0
2.
3.0---
1.4
10410
10 6 CROSSFLOIE REYOLDS MUN3R
10 1
Figure 22b. Crosaf low Drag Coefficient (Subcritical Crosaf low, M' 0.4)
57
20
I
M.~~0.6
___
IN 4.134 x10
14
~~.-----..--
3.0
01
20
40
60
S0 100 ANGLE OF ATTMK. MIW219S
120
140
160 *Mach
-0.6
Igo
Figure 23.
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (C%)
14
1110
PI4 P
80
10
10
14
AEL 0? AflAIN(.
12)IE
Figure~~~~~~~~~O oprio31Epeietl 24
rdctdRslt93),Mah-11
4P58
M1
1.3
W--
a JI
-----r-
--
IS
*--I
--
so
60
aA.
ANGL9 OF ATTACK. DWftUS
Figure 25.
20
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (C B

----
sMch
1.30
12
.I
------
AMCLIOF ATTACK, DO3REA
Figure 26.
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results (C,,) Mach
2.0
'9
20
]M -2.86
- .
3 0
1--
.0
d0
Q 0
--
)(PERIENTAL (REF.
18)
____
PREDCTE
0 60 so 100 120 140 10 1;0
0 2
AiCLE Of ATTACK, DEGREES
Figure 27.
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Results
CN), B
Mach
-2.86
-0
~A~A
d
'_ A
0,
0B
10
'O
14
16.0
-18
20--
512Body Center of Pressure Summary A method is presented for predicting isolated body center of pressure, X p for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees and Mach numbers B from 0.6 up to 3.0. Comparisons between predicted results and experimental data show good agreement. Background New highly maneuverable missiles will encounter extreme angles of attack. In some cases angles of attack may approach 180 degrees in
either the transonic or supersonic Mach regimes. Effective evaluation of proposed configurations will require methods for predicting aerodynamic characteristics at extreme angles of attack over a wide range of Mach numbers. Current predictive techniques are New methods are required This section
limited to angles of attack less than 30 degrees.
to fill the void between existing and, required capabilities.
deals specifically with a method for predicting body center of pressure, XCP
.*
The method presented .is applicable to Mach numbers between 0.6
and 3.0 and angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees. Method Development The method for predicting XC was developed using an empirical approach. The initial step involved a survey of available data (References The data displayed characteristics which were unique For Mach numbers of
13, 18, and 19).
to specific Mach number and angle of attack ranges.
1.0 or greater, XCP displayed a rapid rearward movement between angles of attack of 0 and 20 degrees, followed by a nearly linear progression of X between 20 and 160 degrees and passes through the centroid of the Finally, between 160 and-180 degrees', another
planform area at 90 degree.
61
.
./---
-/:
.'
..
.. .
. ..
rapid rearward movement of XCP was observed.
Experimental data showed As the body
that the XCP left the body between 170 and 180 degrees. approaches 180 degrees, normal f~ree on the
a couple is produced as the positive potential
eorward facing portion of the body becomes equal to This Under
the negative potential force on the trailing nose portion of the body. couple subjects the body to a moment and to a zero net normal force. these circumstances, large.
calculated values of X~, tend to become infinitely
For Mach numbers less than 1.0, XCp displayed the same characteristics between 0 and 20 degrees and 160 and 180 degrees. of X However, the location
CP
tended to remain essentlally constant between 20 and 50 degrees,
followed by a rearward movement which is linear between 50 and 160 degrees and passes through the centroid of the planform area at 90 degrees. A power series approach was used to develop the method between 0 and 20 degrees. In the usual way boundary conditions were sought. The
center of pressure at a - 0 degrees was taken as the first boundary
condition.
Curves presenting
X!g
o 0d
as a function of
L., tAI atsd h in

d d For the sake Similar
the transonic Mach regime are presented in Reference 3.
of completeness these are presented again here in Figure 29. data in the supersonic Mach regime (1.5 k M < 4.5) Reference 16 and ore presented in Figure 30.
were found in
For a second boundary 0

I a0.0.
condition it can be shown that for symmetrical bodies 3XCP/d
A third boundary condition was defined by the center of pressure at 20 degrees. This was defined ar the center of pressure at zero degrees Using data frce References 3. 13, aed 20, the
Splus an increment.
percentage of body length by which XU. shifted between 0 and 20 degrees was determined as a function of Mach number (see Figure 31). condition, As a final boundary
3Xp/
at 20 degrees was assumed to equal the slope of the Experimental
linear variation between 20 and 90 degrees angle of attack.
data indicated that the renter of pressure at 90 degrees could he approximated as the centroid of Lhe planform arca. At 90 degrees, when the flow is
separated along the entire length of the body, the normnal force will be due' entirely to crossflow-drag (Reference 3). 'dc along C the body, the centers Of pressure and of planform area should then coincide. Collecting boundary conditions and applying them to the following polynomial expansion
Xp2 xao 3' +810 +
Assuming a constant
d --
2 2
+ a3
d0
1
al
""
yielded
F_2
"0 +
+
~~7
21ai
2 Xo +
0 -
2800 2.
-0
2800'0 80C0
X./2
/
L]
2800
2 3c,
223
-8
28000
X20
2800]

X ao XA 0 + A 1 X 2 0 + A2 Xv/
2
(17)
Where
e e
A o
A
1 +
7 a3 28,000
21a2 2800
A 1
2 3 23a -8a 2800 28000 3

:. 8000l
S-2&
2800
,.
in radians
Values of A0 , A
1
and A2 are plotted as a function of angle of attack in

2.
"
Figure 32. Equation 17 was developed based on the characteristics of XCp at Hach numbers of 1.0 or greater. Applying Equation 17 for Hach numbers less than
1.0 will produce good results even though 3XCP at a=20 degrees will be in error.
3a
between 20 and 160 degrees
As indicated earlier, the variation in X *:. is dependent upon Mach number.
For Mach num'ers less than 1.0, the
location of X
remains constant between 20 and 50 degrees and then moves
linearly toward the rear to the value of X
CF
at 160 degrees,
passing through
the centroid of the planform area at 90 degrees. or greater, degrees,
For Mach numbers of 1.0
Xlp varies linearly between the locations at 20 and 160
passing thvough the centroid of the planform area at 90 degrees. the following equations were derived for determining
Using this information,
the slope of the linear variation and the value of X at 160 degrees.
aLX aI
g , 90 a'-
Xw/
(18)
X160 where ac,
70
a=
Xtw/2
(19)
the angle marking the bound of the low angle region, Is 20 degrees than
for Mach numbers of 1.0 or greater and 0 degrees for Mach numbers I.as 1.0.
A pover series approach was used to develop the method between 160 and 180 degrees and in the usual wey boundary conditions were sought. of pressure at 160 degrees wa tak as the first bovdary The center
it ion
Ni
This can be calculated using Equation 19.
A second boundary, j~(written xO)
at 160 degrees was assumed to equal the slore of the linear variation between
c'and
160 degrees.
This value can be calculated using Equation 18.
Also,
0.
as a third boundary condition it can be shown tIhat at 180 degrees 1C

Doi
-
'As a final boundary condition, the center of pressure at 180 degrees was assumed equal to the body length, rather than trying to define it as some )
Ipoint
off the body as indicated earli.er.
This assumption will1 introduce
no significant errors since the resulting forces and moments are sQall. Collect ing these boundary conditions and applying them to the following polynomial expansion
~CP
d
-
ao +al
+ a2
+ a3 0
yielding [51840000 +900000

+
ai-5200 a
+ 10 a
X1j
~4000
+ -86000+
86400 ai -
4000
51
a2 + a
160
which can be rewritten as X where so X0 +li1t1d +B2

+
-
160
X1 6 0
(20)
20c+0
-51
23 0 O-64000O 000a+-52.00ci.
~ Talme.
values of
~
240
"600, ar hf
8640
ane ofat3ki ucino a -,51d a. +hvia nleo takI
2*rd1,ar
safucino
Use of Method
The method for predicting isolated body center of pressure is applied as follows:
0, N
jDepending upon the Mach regime, use either Figures 29 or 30 to determine xas a function of I /d and Litd. Linearly interpolate for vola~es of Xo between Mach 1.2 and 1.5.
SUsing Figure 3 determine the rearward shift in center of pressure Add this
between 0 and 20 degrees for the appropriate LId and M. value to the result of Step 1 toadeterziine 3
X .2 0
Calculate the distance from the nose to the centroid of the planform area using
SPN +
S SPA
SpN1 + SPA and where SPN and SPA are the planform areas of the nose and cylindrical sections respectively in the case of a tangent-ogive cylinder body PN V/- 2in + R + R sin -2(R-r) IN
SN P
2 R d
(R 2 -IN 2 ) t2 d
Ps A*
7R
+-1N2RLN
I R2 sin-(R-r)N
and
XA S A
+ z A) 2
(1
d)
Note that
v/
4
66
Equation (17), the results of steps 1, 2,
and SUsing 3, and Figure
32,
calculate the centers of pressure between 0 and 20 degrees. 5 6 I Calculate the slope of x at 160 degrees using Equation (18). Calculate the value of X at 160 degrees using Equation (19) Using Equation (20),the results of Steps 5 and 6, and Figure 53,
calculate the centers of pressure between 160 and 180 degrees. 8 Depending upon the Hach number rL.n-e of interest, determine the variation of X between 'O and a. b. For M For M
(
L6,J
degrees.
> 1.0,
extend a straight line from X2 0 to X160'
1.0, maintain a constant value of X from 20 to
50 degrees and then extend a straight line between the values of x at 50 degrees and 160 degrees. Numerical Example Calculpte X between 0 and 180 degrees at H following characteristics: tN/d. 3.0 tangent
-
2.86 for a body with the
ogive
A /d - 6.0 t/d - 9.0 d - 1.5 inches 1 Interpolating between the values ofFigure 30b and 30c, Xo was calculated to be 1.93 calibers aft of the nose. 2 Using Figure 31, AX/t/d AX = 2.565. X20 a X0 + AX X20 a 4.495
-
0.285 at H - 2.86.
Therefore,
for L/d - 9#
67
For the configuration of Interest xv/2 4.96
Use the following equation ard Figure 32to calculate the centers
"If pressure
x
between 0 and 20 degrees.
A O Xo + A, X20 + A2 X7r/2
a 0 5 10 :5 10 5
Ao 1.0 0.85 0.5 0.15 0.0
Al 0 0.17 0.53 0.88 1.0
A2 0.0 -0.0125 -0.036 -0.04 0.0
x 1.93 2.343 3.169 4.047 4.495
Using the following equation, calculate the slope of the linear variation between Iq and 160 degrees.
I 160
~Xa,
a'6 6
.Xw/ 90
0.0066
O/des
Using the following equation, calculate the value of X at 160 degrees.
X 16 0
' 70
L '-
xa
90
+ x I/
X160
5.425
Using the following equation and Figure 3),calculate the centers of pressure between 160 and 180 degrees. X
oX
60` + B1 t/d + B2 X,, 0
68
Bo
160 165 .170 175 180 8 0.0 2.81 2.5 0.91 0.0
BB2X
0 0.154 0.5 0.846 1.0 1.0 0.846 0.5 0.194 0.0 5.425 5.994 7.229 8.455 9.0
Graphically determine values of connecting X0and
X between 20 and 160 degrees by
X160 with a straight line.
Daaomparisons The results of the numerical example are compared against experimental data from Reference 18 in Figure 34. Because the data were not involved in
the development of the methods, this comparison represents an independent check of the methods. range. Agreement is good throughout the angle of attack
Figures 35, 36, 37 and 38 pre~ent further comparisons with other Again agreement is quite good
experimental data (References 13 and 19).
In all cases, except for the higher angles of attack in Figure 36.
69
to
'Figure 29a. Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (I N/d -3.5)
Figure 29b. Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Attack Centers of Pressure (I /d -2.5)
Figure 29c. Transonic Tangent Ogive-Cylinder Zero Angle of Atac Centers of Pressure
70
-1
-- =
I.-----
---
,I
(a)
I1
6 0 0. 'A'
3~
----4 5
ti1ii
-
3dA
-.-
---
6c 'Av-yidr Fiur 00 Tagn Atac Cetr eoAgeo ofPesr
71d
0.
0.1
h I
, ;713
0.
figumre 31.
Increment
hk Center of Pressure etween Angles of Attack of 0 and 20 Degrees
0.11
AMI:LgL Qf AT"kk i
'Il:t~ls
0.I0
t1Ii
ANUOf ATTArl' DIRIESlS AT!ACK DEEUWFIS
.;O
SOF
0 -0.01
Al,
-0.01 -0.04
figure 32.
Polynowinal Coefficients,
Low Angle of Attack
72
V.1.11
160
170
ISO
ANGLE OF ArTACK
DEGREES
t.6
160 ANGLE Of ATTACK
11010 DEGRKEFS
Figur
33-------lCoficens Anl6fAtc
Hg
73
~o
-1-3.0
'13
0 , 1 100 so 800 AMU OF ATTACK.DIEUS 120
, 140 160 180
Figure 34.
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental Data X, /d,, Mach - 2.86 B ,
14
-4
12-
2. 5
1. 1
4.
-I
7 0-
- - -- -
00
25
""-1LI A(111,[
XIPBd* ach2.2
DIUI
ANGLI OF ATTACK, 08r.2913
Figure 35.
Comparisons Between Predictions and Experimental Data
XCI d, Mach 2.25

B
74
N-
(t
jII
---
0.~
&6-0---
10
1'~~~~-6
PDCT(1
00
20
Figure 36.
40
60
40
to0
120
140
AMU~L0F A1"TACK, OrCEEUS
160
so
Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental Vata
X IP d, Mach
-0.85
0.S (MY 11)

* 2
AE
Me
7.0
OfmD
2C
40
60
so
100
170
140
160
ISO
AWMI 0f ATTAcI.PIGRIS
Figure 37.
Comparisons Between Pred4ictions and Experimental Data XIj /d. Mat-,0.80
75
H(R 3.0
TM
4~ ----IC?,
to0
20
40
60
AMU!
so
OF AMAC,
100
DRrMS
120
140
160
190
Figure 38.
Comparisons Between Predictions and Expe'.imental Data
x CPB/d, Mach
3.0
76
5.1.3
Body Axial Force
Suumary
Methods are presented for predicting CA. coefficient. the isolated body axial force
-
Angle of attack and Mach ranges are 0 - 180 degrees and 0.6 Two methods are used.
3.0, respectively.
In the superronic range a modifiis recommended;
cation of an existing technique due to Jorgensen (Reference 12)
in the transonic range, a new method based on an extension of a previous technique has been constructed. shown to be good. Background An examination of existing methods for calculating body axial force coefficient from 0 - 180 degrees disclosed the following: 1 The method of Jorgensen angle of attack range, 2 The method of Saffell, (Reference 12), is applicable which applies over the entire The overall performance of the methods is
-nly to supersonic Mach numbers. which uses and drag,
Howerd and Brooks (Reference 21), deals with lift
almost the same formulations as Jorgensen,
rather than normal and axial force components. 3 The method of Fidler and Bateman (Reference 3), the angle cf attack range 0 - 90' degrees, transonic speeds. Because of its Jorgensen method, Instead, inconvenience, plus its strong similarity to the which applies over
is applicable to
the work of Reference 21 was not considered further. 'whether the former
References 3 and 12 were examined to deter1n
needed to be improved for supersonic speeds and the latter could be modified to apply from 0
-
180 degrees for transonic speeds. CA is
The supersonic and
transonic ranges are discussed separately. directed towards the base.
taken Positive when
77
wp
1mlii
Method Development (Transonic Mach Numbers) The basic method here is that of Reference 3 which applies from 0 to 90 degrees. C The basic formulation of the prediction equation is:
- C
+ f(M,,)
where f(0,o) - f(0,90) - 0, and CAo 0 C, +,CAase (CA1 includes wave and friction effects)
Charts will be presented for estimating all the quantities required. 'For 90 - 180 degrees, the following formulations were devised empirically,
i.e., by choosing functional forms which are consistent with th. patterns observed in the test data.
CA-CA o
(CA -CA) sin a, it o
9o0<a
a'
<_16o"
(a - 90) deg.
CA -CA
,160 o<_a<_18o0.
17.
The base drag contribution is obtained, from Section 4.2.3.1 of Ref. CA

I
CA for blunt cylinders and is obtained from Reference 6, which Figure 39 is reproduced.
from
Use of the basic and modified formulations of Reference 3 provides the estimates which are compared with data in Figures 40a
-
f.
It
will be seen
that matching is quite good overall and this method is recommended for use. Use of Method LTransonic Mach Numbers) Reetating the basic equations: CA - CA
0
+ f,(M,)
A 0
c A1
'base
78
is obtained from Figures 41a - c as follows:
1From Figures 41a, force coefficient
b, and q determine CAib,
the basic axial
(excluding base drag) at Reb - 15.8 x 10
SFrom the scaling factor CAI/CAlb at the Figure 42 determine

A required Re, then CA CA CA,
1b
CA1 b
3 From Section 4.2.3.1 of Reference 17,
find CAbase
A
A0 f(M,a) is A1 Abase
Aas
a power series containing a and CA, The power series is:
the value of CA at a
700, as a free variable. CA
-. 0 844a + 1.92 a
2 _ 1.4
1.44 a 3-
0.360 a 4+ + 2.419 4
(0.147a - 1.842 a2 + 4.913
For convenience, f(M,a).
Figures 43 and 44 are given which are sufficient co calculate for various CA. Figure 43 presents CA
Figure 44 presents f(M,a)
values for various transonic Mach numbers. follows:
Use of the curves is as
4 At the appropriate M, read CA from Figure 43 5 In Figure 44 estimate f(M,a) over the angle range at the appropriate CA' Numerical Example Calculate the axial force coefficient "ariation between 0 and 180 degrees
for a missile body having a 3 caliber tangent ogive nose followed by a 7 caliber cylindrical section. Mach number Is 1.15. Re =3.8 (10-6)
1 From Figure 41 (intrr;nlating) C

-
0.215.
Cb
79
j From Figure 42, CAI/CA,

C
-
- 1.88
A1
0.215 x 1.88 - 0.405
SFrom 17, CA baeSection 4.2.3.1 of Reference

Hence, CA o CA Abase C 1 + C - 0.455
0.05.
The variation in the axial force coefficient with angle of attack is determined as follows:
0-
90"
M Now H
1.15, hence CA - -0.52 (Figure 43)
.5 a(deg) 0 20 40 60 70 80 90 f Mo, (Fig. 44) 0 -0.11 -0.26 -0.46 -0.52 -0.42 0 CA CA C

+
(M,)
0.455 0.345 0.195 -0.005 -0.065 0.035 0.455 See Figure 41.
8o
90
1600
a (deg)
CA
90 100 110 120 140 160
0.455 0.156 -0.324 -0.664 -1.162 -1.34 See Figure 41e.
160 - 180' C7 CA - -1.34 (Figure 39)
Method of Development (Supersonic Mach Numbers) In Reference 12, equations and charts are presented from which the axial force coefficl-nt on an isolated body may be estimated. used are
2 CA A cos a a -< 90,
The equations
CA w CA
cos 2 (180- c)
90
< a <180O
c% -c
0
The zero-angle coefficient is expressed as:
.c
+c
AW
C ASF
CAase
where CAw, CASE and CAbase are the contributionc due Co forebody pressure, skin friction and base drag, respectively, while the 180 degree coefficient (flat base into flow) is given by: CA as
81
Charts are presented for estimating CA s.
llthe above quantities except
For purposes of the present work, the skin friction was estimated
from Section 4.1.5.1 of Reference '17, assuming a turbulent boundary layer. Predictions of CA over the entire angle of attack range were made using
Ap
the Jorgensen formulations.
Comparisons between predictions and data are It should
shown across the supersonic Hach number range in Figures 45a - d.
be noted that the AEDC wind tunnel data (Reference 13) are uncorrected for base pressure effects. It will be seen that matching is reasonably good, For example, from 0
-
but obvious discrepancies are evident.
90 degrees
the data do not approach zero as predicted. constant or CA increases slightly. crepancies are observable.
They either remain fairly
Also, trom 90 - 180 degrees some dis-
It was decided that a simple modification to the method could easily be accomplished to improve its performance. Based on the formulations
which were found to work for the transonic case, the following empirical equations are used. C A CA," CA A
0
0<< a < 900 (CA - CA ) sin a0
CA o
.90" < a < 160O
m"=(i
CA a CA C A 1600< < 1800
90)
is still obtained from the tenhniques of Reference 12.

0
The results of applying these equations are shown in Figures 45a -. d. Clearly the overall matching is betteT then before. are recommended for use instead of Reference 12. The modified equations
82
Numerical Examle
Estimate the axial force coefficient variation from 0
-
180 degrees for a
miscile body having a 3:1 caliber tangent ogive nose vith a 7:1 caliber cylindrical afterbody. Nov C Mach number is 2.0.
- C
+ CAs? + CAba ss
- 0.357 (Reference 12) CA

w
n -1.66 (Reference 12)
0 90'a 90 100 110 120 140 160
90" 160"
CA n 0.357 160 CA 0.357 -0.092 -0.518 -0.901 -1.46 -1.66 See Figure 45b
-
180
CA
-1.66
83
1.8
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8,
.6
1.0
1.4
1.8 2.2 MACH NUMBER
2.6
3.0
Figure 39. Variation With Mach Number of 180-Degree Axial Force Coefficient (Reference 6)
84
(a)
1.0
0.6
CAB
0 20 60 o00 20 140 160 180 AN1GLE OF ATTACK -DEG.
-1.0
-2.0 (b) M
0.8
'A)
10-
,0
40
F.(0 .
600
100
120
140
160
180
ANGL.E OF
ATTACK
DEG.
-2.0
1.0
PREDTCTTON
DATA (RFF. 1 3)
(c) CA
M - 0.9.
ATTACK -
DEC,.
-1.0
-2.0 Figure 40. Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental ('C (Transonic)
85
1.0
(d)
1.0
cA
0A
20 40 80 10
-.Ir
120
.
140 160 180
-
ANGLE OF ATTACK
DEC.
-2.0
-1.0 (e)
,
- 1.15
20 -1.0
40
60
86
10
120
140
160
180
-DEG.
ANGLE OF ATTACK -1.0
PREDICTION
DATA (REF. 13)

(f) M4-1.30.
A2,0
20 -1.0
40
60
80
10
120
140
160
180
-DEG.
'ANGLE OF ATTACK
-2.
Figure 40. Continued
86
CA
+0.04
e./d
1.4
20
CA
0.4da/
1..2
1.09
0.108
0.
+AI 0.04
22
0.8
175
0.2
(b)
Figure 41.
Curves for Determining CA b
87
C A 1.2,
0.04 t0ld
1.0
10.0 "\
a,'1.2
0.8 0.9 KACH wMa3l
(c)
FiguLo 41.
Continued
4.0
3.0 CA C
2.0
K1~Y?~l~IHIV~ mwEw.
It
l06 1
Figure 42.
Scaling Factor for CA
88
0.6
0
0.'
0.8
MACH NVMSER 0.9 I.4)
I1
Fiure 43.
Variation Ot CA With'Mach Number
0 o
-i
10 20 ol
100
AWLE Of ATTACK , DECREES 0
Ii so
70
81
90
i+
-0.2
....
..
1n2 a-.-.
--0.4 .. . ..
12........
....
L _ ...
. .. . .
....... IJ.
iatio n OrH Ca alculated Nuomb Poer S r e
g re 44.F F
aicur 43 u Vr
i6
89GEO TAC
ERE
I30i
I6I 10
I70 20I
I80i
5I
90
IMF
(An
ANCLE Of ATTACX VWG
t0A
AW.L
Ar
?AC X
00
* 2. (d) X-3.0
~~0
D~ATAMay1. I.
20
40
60
8()
20
140
160
an0
-i.00
Figure 45. COmipaI,~Olson Between Predictio n Expe Irimental CAB (Supn-raonic) nAd
90
5.1.4
Fin Normal Force
Sumary
The normal force coefficient of an isolated tal! panel CNT, can be pie-
NT
dicted by the empirical methods de loped in Reference 2 and extended by the correlations presented in this section. The applicable range of the methods
is nov:
Angle of attack Mach number Aspect ratio Taper ratio 0 to 180 degrees 0.60 to 3.0 < 2'.0 0 to 1.0
Comparisons between predictions and test data show generally good agreement, normal force coefficient being predicted usually well within 10 percent.
Background This method allows the normal force coefficient of low aspect ratio fins to be calculated for angles of attack from 0 to 180 degrees and for Mach numbers ranging from 0.6 to 3.0. presented in Reference 2, additional test data. The method is an extension of the method
Section 3.3.1, made possible by the acquisition of the method consists of two operations: and 2) a procedure to extend
Typically,
1) a procedure to eetimate CNT up to 30 degrees, the estimate to 90 degrees. It is
shown that a mirror image of the curve so At supersonic Mach numbers the test data
obtained provides a good estimate to 180 degrees. greater than about 2.!, a single procedure is adequately within 10 percent. Method Development
shown to fit
A full development of this method is contained in Reference 2. of that material will be included here for completeness.
A portion
91
The flow about low aspect ratio fins at ,nglea of att, a few degrees is characterized by non-linear phenomena thlw by linear tbeory techniques. Techniques have been dev-'
gre-ater than :annot be described
pet; for prediction
of the aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect rae.i,3 fin3 in the presence of upper surface vortices, e.g., References 22, 23, 24, 25. However, for
the general case where vortices, both coherent and burst, and a laminar separation bubble are present (Reference 26), methods are not available. The method developed here is derived from the popular crossflow drag based methods as typified by Reference 23 which employs the formulation:
2
CN
C1 ', + C2 a
(21)
In this expression C1 is the zero angle of attack normal force curve slope and C2 is a constant chosen to force the expressi.;n to fit experimental data. This equation may be regarded as a truncated power series in a. It contains two constants, it condition, (CN)
-
Since
should fit two boundary conditions on CN, the One condition is This
0 having already been satisfied.
that (a CN/&a)a.6 must equal the normal force curve slope at a'0. determines C1 .
The second :ondition, the one determining the value of C2 , is
usually chosen so that the experimental data are fitted at some high angle of attack. The expression is then reasonably accurate up to that angle of attack, In the
provided that the curvature of the data curve always has the same sign.
general case, an expression such as Equation (21) cannot adequately describe the shape of the normal force curve above a few degrees angle of attack. Since this form of solution leaves many boundary conditions unsatisfied, an obvious means of improving this situation is to retain the power series form of expansion, but to include as many terms as the boundary condicions permit.
92
Si\ boundary conditions are identified for use in a more general expression for along with a comment as to the basis for the chosen value. CNT(O)
CNTO) CNT((w)
-
- 0. theoretical and empirical theoretical 0, empirical
aW
cLa (0)
CNTa(w/2) - 0
CNT (w/2) from test data is set to zero on the basis of linear theory predic-
The quantity CNT(0)
tions as well as test data whereas the values of the other five quantities are based on a review of test data. As indicated below, the resulting power series i.e., CNRT (0)
Is expressed in terms of the two non-zero boundary conditions, and CNT(w/2). Power Series Solution
With the six boundary conditions available, a power series containing six unknown coefficients may be used. the form: CNT(a) - E An an 0 (22) The power series is assumed to be of
from which. with the aid of the boundary conditions, A) through A5 may be determined.
the six unknown constants
Substitution of boundary conditions and
rearrangement of the equation yields:
CN(a) - CN.y (o) 0 + 16 cNT 2(,/2)

+ 8 CNT.(O) a 32 CNT(w/2) 3 03
.2
16 CT(N /2) in radians.
(0)(O) CNTN
a(23) 3
where a is
93
Trj facilitate computation of the power series, Equation (23) has been rearranged in the form: CNr(a)
-
A(e)CNT (0) + B(a)CNT(w /2)
(24)
where the values of A(a) and B(a) as a function of angle of, attack are shown in Figure 46. The term CNT a(0) must be obtained from linear theory or Reference 27 from which Figures 47a through 47d are taken . The CNT(w/2) term is obtained
through comparison of CNT(a) with experimental data. The quantity CN(w/2) is empirically derived and presented in Figure 48. It is Important to note that the numerical values assigned to the boundary condition CNT(w/2) are not actual normal force data but rather expediently chosen numbers which produced good agreement in the angle of attack range between 0 and 30 degrees. Even so, this approach does not work uniformly
for all geometries and Kach numbers and yet another device is required to complete the portion of the model up to 30 degrees. Toward this end a
quantity a' is defined which marks the upper bound angle of attack to which Equation 24 applies. If the value of a' found in Figure 49 is less than 30
degrees, then the value of CNT for a between a' and 30 degrees is obtained by adding an increment (ACN) to the value of CNT obtained at a'. That is,
for angles of attack between a' and 30 degrees, let: C *-a + Act S=I
where:
'&CN = (ACN
ACN is an empirically determined factor (Figure 50) ranging required.
The quantity ACNfcN1
irom 0 to 1 indicating the fraction of the maximum correction (ACNM)
The quantity ACNM is an empirically determined parameter (Figure 51) representing
94
the laigeat difference found between the CNT calculated at any a' and the test values at a - 30 degrees.
Use of Method
The normal force coefficient method consists of Equation (23) or (24),

together with values of CN( (w/2) from Figure 48, supplemented with additional The following steps
information from Figures 49 through 51 where required. must be adhered to. 1 2 3 Calculate CNT a(0) using Figures 47a Find CNT(w/2)
-
47d (or wAR/2'for lowest AR's)
from Figure 48. interpolating where necessary (If a' go
Calculate CNT(a) up to a' as obtained from Figure 49. 30 degrees, calculations ore now complete. on to Step 4). If
a' < 30 degrees,
4,
For Mach numbers under consideration, various (a - a')/(30 -'ai)
obtain values of ACN/ACNMat
from Figure 5C.
From Figure 51 find ACNM; use this to calculate values of ACN and distribute these over the a range from a' to 30 degrees.
Numerical Example Two examples illustrate application of the method. Calculate the variation of normal force coefficient with angle of attack to 30 degrees for a wing as follows: AR - 0.52,
A- 0, M - 0.8
1CNTO(O) - wAR/2 - 0.819 from Slender Body Theory

-CNT(/2) 2.4 (Figure 48)
Figure 49, a' - 30 degrees,
hence calculate f(a) up to this value.
95
Using Equation (23), a (des) 5 10 15 20 25 30
the following table may be constructed: CT-) 0.091 0.216 0.368 0.541 0.727 0.927 A comparison between these values and experimental data taken from Reference 24 is shown In Figure 52. Also shcnm is the result of applying the method of Reference 17. The present method yields better matching with data.
Calculate the variation of normal force coefficient with angle of attack to 30 degrees for a wing as follows: AR - 2.0, A o 1.0, N -0.98 CNTa(0), - 3.04 (Figure 47a) CNT(w/2) - 3.6 (Figure 48) From Figure 49, a' = 12 degrees, which is < 30 degrees; hence, C% is calculated ouly up to a
*
12 degrees:
a (deg)
5
CNT
0.28
10
12
0.568
0.689 Therefore, from Figure 50,
4 Figures 50 and 51 must be used for a > 12 degrees. a table of ACN/CI (aa')/(
3
0-a') is constructed:
(0-e')/(3o-0') AC N/Ac
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 .0 0.47 0.69 0.83 0.93 1.0
96
. .. . .
S...
mm e
I | m
Nov a'
12 degrees, and from FigureSi.
ACN
- 0.41, hence ACN and a may be
calculated.
(a-a') des adog AC_ CN
0 3.6 7.2 10.8 14.4 18
12 15.6 19.2 22.8 26.4 30
0 0.193 0.283 0.341 0.382 0.41
.689 .882 .972 1.030 1.071 1.099
The most direct way to obtain the normal curve is to draw CNTUP to c' and then add on the remaining CN increments. experimental data in Figure 53. One further check case is shown in Figure 54 for a fin of AR - 0.86, A - 0.4, and M - 1.02. Again data matching is quite good. These data were This curve is compared with
obtained from Reference 28. Extension of Method to 90 Degrues In extending the method to 90 degrees angle of attack, a second power series is used along with data (References 5 and 29) at angles between 30 degrees and 90 degrees. Due to the lack of detailed high angle data at
low supersonic speeds, it has not been possible to check the method at all' Hach numbers. However, check cases using the high angle transonic data
referred to earlier have shown the method to yield reasonable accuracy. The procedure used to extend the method to 90 degrees introduces a series (similar to Equation (23)) which joins the curve for CNT at 30 degrees to the point at 90 degrees (CN ., Experimental values of CN.c from transonic
tests on the fins described in Reference 2, axd supersonic values from
97
Reference 6 combine to produce the curve in Figure 55. Boundary conditions used in construction of the new series are: 1 At a - 30 degrees, CNT( this method. 2 At a - 30 degrees, CNT of Equation (23). C Ca (0) + 2 may be determined from the differential form 5 C (0
30
) may be determined from the first part of
CNT
+3
+ 8 CNTa(O)
w2
32 CNT(w/2')
ra
2'
116 CNT(w/2) 4
4 3
aT(0) 3 a
with a - 0.523 rads (30 degrees) for N > 1. For Steps 1 and 2, however, values of CNT( 3 0) and CNTa(
30
) have been
obtained from the experimental data and are given in Figures 56 and 57, respectively. 3 At a
-
90 degrees, CN
is determined from experimental data as shown
in Figure 55. 4 At a - 90 degrees, 3CN/a a - 0
Using these boundary conditions in the series of Equation (22) yields:
C(a) + +
+1
1.178111 CNTa(30) + CNT(w/2) - CNT(30) + CNT(30)
3.7501 Cjrs(30)
-3.342356
-4.29731[CNT(7r/2)
-CNT3O)]
-
a
a3 (25)
CNT a(30) + 5 471487 IICNT(w/2) 1.I-,, 2
CNT(30)]1 m2
3 0.911921 CVTa ( 0)
CNT(w/2)
C2(30)
98
It should be noted that Equation (25) has been reevaluated and the constants are somewhat different from those in Reference 2. For ease in calculating CNT(a) from 30-90 degrees, (25) has been rearranged as follows: CNT - C(a) CNT(30) + D(a) CNc + E(a) CNT (30) (26) the form of Equaticn
with the three terms, C(a), D(a), and E(a) shown in Figure 58 as a function of angle of attack.
Use of Method (30" < a 5900)

Between 30 and 90 degrees angle of attack, the method is used as follows: 1 I 3 4 Find CNT(30) from Figure 56 Find CNT,(30) from Figure 57. Determine CNc from Figure 55 Calculate CNT(a) using Equation (25) or (26)
It is recommended that "N be calculated from Equati,)n (25) or (26) beginning at a = 50 degrees and that the portions of the curve from 0 - 30 degrees and from 50-90 degrees be faired together. As an example, the variation from
0 to 90 degrees angle of attack is calculated for a fin having aspect ratio 1.0 and taper ratio 1.0 at a Mach number of 1.10: CNc - 1.42 (Figure 55) C CNTa( 3 0) - 1.98 (Figure 57) CNT(30) - 1.23 (Figure 56) Substituting the above values In Equation (26) yields: CNT 1.23 C(a) + 1.43 D(a) + 1.98 E(a)
99
I1
This equation to used to construct the following table:

a (deg)
Nlt1 CU
50 60
70
80 90
1.589 1.589 1.532 1.463 1.430
The comparison between these estimates and the high angle data (Reference 5) is .does shown in Figure 59. While, exact matching is not achieved, the curve
follow the data quite well. The method as doscribed has been found to require a minor modification
for fins of taper ratio 0 and aspect ratio 1.0 when Mach number is 1.0.
less than
When estimating the normal force coefficient of an isolated fin having suggested.
this geometry at M < 1.0 the following modification to the method is i) ii) Use the first part of the method,
as described, up to a a 30 degrees
Instead of using the second power series given by Equation (25) or Equation (26) below: Estimate ACT for angles between 30 and 40 degrees from Figure 60 and add to the value at a - 30, from (i) above. for fairing from 3090 degrees follow the steps
Fair the curve from the value at 40'd-erees to the 90 degree value, CNC from Figure 55.
Example
Estimate values of CNT between 30 and 40 degrees for an isolated fin of taper ratio 0, aspect ratio 1.0 at M - 0.9. From Figure 60, the portion AB of the curve is i.e., used exactly as shown,
add the increment taken from AB directly to the value cslcuated at The portlen BC of the curve applies between a 35 and 40
-
a a 30 degrees.
degrees and must be scaled by the factor 0.78 (Figure 60b).
Between a
35
100
and 40 degrees the incrinent is equal to the product of the scale factor and dB.- The resulting curve is shown in Figure 61. at the value of CN Point "A" must now be placed
at 30 degrees from (i) above, and the curve from point "C"
must be faired to CNT at 90 degrees. Extension of Method to 180 Degrees Angle of Attack The availability of additional test data on low aspect ratio tail panels to 180 degrees angle of attack has permitted the prediction methods to be extended to this now range. The validity of the method in the transonic and
low supersonic speed range is further demonstrated in Figure 62 and Figure 63. In these figures, the prediction method employs the pover series of Equation (24) up to 30 degrees angle of attack, and Equation (26) from 50 to 90 degrees, with the curve faired from 30 to 50 degrees as described earlier.' Note that
teat data from 90 to 180 degrees are plotted on these figures, indicating near symmetry of the data about 90 degrees angle of attack. The prediction is
shown to closely approximate test data over the angle of attack range from 0 to 180 degrees. A typical application of the method at subsonic speeds, H 0.6, End
from 0 to 180 degreea angle of attack is shown in Figure 66 indicating the prediction nuethod used for the'various segments of the curve. The data are
again seen to be nearly symmetrical about 90 degrees and closely approximated by the prediction methods. Extension of Prediction Methods to H
-
3.0
Supersonic test data to Mach 3.0 and 180 degrees angle of attack for the family of low aspeLt ratio, low trper ratio panels were examined for compatibility with the prediction methods used for the subsonic and transonic cases. It should be noted here that durinn supersonic tests some of the isolated
panels on the reflection plane encountered flow separation when the fins were
101
nearly normal to the flow.
The fins behaved like forward facing steps, with Here the CN value at 90 degrees was obtained
the result that CN was reduced.
from the flat plate data of Figure 55 and the test data were faired through the apparent separation region. Zxamination of the developed methods indicate that as the curve fit parameter CNT(w/2) of Figure 48 approximates the actual value of normal force at 90 degrees, CC , of Figure 55. and single power series method of Equation (24) should adequately predict the variation of CNT with alpha. Typical
examples will be presented at Mach 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 to illustrate the capabilities of the two power series approach, and to show that the single power series of Equation (24)
is a reasonable prediction method as the Mach number

The mirror image characteristic of the is also evident from the test data, permitting
approaches the 2.5 to 3.0 range. supersonic data about 90 deg',ee
the prediction to be applied to 1$0 degrees at these Mach numbers. A typical configuration example will be examined at Mach 2.0 where the value of CNT(w/2) is somewhat larger than CNC. In this case, the two power
series approach yields a very good match with test data as seen in Figure 65. Had the method of Equation (24) been extended above 30 degrees the equation would have predicted a value of CNT(W/2) which at this Mach number would be somewhat high. This and other test cases indicate that at Mach 2.0 the prediction in order
should include both power series, Equation (24) and Equation (26). to obtain the best data fit.
At Mach 2.5 the requirement for using the two segment prediction method begins to disappear as the values of CNT(w/2) and CNc start to converge. typical example of a single curve fit from Equation (24) and is seen to reasonably match the test data. A
is ahown in Figure 66,
The dashed line of Figure 66
102
shows that the curve fit
can be improved slightly by the application of the from 50-90 degrees angle of attack. In
second power series, Equation (26), general,
the single curve fit, Equation (24),
should begin to be acceptable
at this Mach number and above. The application of the single power series, Equation 24, prediction method at Kach 3.0 is shown in Figure 67 and Figure 68 for two typical tail panel configurations, indicating good agreement with test dats.
103
Pop"
0.1-
A(s)
0.08
0.12
0.04
__
__
00 1.0 20 AI 40 ;0 s0 OF ATTACK - DtGRENS ,. t0o
0.8
0.6 IWo 0.4
0.2
0 0 20 40 60
SOP 0 AOMACK - DM5AS

Figure 46.
80
100
Power Series Parameters for Equation (24)
104
2.0
Alt Tan A1.
1/22
AM, A
-To
CT s
b----
-0.6~
--
-t---------,--
0.4
LbC AN(;AlAn AI
Is
---/ .--.
T. 0l a
~1/2 ~
2
-~
H, /
-,-
-0.
-6-
~0.A
10
Figure 7c. Lif
Curve
lope
Afo Ta pe I Ra i
2./2
.2
1.
1/
e1:2
-121-
0.0
0.2.
Sub
w-ni c
u eroi
Figure 47c. Lift Curve Slope for Taper Ratioa 0.05
106 C7
4.0~~
____
____ - 0..
AR -1.
AR
0.4
0.8
1.2
2.0 1.6 MACH NUMBER
2.4
2.8
3.2
4.0
_____
Mr
(w/2)
MACH NUMBER
4.0
__
C (w/2) NT
----
20
MACH NUMBER
Figure 48.
Variation-of CNT(if/2) With Mach Number
107
30
20
AR
%Deg --
2.0 10 0.5 1.0
Figure 49.
a', Angle of Attack Above Which ACN Must Be Applied (Subsonic Only)
/0
108
1.0
a AC x 1
t.0
,
--
I w1.0.
MACH
---
0.5
A -a'
0.5
1.0
1.0 ACN
ANM
0.5
0*,F
1.0
MACH
0.9
-0.8
0.5
ol
0
0
cl-a'
0.5
1.0
4AC
0.0
~e . .. ......
J4
1.0 ACH
ACNM
0.5
A_
-I
.
-
0.8 and 0.9
a - M' 0,5
1.0
30- cx Figure 50. Dimensionless CN Increment Above a'
109
.1
U
0.6
I ASPECT RATIO
02
.,
/
-.
0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

TAPER RATIO, A
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure 51.
ACN
Matimum Increment of Normal Force Above a' (Subsonic Only)
TEST METHOD, THIS TEXT OF REF. METHOD , 17
1.3 N -0.8 O.S ., A -0
C T 0.6
0.4
0.2
10 ANLE OF ATTACK
20 DECREES
30
Figure 52.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CNT Mach - 0.8
110
1.0
0.,
0. 6
. ......
0.,
0.2
--
0,
10
20 ANGLE OP ArTACK . DEREES
30
Figure 53.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CNT, Mach - 0.98

N - 1.02 AR -0.86 1-0.4
1.2
1.0
0N
a 0.6
TEST ME1THOo.D Y
0.6
0.2,
0 0 10 20 ANGLE OF AMACK DICRIMS 30
Figure 54.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CNT, Mach = 1.02 11
.0
d'
112.
AR
(b)
2.0
1.4 .
%IT630)
o8 0
1.0
1.-2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Figue5. Va
1.
b3
T..
MACK UM
O.S
0.8
1.0
1.2
)AIl....
R
x.o aw.
"
1.6
1.0 2
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 56.
With Mach Number, a 113
Variation of Normal Force Coefficient CNT0,
30 DegreesT
cN
T
(30)
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.
MACH NUMBER
41
CNT (30)
A-0.5
0 1.0
-L
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
HACH NUMBER,
4
cN (30)
2
-
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2,
MACH NUMBER Figure 57. Variation of CN T (30) With Mach Number
114 ':
0.2
D(a) 0. 6 ,, (a) Z D~
0.40
30
40
50
60
70
DEGREES
80
90
ANGLE OF ATTACK
1.20
0.
___
30
40
50 60 70 ANGLE OF ATTACK DEGREES
80
90
Figure 58.
Power Series Parameters for Equation (26)
115
S2.0
Al *1.0 At1. N. - 11
-1o
1.2
CV
-0.6So ,0.8__lg110,
0 DATA
1 2)or 1(26)
0.4
gu20
40
60
.
80 DEREES
100
ANGL9 OF ATTACK
Figure 59.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CNT From 30 to 90 Degreer
0.1
A 6%C
7r
b) SCALE FACTOR
0.6 -0. 0
0.2
-0.2
___
29
36 32 OF ATTACK ' DEGREES ANGLE
40
0.r
NVSER MACU
Figure 60.
Curves for Modifying CN Method (A-0, AR-1.0, Subsonic)
H -0.9 SCALE FACTOR -0.78 aCN, a 8C Scale Factor
28
32
36
40
ANGLE OF ATTACK, ORGRES
Figure 61.
An Example Using ACN
116
2.0 -MACH
1-0
--
AR-0. 5 ALS,82.87 Degrees '1
S1.6
1.2
0.8
TEST,
*-0+90 Degrees
0TEST, 0z.9O+l8ODegrees
PLOTTED VS. o.4 --(180-e) METHOD, EQ.(24) and EQ. (26)
20
40 ANGLE OF ATTACK,
60 DEGREES
o0
1on
2.0 MACH
- 1.3
ARw 0.5
_
1.6
....
1.2
0.~~~
* 0.4
-
TES T,
o me r s
TEST, a-90-*180 Degreet PLOTTED VS. (180-C) METHOD, EQ.(24)AND(26)
20
40
60 DEGREES
80
100
ANGLE OF ATTACK,
Figure 62.
Comparison of Method and Test,
CoqT at M - 1.0 and 1.3 (A - 0, AR -05)
117
MACH-1.0
ARL0. 5 X-0.5
1.0 A
69
.4 legrees
0.8____
A
0.4 I
SHADED SYMB., a-904o18o PLOTTED VS. (180-a) -METHD, QQ.(24) AND (26)
20
40
60 DEGREES
80
100
ANGLE OF ATTACK,
2.0
MACH-1.3 S AR,,1.0
']
'
1.6
A,,O0
1.2 cb
UNT
H 0 . d1 T
A
oOPEN
SYM., a-"O90
SHADED SYM.,
0.4
o'90+o180
/ !
f(180-Q)(26),, PLOTTED __MEIUOD. EQ. (24)AND
O Figure 63.
20
40
60 DEGREES
80
100
ANGLE OF ATTACK,
Comparison of Method and Test, CNT at

M - 1.0 (A - 0.5, AR - 0.5) and M- 1.3 (X - 0.0, AR - 1.0)
118
AII
C,,
044o
1-4 C
C-0i
011
U
E1-4t
w1
0 wI
10,1
-U
119
2.0
iACH-2.0
1.6
LaMla
,z__
__.__
1.2
SLO
0.8DATA
PREDICTION:
(.EP 13) EQ.(24)
--
EQ.(26) 5Oto 90 Degree@
to 30 Degrees
0.4
20
40
60
s0
100
180
140
160
180
ANGLE OF ATTACK, DECREES
Figure 65.
2.0-
Comparison of Test and Method, Mach- 2.0 (CNT)
MACH-2.5
-O.AR-2.0
1.6
____
1.2
C 0NT
TEST DATA (RET
13)
0.4
' -- -EQ. (26)
4020
60
80
100
120
140
ANGLE OF ATTACK, DEGREES Figure 66. Comparison of Test and Method, M 2.5 (CNT)
120
Ill
Ill
Hill
24MC-3.0'
AR.r. 0
s~z
I TEST DATA (REP. 13)""
CI
EQ. 24
0 .4
''
..
..
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
ANGLE OF ATTACK. DEGREES
Figure 67.
2.0 4ACH-3.0 -r-
Comparison of Test and Method, Mach (CNT), A - 1.0, AR- 1.0 A-0 0
3.0
1.2 CWT o
0 TEST DATA (REF. 13)

EQ. 24
0.4
.I
,.
OEI
20
40
60
80
100 DEGREES
120
140
160
ANGLE OF ATTACK,
Figure 68.
Comparison of Test'and Method, Mach (CNT), X = 0.0, AR = 1.0
3.0
121
5.1.5 Summary
Fin Chordwise Center of Pressure
A method is presented to predict XCpT, the chordwise center of pressure for low aspect ratio fins. The method is valid for angles of
attack up to 180 degrees, and for Mach numbers in the range of 0.60 to 3.0. The method is an extension of the method presented in Reference 2, Section
3.3.2, and was made possible by the additional test data of Reference 13. The correlation method is shown to predict satisfactorily center of pressure location on typical missile fins. The results of this study apply to
isolated lifting surfaces as well as to undeflected wings or tails fixed to missile bodies. in Reference 2. The latter assertion is based on comparisons presented 1) A
The method is divided into two main divisions:
procedure for estimating chordwise center of pressure at angles of attack to 90 degrees, and 2) A procedure for extending the estimates for angles between 90 and 180 degrees. Background The development of the first part (a is contained in Reference 2. here for completeness. Three basic theories: 1) Slender body theory, 2) Strip theory, and
-
0 to 90 degrees) of the method
A portion of that material will be included
3) Linear (fin alone) theory, are currently used in predicting chordwise center of pressure. These theories have been found to provide fair results However, as angle of attack is increased beyond Slender
at low angles of attack.
the linear lift curve slope region the results become erroneous.
body and strip theory have been combined in developing a method for predicting chordwise ceit.er of pressure of a fin that is attached to a
122
cylindrical body.
For a triangular fin, Reference 30 shows that all three
methods give essentially the same results for the chordvise center of pressure of a fin in the presence of the body. This might have been ex-
pected, since the presence of a body induces an upwash that changes fin loading in the spanwise direction, thus having little effect on the chordwise load distribution. Reference 30 also showed that the fin alone linear
theory is best for representing the chordwise center of pressure of low aspect ratio fins. However, due to the inability of this theory to predict additional
accurately fin center of pressure beyond the region of linear lift, prediction methodology in this area obviously is needed. Method Development
To generate the methods, center of pressure chordwise location for a tail alone was calculated from normal force and hinge moment tcst data (References 13 and 31). These tests featured isolated tail panels mounted
on reflection planes that were deflected (rotated) throughout a range of a - 0 to 180 degrees. Mach 0.60 to 3.0. ratios 1.0). The Mach number range of these test data is from
Tail panel geometric parameters include three aspect (A - 0.0, 0.5 and
(AR - 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0) and three taper ratios
The chordwise center of pressure location is referenced to the Juncture
of the tail panel leading edge and reflection plane, and the resulting center of pressure is non-dimensionalized on the basis of panel root chord. The data were analyzed for similarities and significant parameters, knowing that the expression for the location of the center of pressure is, in general,
X c..P.
CR
X C_.
R O X, , AR). (27)
123
||Val
Examinatlon of the data showed that AR was the least significant of the above parameters. This implies that the dependency of hinge moment on AR Keeping in mind
is due to the dependency of normal force on this quantity. that AR is not a strong parameter,
the expression for XCP is defined as a CR
function of a and A at selected values of AR and Mach 0.98. The description of the method proceeds as follows. Presented first is
the technique used to correlate the variation in center of pressure position with angle of attack at a fixed Mach number (basic Mach 0.98) for various combinations of aspect ratio and taper ratio. It is noted that the variation 90, 0
<
with a is subdivided into four subsets consisting of; a

90"< a < 1600and 160%< a < 1800.
a < 90,
Following tte correlation at M - 0.98, a technique is presented which permits calculation of the XCP for Mach numbers between 0.6 and 3.0.
Region I (a - 90-deaes)
The chordwise center of pressure of a tail panel at 90 degrees can be thought of cs the focal point or basis for the correlaticn method. The
aerodynamic loading of a tal! panel positioned normal to the flow (a - 90 degrees) is considered to be uniform. To the extent that this is true, In
xc
C9CR
of the tail will coincide with the centroid of the panel area.
addition, this relationshLp should be independent of Mach number. 13 and 31 show this assessment to be valid. tail panel can be seen in Figure 69.
References
The test data for a A w 0.5 the area centroid of the Therefore,
As shown,
panel and center of pressure nearly coincide at a - 90 degrees.
at a - 90 degrees the chordwise center of pressure (XcP/CR) will be determined by the area centroid. For a nonswept tailing edge planform,
124
area centroid is only a function taper ratio as shown in Figure 70. It should be noted here that boundary layer separation occurred on the reflection plane in front, of the cails during some of the supersonic tests when the fins were nearly normal to the flow. The fins behaved like
forward facing steps, with the result that the CNT data is rendered meaningless and so was discarded. To fill the gap,the data from the subsonic
tests, where separation did not occur, were supplemented with supersonic data from Reference 6 on flat plates normal to the stream in place of the supersonic test data where separation occurred. The latter data proved to
be compatible with the data generated during Martin Marietta test programs. Region II (a < 90 degrees) Examination of the a = 0 to 180 degree data, as shown in Figure 69, shows a smooth variation in 'center of pressure in the vicinity of a - 90 degrees. The method used for predicting Xcp/CR at angles of attack below This procedure has been extended
90 degrees was presented in Reference 2.
in Mach number and will be restated for completeness. The relationship between X P/CR and a is plotted in Figure 71
for the three test aspect ratios (AR - 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0) at the basic Mach number 0.98.
Mach number effects on XCP/CR must be included in such a

-
manner that will allow its influence to vanish at a
90 degrees.
Thus,
for
the region a < 90 degrees, the chordwise center of pressure is given by: X -90u. Xc [1 + F(Hach)] (28)
190a<90
<90
fj
125
'Ri
Therefore, at any angle of attack less than 90 degrees,
the difference is
in XCP/CR between the particular a in question and that at 90 degrees, subtracted from the 90 degree (centroid of area) value. F(Mach) is equal to zero. For Mach 0.98,
Center of pressure variations for Mach numbers
other than 0.98 will be discussed following the complete range (a - 0 to 180 degrees) of angle of attack effects. It should be noted that Equation
28 has been revised slightly from its presentation in Reference 2 due to evaluation of additional test data in Reference 13. Region III (a > 90 to 160 dearees) Upon close examination of the test data (Reference 13 and 31) it was
found that a linear variation could be adopted between a - 90 and 160 degrees. Thus, the magnitude of XCP/CR for each end condition (a - 90 and 160 The value of XCF/CR at a - 90 degrees, as pre-
degrees) will be required.
viously stated, coincides with the panel centroid of area. o XCP/CR at a
The value of
160 degrees for the basic Hach aumber 0.98 can be obtained Although the value of XCP/C at a - 90 degrees is not. This Hach (a < 90
directly from Figure 71.
independent of Mach number,
the value at a - 160 degrees is
number variation, while differing from that associated with region II degrees), also will be forthcoming.
Region IV (a > 160 to 180 degrees) For the region between 160 and 180 degrees angle of attack a power series approach was used in lieu of the graphical type solution of region II (a < 90 degrees). Test data indicate that tail normal force and hinge thus center of pressure is
moments are linear from a - 175 to 180 degrees; constant.
Chordwise center of pressure data for a - 175 to 180 degrees are
presented in Figure 72 and are the basis for the second half (a > 90 degrees)
126
of the correlation method.
A power series solution was used in establishing
the center of pressure variation between the two angles of attack (a m 160 to 175 degrees). Upon examination of the available test data in this region a third order series equation was considered satisfactory and in the usual way boundary conditions were sought. Magnitudes of XCP /C at a 160 and 175 degrees were used to fix both ends of the curve. The slopes of XCP/CR at these end conditions, viz.,
Cal_t"a160
X CP
1.70
X C?
CR =90
ac
at
m0 o,
n
and
- 0 at a - 175%
were used as the third and fourth boundary conditions.
Applying these boundary conditions to the following power serles:
XCP/C R
A + AI a + A2
+A 3 +
(29)
yielded the equation:
XCi?
,XC .
D
C1
where B(a)-
la15+ 0
112.75928
-
/' Xcp R Is>9016 I~~C

22
FRIT.
0
CRI (70 180)7t
F
(30) J(0
81.4741(a) + 14.58789(a 2)
C(a)
-32.57471 +
.32S92(a)
3.81911(a 2 )
a>90
a-175
o a-160
XCPj
IM16o'
E
CR1. 1 60 M-O,98 'cR/
127
The A LXO/CR) that Mach 0.98.
term accounts for Mach number effects at Mach numbers other It should be noted that Mach number corrections are
limited to the term XCP/CR at 160 degrees in equation 30 because XCP/CR at 175 degrees (Figure 72) is already Mach number dependent. Values of Thus equation
-
Ba) and C(a) versus angle of attack are given in Figure 73.
30 permits calculation of Xcp/CR as a function of a in the range from a 160 to a - 175 degrees., Effect of Mach Number Variation on XCE/CR
The influence of Mach number on the center of pressure has been accounted for by two methods. region, i.e., These methods are dependent upon the angle of attack This results from the fact
a < 90 degrees or a > 90 degrees.
that the center of pressure is
independent of Hach number at a - 90 degrees.
Effect of Mach Number Variation at a < 90* For angles of attack below 90 degreesthe effect of Mach number is presented as a percent change in the basic (A X /C ) 90 value of equation CF R a< P (28). It is recalled that the basic v =,Jvalue, which represents the
"R 4<90
increment in XCP/CR existing between a corresponds to the basic Mach 0.98. F(Mach) of equation (28),
-
90 degrees to any a < 90 degrees,
The Mach number variation parameter
which is determined by the measured difference in is shown in Figure 74
Xcp/C
between Mach 0.98 and the other Mach numbers,
as a function of aspect ratio.

degrees,
Thus, for angles of attack less than 90
the basic XCP/C Rvalue can be modified to reflect the effects of
Mach number from Mach 0.6 to 3.0. Effect of Mach Number Variation at a > 900 Mach number variations of XCP/CR for angles of attack greater than 90 degrees are accounted for in a slightly different manner. As previously
128
mentioned,
the value of XC
/C
in equation
(30)'is not Mach number
-CF R L-160 dependent and must be modified to include the effect of Mach number. is accomplished by adjusting the basic X, /C This
CF
value at a - 160 degrees as
follows:
1CP
XC
1
IXC
.160 M-0.98 \kCR T
60'
CR
The A (XcP/CR)
term, which is merely an increment applied to the basic
value of center of pressure at a - 160 degrees, was determined by fairing a curve through the measured difference between X
ICR at M - 0.98'and
M > 0.98 for a
160 degrees.
The magnitude of al(XCP/CR)for Mach> 1.0 is

required. accounted for as
shown in Figure 75.
For Mach < 0.98 no correction is
The effect of Mach number at a - 175 degrees is shown in Figure 72. Thus,
the correction for Mach number at a - 160 degrees
completes Mach number variation for angles of attack greater than 90 degrees. Use of Method This section will demonstrate the use of the method in predicting XCp/CR for angles of attack from 0 to 180 degrees at M - 1.15 where the physical characteristics of the fin are: AR - 1.0
-0.5
This will be
First a general description of the method will be presented. followed by a numerical example. experimental data.
The results i.Ul be compared against
129
IIIII
it
Calculate XCP/CR at a - 0 to 90 degrees:

a Using Figure 70 find Xcp/CR at a - 90 degrees;
Using Figure 71 find XCp/CR at desired angle of attack; at the desired anglo of attack by ,c Calculate (A X /CR) -C90 C b using the following expression
(
d
R!. 1 OuggoCR
CW9
CIL cIC90
desired Using Figure 74 find the function FQKach) at tt Mach number;
Using equation (28) calculate XCp/CR;

-CP
XCP, Ca=90
IA XCP
ac<90
l + F(Mach)].
Calculate XCP/CR at a'> 90 to 180 degrees: a b c d a o go degrees; Use value from 1(a) above for XCP/CR at a Using Figure 71 find Xcp/CR at a - 160 degrees; Using Figure 72 find XI/C at a - 175 degrees; "CF R Mach number; Using Figure 75 find &1 (XCp!CR) for desired Calculate XCP/CR at a as follovs
-
160 for desired Miach number
1-d
f Calculate (A -XCP
60
"+,
X M-0.98 as follows C.) a a>90 CP . Xc XCpI.,
,C
0>90
M.175
0;mu160
130
Calculate initial slope at a - 160 degrees;
CP
xCP
Initial Slop.e
h t x
Xe-17
a-160
L (70/180)w
"90O J
Using Figure 73 find B(a) and C(a) at desired a; Calculate XCP/CR using equation 30 + B~a)
C>Q
90
+ C(a),
a-160____
C
a__90_
(70/180)
SUsing XCP/CR the results of steps 1 and 2 combined with

for a - 90 degrees, the chordwise center of pressure for a given fin can be determined throughout an angle of attack range of a - 0 to 180 degrees. Numerical Example Following are the results obtained when the previous procedures are applied: XCP/CR variation with a (a - 0 to 90 degrees) SCalculate for the following fin geometry at H
AR = 1.0
1.15.
X a b
0.5 Using Figure 70, XpCP/CR a-90 0.611
Using Figure 71, XCP/CR at various a's up to 90 degrees,
1/3
131i
ii
II
II
II
Xp/lt HNMO.98 0.407 0.455 0.505 0.542. 0.550
0-5 -to 20 30 40 60
0.583 90 0.611 SCalCUlating (A XcP/cR) Q90 from the results of (a) ani (b)
dC_ 0-5 10 20 30 40 60 90 d
ng)(A XC/CR)
c1,490
0.204 0.156 0,106 0,069 0.061 0.028 0.0
using Figure 74,F(Xch) - -0.160
., Using equation (28), Xcp/CR Is;
(deg.) 0-5 10 20 30 40 60 90
a-90 0.611 0.611 0.611 0.611 0.611 0.611 0.611 0.204 0.156 0.106 0.069 0.061 0.028 0.0
a<90 1 + F(Mach) 0.84 0.84 0.84 D.84 0.84 0.84 6.84
XCp/CR 0,4396 0.4800 0.4220 0.5530 0.5598 0.5875 0.611
132
Calculate the remaining variation with alpha (90 < a -4 180 degreea) at M - 1.15
a
From setp la,
(XCP/CR)
0.611 - 0.748
Using Figure 71, (XcplC)/c, 1 60
S d
_
Using Figure 72,
_ ,.,.. ,. r ,o- FPO. 98 0.907 xe/cRt) M0.175

-C.010
Using Figure 75, AI(XCP/CR)
Calculate Xp/CR at a - 160" for M- 1.15
C,
+-a
0.748t
0.010 - 0.738
M-0- 98 f
Calculate
x~CP)
(a C
for M
1
1.15
a'1>90
Calculate initial slope at a - 160 degrees
Initial Slope
n S e -160 R [ (70/180)o
0.738-0.611
(7008.1039 .
Using Figure 73, B(a) and C(a) are;

@(deg)
- (0
-
C61)
-
90 160 16.5 170 175-180
-1.0 -0.885 -0.550 0
0 0.058 0.058 0
133
SUsing
__+
equation (30)
to calculate XCP/CR
+C1cm9 QR")[
175 0i>90 L
XiR 1
C
(70/180)w
XCP - 0.907 + B(a) (0.169) + C(a) (0.10395) CR

a (dog) Xcp /CR
90
160 165
0.611
0.738 0.768
170
175-180 Data Comparisons
0.820
0.907
The results of the numerical example are compared with experimental data in Figure 76. Clearly,it would be desirable to show comparisons between
the results determined by the method and completely independent test data. Unfortunately, due to the lack of such data, comparisons are restricted to the experimental data sources that were used In developing the correlation method. However, the specific test data used for comparisons were not Additional comparisons
directly used in the construction of the method.
are shown for a triangular fin of 0.5 aspect ratio at subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. A comparison at Mach 0.80 is shown In Figure 77 and Figure 78 Agreement is quite good throughout the angle
shows a comparison at Mach 1.30.
of attack range for all comparisons.
Some data scatter is noticed near the As may
extreme ends (a - 0 and 180 degrees) of the angle of attack range.
134
be expected, scatter of this type usually results from the order of magnitude effects associated with very small forces and moments used In determining the center of pressure location. In general, the correlation
method agrees within 2.5 percent of the experimental data with the possible exception of a few isolated areas. These areas usually involve only a very
smail segment of the airange such as shown In Figure 77 near ai- 40 degrees. A deviation of approximately 3 percent was noticed from ai~130 to 150 degrees for the fin In Figure 76.
t35
ASPfCT RATIO 1.0 TAPER RATIO 0.5 VKH NUMBER 1.0

- DIVISION I o90 0 DIVISION 2 90 4048O0
_
-CO
1.0
.EGO P. } COTEGID OF 7 a90 (0.611) AMEA Ily I0

-,
RGION
111
REGION
160
1v
09
.40160
(aISO
C-"
0.4 -
soU0re 0000 s
000o 6 0000 0000
useo
--- ,C0.
..
0 0
0.2
DATA (REF. 13)
20
40
120 100 s0 6O (a) %D.GREES ARGLE OF ATTACK
110
1(60
180
Figure 69.
Chordvise Center of Pressure Variation to 180 Degrees
CENTROID OF FIN AREA FOR NONSSWPT T.E.

0.7
0.6
@ a* 90
0.5
_ _
CUTKR OF PRESSURE NOTM% COINCIDRS WITH FIN CrTROID 9 a 90 XGREIES
0024 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
TAPER RATIO (1)
Figure 70.
Chordwise Center of Pressure Variation with Taper Ratio at Alpha of' 90 Degrees
136
S]j
08
0.2
1.37
APj
1.0
-0
.0
0.00
t.0
(C)
*o175
lee8 Degree
Pet.,
seshod Lines Indicate
Ix.. BsicCurvs Figue 7. fr XP/C 175, to1NDgesC 13 at efeenc Anle"0 of Attack . o3.0
-0.2
-0.4 3(a)
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0i 160 165 170 175 180 ANGLE OF ATTACK (a) "'DEGREES 0.08
~c(a)
0.06
_--___
0.04
----
0.02
160
165
170
175
180
ANGLE OF ATTACK (a) 06DEGREES Figure 73. Power Series Conatants versus Angle of Attack
139
~~1I
0.2
AR
2.0-i
-0.2
C
-
12
MACH NUPJ] Ei 2.2 25 6 28 3.0
.11541.61.8
-0.8 Figure 74.

Mach Number Correction Factor for a < 90 Dl~erees
CORRECTION DUE TO N A .] -AT 160 DEGREES

-0.1
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
04
-0.08
-0.10
'AI 1.0 Prigure 75. 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 MlACH NUHn, Variation of a1(XCp/CR) With Mach Number at Alpha of 160 Daegree3
140
lI ASPECT RTIO o1.o

TAPER RATIO -0.5 MACH OPUDICTION ,MOOD
0
0.2
o t
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
i.
ZanruT (ISoLTED FIN)

UP. 13
120
140
160
180
ANGLE OF ATTAK (a)
DIGREES
Figure 76.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Center of Pressure Location, (XCPT/CR), Mach- 1.15
i0
ASPECT RATIO TAPER RATIO 0.8
- 0.5
i
0 -Loa_ I
iO
0
-%Q
CIL
0v4_^
__ __._ __o_ __ _
__O_
_ __ _
S0.6
0.4 -PEDICTION IETUOD 13 0 lUP. 0.2
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
AN= OF ATTACa (W),%DICREIS
Figure 77.
Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Center of Pressure Locati6n (Xcp /CR) ,Mach - 0.80
T14
141
jIi
RATIO - 0.5 SMPECT 0TAPER WCH RATIO ,,1.3
0.2
0i
Figure 78.
20
40
60
80
AISOLI OW AIACK (a)
100 ZU S
I9,
140
1600
Comparison of Predicted and Experimen! i1 Center of 1.3" MachPressure Location (XCPTCR)Q
142
5.2 5.2.1
Body-Tail Configurations Tail-On-Body Normal Force
Summary A method is presented to predict CN the normal force coefficient on
T (B)
the horizontal, is undeflected tails of body-tail configurations. The method
applicable to "plus" configurations at Mach numbers between 0.6 and 3.0 The method consists of a proRT(B), which can be applied
and angles of attack from 0 to 180 degrees.
cedure for calculating an interference factor,
to isolated fin data or the results of Section 5.1.4 to determine tailon-body normal force coefficients, CNT(B). Agreement between predicted and
experimental results were found to be quite good. Background The normal force on a tail isolated tail fixed to a body differs from that on an This difference is attributable
at the same angle o attack.
to the interference of body-induced upwash and lee-side vortex downwash oa the tail flow field. To predict tail-on-body normal force, it is necessary Methods are
to correct isolated fin data for these interference effects.
available which predict each interference term separately (Reference 17) or combine the two into a single interference factor (Reference 3). However, these
methods are not applicable over the entire angle of attack (0* - 180l) and Mach
number (0.6 to 3.0) ranges.
The method of Reference 17 is limited to angles of
attack below that at which the body lee-side vortex pattern becomes asymmetric (a < 300). In its present form, the method of Reference 3 is limited to
angles of attack less than 60 degrees and to transonic Mach numbers.
Method Development
Due to the complicated nature of the flow field an analytic approach to method development was not considered. An empirical approach was selected.
143
The data of Referance 13 were insufficient to distinguish the contribution of each type of interference to the total; therefore, method of Reference 17 was not practical. an extension of the
The nature of the instrumentation
used to collect the data of Reference 13 did provide sufficient information to calculate the total interference as the ratio RT(B) normal force CNT(B)/tail alone normal force CNT).
-
(tail-on-body
These data could be However, the
correlated and presented in a form like that of Reference 3. resultant method would be awkward and time consuming to use.
In order to
develop a simple, easy to use preliminary design tool, a power series approach to method development was selected. were sought. In the usual way boundary conditions
As indicated in Reference 3 the value of RT(B) at a - 0 degrees
can be set equal to the value of K(B) predicted by potential flow they y. Values of K(B) are presented in Reference 30 but for the sake of completeness are presented again here in Figure 79. the value of RT(B) at a
-
As a second boundary condition,
180 degrees can be assumed equal to
:.0 in the
absence of any forebody effects.
A survey of RT(B) data (Reference 13) At a - 30
versus angle of attack yielded further boundary conditions. degrees,
the value of R(B) was observed consistently to be 1.0 with It was also noted that at a
-
az
equal to zero.
130 degrees,
the value
...
Of KT(B) in Figure,79 with '_B
again equal to zero.
The value of RT(B) The data showed it was
at a - 90 degrees was taken as a final boundary condition. that the value of RT(B) at 90 degrees was not constant; left as a free variable, RT(B).
therefore,
Applying these boundary conlitions to the following power series expansion a + a a + a +aa+ a aa + a5 + a a6
144
'I
yielded
"RT(B)
(3.98080a
3.67990a
1.95429a3 + 3.37838a4
1.32994a5 + 0.16987a
+ (1-7.34322a + 20.55753a2
-
27.31747a3 + 17.64447a 4
6 5.28848a 5 + 0.58856ac ) KT(B) +
(3.36248a - 16.87764a2 + 29.27176a 6.61842a 5 - 0.75843 6) which can be rewritten as
-3
21.02285a4 +
RT(B)
where A
-
A0 +A
+()
.A2
T(B)w/2
(31)
3.9
0 8 0a - 3.67990a 2
1.95429a3 + 3.37838a4
-l.32994a5
0.16987a6
A 1
1 - 7.34322a + 20.55753u 5.28848a5 + 0.58856a6
27.31747a3 + 17.64447a4
A2
A2 3.36248a - 16.87764a
6
+ 29.27176a 3 -
5 21.02285a 4,+ 6.61842a5
0.75843a Values of AO9 A1 and A2 are plotted as a function of angle of attack In Figures 80, 81 and 82. Correlation of the calculated values of RT(B),/2 showed that this quantity varied with both Mach number and tall taper ratio. RT(B)r/
2
Values of
arc presented in Figure 83 as a function of Mach number and taper
ratio as obtained by fairing curves through the test data of Reference 13. In t'Ie course of checking results predicted by Equation 31 against experime.-,tal data, a problem was encountered both subsonically and transonically for angles of attack between 0 and 30 degrees. The variation in
RT(B) with angle of atta:k as predtcted by Equation 31 was much more rapid than the experimental d;ita tended to indicate. To account for this, a
,1
145
second power series was used to develop a method applicable to subsonic and transonic Mach numbers over this range of angles of attack. As before,
the values of RT(B) at a - 0 and 30 degrees were taken to be KT(B) and 1.0, respectively. As a third boundary condition, it can be shown that 'RT(B)
a
-
zero at a - 0 degrees. Applying these boundary conditions to the following power series expansion
1R(B)
yielded RT(B) 3."64756a2 + (1

-
3.64756a 2 )
(B)
which can be rewritten as RT(B) -A 0 + Al KT(B) where

A = 3.64756a
2
(32)
1 - 3.64756a
Values of A and A1 are also included in Figures 80 and 81. Use af Method A general description of how to apply this method will be presented in this section. This will be followed by a numerical example in which
RT(B) will be calculated and applied to isolated fin data to determine CNT(R). 1 Using Figure 79 determine the value of KT(B) at the appropriate value o.- d/s. 2 Using Figure 83 determine the value of RT(B) 7er2 Mach number and taper ratio. at the appropriate
146j
Using the results of steps 1 and 2 and Figures 80, 81 and 82 apply Equation 31 (for subsonic and transonic Mach numbers use Equation 32 for angles up to 30 degrees) to calculate values of for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees.
To determine the normal force coefficients for a tail fixed to a body, multiply isolated fin data or the results of Section 5.1.4 (p. 91 ff) by the values of RT(B).
Numerical Example Calculate CNT(B) for the following body tail configuration at M Body:
d 10.0 -LN . 3.0 d d -1.25 in.
0.6.
Tail: A 1
0.5
AR
2.0
d/s-
0.3
A T.E.
Using Figure 79 or d/s = 0.3
KT(B) - 1.25
2 Using Figure 83 for M 0.6 and A 0.5
r(B),/
3
1.21
iRT()-/2 For M - 0.6 apply Equation 32 for 0* < a < 300 and Equation 31 for 30* < a < 180. Use Figures'80, 81 and 82 to determine
general coefficients A0 , A 1 and A 2. 11 0

10 20
A 0 0.0
0.111 0.4444
RT(B) 1.25
1.222 1.139 Equation 32
1.0
0.8889 0.5556
0.0
-
30
1.0
0.0
1.0
147
(Coat inned) a (de 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 aA 0.925 0.735 0.500 0.275 0.105 0.0 -0.04 -0.035 -0.011. 0.0 -0.011 -0.035 0.015 0.280 1.0
1
A2 0.095 0.355 0.'b85 0.955 1.07 1.0 0.755 0.425 0.115 0.0 0.140 0.555 1.045 1.145 0.0
T (B)' 1.015 1.052 1.104 1.146 1.181 1.210 1.230 1.248 1.238 1.250 1.240 1.230 1.211 1.147 1.0 (B Equation 31
-0.02 -0.09 -0.18, -0.228 -0.175 0.0 0.285 0.615 0.888 1.0 0.865 0.475 -0.055 -0.415 0.0
4Using isolated fin data obtained from Reference 13, calculate
a Ld-0 10 20 1.25 1.222 1.139 1.0 1.015 1.052 1.104 1.146
CNT
0.0 0.45 0.76 0.76 0.9 0.99 1.04 1.04
CNT(B) 0.0 0.550 0.866 0.760 O.Q14 1.041 1.149 1.192
"30
40 50 60 70
Il.8
4 *
(Continued) ca~a(deg) 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
R__
RT(B) 1.181 1.21 1.230 1.248 1.238 1.250 1.240 1.230 1.211 1.147 1.0
CNT
-___
CNT(B)
1.07 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.03 0.96 0.83 0.68 0.58 0.40 -0.05
1.264 1.307 1.328 1.348 1.275 1.2 1.029 0.836 0.702 0.459 -0.05
Data Comparisons The results of the numerical example are compared against experimental data in Figure 84. Further comparisons for a variety of Mach numbers and Agreement Is quite good
tail geometries are presented in Figures 85-89. in all cases.
1I
149
'4
Reference 30 2.0 1.8
1.46
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6 0.7
d "
0.8
0.9
1.0
BODY DIAMETER SPAN Figure 79.
Ratio At Zero Angle of Attack RT(B)
150
r4
040
"-4
I
v-
41
-r
a4.-s
o0-
0-
1514
.42
-41
r4-
v-44
0-
152d
C4
f-4u W-4
00
'-4
00
-#4
0:_
I'%
153
2.410
2.0
oiF
1.6 1.4 r l
1.0
0.
Figure 83.
Interference Factor At Angle of Attack at 90 Degrees
154
,,4
a V
060
Si
,,.,,__'
.-
o4
C4J.
ow
004
0S
x2
-
u
C4. U U15
e~0
I'.
.4
'be
0 .4
a I
0
'S
0
-4
'-4
00.4
tUrn
U '0
_
00 0'-,
-4
urn
.
o m
. -
0 0
a 0
'1
-1*--0
I
md'b
H
.4 -' 4 4 -4
-4
10
*40.
C4
00
010
-1
00.6
C; Jr4
C;
-4~
on
0-4
14t
do
00
U
-u
/-
000
,.4
.1
00.-I
IN
00
zr
1
!i~i t
11
'A
,1.iI
I
0
"
~Ii
5.2.2 Summary
Tail-to-Body Carryover Normal Force
A method is
described to predict IB(T)'
the tail-to-body carryover

-
normal force coefficient.
The method applies over the Mach range 0.6
3.0
at angles of attack from 0 - 180 degrees.
ackground
When load-carrying lifting surfRces are fixed to a body, appears on the body due to carryover effects. generated is denoted here by I loadin7 also
The normal force thus In potential flow near determinable by
(see Section 4.0). which is
zero angle of attack, IB
reduces to KB(T)'
linearized theory (Reference 30). Method Development
Use is made of
BT)in the present method.
Separate methods are presented for the transonic (0.6 < M < 1.3: and supersonic (2.0 < M < 3.0) regimes, respectively. Interpolation should be
used for Mach numbers between 1.3 and 2.0. Transonic Mach No.: The general form of the I is
B(T)
curves, as derived from experimental data, Three major values are used in power Note that at zero and 180 degrees angle
shown schematically -n Figure 90. Ia, Ib, and Ic.
series development,
of attack IB(T)is zero. curve is: +a a B(T)
The basic power series for portions A and B of the + a a 2 + Z3* 2 2 ised as boundary
The division of the angle of atteck range and the points
coriticns are chosen by observation of the trend in the test data.
Boundary conditions are:
=,O1 B(T)
0 I
-
a - 50%, I AB(T)
a a B a
-
al dci
130%, 'T) 130%, 1B(T)

1
I b I c 0
- 160%,
B(T) B(T)
S-
80,
Substitution of these conditions into the power series yields: Portion A (a in radians)
IB(T)
[0.172 Ib + 2.56,2 Ia]
a
(33)
[0.394 Ib + 1.930 Is] a 2

[0.353 'a + 0.226 Ib] a3
Portion B (Using only first IB(T) + +
3 terms in series)
(a in radians)
19.592 Ib - 39.869 Ic [30.271 Ic - 13.286 Ib] Ic] I `

2
(34)
[2.244 Ib - 5.596
Correlation of data can then proceed with attention concentrated on Ia, 1b, and Ic
":ngeneral,
flow conditions, Iapb,
Ia' Ib, i.e.,
and I1 are functions of configuration geometry and
- I a,bm c (k, AR, d/s, M) so that the
The assumption is made that the variables are separable, equation maybe written
-
Ii
Basic Fi(A)
Fi(AR) Fi(d/s) FiQ4)
162
and the form of each separate function is obtained by examination of the experimental data. Sometimes correlation does not require use, or complete For example, the following representations
separation, of all the variables.
of Ia, 1b, and Ic were found to be sufficient: s = Ia Basic Fa (AR) F&() lb - 'b (AR. H) c a I c Basic Fc(AR) Examination of the test data of Reference 13 showed that correlations of the quantities 1a' 0 . and I made it possible to generate boundary
conditions for the IB(T) function which leads to good agreement betweon the model and the test data. The correlations and c. Use of Method (Transonic) Suppose it is required to estimate the tail-to-body carryover normal Z Ia, Ib. and Ic are presented in Figure 91a, b,
force for a configuration as follows: Tail: AR

-
0.5
A - 0.0
d/s
0.5
H "0.8 -From Figure 91: Is a Ia Basic Fa(AR) Ta(M)

a
1.0 x 2.6 x (1.65 2.99 0 I c basic Fc(AR)
0.5)
Ib ic
" 0.3 x 2.5

- 0.75
163
Hence, the Equations (33) and (34) become: IB(T) -7.66a - 5.7 7a2 + 1.05a3
1(T) IB(T) - -29.902 + 22.703a
-
(33A)
(a in radians)
4.197a 2
(34A)
____
B(T)
0 10 20 40 50 70 90 110 130 145 160 170 180
0 1.167 2.016 2.894 2.992 2.67 1.886 0.908 0 0.673 0.768 0.511 0 It wili (34A) (33A)
The results are compared with experimental data in Figure 92. be seen that matching is quite good. Supersonic Mach No. For supersonic Mach numbers the procedures for calculating generally simpler than for the transonic case.
1
B(T) are
However the IB(T) curve is
divided Into three, rather than two, parts and is shown schematically In Figure 93. This is the form that the test data takes and the curve
represents a fairing of the daLa. The three major portions, A, B, and C are shown, along with the important correlation inputs, I,12. and 13. The following representations are used.
164
A: B: I1B(T)* B(T) -
I1 in a I1(I1 -12)
(35) ain (36)) degrees
B(T)
C:
I1 B(T)
-19.325 1 + 11.926 1 13 12 + [15.813 13 - 8.382 12] a

+ 11.46 12 - 3.076 13
a2
(37)
degrees
The last equation was obtained from the usual power series representation with boundary conditions: a a a 115' 149" 180*
1 1
B(T) B(T) "
12 1 13 0
1B(T)
Again, using separation of variables, I 12 3 " Basic F 1 (d/s) F2 (H) F 2 (d/s) F 3 (AR)
SI
12 Basic 3 Basic
These quantities are presented in Figure 94a, b, and c. respectively. Use of Method (Supersonic) Suppose it Is required to estimate the tail-to-body carryover normal
force for a configuration as follows:

Tail: AR 2.0.
A - 0.5, d/s
0.3
M -
2.5
From Figures 94a, b, and c: 1 12 1 Basic 1I(d/s)
" 0.75 x 1.0
-0.75
I 2 Basic l 2(M) F2(d/s) S-2 x 1.0 x 1.0 -- 2.0 a a i3 Basic F3 (AR) 0.5 x 1.0 - 0.5 165
Portion A,
1
B(T)
0.75 Q(deg)
0 20 40 60 80 90
sini
0.0 0.257' 0.482 0.650 0.739 0.750 0.75

-
Portion
3()
(0.75 + 2.0)
c3(deg)I 90 100 110 115 Portion ,B(T)

-
0.75 -0.988 -1.71 -2.0 -33.515 + 24.672a -4.4574a I -2.0 -0.481 0.5
2
o(deg) 115 .130 '49
165
180
0.56
0.0
Data Comparisons
A comparison between prediction and experiment is It will be seen that matching is quite good. shown in Figure 95.
Figure 90. f6o

ANC1.Ffl
Transonic IB(T''
Schematic
.. Vj
I- -- ---------
18n
ATTACK %fnrCRPFS
166
00. IflonY DIA/OVERALL SPANI
1.0
2.0
TAIL ASPECT RATIO
(Ma+(A
Figure 91a.
Curve.
for Katimation of Transonic I
(All A)
a
1 .0.
.. ..... . .Q ' . urvesfor Estimation of Transonic I (All (b) and di.) X
91a. Figure
Fiiure 91c.
Curves f
of Transonic or Estimation
C
(All IA and Mach Numbers)
l27
O,
AR -0.5, d/s M
0.5
0.8
O
-
Experijqent (Ref. 13)

Predicti on
2
B (T" 20
f
4"
.
60
s 8b o'1
o o
o 180
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEC.
Figure 92. Comparison Between Predicted And Experimental IBT
B3(T)
I1
ANGLE OF ATTACK "DEGREES
Figure 93.
Supersonic I
Schematic
BM
Scemti
1.5
Ai
-
-2.1.5.
1.0.
1
I d d
0 3o......
o.. .
laaic 0.5
0
0 1.0 1.5 TAPER RATIO
,"0.5 0.4 0.3 BODY DIA/OVERALL SPAN
Figure 94a.
Curves for Estimation of Supersonic II
1.5-
-3
--
1.
F 2 (M) 0.5
..
-.... .
-2
0o[ 0-
2.0
12
-I.
2.5 MACH NUMBER
3.0
M d
2.5
*0.3
,~ 0 Ll,
0
~ I%016p 0.5 TAPER PATIO
1.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 BODY, DIA/OVERALL SPAN
Figure 94b.
Curves for Estimation of Suporsonic 12
o.5
I3Bsic _ 0 Li 0
i 'AR - 2.0) A t1r /s & M 0.5 TAPER RATIO 1.0
1.o0--i. F3 (AR) 4F
0.50! L 0
.... ,
..
iA
1.0 2.0 ASPECT RATIO
Figure 94c.
Curves for Estimation of Supersonic 13
169
C4-
uu
C44
14
v-
oni
170
'4.4 .r ..
5.2.3 Summary
Tail-To-Body Carryover Normal Force Center of Pressure
A method is
described to predict)XCP
the center of pressure of The
I (T)'
normal force carried over to a body from horizontal tails. method Is an extension of an existing technique. it is valid for angles
of attack from 0 - 180 degrees in the Mach range 0.6 - 2.0 It should be noted that XCP 1 (T) Is the axial distance from the missile The some point
nose to the point of application of the carryover force.
located relative to the surface leading edge is defined as XCPB(r). Backiround An existing method, 0 Reference 4. which applies to the angle range
90 degrees at Mach numbers from 0.8 - 1.2 was available as a starting The formulations of this method were such that the procedure was 180 degrees and the ?ach number
point.
easily extendable to the angle range 0 range 0.6 - 2.0.
The original method was based partJy on the theoretical results of Reference 30 from which values of kPB(T) near zero angle were obtained. These results were used originally for the condition of a tail with no afterbody. IHcvver, when angle of ettack has reached 180 degrees, the
lifting suLZace does have an "afterbcdy" and the Reference 4 method was motified to reflect this. Since the boundary conditions on the curve of (XCpBgI)/CR) versus angle of attack are easily determined, wal -ired. a power series approach to correlation
'7'
Boundary conditions are: a 0, 3 (XCPB(T)/CR)o given by Reference 30 (see below) (XcPB(T)/CR)o 0 (linear theory)
* 90,
(XcPB(T)/CR)
0.5 (mid-chord point)
(XCP
B(T)
/CR)
7F
2
0'
1 8 0",(XCPB(T)/CR)l
given by Reference 30 (see below) 0 (linear theory)
.L
It is
(XCPB(T)/CR)-
shown in Reference 30 that curves of (kpB(T)/CR)o,
the load
location near zero angle of attack, seni-span ratios on the basis of It
can be constructed for various radius/
WR for configurations with afterbodies.
is voted that the ratio a/p used in Reference 30 is equivalent to (d/2)/ These curves are presented to
(s/2) or d/s in the terminology of this report. in Figures 96a, b, and c.
The major reason for this representation is Reference
use the slender body theory results for SAR - 0.
30 indicates
that the same representation can be employed for configurations with no afterbodies at supersonic speeds, It does, however, but does not present the actual curves.
present information (Chart 14b of Refererce 30) which can
be used to construct partially the curves of (XCPB(T)/CR)o away from the WAR - 0 point. Chart 14b presents data on load location as a function of
Sd/CR which may be written in terms of 8, aspect ratio and body radius/semispan ratio if tail taper ratio is known. For example,
-
for triangular planform AR/2(p/a-1) holds.
tails with no trailing edge sweep,
the equality d/CR
172
From relations like this, Chart 14b was converted to Figure 97a, b, and c of this report in which values of (XcPB(T)/CR)o are presented. In Figures 96
and 97 the values of load location at BAR - 0 were taken from slender body theory under the assumption that no tail maximum span. force was developed aft of the
Values for a/p - 0 (tail with no body) were taken from
supersonic wing theory. For subsonic speeds, 30, may be used. Rather than attempting to fit attack range, 090" The fun.-tional iorm chosen erpiricIally to represent XCP(T)/CR is: X~pB (T) it a single equation to the entire angle of Figures 98 and 99, taken directly from Reference
was divided into two sections, 0-90 degrees and 90-180 degrees.
xcp
CR - a T When the first
2
+ ala + aa2 + aa3 3 2 1 o
3
the
four of the boundary conditions defined above are used,
sezies takes the following form.
"XCPB(T)
CR
CC
(T) _
- 3a2
XCp)B'T)
CR
(38)
(38)
1o1
(a in rads) The 'value of XCPB(T)/CR represents, in non-dimensionnl forxu, the
distance frc' the fin root chord leading edge to the center of pressure of the load generated on the body due to the presence of a tail. ficient and is 2a3/(/2) - 3a /(/2) The second coef-
has been evaluated between 0 and 90 degrees
shown in Figure 100.
173
900
180
By now measuring the force location from the trailing ed%e (XCPB(T))
and defining the quantity-
w-
, it is possible to derive an expression 9
directly analogous to Equation (38) by utilizing the last four boundary conditions.
-
XCPB(,T)
XCPB T)
2a
~~~3 2)1
3a
~BT
CRC
3A (39A)T
CR
CR
i~
where X Is measured from the tail trailing edge and

_)
kPB(T)39B)
CR
CR
Use of Method Use of the method for predicting XCPB(T) will be demonstrated in conjunction with the other methods required to predict the center of pressure of a complete body-tail configuration. XCPB(T) will be described generally. Initially, the method for predicting Then a numerical example will be given
of XCPB(T) calculations, plus the other calculations necessary to predict centers of pressure on a complete configuration. 1 Calculate XCPB(T) for 0* < a < 90* using Equation 38. a Depending upon Mach number, determine
XCPB(T)I
CR b
0
using either Figures 97 or 98.
Using Figure 100, determine values of

2--
3a--
at selected angles of attack.
312
174
Calculate
krB(T)
for 90* < a < 1800 using Equation 39A
and XCIB{T) with 39B a Depending upon Mach number, determine XCPBcC) CR either Figures 96 or 99. b of Usinp Figure 100, determine values 2a7c (u3 where a Numerical Example Calculate the centers of pressure at M
-
I
02
using
180 -
0.9 for a body-tail
configuration having the following Lharacteristics: Body:

tN
Tail: A - 0.5 AR -1.0
S2.5
d
tA
d
- .25 inches
d/s - 0.5 C' XLE d

-
1.667 inches 8.666
175
Calculate CN a At tranaonic Hach numbers, use the method of Reference 12 for 0* < a < 400 a(d*$) 0 10 20 30 40 b CNB 0 0.633 1.767 3.42 5.587 39 ff)
For 500 - a < 180%, use the method of Section 5.1.1 (p. ca(deg) 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 8.754 10.574 12.025 12.906 13.224 12.903 12.005 10.512 8.614 6.374 4.116 2.105 0.613 0.0
176
Calculate XCPB using the method of Section 5.1.2 (p. 61 ff) a (deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 XCpB/d 2.70 3.17 3.80 3,80 3.80 3.80 4.20 4.60 5.00 5.39 5.80 6.19 6.60 6.98 7.37 7.78 8.18 9.19 10.00
177
Using the methods of Section 5.1.4 (p. 91 ff) and 5.2.1 (p. 143 ff) calculate CN(B) *(deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 '80 90 100 110 120 130 140 250 160 370 180 CNT 0 0.369 0.873 1.085 1.09 1.08 1.094 1.100 1.106 1.1 1.106 1.1 1.094 1.080 1.090 1.085 0.873 0.369 0.0 RT(B) 1.460 1.400 1.238, 1.000 1.019 1.058 1.127 1.181 1.233 1.300 1.106 1.415 1.445 1.60 1.433 1.379 1.301 1.158 1.0 CNT(B) 0 0.517 1.081 1.085 1.111 1.143 1.233 1.299 1.364 1.430 1.502 1.557 1.581 1.577 1.562 1.496 1.136 0.427 0.0 Sref
-
ST
178
Using the method of Section 5.1.5 (p. 122 ff) calculajte
'IC
SCR
d
9.188 9.252 9.330 9.380 9.394 9.409 9.437 9.452 9.465 9.486 9.313 9.533 9.560 9.586 9.613 9.633 9.600 9.817 9.993 XLE d +
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
0.391 0.439 0.498 0.535 0.546 0.557 0.578 0.589 0.599 0.615 0.635 0.650 0.670 0.690 0.710 0.725 0.745 0.863 0.995
where
XCPT d
*~~,
C1
CR d
179
001..
the method of Section 5.2.2 (p. 161 ff), Calculate IB(T)

a" (dog)
0
10
0
0.375
20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0.657
0.851 0.964 1.000 0.965 0.865 0.704 0.489 0.226 -0.082 -0.427-0.800 -0.215
15,0
160 170 '180
0.156
0.315 0.263 0.0
180
Using the procedure outlined above, calculate xCPI(T) S(do&) 'XCPBLT) C 0.28 0.289 0.306 0.333 0.368 0.405 0.440 0.471 0.491 0.5 0.517 0.556 0.618 0.685 .0.758 0.827 0.878 0.913 0.93 I(Ta d
E *(i.o.0and , ,. T) "kPI(T) mindXCPI 1R
XCPI(T) d 9.040 9.052 9.074 9.110 9.157 '9. 206 9.253 9.294 9.321 9.338 9.356 9.408 9.490 9.580 9.677 9.769 9.837 9.884 9.907 for a L CPBCT) d
_<
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 ""20 130 140 150 160 170 180 where
XLE
+ R
90*
CR
R>'9 for a
900
d-8
181
To calculate XCPBT
the center of pressure of the body-tail
d
combination, apply the results of Steps 1-6 to the following equation: XCPBT
CNB + N T(B)
cNB
+2C T(B) XaB d

B
STr
Sref T
XcPT(B) + I 1
d
+1 + IB(T)
B(T)
XCPI(T)
d
S ref
(dog C%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-
0 .633 1.767 3.42 5.587 8.754 10.574 12.025 12.906 13.224

12.903
2.7 3.170 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.30 4.20 4.60 5.00 5.392
5.80
0 .577 1.081 1.081, t.lil 1.143 1.233 1.299 1.364 1.430

1.502
9.188 9.252 9.330 9.380 9.3)4 9.409 9.437 9.452 9.465 9.486
9.513
0 .37i .657 .851 .964 1.000 .965 .865 .704 .489

.226
9.040 9.052 9.074 9.110 9.157 9.206 9.253 9.294 9.321 9.330
9.356
0 1.839 3.800 5.652 7.966 11.209 13.109 14.544 15.347 15.5S4

15.041
6.896 6.715 5.963 5.442 5.011 5.199 5.431 5.703 5.996

6.326
100
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
12.005 10.512 8.614 6.374 4.116 2.105 .613 0.0
6.19 6.60 6.98 7.37 7.78 8.178 9.189 10.0
1.557 1.581 1.577 1.562 1.496 1.136 .427 0.0
9.533 9.560, 9.586. 9.613 9.633 9.660 9.817 9.993
-. 082 -. 427 -. 800 -. 215 .156 .315 .263 0.0
9.408 9.490 9.580 9.677 9.769 9.837 9.884 9.907
1,3.905 12.098 9.823 8.148 6.177 3.866 1.420 0.0
6.648 6.991 7.301 7.857 81402 8.868 9.558
Data Comparisons The results of this test case (CNBT and XCPBT) are compAred against experimental NBT d data in Figures 101 and 102. Good agreement is obtained between the predictions and experimental data.
182
II
2..0
-~---
Extrapotation
1.0 0.2
"-0
2.0
-i
(a)
A- 0.0
.0.6 B/P 1. 6
/
1.2
0.4
0. - o //'e
0.4
1- 0. 5
/
_ _ __
0.2
I
0
-'(b)
'
__
Isforence 30
_
1.6
1.62
2.0
0.
o r,
!,, t,"
4 . (>0.
EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO, MR Fitgure 96. Curves for Deteralning XCPB(T)/CR With Afterbodies for Supersonic Speeds
/13
I____l
______
____II
______l__ll
0.6
"0.4
-
0.2
0.6
_
(a,)
ASO .
0.6 -
0.2r-0
/ ..
-o005
o .4
('b)4 -
____
"
__
S~Refference
0 2
30
a~~~.4 I"
(c)
0 1 2
1.0
3 4 5 6 EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO .AR 7
Figure 97.
Curves for Determining XCPB(T)/CR for No Afterbod~es at Supersonic Speeds
184
0.3
Theory Extrapotation . .- .____ -
*
..
-
0.2
;W --
0.2
0.4
/10.6
0.1
""I--
A4 a-'z
--
-P
0.3-.2
_______A/lp
0
0
- 0.
-_-
""0O. 20.6
0.2
0.
0.3
1
Reference 30 alp
-
0,0.2,0.4,0.6
0 .2
. .... .-...
0.1
()a1.0-
-----__
__
Figure 98.
3 4 5 6 EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO, MAR Curves for Determining XCPB(T)/CR for Subsonic (Zero Leading Edge Sweep)
7 Speeds
135
0.6 a/p =0.6 0.5 5"
0.4
0.A-,...
0.4
0.2
0. 3
L
(a) - -I
I,
-"_-/"
.-...
0.23
up
0.6 o._ -
0.2
o
0..
.,0.4 ---
_--
0.2
) 0.3
I -0.
5 Reference 30
0 ..2..
-- -
-" P
0,0.2,0.4,0.6
0.21
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.
MEFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO, MAR Figure 99. Curves for Determining XCPB(T)/CR for Subsonic Speeds (Zero Trailing Edge Sweep)
186
-0.2
C4
C*4 -0.4
[2"..
-0.6
-0.8
-1.01
20
'
40 64) 80 100 DEGREES
ANGLE OF ATTACK, Figure 100.
Coefficients Required for Evaluation of )CPB (T)/CR
187
41
coU
-4 -4
____ ____ ____ ____
0
-4
-4
0____ ____
0 U
01
.I 40 -4
______
A
-4 U
'"a
'"a
o
-4
4f4-4
.0
*..
iE__
'I
___
__-
--
__
0 (.4
a
*4 *
ci U
@4
o
*
1::
.(
__ -___ ___ ___ ____
u
0
N (. N
S U
*4*4
I *
______ -
(.4 0 -4
/ /
4I4e
* .,
U I..
Q
C * '0
4
4
:
0
N
w4Eminmmm... .mrm 4 C
189
______________________________
5.3 5.3.1
Body-Strake-Tail Confiturationi Incremental Normal Force Due to Strakes
Sumary . A method is presented for estimating the total incremental normal force
"coefficient* ACNB
. due to low aspect-ratio strakes on a slender tangentThis method
ogive-cylinder body at a roll angle of zero (+ orientation).
covers angles of attack up to 180 degrees and a Mach number rangq of 0.60 to 2.2 and represents an extension of an existing low-angle technique. Background The addition of strakes to a body produces an increased normal force which is a function of strake size relative to the body and strake aspect ratio. The incremental normal force may beestimated at low angles, of At higher angles no methods
attack from Section 4.3.1.2 of Reference 17. exist for calculating the increase. of such a method.
This section describes the construction
The data forming the basis for correlation were obtained Since the strakes used
from tests on a particular USAF missile design. were not instrumented to record normal force, used: . HBS CNB + AC NBS
the follcwing formulation was
.CNI;S was determined directly from test data at Mach 0.6, 0.85, 1.2.
and
Due to a lack of body plus strake data at zero roll angle, values of
ACNBs at Mach 1.8 and 2.2 were derived using available total configuration and body alone data at those Mach numbers in conjunction with a factor from Mach 1.2 data defining relative tail fit and strake contributions. A curve-
procedure was used for data correlation.
190
Method Development
Uxmination of data available at five Mach numbers (0.60, 0.95, 1.20,
"1.85, and 2.2) revealed several features useful in curve fitting (see
versus alpha at each Mach number exhibits DS peaks of approximately equal magnitude at a - 57" and a - 135". The value of AC a - 120', at these peaks is Mach number dependent. the value of ACN Between a - 80* and Figure 103). A curve of AC,
ent of' Mach number.
oscillates about a mean value which is independBS The slopev (ACM ) at a - 0' and a a 180' appear to A power series formu-
be about equal in magnitude but vith opposite signs.
lation using the aforementioned curve qualities as bounTdary conditions was the approach selected to fit a general curve to the data. A third-order power series of the form SCNs o 1 2a2 3 aa a +aa + + -a AC BS was used with the following boundary conditions:
/
AC
NBS
0 at a J at a
'Oand 180O 0O
ACN B
CN
M -J
at a - 180*
CN B
ACNB L at a =80" and 120"
where J 1a AC NBS at a "0*
where%(B
a(KB) +K()
sre S
(-A-) (IARs (Reference 17, Section 4.3.1I.2)
191
a a
ACN
peak value at a - 57.3
and 135"
The bracketed term is an empirical correlation presented in Figure

mn eaL va'ne of ACS 80* < a < 120"
104
sS+ 3
-
0.461
Sref
Sa s
Strake single span exposed area
"S ref - Reference area for ACNBS (equal to body cross sectional area)
SSS+B Area of two strakes + planform area of body between strakes Note that the boundary condition J has been generalized by the presence of aspect ratio, KB(W) and KW(B), the latter to be a function of dVs. Planform
area was found to be an effective correlating parameter for the quantities I and L. To simplify the power series solution and improve the accuracy of the
S-estimate,
the power series was formulated for three intervals: 80" < a - 120%, and 120" <.a < 180".
0 <
< 800,
Solution of the third order power and L for the
series yielded a0 9 aI, a2 P and a3 as functions of J1 , Ka three angle of attack ranges. form AC N was derived. -B A JA + A2K2 + A3L
Upon separating terms, an equation of the
Equations for A 1 , A2 , and A3 are as follows:
192
A 1
A
a
-
1.7162 a2 + 0.7162ac
3.5238a2 - 2.523803
A 3
- -1.2945a2 + 1.2945a 3 (a.' radians)
80* < a< 120"
A1
A2 A3
0. . 1.0
120 < a< 180 A1

-
18.8191
22.9603a+ 9.2150a2
1.2138a 3
A2
A3
--
A 127.8802 + 142.4405a - 51.8098a 2 + b.1836a 3

-
a 80.9455
85.8667a + 30.0601a2 -3.4789a3
(a- radians) Values of A 1 , A2 and A3 have been plotted versus angle of attack (Figure 105) to facilitate use of this method. Peak values K S$+B /SREF have been
determined empirically and are plotteu versus Hach number in Figure 104. Use of Method The method is used as follows: Given a tangent-ogive-cylinder body with low aspect ratio strakes of the following characteristics:
body diameter
-
d
2 ird
body refe4ence area
S ref
strake single span exposed area strake root chord

-CR
193
strake aspect ratio
AR
S
strake exposed semi-span Proceed thus: I- compute J " (KB<)
b/2
(S-)(iAR.) [Ref.
17,
Sect.
4.3.1.2]
Find
(N
S+B
/ ref
) from Figure 104 for the desired Mach number.

S S+
"ComputeKS a/S 3
S(Ss+B/Sref
--
Sref
-s
where S S+BS
(2*S )+(CR
d)
Compute L - 0.461 (---) - ref
_4 Look up A1 , A2 , and A3 for the desired angle of attack in Figure 105. 5 Substitute in the relationship ACNBS f A J1 + A2Ka+ A3L
Numerical Example Calculate ACNBS at Mach 0.85 for a body

A -
strake combination having
the following properties: d - 3.667 in. AR W0.040
eref - 10.56 sq.in. S

- 8.06 sq.in.
b/2 - 0.40 in. C

-
14.33 in.
from Ref.
17
K3 (W) " 1.43, K%(B) - 1.76 -L2i5) (0.040) - 0.151/radian 10.5 2 .6 tah08
j (1.43 + 1.76)
K
from Figure 104, 0.66. it Mach 0.85
SSB/ ref
s+B = (2*8.06) + (14.33*3.667) K 0.661 "a .68.67 10.56
- 68.67 sq.ir.
sq.in) = 4.30 sq.in.1
194
.68.67.
3
-
0.461
~~10.56
3.00
-30
-4
From Figure 104
"
-
AI
-
A2
-
A3
o
AtJ3
-
A2Ka
-
A3L
-
AC 0' i.11 3.20 4.30 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.11 1.67 0.00
0 20
0 0.17
0 0.32 0.87 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.52 0.00
0 -. 10 -. 19 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 -. 14 -. 19 0.00
0 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
0 1.38 3.75 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.53 2.24 0.00
0 -. 30 -. 57 0.21 3.00 3.00 3.00 -. 42 -. 57 0.00
40 0.11 60 80 -. 02 0.00
"100 0.00
120 140 160 180 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.00
Data Comp~rlsons In Figure 106 the results of this method are plotted along with those data used in formulating the method. It can be seen that the power series
solution yields good correlation with test data across the Mach range tested. A lack of independent data in the desired high angle of attack
range prevents further comparisons.
195
-K
A&CN-
20
.40
60
80
100
120
140O
160
.180
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEC. Figure 103. AC General Curve Form
N B
196
4.4
.0000
OD_
__
_ _
- 197
ACNIS" AIJ 1
A2 % + A3 L
1.2
0.8
A1
0.4
40
0 10 o160 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
200
1.2
0.8
A2
0.4
40
80
120
160
200
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 105. Coeff'cients for Calculating ACNBS
193
/
Cs NSAIJ+ A 2o X +A3L
1.20
0.80
A3
0.40
40
80
120
160
200
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DF. Figure 105 (Cont.). Coefficients for Calculating hCN

BS
199
1<
C4C
0 0<
I
/
..
/
200
* U
-
r .4 U.' i*4
(-d 4*.4
th
4u
0 C.5 Ii 0 U 'A
'A
a
-f
* 'A
U
-___
1
U U 0
'A
_____
'AU
I.0 ..i ri. N 0 0 0
o
-4
U
U
1--4:'
N * 'AU 0
U U
* U -4
A
____
a.
mA
.0 'A g
________
I
0 -t
bA
I..
_____
____
'0
N 0
201
5.3.2 Summary
Center of Pressure for Incremental Normal Force Due to Strakes
A method is presented to predict XCp ABS pressure of the incremental normal force (ACN
the effective center of ) due to low aspect-ratio
Bs
strake on'a slender tangent ogive-cylinder body at a roll angle of zero (+ orientation). This method covers angles of attack up to 180 degrees and
a Mach number range of 0.60 to 2.20 and represents an extension of an existing low-angle technique. Background The addition of strakes to a body produces a change in the center of pressure location which is related to the strake effective center of pressure location, XCPABS, ACN the strake normal force coefficient including carryover,
, and the body alone normal force coefficient, CH , and center of BS IB pressure, XcP The strake center of pressure location may be estimated for low angles of attack by the methods of Section 4.1.4.2 of Reference 17. present work describes the formulation of a method for predicting strake center of pressure location at angles of attack up to 180 degrees. The data The
forming the basis for correlation were obtained from tests on a particular USAF missile design. Since the strakes tested were not instrumented for certer of pressure determination, the following equation was used for the summation of moments: N3 C 0 XCC C S NBs C B + ACN* N S XC ABS
XCPBS represents the center of pressure of the entire strake normal force contribution, including interference effects, and was determined directly from test data at Mach 0.60, 0.85, and 1.2. Due to a lack of body plus strake
data for zero roll angle at Mach 1.8 and 2.2, values of XCPABS were derived using available total configuration and body alone data at those Mach numbers 202
/A
in conjunction with a factor from Mach 1.2 data defining relative tail and
strake contributions. Method Development Figure 107 shows the general form of a curve of XCPFBS versus angle of attack as derived from test data. moves from its a
'u
A curve-fit procedure was used for data correlation.
This general curve shows that XcPABS
a - 0
location to a point near the strake centroid at At a

'-
30,
then moves forward as a+ 6 0.
120,
XCPABS attains its
farthest aft position, from which it centroid at a

',
moves forward to a point near the 0, 60, and 120 degrees
180%
Center of pressure locations at
exhibited a dependence on Mach number.

-
A power series formulation using
1,
these curve qualities as boundary conditions was the approach selected to fit a general curve to t'ie data. XCPABS was considered to be a function of Mach number and strake geometry. Since the strake tested had two distinct segments, the area
centroids of the forward portion (XA)
and of the aft portion (X ) were
incorporated along with the area centroid location of the entire strake (Xs) and the strake root chord length (CrS). parameters used in this analysis. The equation for the apparent location of the incremental force due to the addition of a strake is: Figure 108 illustrates the strake
XC as
d d
XCP
d
where XCPs/d is a function of angle of attack and Mach number, and XLE is
S
the axial distance from the body nose to the leading edge of the strake. Note that XCPs/d represents the center of pressure of the strake total normai force (ACN BS) and is measured from the leading edge of the strake root
203
S >.I._/
,'
,./
whereas XCpABs is measured from the body nose. of the form

.\
A second-order power series
-
d
~0
0m a
+ l CI a
1 2
"was used with the following boundary conditions:

.XcpS \ XCPso
xCP d
d
X in-at a
dP
- 30*
d d x
- R at a " 60'
CP S
d
-d-
x
d
at a - 90"
,..
//
xCP S
d
T at a
120
SCP
-/,.
x
-d
B
at ai a
-. 145*
-d
x CP
X 10 a "180 0* (Ref. 17, Section 4.1.2.21 dd
S S d-=--at
;so
where
C
d
center of pressure at a
0. 25CR
- -- CRfor M < 1.0 d
,-s " d for H > 1.0
A review of the test data suggested the following formulatiok-s.
204
/
/(
'A.
I,
..
.-
I-
.:
CP location at a
'-d -d - 2 ( xS " xS
60
xA -d)
T - CP location at a-120 0
KB
+
(cR Sx
-b7dd
where J2 anr Kb are functions of Hach number. Note that the equations for R and T have been generalized by the presence of the terms XA, strake, XA 09 XB XSP and XS 0.5 CRS X1 , and X, and that, for the limiting case of a rectangular
To simplify the power series solution and improve the accuracy of the estimates, the series was formulated for three intervals: 0 < a, _ 600;
60 < a < 120"; and 120* < a < 180C.
Solution for the second order power

-, d R, T,
series coefficients yielded a., a1 , and a2 as functions of xCPSol d and S. d Upon separating terms, a function of the form
xcPS
was derived.
- A A I 1
xCPso
d
+ A
A2
(-)
S
d
A (R) + A, (T) 4 A (--) 3 5 d
xS
Equations for A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 and A5 are as follows:
205
A1 a 1.
- 2.864a 12
+ 1.8238a 2
A2 - 3.8197a - 3.6476a 2 A3 - -. 9549a + 1.823882 A4 -0

A5 0
(a 60<o.<120*
radians)
A2 , -8.0 + 11.45973
".A3 6.0 - 6.6846a 3.0 0
3.6476a 2
+ 1.823802 + 1.8238a2
A4
A5
4.7747c
(a
radians)
i20<.o<180"
A, 0
A2 - 8.2877 A3 0
7.2318a
+ 1.5636a2
A4 " 17.4063 - 12.4193a + 2.1896* 2
A 5 - -24.6940 + 19.6512a
3.7532a2 (a
-
radians)
Values of A have beer. plotted as a function of angle of attack In Figure 109 to facilitate use of this method. Peak value factors J2 and Kb have been determined empirically and are plotted versus Mach number in Figure 110.
206
Useof Method
The method Is used as follows: SGiven a tangent-ogive cylinder with Ioy Aspect-ratlo strakes of the following characteristicsa: body diameter - d strake toot chord - CRS strake leading edge station -IE distance from LE, to segment A centroid a -astsnce from LE to segment B centrold X-B distance from LE to net strak* centroid - Xs
Proceed thus:
r determine XCpSO (a0.25CF for M < 1.0; fSectIon 4.1.4.2 Of Ref.17]
determine J2 and Kb for the appropriate Mach number (Figure 110). "C compute IXu S d (i A)'
Xs for H> 1.0)
T -X +
look up A,, A.,
C
d
1
d
A3 , A 4, and A for the desired angles 5 of attack (Figure 109). + 2
SCompute
^1rVdS + 3 (R) + A4 ( ) + A
6)
Compute
207
Numerical Example Giver the following parameters, compute XCPABS for a body-strake combination d
at Mach 1.2:
d - 3.667 CRIS/d - 7.772 XLE/d - 5.181 " X 2
XA/d a 2.000 XB/d " 5.850 XS/I -4.721 SpSo/d since M 1 1.0
2
Ss ,s b/2
7.978 in " .040 0.4 in.
- 4.721
from FigurellO:J
- 0.0
K-
.64
S Rt(AS
!A) -4.721
-_rB
+ .64 d
CRS
d
Xf.) . 5.85 + .64

d
(7.72
5.85) - 7.120
from Figurelo9 A1 0 30 1.00 0. A2 0. 1.00 A3 0. 0. A4 0. 0. A5 0. 0.
60
90 120 150 180 5-6
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.00 0. .07 1.0
-XCPS
1.o0
0. 0. 0. 0. A (PSO) d
o.
0.00 1.00 - .10 0. + A 2 ()
0.
0. 0. 1.03 0.
Substitutung in
+
d
d and XcPAj
-
XLE + X___
208
09
0 30 60 90 12) 150 180
XCPs
_--d4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 7.12 5.64 4.72
XCPABS
9.90 9.90 9.90 9.90 12.30 10.82 9.90
Data Comparisons In Figure 111 method results are plotted along with those data used in formulating the method. Mach range. The power series yields a good approximation of YCpaBs/d across the A lack of independent data at high angles of attack makes further
comparisons impossible at this time. It is now appropriate to compare the center of pressure location of the body plus strake configuration as indicated by test data with that determined using previously derived methods. CNBS or ) CNB The following equation will be used: + BS (xd
dCPBS
d
/c
(XCP/) + ACNBS (XC

B\ /
CNB+6CNBS
The methods used in determining the various components of the basic equation are as follows: Component CNB ACNBS XCPB XCp6BS Source Section 5.1.1 Section 5.3.J Section 5.1.2 (p. 39 ff) (p. 190 ff) (p. 61 ff)
Preceding analysis
209
-]
//
"Relevant body parameters are:
4
..
L1- 2.5
d
Sref
.14.5 10.56 in2
tA - 12.0
jtraka parameters are as contained in the numerical example preceding.

Use of the four methods and application of the basic equation yields the ./ foloulng results at Mach 1.2: a' CNB XCPs -d 70 .5 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 175 4.70 13.30 22.0 26.8 26.7 21.9 13.0 4.3 .50 3.56 5.52 6.14 6.76 7.38 8.00 8.62 9.24 9.83 13.81 .10 .82 2.35 3.42 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.13 1.20 15 ACNE d 9 .90 9.90 9.90 9.90 9.63 10.43 12.30 11.25 10.45 10.02 XcPiS d 3.06 5.03 6.69 7.19 7.61 8.25 9.06 9.65 9.96 12.71
Data Comparisons Figure 112 compares the results of these empirical methods with actual test data for the body/strake configuration. across the angle of attack range at Mach 1.2. Very good correlation is shown
210
ii
XTE
xc
hISI
40
80
120
160
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
Figure 107.
General Curve Form,
XCp BS
211
.HA 0
.7r--.
I
N
(n
00
ca4
.21
c4'
"
~212
1.2
0.81
A1
0.4
/C
40
(A
1.2
S//
120 160 80 ANGLE OF ATTACK-D1G. + A + A3 (R) + A4 (T) + A5 2
40 Fla-ir. 109.
80 120 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
160
Polynomial Coefficients for Calculating XCP BS
213
1.2
0.
A3
0.4
40
80 120 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEC.
'160
-CH--0. "A,
TC
+ A2
+ A3 (R) +A4(T) +A
,.(
0.
214
0.8
A5
0.4
,0
40
s0
120
160
-"
+A2,
+A 3 a) +A4cT) +
(AS
Figure 109 (Cont.).
PGlynomial Coefficients for Calculating
215
//
1.2
0.8
'2
0.4
R. X.d
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
HACH NUMBER
1.2
S ---d
XB
0.8
Kb
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
MACH NUMBER
Figure 110.
J and K Values for Calculating XCPABS
216
I.
C-4
14,
.00 00
414
41
co..4
217
-'0
C-4
04
00.
'
64
C>
LL-
00
C4
CL
ao0
2190
5.3.3 Summary
Incremental Normal Force Due to Tails
A method is presented for predicting ACNS
the total increment caused Note that ACNBST
BST
by the addition of tails to a body-strake configuration. includes the torces on the tails as well as the carryover to the body-strakes. The angle of attack range is 0 to 180 degrees and the Mach number range is 0.6 to 2.2. Comparisons between predicted and experimental results show This method is an extension of existing methods which are
good agreement.
accurate at angles of attack approaching 0 and 180 degrees. Background The normal force on a body-strake-tail configuration can be expressed as the sum of the forces on the isolated components plus interferenceproduced effects and carryover between the various components. This
section deals with the development of an empirical method which extends the present DATCOM method for predicting the increment in normal force due to the tails of a body-strake-tail configuration. The extended method lnputs to the
covers the entire 0 to 180 degree angle of attack range.
method were obtained from DATCOM (Reference 17) at the lower angles and experimental data correlations at the higher angles. At low to moderate angles of attack, say up to 20 degrees, the DATCOM
method extends the basic theoretical procedures to accouter for the effects of separated flow in the form of symmetric steady vortices. Since the flow
pattern in the 0-180 degrees range usually contains asymmetric and/or unsteady vortices, a modification of the DATCOM extension is stead, inappropriate. InThe
a new extension of the basic theoretical procedures is desired. ACN BS, which includes the combined effects of
new method will predict
220
interference and carryover.
The nature of the instrumentation and con-
figurations tested dictated the following formulation of the tail contribution to normal force: ACNBST -CNBST -C NBS
where CNBS is determined by the method of Section 5.3.2. Method Development A power series approach was used and in the usual way boundary conditions were sought. First, values' of ACNBST were extracted from wind tunnel data
on an Air Force body-strake-tail configuration tested at angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees and Mach numbers between 0.6 and 2.2 data as a guide, the values of ACNBST at 90 degrees were taken as zero. Using these
at 0 and 180 degrees and 3ACN.BST 1a The derivative aACNBST at 0 and 180 degrees
and the value of C N at 90 degrees were left as free variables; viz., N T(B) CNcr and CNw/2, respectively. CNajo, Applying these boundary conditions to the power series expansion ACNBST %a
4 I+ + aa2 + a3a3 + a4a + asa5
y ielded 6a2+ 13a 3 1 4 + 4 a 124a

+80 -;3
BST
1 +,20
+
* ~
so32
+r+ 41+-N-12 +so 4 / 4a

_; 3 o -;4 o+
+
c
51
I
ACN
221
77-
1ac aC~~~asC 1 ,1 a
+ A2
2 Ac,/2
x,(o + A 3 A
(40)
where
A1 A2 A -16a2 62
6-52 + 13
32a~u 3 +
. la4 + 4a5 6-04 4
in radians 4a5
le2 +
-
3
W2 -w
A3
i"
Values of A1 , A2 and A3 are plotted as a function of angle of attack in Figures 113, 114 and 115. Values of ACN3 0 and ACN. References 12 and 30. can be determined using the methods of
The generalized expression suggested in Reference 30 and ACN w is as follows: ST (4()
used to predict the magnitude of ACNO AC NOli -r(B)

where CNT(, the
+ K')
TI Sref
(
- 0 or a - w, can be
'irmal force curve slope at either
determined using the method of DATCOM or the RAS Data Sheets (Reference 27). In the case of ACN0 o, the values of YT(B) and 'B(T) taken from Reference 30 can be determined from Figure 116. mined from Figure 116. In the case of ACNw, KB(T) can be deter-
However, at a - 1800 KT(B) is set equal to 1.0 since
there will be no upvaah due to a forebody at the "leading" edge of the tail. Note that the slope at a - w will be negative. From the experimentally derived data, the value of ACN,/2 was found to approximate 3.65 at all Mach numbera. configuration tested. This value applies only to the
Assuming that the value at 90 degrees varies as toe
222
-it
-----
ratio of planform areas, the following equation can be applied to determine values cf AC ACN 2 7t/2 for general configuraticna. S 1.156' S-ref (42)
Use of Method
The method for predicting ACNT(BS) is applied in the following way: 1 Determine CN using either the method of DATCOM (Reference 17) or the
RAS Data Sheets (Reference 27). 2 Calculate ACN., and ACNi using Equation 41 and Figure 116. 3 Calculate ACN,/, 4 using Equation 42.
Using the results of steps 2 and 3, Equation 40, and Figures 113, 114 and 115 calculate ACNT(BS) between 0 and 180 degrees angle of attack.
Numerical Example Calculate ACNBST between 0 and 180 degrees angle of attack at M -
0.6 for a configuration with the following characteristics.

d - 3.667 in.
bT single panel - 1.867 in. exposed ST single panel - 8.883 sq. in. ART 0.785 double panel
AT " 0.687 1 Using the RAS Data Sheets for A = 0.687 and AR = 0.785, the
slope of the tail normal force curve was determined to be 1.173/rad.
223
Calculate ACN
a00
using Equation 41 and the results of step 1. using Figure 116 for d/s - 0.495, KT(B) = 0.8
At a
= 0 degrees, -
AC N
0
(1.45 + 0.81 1.173 * (2 * 8-883 10.56

4.44/rad; Sref - Sbas
/
3
ACM N
Qo
Calculate AC a 0 At a
-
using Equation 41 and the results of step 1.
180 degrees, there will be no upwash at the fin "leading

-
edge" due to a forebody; therefore, K % (T) - 0.8. AC

0
1.0; from Figure 116
N - - [1.0 + 0.8] 1.173 *

-
~2
* 8.883] 2 1.56
AC
-3..5 l/rad; Sr
- Sbase
Calculate AC ArN w2
1.156
using the following equation. Sp Sref
'AC N
"/IA.
1.156 2 * 8.883 + 3.667 * 4.243

10.56
ACNwI2 -3.65 5 Using Equation 40 the results of steps 2, 113, 114 and 115, calculate AC angle of attack. 3 and 4 and Figures
between 0 and 180 degrees
224
(Continued)'
a(det) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 J' 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
A 1
A2 0 0.045 0.15 0.305 0.48 0.645 0.79 0.905 0.98 1.0 0.98 0.905 0.79 0.645 0.48 0.305 0.15 0.045 0.0
A3 0.0 -. 007 -. 020 -. 032 -. 038 -. 034 -. 026 -. 015 -. 005 0.0 -. 005 -. 002 -. 052 -. 089 -. 131 -. 162 -. 167 -. 123 0.0
6CNBST 0.0 0.735 1.356 1.942 2.464 2.883 3.207 3.454 3.617 3.65 3.617 3.373 3.184 2.821 2.381 1.830 1.234 0.632 0.0
0.123 0.166 0.161 0.13 0.092 0.052 0.022 0.005 0.0 0.005 0.014 0.026 0.034 0.037 0.032 0.021 0.007 0.0
225
i/
are compared against experimental data in Figure 117. Considering the scatter in the data, agreement is good. Due to a lack of data on bodystrake-tail configurations throughout the angle of attack range, Independent checks of the method are not Possible at this time.
Data Comparison The results of the numerical example along with the results of other test Cates
226
'-4-
00 '00 -41 to
'3 0 CC4
4-9
227
SJ
'
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
' ...
_ _
-4
-.
i"d
o
.
"
_ _ _
o
.-
6g
.4U
228
______/
/'
/4
f-4__
04
00
-4
-41
4.3
44
4e4
~z.
229
(Reference 30)
2.0w
or
%() 0.8
H(),
o.4
o0
Fiiure 116.
0.2
0.4 SkAN And
0.6
d
0.3
BODI DjZETER
1.0
Ratios (slender Body Theory)
230
00
14
lo
410 444 C4
400 . -4 (
IIOU
en
C4
-23
5.3.4 Summary
Effective Center of Pressure for incremental Normal Force Due to Tails
A method is presented to predict XCPBs,
the effective certer of
pressure of the incremental normal force producei by adding tails to a bodystrake configuration. The method is applicable to "plus" configuration at
Mach numbers between 0.6 and 3.0 and angles of attack from 0 to 180 degrees. This method has been applied to the center of pressure calculationE complete body-strake-tail configuration. for a
Agreement between predicted and In some cases, it was
experimental results were found to be quite good.
found that predictions could be improved by using the Jorgensen technique for predicting CNB up to 40 degrees angle of attack. Until enough comparisons
are available to determine which method provides better results consistently, it is recommended that both the CNB prediction method of Section 5.1.1 and (Reference 12) be used in XCpBST calculations up to 40
that of Jorgensen
degrees angle of attack. Background Current methods for predicting the effective center of pressure, XCPABST,
of the increment in normal force due to the additions of tails to a bodystrake configuration are not accurate over the entire 0 to 180 degree angle of attack range. 30 degrees. In general, they are limited to angles of attack lesp than
These methods require separate procedures to calculate centers carryover from the
of er-ssure for the tail in the presence of the body, tail to the body and strake-tail interference.
Using this approach over the
entire angle of attack range would require much more information than was available and would result in awkward and time consumming methods. to develop simple, In order a
easy to u.,e methods for preliminary design purposes,
232
method is presented for calculating a composite center of pressure for the total increment in normal force due to toe addition of tails. Method Development An analytic approach to method development was ruled out due to the complicated nature of the flow field. development was selected and, sought. A power series approach to method boundary conditions were use in determining boundary
in the usual way,
Available experimental data were of little
conditions.
The only data available were total configuration pitching moment
and normal force coefficients for body-strake-tail and body-strake configurations. results. Applying these data to the following equation yielded highly questionable
xC
XCP ABST
BST
-CS
CN MT _ CNS
At angles of attack greater than 90 degrees, calculated centers of pressure were off the body. the strakes., This can be attributed to the effect of tail downwash on
Tail downwash will lower the normal force on the strakes and aft. This results in a much larger change in
tend to move the strake X moment due to the tend to indicate. were sought. At a - 0 degrees,
4'4tion of tails than the change in normal force would Keeping this in mind, other sources of boundary conditions
the effective center of pressure of the incremental
force due to the addition of tails can be approximated by summing the moments about the tail leading edge at the root. XCpr. XCPB(
ABST
CR
R
[(Kr(B) I KB (T)
(43)
233
The important incremental forces are taken to be the force on in the presence the tall of the body and the force on body In the presence Terms accounting of the tail. for the effects of strake vortices on the tail are cluded, since not Inat a f 0 degrees strake vortices will be weak or values of Jfr (B) non-existent. ' KB (T),I XCPTUB, Vl oB T) I n XCpB and B(T can be found in References 4 and 30. However, for "R C R the sake of completeness, they are presented hers in Figures again 118 through 122. At a - 180 degrees. Equation 43 can again be used. KT(B) should be equal to 1.0 since there will upwash at the be no tail trailing edge due to the presence of a forebody. Values of XCP )can be taken from Figures 119 and 120. Values for CR V.' are presented in Reference 30. !iup CR
Again for the sake of completeness are presented these values here in Figures 123 and 124, At a - 90 degrees no interference there will be between the tails and strakes. Then the effective pressure can be center of assumed at the centroid of the fin planform area. assumption Is This valid so long as the carryover from the tails to the Small. Section 5.2.2 body is dealing with IB(T) has shown that the carryover is small. Applying the above boundary conditions to the following power series expansion
xCPABSS
CR BST 0 a 1 +aal +aa2a
2
yielded X11BT3a.+.
"C
Rt
2a 2
Xcp CPO
-1
ff2
L--"
4--e -X
__ 42j+
7
42
+
CR
1it
XCp I
234
which can be rewritten as:
XPAsA CP
+1 + AA
CitXC-O 2 XCIp
-
(44)
CR
where:
,
Ao
CR
CR
+A2CR
(4
I 3a + 2
~W
2 ( a in radians)
2
A 4 2 Values of A, Use of Method 4
A,, and A2 are plotted in Figures 125, 126 and 127.
A general description presenting the details of how to apply this method will be presented in this section. This will be followed by a numerical
example in which this method is applied in conjunction with the other methods needed to calculate the XCp of a complete body-strake-tail configuration.,
Calculate XCp 0 CR a Use Figure 118 tc '-"termine the appropriate l values of r(B) and KB(T) at
of d/.e.
bDepending upon the Mach number, use either Figure 119 or 120 to determine XCPT(B) CR c Depending upon' the Mach number, to determine XCPB(T) CR use either Figure 121 or 122
235
dApply the results of steps a,
b and c to Equation 43.
The
calculated center of pressure is measured from the leading .

-,edge
to the fin root chord. 2 Calculate XCP
CR
a Use Figure 118 to determine 'B(T) and assume KT(B) - 1.0. use either Figure 119 or 120
bDepending upon the Mach number, to determine. CT(B) CR c
Depending' upon the Mach number use either Figure 123 or 124 to determitre XCPB(T)
CR
dApply the results of Steps a, b and c to Equation 43. The
calculated center of pressure is measured from the trailing edge of the fin root chord. eUsing the results of step d determine the center of pressure as measured from the leading edge of the fin root chord. 3 Calculate the centroid of the fin planform area as measured from the leading edge of the fin root chord. 4 Apply the results of steps 1, 2 and 3 to Equation 44 to determine xCp "the ABST Of AC for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees. ST CR
Numerical Example Calculate the centev of pressure for the following body-strake-tall configuration at M - 0.6. Body:
3.667 in.
14.5
d
'N d
2.5
tangent) ogive
236
Strakes: C b 14.33 in.

R
8.06 sq.in.
AR
0.040
2
Tails:
0.40 in.
CRT
bT
5.96 in. = 1.867 in.
ST ATE
d
8.883 00
0
eq.in.
ART - 0.785 ALE = 45@ 13.22
A- 0.687
04dLE
Calculate
XCPABST d
Calculate XCPO CR Rd i. Using Figure 118 for d KTr(B) - 1.45 KB(T)

ii.
0.495,
= o.8
= 00 and A
-
From Figure 119 for A
0.687;
T.E. XCP (B)

-
0.309 0.687, d = 0.495 and no
CR iii. From Figure 121 for A X afterbody:

XCPB(T) _ 0.226
s
CR iv. Applying the results of steps i through iii Equation 43 yields: to
237
"-CF
b Calculate
0.27) CCP CR 0.8; hovever,
1.
As in the previous step 4B(T)
KT(B) 0 1.0 In the absence of a forebody. It. From Figure (I.*.# 19i for A 0.687 and ALE 0*
Fin TE. facing f'orvard)
XCPT(B)
CR CR Ill. 0.175.
a
From Figure 123 for
0.495, A - 0.687 and
ALE 0*
(i.e., Fin trailing edge forward):
CR
iv.
Apply the results of steps I through III to Equation 43 yields:
x
-
0.142 (measured from T..)
xcP
("easo red from L.I.)
CR
C-.CcuiP.
S0.858
"~
r2
in
R
0a.553
238
Apply the results of steps a, b and c to Equation 44 for angles of attack between 0 and 180 degrees.
a
(deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-
AI'
-
A2
0.0 -0.0494 -0.0864 -0.1111 -0.1235 -0.1235 -0.1111 -0.0864 -0.0498 0.0 0.617 0.1358 0.2222 0.3210 0.4321 0.5556 0.6914 0.8395 1.0
.
x CPABST
R 0.279 0.308 0.338 0.368 0.398 0.429 0.460 0.491 0.523 0.555 0.587 0.620 0.653 0.686 0.720 0.754 0.788 0.823 0.858
XCP
d 13.67 13.72 13.77 13.82 13.87 13.92 13.97 14.02 14.07 14.12 14.17 14.23 14.28 14.33 14.39 14.45 14.50 14.56 14.61
1.0 0.8395 0.6914 0.5556 0.4321 0.3210 0.2222 0.1358 0.0617 0.0 -0.0494 -0.0864 -0.1110 -0.1235 -0.1235 -0.1111 -0.0864 -0.0494 0.0 XC +
0.0 0.2099 0.3951 0.5556 0.6914 0.8025 0.8889 0.9506 0.9877 1.0 0.9877 0.9506 0.8889 0.8025 0.6914 0.5556 .3951 0.2099 0.0 CPABsT
Where
d L.E.
CR
CR d
239
Calculate ACN.sT a 0 10
using the method of Section 5.3.3 IICN BST 0 0.711 1.178 1.909 2.438 2.865 3.186 3.450 3.616 3.65 3.616 3.441 3.178 2.814
(p. 220 ff)
"20
30 40 50 .60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
140
150 160 170 180
2.374
1.824 1.229 0.631 0.0
C2
240
Calculate ACN
and
NBS
using the methods of Sections 5.3.1
CP iS
(p. 190 ff) X p/d 7.124 8.560 9.486 9.902 9.807 9.202 8.087 8.554 9.159 9.901 10.781 11.798 12.952 12.074 11.342 10.759 10.325 10.040 9.904
and 5.3.2. respectively. a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
ACNs 0 0.45 1.5 2.9 4.2 5.15 5.5 4.95 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.2 5.35 4.15 2.3 0.7 0.0
241
S//
xi using the methods of Sections 5.1.1 CXcpB
Calculate CN
and
B
(p. 39 ff) aiud
d
5.1.2 (p. 61 ff), respectively
(dog)
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
0 1.09 3.10 5.74 8.50 12.09 13.79 15.69 16.76 17.18 16.76 15.67 13.73 11.94 8.26 5.41 2.72 0.79 0.0
3.6 4.75 6.15 6.15 6.15 6.15 6.5 6.88 7.25 7.6 8.0 8.35 '8.72 9.1 9.48 9.85 10.2 12.5 14.5
242
/A
Calculate the centers of pressure between 0 and 180 degrees for the complete body-strake-tail configuration using the following equation:
.1*~C
8s'r
B(~)+ CX?
B(N
B WINES( .,. (tas
I ABS)
+ CNBS BS (
&
( )
'-N
d I STrNB-"hC except at a , .. :xcp, '.
S;
0 and 180 degrees CM = BST CIASC CN mCNB m BdT SmATS ACjNis ACN BST (Xcp/d) BST
~ ~when
w CM3 (deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 5.18 19.07 35.30 52.28 74.35 89.64 107.95 121.51 130.58 134.08 130.84
[1
.M
0 3.85 14.23 2E.72 41.19 47.39 44.48 42.34 27.48 29.70 32.34 35.39
0 9.75 24.4'4 26.38 33.82 39.88 44.51 48.37 50.88 5i.,54 51.24 48.97
0 1.09 3.10 5.74 8.50 3.2.09 13.79 15.69 16.76 17.18 16.7. 15.67
0 0.45 1.50 2.90 4.20 5.15 5.5 4.95 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0 0.71 1.18 1.91 2.44 2.87 3.19 3.45 3.62 3.65 3.62 3.44 8.32 1000 8.57 8.41 8.04 7.95 8.25 8.55 8.89 9.31 9.73
243
S//
NAC
(S
&W.
120 130 140 150 160
119.73 108.65 78.30 53.29 27.74
.. %38.86 62.79 60.68 44.65 23.75
45.38 40.32 34.16 26.36 17.82
B 13.73 11.94 8.26 5.41 2.72
as 3.0 5.2 5.35 4.15 2.3
T(S) 3.18 2.81 2.37 1.82 J.23
10.24 10.61 10.83 10.92 11.09
170 180
9.88 0
7.03 0,
.9.19 0
.79 0
.7 0
.63 0
12.31
Data Comparisons
"The results
of the numerical example are compared with experimental data As can be seen, agreement is quite good. The
at Mach 0.8 In Figure 128.
results obtained using Jorgensen's CNB predictions up to. 40 degrees are

also presented. The results of further check cases at other Mach numbera 130, and 131. As noted In Section 5.1.1,
are shown in Figures 129,
Jorgensen's method is recommended for predicting CNB up to angles of attack of 40 degrees.
244,
Reference 30 2.0
1.2
Or
KB(T)
_
.8
0.2
0.4
0.6 d a
0.8
1.0
BODY DIAMETER SPAN Figure 118.
KT(B) and KB(T) Ratios
.ry)
245
0.6
.,--Extrapolation
0.4
0.2 i/
00 --
0.5
00
0.6
X~p
0.4 -CP'
------
cp
0.2-,
,-
--
0.-_
0.5
1
C R-
/ (b) Reference 30
0.6
0.5
0.2
-I
-I
5 4 3 EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIC (b) No Midehord Sweep
6 BAR (c)
(a) No Leadtng-ldge Sweep
No Trailing-Edge Sweep
Fliure 119.
Tail Alone Center of Pressure at Subsonic Speeds
246
0.6
Extrapolation
0.4
---
o" . ..-
1
0
0.2 I/ Ca)
.i.0
0.41
--
,Jb)
/(b)
-__
Reference
30
0.6
0.2
(a)
EPFFCTIVF ASPECT RATIO, IAR No Leadhig-Edlge ituep (h) No M~dchord Rw~ep Figure 1,20.
(c')
No T-afl Ing-Fdge
Tail Alone Center of Pressure at Supersonic Speeds
O0
'47
0.6
-
0-.5_
a/p
-0.6
/p -_ 0.2
---
'~~~
0.4A-
0.3
/"
0.2 0.4
(a) A I
0
-a/p
. -o. -.S-
0.6-0.2
0
AC
C R
XCB (T),"
, 0.3 0.2
-d
0.1(b) A -0.5
m
Reference 30
---
lp_
0,0.2.0.4,0.6 ,_._
0.2
__
(c) 1
1 2
1.0
3 4 5
OAR for Subsonic Speeds
EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO, Figure 121. Curves fnr Determining XCP,
.B(T) (Zero Trailing Edge Sweep)
248
0 2o
0,2 0.2
,0
0.6
. 4e -6 -
0. -I
0.4
.2 a/p
..
-+
ro o-"
w-.
) CR.1(T
S...
0.2
r__
__ __ __ __ __
(b) A=0.5
o..L...I.I.I.I..1 0 0.6 I
-
Reference 30
0.6 LO.4
0.4 I'
0.2
"lip
0.2
I,
(c)A - 1.0
o
0 1.0
1
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
2.0
3.0
EFFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO BAR

Figure 122. Curves for Determining XCPB /CR for No-Afterbody
B(T)
at Supersonic Speeds
249
0.3 ....
0.2
IEjt
T e r "hieory I
I/p-O.1
-- -,2.2.....
pt
-
- -0.2 ,-~ " "0,6

_____
0.4
,- "
///"(-)
0.3
a/p 0. 2 " --
0 0.2
.04 Ct
0.1_ (b) A 0.5 5
10.6
0 0.3 O/p Reference 30 0.0.2, 0.4,0.6
0.2
0.1
~~ /Ae)
1.0
oL
0 1 1 2 3 4 EMFECTIVE ASPECT RATIO, 5 $AR 6 7 8 Figure 123. Curves for DetermIning X T/CR for Subsonic Speeds DP (T)R
(Zero Leadilng Edge Sweep)
250
2.0 2.
-Extrapotation
Theory
0.6
a/p
1.0
0.2 0 a
2.0
No leading edge sweep a/p -0.6
1.6
1. 2 ._.
/ 0.4
0.8
CP
00.4 0
2.0
Iuvs
De)
Au 0.5
/Reference
30
a/P -0.6
1.6
/
0.4
0.82
00
Figure 124.
EFFECTrVE ASPECT U4Tro. SA Curves for Determining "(?B()ICR with Afterbodies
at Supersonic Speeds
251
Go-
-4L
00
-404
VV
-. r4
00 -4 or,
rA
44
r4
0 4
r-4
00
'4
bo
V4
C14
00
00 '--4
0u
'-v4
p44
-4
'-44
CN.
C)-0 0
I~_
_4_
-V
01 -0,
V 41~
k4
4)
00
0
040 0
04)
40
.............
-- -- -- ----- ---- -
- -- --
-A
____
___
00 kU
A.
41
to
________ to
0-
Z''4
II
'I"
'D
'
C44
rA2 I..4V
aa
'441
14f
0I
O 14
258 ~f
5.4 5.4.4
Body-Wing-Tail Configurations Incremental Normal Force Due to Wings
Summary A method is presented to predict ACN B force due to the addition of wings to a body. the total increment in normal The method is applicable
to Mach numbers between 0.6 and 3.0 and angles of attack fron 0 to 30 degrees. Comparisons between predicted resultq and experimental data show The maximum
good agreement for all cases except Mach numbers less than 1.0.
difference between predicted and experimental values for theso subsonic' cases occurs at an angle of attack of 30 degrees underprediction of between 30 and 40 percent. oad can amount to an
A discussion of some possible
sources of the discrepancy is presented in connection with the comparibons between test and predicted values. Rackground Addition of wings to a body will produce an increase in normal iorce. This increase differs from the normal force produced on the isolated wing under identical free stream conditions. The difference is attributable At low angles
to mutual interferences between configuration components. of attack (a<6),
the interference effects are due largely to body upwash
on the wings, normal force carry-over from the wings to the body and downwash imposed on the body aft of the wings due to trailing wing vortices. As angle of attack is increased beyond 6 degrees, the body crosaflow boundary layer begins to separate and roll up into symmetrically disposed vortices on either side of the body. effect on wing loading. Downwash from these vortices hss an additional
Body vortices grow in size and strength with
increases in angle of attack; therefore, their influence varies with angle
259
of atack.
At angles of attack greater than 30 degrees,
the vortex wake
will become asymmetric due to the alternate shedding and growth of additional vortices. An asymmetric body vortex wake will alter the downwash This in turn will, alter the loading on each This problem is more accute
which each wing experiences.
wing inducing a configuration rolling moment. in the subsonic and transonic Mach regimes. MethodDevelopent A method is required
to predict the increment in normal force due to ACNBW. The method is to be applicable t'
the- addition of wings to a body,
Mach numbers between 0.6 and 3.0 and angles of attack to 30 or 40 degrees. The method must account for wing non-linear normal force characte"istics and mutual component interferences. The exis. rg method of DATCOM (Reference 17) predicts isolated wing including non-linear effects.
normal force as a function of angle of ettack,
Wing normnl .orce predintions are corrected for interference effects using the slender body interference factors of Reference 30. Body vortex effects The
on the wings are predicted separately and added to these results.
procedure for predicting body vortex effects requires the prediction of vortex location and strength in order to determine vortex interference factors.,
Body vortex interference factors are applied to wing linear nornmal force characteristics only. Ir Figure 132 the method of DATCOM has been applied
to a body wing configuration and the results compared with experimental data of Reference 30. The comparison between predicted and experimental However, to
results is quite good up to 20 degrees angle of attack.
extend the predictions past 20 degrees requires extrapolation.
For the The
comparison of Figure 132 the predictions were extended to 25 degrees.
260
comparison shows that past 20 degrees, diverge.
predictions and experimental data
Due Lo this angle of attack limitation ane difficulties encountered a new ACNBW ,:.ethod
with the body vortex interference prediction methods, was developed.
The i"ethod of this section predicts isolated wing normal force coefficients as a function of angle of attack and then corrects for interference effects. Utilizing the concept of the interference factors according to the incremental normal force due to the addition of
References 17 and 30, a wing to a body is:
NBW
where
AC
(B)
+K I.
B(W)
Yre-
<5
w
RW(B) and RW(B)
(45)
and KB(W) are
.NW (a) represents the iso.ated surface coefficients. factors. Methods for predicting CNW(a) respectively.
are interference
presented in Sections 5.1.4 and 5.2.1,
Empirical inputs to R (B) is an
these methods were developed using the data of Reterence 13. interference factor which when applied to isolated
panel data predicts the RW(B) empirically
normal force on Lhe wing in the presence of the body.
accounts for body upwash and body vortex downwash on the wing and can be predicted as a function of M, d/s, A and a. RW(B) replaces the KW(B) and
body vortex term in the method of Reference 17.
The normal
force on the
wing in the presence of the body is believed to be the dominating factor in ,the ACNBW term. Therefore for the purposes of this method, the normal
.arry-over from the wing to the body can be predicted with sufficleut accuracy using the carry-over factor KB(W) of Reference 30. ness, For the sake of complete-
values (f KB(W) are presented again in Figure 133.
261
UIse of Method A general description of how to apply the method will be presented in this section. This will be followed by a numerical example demonstrating
the use of the method.
Calculate isolated wing normal force coefficieuts as a function of angle of attack using the method of Section 5.1.4.
2' Calculate the interference factor Rt(B) using the method of Section 5.2.1. 3 (p. 1.43 ff).
Use Figure 133 to determine KB(W) at tlie appropriate vailue of d/s.
Apply the results of Steps 1-3 to Equation 45.
Numerical Exampjle The method for predicting ACNw(t") will be applied to a configuration with the following characteristics at M-1.1. lBody:
L/d
10.0
IN/d - 3.0 tangent-ogive N

d 3.75 in.
Wing: X 0.0 = 63.43" AR Xi.a. 2.0 - 16.75 in. d/sn 0.4
AL.E.
Sw/Sref - 1.432
The steps are as follows: I Calculation of CNW using the method of Section 5.1.4 (p. 91 ff).
262
CNw (o)
Nw
.93/rad
from R'.A.S.
Data Sheets
(Reference 27)
CN (0/2) -
3.1
a (deg) 0 5 10 )5 20 25 30 2
CN T 0 0.281 0.520 0.787 1.028 1.281 1.511

5 2 -. .1,(p. 143 if)
Calculation of RW(B) using the method of Section
RW(B)
a (deg) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
KW(B)=
R.(8)* 1.36 1.351 1.319 1.26 1.191 1.108 1.0
1.36
0*
* Using Transonic method
Using Figure 133:
KB(W)
0.61
d/s - 0.4
263
4Apply thae results of Steps 1-3 to Equation 45.
a (deg)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Data Comparisons The results of the numerical example are compared aith experimental data in Figure 134. See Figure 135 for a sketch of the configuration. 0 0.789 1.437 2.L08 2.651 3.152 3.484
Further comparisons oetween predicted results and experimental data are presented in Figures 136 through 139. Mach rumbers and configurations. length, These comparisons cover a range of
The configurations of interest vary body In all cases agreement between
relative wing size and wing planform.
predicted and experimental data is numbers. See Figure 139.
quite good except at subsonic Mach the pre-
For the configurations of Figure 139,
dicted and experimental results begin to diverge rapidly between 22 and 30 degrees angle of attack. The maximum differences occur at 30 degrees
where the predicted results are between 30 and 40 percent under the experimental values. be determined. as suspect, At this time, the source of the difference cannot one aspect of the proposed method must be considered
However,
namely the use of KB(W) from Reference 30 which strictly speaking Since the wings were not
applies at angles of attack near zero only.
instrumented in the tests which provided the basis for the current study, the variation in KB() with a cannot be evaluated. Therefore, RN(B), which
264
is
the sar.e as RT(B)
(Section 5.2.1),
accounts for the effects of a,
but
%(W)
does not.
In order to explore the seusitivicy of the resuilt to KB(W), were chosen such that agreement with the test data was
values of K achieved.
The required value is twice the magnitude as expected for the For example, RW(B) for configuration
particular bo, y diameter to span ratio.
1 was set equal to 1.46 (the maximum value iodicated by the data of Reference 13 for a fin with d/s - 0.5) and the value of KB(W) which would force matching was calculated. The value calculated was approximately 1.6 or As a result, a question
twice the value of 0.8 predicted in Figure 133.
can be raised concerning the accuracy of the test data. data is necessary to determine if
Further systematic
the differences observed in Figure
139 are due to inaccuracies in the experimental data or in the prediction method.
265
0. 930.
AR d/e
2.0 0. 35
-2.19
1.1
ref
oExperimental
-DATCOM
(Ref. 34)
(Ref. 17)
006
.0
10 ANGLE OF ATTACX-DEI;.
20
30
l ir 1 Q.
(Xomparlqon (IfExltJng Method Predictions With Experimental ?Xmta,
ACN
266w
2.0
Reference 30
-
1.61
1.2/
KB(W)
0.8
/-_________
0.4
0.2
0.4 0.6 BODY DIAMTER

SPAN
o.8 d
a
1.0
Figure 133.
KB(W) Ratio at Zero Angle of Attack
2h7
ui in
fe
W1
0. 4
oon
" t410
to
268
---
w--
sJ
Ia 00 C 0 U
0J Ia
Ia.
a
.4
a
.4 1. .4 0
2 tP)
-44
00
JG)4
LLCL L)
el -44
00
270)
11.5d_
4.Od
1. 5d
L
10
M M .8
.Od
6. Od
v
-
.- 13.369 d/s -
_I*W
Srf 0.25 A -0.4 - 0.857
ACNB
6 1WAR
2_
0 0 10 AN4GLE OF ATTACK-DEG. 20
Experimental
(Ref.
20)
16.5Sd 10
M
-S
3.08 8
1
w --
8.02i
Sef d/s 0.357 0. AR - 0.514

-
NBW
AC
61
2 0 0 Figure 137. 10
2 M-3. 08
Comparison Between Experimental And Predicted Results, AC NW
271
4.133d
S-
11
AR
-1.231
d/s -0. 2711
2. Sd
Srof
10. 333d
O
-
Experfmental (Ref.
Predicted
35)
S-1.9
12
AC NBW
~2
0 0
.0 ANGLE OF. ATACK-DEG.
20
Figure 138.
Comparison Between Experimental And Predicted Results,
ACNB
-1.9
272
-4
00
* 0'
cc2
Ow
00 0n C W
273
5.4.2 Summary
Effective Center of Pressure for Incremental Formal Force Due to Wings
A method to predict the effective center of pressure, X incremental normal force, ACN BW is presented.
,Cp of
the
CNBW includes normal force
on the wing in the presence of the body plus any carry-ove- from the wing to the body. The method is applicable to Mach numbers from 0.6 to 3.0
and angles of attack from 0 to 30 degrees for body-wing configurations. Comparisons between predictions and experimental data have shown good agreement. Background The addition of wings to a body produces an incremental normal force, ACNBW. This incremental normal force includes the normal force on the wing
in the presence of the body plus any carry-over from the wing to the body. See Section 5.4.1. When attempting to predict wing-body configuration aeroit is necessary to determine the effective For preliminary design purposes, it
dynamic stability characteristics, center of pressure, XCpABW of ACNBW
is desired that the method for predicting this center of pressure be easy to use. The current met'iod of Reference 17 is awkward to employ. easy to use method will be presented in There-
fore a more elementary, section.
this
Method Development Development of the method began with an analysis of experimental data of References 20 and 34, consisting of normal force and pitching moment Experimental
coefficients for isolated bodies and body-wing configurations.
274
values of the XCPABW were determined using the following equation:
XCP
d
CX B NBWC-- BW - CNBAC NBw
S-
(46)
where center ofrpressure is measured in diameters from the nose.
The
results showed that XCP MI/d remained essentially constant for angles of attack between 0 and 30 degrees. Therefore, the method will rely on remain constant between 0
predicting Xcp at a - 0 degrees and letting it and 30 degroes.
To make the method independent of forebody length,
the procedure
defines the center of pressure location as a percentage of the wing root chord measured from the root chord leading edge. of Reference 30, X /C at aBased on the discussions
0* can be expressed as:
CPAEW' R
XCP CR
=CR) ('%B) IKW(B) + KB(W)]

KB(), XCp(B))/C R and XCP B(w)/CR
(47)
where CNaW terms cancel and KW(B),
terms
as derived from slender body theory, are presented in Figures 144.
140 through,
Use of Method To illustrate fully the use of the method for predicting. general description of the procedure is presented, step by step numerical example.
XCP
,
followed by a
275
Using Figure 140, determine the valnes of Kw(T) the d/s of interest.
and KB(W) for
Depending upon the Mach number, to determine XCPw(B).
use either Figure 141,
142
CR
3 Depending upon the Mach number, to determine XCPB(W) CR use either Figure 143 or 144
for wings with afterbodies.
Using Equation 47,
calculate XCP BW at a - 0 degrees.
"
CR
XCPABW CR
remains fixed for angles of attack between 0 and 30 degrees. 5 XCP To express _ iBW in terms of diameters from the nose use the CR following equation.
Xc__ XCP
d Numerical Example
'~.
d
cpBW t
CP
CR
R
d
Calculate XCP AB
at M
0.85 for a body-wing configuration with the
d following characteristics. d
10 10
d - 3.75 in.
XLE - 16.75
in.
X 1
AR -2.0
-
d/s - 0.5 0.5
CR
3.75 in.
From Figure 140, for d/s KW(B)

KB(W)
- 1.46
- 0.8
276
XCP'
2 Since M XCpw
-
= 0.85, use Figure 141 to determine
W CR
for X - 0.
= 0.57
CRR
Since M - 0.85, use Figure 143 to determine X PB(W) for X

dis = 0.5.
0 and
XCPB(w) CR
= 0.5.
Apply the results
of Steps I -
3 to Equation 47.
XCPABW
CR 5
-
(1.46)(0.57) + (0.8)(0.5)
1.46 + 0.8 ABW in CR
0.55
Express
terms of diameter'j from the nose.
XCP ABw
d Data Comparisons
16.75 + 0.55(3.75)1
3.75 . (3.75)
5.02
A sketch of the configuration used in in Figire 145.
the numerical in
example is
presented
The values of XCPABw/CR calculated
the numerical example
plus results
for the other configurations of Figure 145 are compared with 34) in Figure 146. Further comparisons are 1.1. Figures
experimental data (Reference presented in
Figure 147 for the same configurations at M predictions with experimental
148 and 149 compare centers of pressure. body-wing
(Reference 35)
The predicted values of center of pressure for the the method of Section 5.1.1 for the body the method of Section 5.1.2 for the
combination requires: (CNB),
normal force coefficient
277
center of pressure XCPB off
the method of Section 5.4.1 for the
incremental normal force coefficient due to the addition of a wing to a body (ACNBV), and finally the method described in this section for the The components are com-
effective center of pressure XCPABW of ACNBW.
bined as follows to obtain the total configuration center of pressure.
CN
d N
C + CN CNB +CNBW
(X CP ABW
278
Reference, 30 2.0
71%B
1.2...
%W(B) KBor (1)

0.8
1.
W.
0.4
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 BODY DIAMETER

CPAN Figure 140.
0.8 d
a
1.0
%N(B) And KB(W) Rltios (Slender Body Thpory)
279
0.4 0.3
0 0.2
0. (3
1W
0.11
00.5
0.3-
0.0.5
00.55,
0..4 Effectiv Aspectretioe 0.3 0.2
0.1.
30
IR -
SFitr 0 1
14.Wn ln etrO rsueA uancSed

2 3 4 5 6 7 Iffective Aspect Ratio, OAR (a) No Leading-Edge Sweep 0) Figure 141. No M~d-Chord Sweep Cc) 14, Tralling-Fdge Sweep
Wfng A.loneCenter'Of' Pressure At Subsonic Speedis
280
0. 0.4 0.5 2
Tx
0.1
.0 5
0.4 0
0. 1
0.
Reference
30
0.7
CXl0 w!
0.1
0.1 0 o
(c)
I 1
7 2,8
..
Effective Aspect Ratio, IsAR (a) No Lea.ling-Edge Sweep (b) No Midchord Sweep (c) No Tratling-Edge Suaep
Figure 142.
Wing Alone Cente- Of Pressure At Supersonic
Spet, ,s
281
0.6
1-0
(No Trailing Egde Sweep)
O.5
. 0.,
___0.6
xCPk W 04.
CR
0.3
0.21
SA-1/2
(No Tralling- dge S weep
0.
0.2
CR
Reference 30 A-] (No Trailing-Edge Sweep)
0.2, 0.4, 0.6
aa 0.1 ,
S4
Effective Aspect Ratio, LIAR Figure 14?'. Curvca for Determining XCP a/C t Subsonic Speeds
282
0..2
1.0~~~~~~ -_______
__
0.0.
xCPB W
No Trailing-Edge Sweep
0.2
Reference 30
No Trailing-Edg'i Sweep
xCP
73CW CR
00
Effective kspect Ra~to,BAR Figure 1.44. Cu Ives for Determining XCP ,W ICR with Afterbody at Supersonic Speeds
283
-0
0
4J
* C4
U k
'.4
'.4
-4
41
-4 U
1.4 44
cc 0
41
41 0
'4 4J
44
4..
00 '.4
4'.'
0 U
-4
4' I"
'.4
00
'4
0 0
'.4
'.0
-4 'C -4
0 ,.4 0
-t
284
14
00.1
4 C.
_____
'I
94I
285
C68
-4
j.
U
41
I!
C-4
C14 C4'
&I -I
(beq
-t286
M - 1.9
t/d - 10.33 CR - 4.333d
IN/d 2.5
A-0 AR-1.231 d/s - 0.273 .....
Experimental (Ref. Predicted
35)
12
10
Xcp BW
d
.^ --
10
15
20
25
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 148. Comparison Between Predictions And Experimentnl Data, X d
287
M4-2.86
Afd m 10.333
CRd 1 0.333
SCiR
4.333d
X-0 AR - 1.231 d/, - 0.273
Experinental(Ref. Predicted
35)
12 fd - 2.5 12
I0
10
15
20
25
AMGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 149. Comparison Between Predictions And Experimental Data, XCPABW
288
5.4.3 Summary
Tail Incremental Normal Force Due to Win&-Vortex Interference
A method is presented for predicting ACNTWV,
the incremental normal The method
force produced on a tail due to wing-vortex interference.
predicts a vortex induced augle of attack at the tail, E, which can be used in conjunction with isolated tail normal force data to define CNTWV. 'The
method accounts for variations in wing-tail spacing for angles of attack to 30 degrees in the transonic regime. limited to 24 degrees angle of attack. Supersonic capabilities, however, are
Insufficient data were available for Data available for correla-
correlation at angles greater than 24 degrees.
tion in both Mach number regimes represented limited variations of wing and tail geometries. However, comparisons between predicted and experimental
results for geometries not used in the correlation have demonstrated applicability over a wide range of wing and tall geometries. results have been obtained in all check cases. Ba1ckround Tail loads for body-wing-tall configurations differ from those of body-tail configurations. The difierence is due to wing-tall interference Reasonable
caused by vortices tr~iling aft in the free stream direction from a lifting wing. According to the Kutta-Joukowski relationship, the strength of these
trailing vorticei is related to wing lift.
As the vortices stream aft they
are displaced laterally and vertically by body crossflow and mutual vortex interactions. These trailing vortices aiter the flowfield encountered by a Assuming potential
tail surface and therefore change the tail leading. vortices (Vt . /r),
vortex influence on the tail diminishes with increased To
separation distance between the vortex core and the tail surface.
289
develop a method for predicting the incremental normal force (ACNTWV)on a
tail due to wing vortices it will be necessary Lo account for vortex strengths and variations in vortex-tail separation distances.
Method Development
Values of ACNThV were extracted from experimental data using the

following expression: Tail in presence of body and wing + Tcarryover ACrWV" (CNB 7 CNBW) The quantities CNBWT, CNBW, Tail in presence of body + carryover (CNBT - CNB)
(48)
CNBT and CNB represent main balance data from The assumption was made that the total is applied to the
configuration build-up tests.
increment in normal force, obtained using Equation 48, tail panels only. According to Reference 30,
the portion of the incremental
normal force carried over to the body will generally be a,small fraction of the total increment. Data which could be applied to Equation 48 were limited. Most of the
data were from a transonic body-wing-tail build-up test (Reference 34) for angles of attack to 30 degrees. Wings and tails tested were limited
to aspect ratio 2.0 and taper ratio 0; however, wing d/s and wing-tail axial spacing were systematically varied as illustrated in.Figure 150. Supersonic data were not available for the same configuration tested transonically. configurations. See Reference 20 for a description of the supersonic test Supersonic data were limiteL -o 22 degrees angle of attack. ransonic test data to
To analyze the results obtained by applying
Equation 48, ACNTWV was equated to the normal force produced by an isolated tail tail at an angle attack, a. angle of attack, Therefore, a is analogous to the effective
c, induced by the presence of a trailing wing vortex.
290
UrinR the values of ACNTWv extracted from the transonic test data and isolated fin data, values of c were determined. The method presented in this section was designed to predict c. This angle can be used in con 4unction with isolated fin data to determine ACNTWV. Important parameters which must be considered when attempting to predict E are vortex-tail separation distance and vortex strength. Vortex-tail separation distance is a function of configuration angle of attack and wing-tail axial separation distance (See Figure 151).
71b
A wing
vortex sheds at a lateral position approximated by Yw
4-, the posItion According to
predicted by' slender body theory for low aspect ratio fins.
Reference 30 the vortices trail aft from the wing trailing edge at an angle of attack equal to the free stream angle of attack. The vertical distance
h, separating the vortex center and tail is defined at the point where the vortex breaks the plane of the tail leading edge at a lateral position Yf. In the case where 7V is greater than the tail semispan, this position is defined as the point at which the vortex core intersects a plane perpendicular to the body center line and passing through the intersection of the tail leading edge and the tip chord.
core and tail is
The vertical distance separating the vortex
e-pressed non-dimensionally as:
h.A d d
where fs is' and the tail
tan a
(49)
edge
defined as the axial distance between the wing trailing leading edge.
According to the Kutta-Joukovaski relationship, to lift. Therefore, normal force on the wing in
vortex strength is
related
the presence of the body,
CNw(B),
was utili"ed as the measure of vortex strength.
Variations in
vortex strength due to Mach number,
planform and angle of attack can be
291
reflected by CNW(B). The measured values of c correlated well with ( 152a). ) CNw(, (Figure
This term incorporates the major parameters relating vortex
strength and vortex-tail separation distance to vortex influence on the tail. For angles of attack up to 16 degrees, c was found to vary linearly with the d parameter ( h 1/2 CNw(B). A At angles of attack of 16 to 24 degrees, values
of E/C 1 6 were found to correlate as a function of angle of attack and to be independent of Mach number. However, for angles of attazk greater than 24
degrees, E/c16 became a strong function of Mach number in the transonic range. See Figure 152b. Note that E16 in Figure 152b correeponds to the vortex
induced angle of attack at u - 16 degrees. There were insufficient data evailable to determine what caused the change in induced angle of attack characteristics past a - 16 degrees. According to Reference 2, the vortex shed from an aspect ratio 2.0 delta wing will begin to burst at the leading edge of the tail in the 14 to 16 degree angle of attack range for the various wing-tail separation distances tested. Vortex bursting can best be described as the rapid breakdown of a vortex into random turbulence. Reference 2 indicates that aspect ratio and Mach Decreases in aspect
number have a strong influence on vortex bursting.
ratio and supersonic Mach numbers tend to delay the bursting of vortices shed from delta wings. The data available were not systematic enough to
E.
show whether or not vortex bursting could be related to the changes In
Insufficient supersonic data were available to donduct an analysis like that for the transonic data. Data from Refereace 20 were available to produce
values of e which compared with those obtained from the transonic data up to 22 degrees angle of attack. No supersonic data were available to determine In the tran$onic case most of
how c varied in the 22 to 30 degree range.
292
this region was highly Mach number sensitive;
therefore, use of Figure 152b
for angles greater than 22 degrees in the supersonic regime is not advised. Use of Method To illustrate the use of the method for predicting A description .of the procedure is presented, numerical example. a general
CNTWY
followed by a step-by-step
Determine the distance,
A., between the wing trailing edge
and the leading edge of the tail at a lateral position defined by 'Y =
b
4
2 Determine the vertical distance between the vortex core and the tail surface as a function of alpha using Equation (49). 3 Using Sections 5.1.4 and 5.2.1 calculate CNW(B) quantities C 4 and R.,(B) use the results of Note that in this using the calculated
For angles of attack to 16 degrees, steps 2 and 3 to calculate () step Sref base' CN
d 1/2Noetaints NW(B)
Using the results of step A and Figure 152a determine values of c for angles of attack to 16 degrees.
For transonic Meh (
u-b.bers use Figure 152b for angles of (E1 6 = c at a - 16*)
attack between 16 and 30 degrees. Supersonically,
use of Figure 152b to determine values of c
for angles of attack beyond 22 degrees is not advised. 7 Using Section 5.1.4, calculate C as a function of a.
293
Using the results of Stej-
and 7, determine values of 6
"ACNT
where a - c.
Numerical Example Calculate ACNTWN at M1.1 for the body-wing-tail configuration
with the following characteristics. Body: 1
10.0
LN Wings: AR S CR -
3.75 inches
2.5
2.0
0
0.0
a s
0.35
3.48 inches
12.11 sq. in.
6Inches i.
ATbE.
0O
XL-
15.40 inches
Tails: AR ST CR 2.0 7.909 sq. in. 5.625 Inches

6 31.872 inches
0.0 -s- 2A812 inches - AT.E. 0*
0.4
S.P
-
XL.E.
Calculate -V
Y W
2.733 inches
-__ss
Calculate h/d as a function of a

1s
14.98
2.733
2
294
h d d a 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 30 3
ds d h/d 0 0.279 0.561 0.849 1.145 1.454 1.779 2.124 2.306
tan
a.
Using Section 5.1.4 (p.91ff) and 5.2.1 (p.143ff) calculate
C(B)
c%
a 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 30 C 0 0.224 0.421 0.631 0.835 1.028 1.235 1.421 1.511 RIW(B) 1.3 1.296 1.241 1.244 1.213 1.152 1.099 1.027 1.0
N(B(Bc
CN W(B) 0 0.290 0.522 0.790 1.013 1.184 1.357 1.459 1.511 S ref SW
295
Calculate
-
1/2
CNW(B)
here S
ere
base
using results of steps 2 and 3.
h/d
Id\ 2
CN
0 4 8 12
0 0.279 0.561 0.849
0 0.318 0.572 0.866
0 0.602 0.764 0.940 S ref Sb e
16 5
1.145
1.111
1.038
Using the results of Step 4 and Figure 152a determine E at a - 16 degrees.
a 0
4 8 12 16
dl1/2 C %B w(B) 0
0.602 0.764 0.940 1.038
-_
---0
- 6.3 - 8.0 - 9.9 -10.4
Determine e for angles of attack between 16 and 30 degrees at
SM-1.1
using Figure 152b.

,
Utilizing the value of c at a - 1'6'
degrees degrees.
the values of c are obtained at a greater than 16
296
C/C
16
20 24 28
1.0
0.8 0.37 0.57
-10.4
- 8.32 - 3.85 - 5.93
-10.4 Using Seetion 5.1.4 (p~1ff) calculate C CT" NT 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 .224 ,421 .635 .835 1.028 1.235 1.421
30
1.0
(() at Y- 1.
28
30 1.511 Using the results of Step 5, 6, and 7 determine ACNTWV* Sref (S r 1ACNTWV 0 48
r8.0
"S) S) al
(S ref Sbase) 1xp

0
4 0
0 - ,0.34 0
6.3
-0.42
0.602
297
________
ACNT --- 0.52 - 0.55 - 0.44 - 0.22 - 0.32 - 0.55
ACNTV SoP. D.P. - 0.745 - 0.788 - 0.630 - 0.315 - 0.458 - 0.788
12 16 20 24 28 30 Data Comparisons
- 9.9 -10.4 - 8.32 3.85
- 5.93 -10.4
The results of the numerical example are compared with experimental data in Figure 153. The results show good agreement. 155 and 156. Further comparisons
are presented in Figures 154,
These latter figures compare
normal force coefficients for complete body-wing-tail configurations with experimental data. These predictions required the use of several methods A range of Mach
in conjunction with the method for predicting ACNv.
numbers and configuration geometries were covered and good agreentent was obtained in all cases. Figures 155 and 156 represent independent the method.
comparisons since these data were not used to development
298
Config.,113
Conf ig.
123
Config.
133
..
Figure 150.
Transonic Wind Tunnel Test Configurations
299
U--
4p4
Vortex Path Tail Leading Edge Plane
Figure 151.
Wing Vortex Location
300
-15"
-10
C (DEG)
0
0 0.5 CN (B) 1.0 Note: S ref1.5 Sbase
1.2
Mach 1.1
0.8
b) a 3-16
0.4 16 16 18 , -0.4 20 22 24 26 28 30
;T
-0.8
Figure 152.
Wing Vortex Induced Tall Angle of Attack
301
II
"41
ml0
I.
30
id w
300
SIIIIII
II
o
-
Experimental (Ref,
Predicted
20)
25 S-0.7
20
15
10
10 ANCLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
15
20
Figure 154.
Compartson Between Predicted And Experimental Results, CNBW ,-0.7
303
j/
0
-
xpertmental:(Ref. 34) Predicted (Jorgenueet,'* CN. Ref. 12)
8B
CN B
0 0 10 AXGLE OF ATTACK-DEC.. Figure 155. Comparison Between Predicted And Experimental Results, C, 20
M1-0.85
304
o
N 2.36 '
Lperimental (Ref.
36)
-Predicted
20
25
Figure 156.
Comparison Between Predicted And Experimental Results,
C,
M-2.36
305
5.4.4
Effective Center of Pressure of the Incremental Tail Normal

Force Due to Wi a
Summar
A method is X CP6T, presented for predicting the effective center of pressure,
of the incremental force produced on a tail due to the additiou This force results from the effective angle of attack, The
of wings to the body.
c, induced on the tail due to the vortices emanating from the wing. available data made it
possible to identify correlations up to angles of
attack of 30 degrees in transonic flow and to approximately 22 degrees in supersonic flow. Background The addition of wings to a body-tail configuration alters the normal force produced by the tails in the presence of a body by an amount identified as ACNTwv. This incremental normal force is attributed to the effect of wing Wing vortices produce a change in the flowfield The net effect is to induce an effective angle of angle of attack. Section 5.4.3 c, and on
vortices on the tail.
encountered by the tails.
attack on the tails, thereby altering the tail
presents a method for predicting the vortex induced angle of attack, the corresponding value of ACNwV.
To account far the effects of ACNIT.V
total configuration center of pressure a method is required to predict its effective center of pressure, XCpATWV. Method Development According to Refirence 30, XCpAT can be treated in a way that is that both the upwash
analogns to the effect of body upwash on the tail, i.e., and downwash alter the loads on the tail distribution appreciably. Therefore,
bitt do not change the chordwise XCPT(B) - XCPT. The
XCPATWV
306
procedure for predicting XCPT is outlined in Section 5.1.4 (p. 91 ff).

The following expression was used to calculate XCPBWT
d
XCpurWT d 'T(B)
xc d
' +ACN I
Xcp
d
CN
'T
'CpT(B)ACNTWV XC d
V + IBT XCWIT(T d
Sref-f-
CNB
+ACN
W +
2CNT
RT(B)
ST Sref
+CNTV
+ 'B(T)
This equation requires the use of a number of the predictive methods described earlier which will not be repeated here. Data -Comparisons Figures 157 and 158 show comparisons of the use of the effective center of pressure, XCp
ATWV
for the'incrwmntal normal force of the tall due to
wing vortex t.nterference.
In these cases the Xcp was used in an overall ATWV prediction of the center of pressure, XCpBWT for the complete body-wing-tail. Comparison between th- predicted and experimental results are good in both transonic and supersonic regimes, at least for the two cases examined.
307
oExperimental
-
(Ref. 34)
Predicted'
N4
0.85
6
'CPBWT
7T
3TQ
d
4
2
0
0 10 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. 20 30 I
Figure 157.
Comparison Between Predtcted And Experimental Data, 30
30,
03
o
-
Experimental (Ref. 36) Predicted
10 H8 2.36
10
15
20
25
Figure 158.
Comparison Betveen Predicted and Experimental Data, XCPB,
M-2.36
00
309
5.5
5.5.1
Thrust Vector Control Effects

Incremental Normal Force Due to Plume Effects
A method is presented for estimating 4CN BP,
the incremental normal force co-
efficient on a slender tangent ogive-cylinder body due to a flowing main jet (ACNBp). This method covers angles of attack to 180 degrees and a Mach number
range of 0.60 to 2.20.
Ba,,jzou.d
The addition of a flowing jet to a body produces a change in the body
normal force coefficient due to impingement of the jet plume on the body and the effects of the jet on the flow ficd 'acremental about the body. The magnitude of this
normal force coefficient (ACNBP)
is dependent on the following:
Mach number, angle of attack, and the strength of the jet relative to the free stream (defined here as the momentum ratio MR). No previously derived method
was found which predicted the effects of a flowing main jet across the desired angle of attack range. The present work describes the formulation of a method Data
for predicting ACNBP up to a - 180* &t Mach numbers from 0.60 to 2.20.
from tests on a particular USA? missile design form the basis for this analysis.
The incremental normal force coefficient on a body due to a jet plume is defined as:
ACNBP
Ce
-CB
310
Test data were available at Mach nunbers 0.60 to 2.20 and angles of attack from 15 to 165 degrees. Mach 0.60 0.85 1.20 1.80 2.20 MR 60.1 30.1 19.1 73.6 49.3 Jet momentum ratios tested were as follows:
Jet-on data were available only for a body-strake-tail configuration, with jet-off data obtained on body alone and body-strake-tail conitgurations. It would obviously have been desirable to have tebted Since this is not available it was necessary
the body alone with jet-on.
to derive body alone jet-on normal force coefficients (CNB) from available NBP data. The available data consist of parameters measured by integratin*g surfaces pressures, including normal fcrce coefficients for the body in the presence of strakes and tails, jet-on and jet-off (CNB(ST)P and CB( ); B(ST) body alone normal force coefficient, jet-off (CN ); tail normal force B coeffirient, jet-on and jet-off (CNTP and CNT); and strake normal for-e coefficient, as follows: 1 Compute the incremental normal force due to presence of strake 4nd tail with the Jet off. I B(T) CNB(ST) CNB jet-on arl Jet-off (CNSp and CNs). The procedure used was
Assuming that the increment in normal force, tail, je--on, coefficient,
due to the strake plus
is proportional to the increment in normal force
jet-off, compute jet-on strake plus tail increment: (CNsP + CNTP .(ST)P' "sT)/31
311
Subtract the calculated jet-on increment from the measured normal force coefficient of the body in the presence of strakes and tails with jet on: CNBP CNB(ST)P -B(ST)P
Compute ACN CN CN
BP
Method Development
B"
Figure 159 shows the general form of a curve of ACNBP versus angle of attack. This curve shows that there is no significant jet effect at angles
of attack less than 40 degrees.
reaches a peak about a - 70', BP then decreases to a minimum value at a - 90*. Jet effects increase again as alpha approaches 145, then decrease to a value of zero at a - 180*.
-
The term ACN
The
value and sign of ACNBP at a
70' and a - 145* are Mach number dependent.
A power series formulation incorporating the effects of angle of attack, Mach number, and momentum ratio was the approach selected to fit The term ACNN a general curve
to the data.
was considered to be linearly dependent on jet
BP
momentum ratio for a given Mach number.
312
Power series for the variation of
ICn whch values of zero
occur at a- 40', occur 4a0ue at weroa Wa-c 900 and 1800 and ofkB values of 1.0 occur at 70* and 145' were then constructed. the form of the equation is: ACN Where
U
* K * A MR e Jet momentum ratio a qj/ q
- Amplification factor - K(M)
"M K70 "= K1 4 5

A
for 40* < a < 90g for 90* <a

<
180o
Power series defining curve form The comPlexityof the variation with alpha necessitates angle of attack dividing the range into three intervalsi 0< a < 40%, 400 -< a. 90' and 90' a 1800. Parameters in each range are a* follows:
0 < a <40*
A 40' < a < K 0 900 K7 0
89
AC NBP
A , 23.4450 +12.8829a 4 90 < a 180
-88886a + 121,106h 12 (t 'radians)
_66.9524a
K ftK 4 5 A 43.6283 -82.7136ti+53.66442 +12.8829" 4 (a 'radians)
_14.6512a
313
The quantity ACN BP/H R as determined from the test data, was nondimensionalized by the value at a and 90 degrees.
-
70" in the range of alpha between 40
In the alpha range from 90 to 180,degrees, the value at Figure 160 shows the The data
a - 145' was used to non-dimensionalize ACNBP/MR.
curve which was faired through the non-dimensionalized test data. for all Mach numbers is combined in arriving at Figure 160.
The Mach number 145"
effect is obtained by plotting the values of (ACNN/MR) at a - 70, BP and then fairing curves through these data to obtcin Figure 161.
It should be noted that available test data incorporated only one jet wmoaentum ratio at each test Mach number. While these represent realistic
%alues for the configuration tested, estimates obtained for a missile with greatly different Jet momentum ratios should be used with caution. Also of
irtport.ince is the fact that the effects of nozzle exit diameter on ACN c.ainot be determined from existing data. The ratio of nozzle exit diameter It is
to body diameter (dnoz) for the configuration tested was 0.87. dref
reasonable to assume that this analysis is valid for cases in which the noi.cle exit diameter approximates that of the body.
314
Use of Method The method is utilized as follows:

Given: a tangent ogive-cylinder body with a main Jet momentum
ratio, MR, at the desired Mach number. Proceed thus: 1 Determine K70 and K145 for the appropriate Mach number (Figure 161) 2 Look up values of A for the desired angles of attack (Figure 160) 3 Compute
ACNBP -MR
where KK
-
*K
A
70 for 40* < a 4 90*
K45 for 906
< a < 180
Numerical Example Given the following parameters, ogive cylinder body at Mach 0.85: dno S0.90 compute AC for a slender tangent
N BP MR - 30.1 @ Mach 0.85
From Figure 161: K0 - 0.074 K1 4 5 - 0.044
2- 3
Utilizing Figure 160 to obtain values of A the following table is generated.
315
A
-
MR
__
K
-
AC N
BP
-R
O.
*K*A
0.
30.1
0.074
40
60 70 80
0.
0.73 1.00 0.75
0.
1.63 2.23 1.67
90
100 120 140 145 160
0.
0.07 0.62 0.99 1.00 0.76 0.044
0.
0.09 0.82 1.31 1.32 '1.01
180
0.
0.
Data CoLTarison. In Figure 162 methcd results are plotted along with those data used in formulating the method. It can be seer that the curve fitting
approach used yields a good approximition of ACNBP across the Mach range. A lack of independent body alone jet-on data at high angles of attack mrAes further detailed comparisons impossible at this time. data presented in Reference 37 for a body plus tail Independevt
configuration tend to
support this analysis in that no jet effects are evident at angles of attack less than about 40 degrees, the magnitude of ACNBP is small relative to
total CN' and the value of ACNBP decreases with Increasing Mach number.
316
ACN B
F 70_ .. !145
40
80
120
160
200
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 159: General Curve Form, ACN
317
-4T
'
--
318
0.12
0.08
K7 0
0.04
0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 MACH 1.6 2.0 2.4
0.08
0.04-
K 145 0-
-0. 04 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 MACH Figure 161. Amplification Factors for Calculating ACNHP 1.6 2.0 2.4
319
-4
00
r4
-4
o
0
0
1.
0I0
44
A34
c4 .2
3203
4j4
00
N0
000
3211
e) Mach 2.2'
STest
"4
Data
Estimate
BCNBP
" 40
to
ov
JI
-2 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
Figure 162 (Cont.).
Comparisons Between Predictions And Experimental Data, ACN BP
322
5.5.2
Effective Center of Pressure for Incremental Body Normal Force Due to Plume Effects
Summary A method is presented for estimating XCPp, the effective center of pressure
of the incremental force on a slender tangent ogive-cylinder body due to a flowing main jet. This method applies for angles of attack to 180 degrees
and a Mach number range of 0.60 to 2.20. Background The addition of a flowing mein jet to a body produces a change in the body center of pressure location due to plume impingement on the body and plume interaction with the flowfield about the body. No methods were found
to predict the center of pressure location over the desired high angle of attack range. The present work describes the formulation of such a method.
The data forming the basis for this correlation were obtained from tests on a particular USAF missile design. Test data were available at Mach numbers 0.60 to 2.20 and angles of attack from 15 to 165 degrees. Jet momentum ratios tested were as follows:
Mach
0.60 .0.85 1.20 1.80 2.20 For the configuration tested, N d
-
MR
60.1 30.1 19.1 73.6 49A3 2.5 and 1 = 14.45.
Jet-on data were available only for a body-strake-tail configuration, with jet-off data obtained on body alone and body-strake-tail configurations. It was therefore necessary to derive XCPB using availabl-
323
data.
Specifically the quantities obtained experimentally were measured
by integrating pressure distributions and consisted of normal force coefficients and centers of pressure of the body alone (jet-off), of
the atrakes and tails, and the body in the presence of the strakes and tails (jet-on and jet-off). The derivation of jet-on values of the incremental carryover (IB(ST)P) is described in
CN on the body due to strake and tail
the method presented for determining ACNBp. calculate XkpBp is Method Development as follows.
The procedure developed to
Figure 163 shows the basic data used in formulating the jet-on center of pressure prediction method. fineness ratio (l/d) was varied, Due to a lack of test data in which body it was decided to base the prediction
method on jet-off values of XCpB which may be calculated using the method of Section 5.1.2. Examination of the data in Ffgure 163 reveals that the flowing main jet has essentially no effect on the body center of pressure location at angles of attack less than about 100 degrees at all Mach numbers. At M-1.2
and below, YCPBP falls about 0.5 calibers forward of XCPB for 1000< a < 160*. At supersonic Mach numbers, XCpB and XCpBp are essentially equal up to
S-
120,
then are symmetrical about the value at a - 120*.
The method developed simply approximates the curves of Figure 163 as described above. For Mach nurhers less than or equal to 1.2: XCp /d =ncp,/d
0*< a < 100*: 110*< a < 1800: 1f00< a < 110*:
BP
XCpBp/d
XP
(XCpB/d) - 0.50
Linearly interpolate between values at a - 100 and
1100
324
For Mach numbers greater than 1.2:

0< < 120: Xcpvp/d - XcpB/d
120' < a t 180.: Xcrpz d---
XCPB-(
CPB
2KI-
-2 K,-
di-
XCPB where K - value of -at a Usa of Method
120'
The method is used as follows: Given a slender tangent ogive-cylinder body with a floving main jet. The Jet momentum ratio MR is of the same order of magnitude as those of the test data previously cited. Proceed thusly: j Determine for the Mach and alphs range desired from test data or
via the method of Sectio.- 5.1.2 (p. 61 ff). 2 if M< 1.2, X-. Mfor 0 < a < 100*
d
If M > 1.2, 3 If M< 1.2, d x~-B
-
d
-XCFB X_ d K1
-
for 0_< a_< 120* 0.50 for 1100 < a < 1800
d If M > 1.2,
XCP13PXCPB
I
--
for 120' < a < 180*

120*
where K1 - value of
I$CPB
@ c-
325
Numerical Example Detemine Xcp ,/d for a slender tangent ogiver-cylinder body at Mach 0.85 and Mach 1.8; M.R - 30.1 at Mach 0.85, MR - 73.6 at Mach 1.8. Mach 0.85: (Step 1) (Step 2) (Step 3) XCPBp d x CPpB -50 d
('% deg)
XCPB d (test data)
XCPBP - XCPB
20 40 60 80 100 110 120 140 160
3.84 5.37 6.30 7.32 8.20 8.31 8.50 9.61 10.89
3.84 5.37 6.30 7.32 8.20 7.81 8.00 9.11 10.49
326
Mach 1.80: (Step 1)

X CPB
(Step Z)
XCP XCPB XCPBp
(Step3)
XCpB
(N deg)
20 40 6080 100 120 140 160
d
6.32 7.15 7.43 7.64 7.84 8.02 8.16 9.25
d
6.32 7.15 7.43 7.64 7.84 8.02
2 Kd
8.02 7.88 6.79
Data Comparisons In Figure 164, method results are compared with the jet-on data used It can be seen that this relatively simple
in formulating the method.
method yields a good approximation of X attack regime.
'CPBP
/d across Mach number and angle of
A lack of independent body alone jet-on data at the necessary
high angles of attack -iakes further detailed comparisons impossible at this time. Independent data presented in Reference 37 for a body plus tail i.e.,
configuration indicate trends similar to those noted in this analysis, little jet affect on XCp at angles of attack less than 100 degrees,
then a
B forward shift in CP location with increasing angle of attack.
327
a) Mach 0.60 12
MR0
60.6 6
Jet Off On
SJet xC
d 4
408 40
160
S....
.MR
12
- 30.1 ] Jet Off 'Jet On
8 xCP d
040
80
120
160
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 163. Comparison Of Body Alone g d (let On Versus Jet Oft)
328
12
SJet off_^
S
c) Mach 1.20 nn I MR"
SJet:
19"1
XCP
40
80
120
160
12
d) Mach 1.80
!MR =73.6 ..
AQ6,
0 0
40
80
120
160
Figure 163 (Cont.).
Comparlsoi Of Body Alone Xcp (Jet On Versus Jet Off)' d
329
12 12e)
0
Mach
Jet Off 3e t On
2'.0
49.3
xcP d 4
0 0 40 120 80 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. 160
Figtkrd 163 (Cont.).
Comparison Of Body Alone XCp (Jet On Versus Jet Off) d
330
12 a) Mach 0.60
0
"8
Test Data
Estimate
XCPU
d
0
0 40 80 120 160 ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG.
12
12
b) Mach 0.85/
STest
8
Data
-- Estim ate XCpd

XCEP
0
Figure 164.
40
80
120
160
Comparison Between Predictions And Experimental Da,-a,
Xcp B? d
331
12 ) Mah12Test Data -Estimate
8
XCP BPd
d 4
0 0 40 80 120 160
12
0 -
d) Mach 1. 80 Test Data Estimate
8
XCP BP d
0
0 40 80 120 160
Figure 164 (Cont.).
Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental
Data, XCP
BP
d
332
12
Se) Mach 2.20

S Test Data
-
Estimate
O 0 40 80 120 160
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 164 (Coat.). Comparison Between Predictions and Experimental Data, XCpBP d
333
5.5.3
Incremental Tail Normal Force Due To Plume Effects
Summary
A method is presented to predict ACN , the incremental normal force
coefficient on horizontal tails on a slendez tangent ogive-cylinder body due to a jet plime. The term AtC, represents the change in tozal normal
TP
force coe'ficient on two tail panels plus the change in tail-on-body carryover
normal force due to a flowing jet.
The method is applicable at angles of
attack up to 180 degrees at Mach numbers 0.60 to 2.20. Background The addition of a flowing jet to a body,-tail configuration produces changes in the normal force on the tail and 1i the magnitude of the carryover The magnitude of this jet tail
normal force imposed on the body by the tails. effect is size,
dependent on such parameters as angle of attack, Mach number,
and the strength of the jet relative to t',
free stream (defined here
as the momentum ratio, MR).
No previously derivtel method was found which
predicted the effects of a flowing Jet on the tails at the desired high angles of atLack. The present work describes the formulation of such a
method for predicting the ACNTP at angles of attack up to 180 degrees and Mach numbers 0.60 to 2.20. Data from tests on a particular USAF missile configu-
ration form the basis for this analysis. The incremental normal force coefficient on a body-tail configuration due to jet effects on the tail is defined as:
ac N
~~I
'BTP
(CN+
ICBT
TCNp" (CNT(B)Ptotl+
(T)P)-alN.(B) total + IB(T))
This is based on the premise that the total effect of a tail on a bodytail configuration is made up of the force on the tail itself plus the carry over to the body, and further that both quantities may be affected by the
134
presence of a plume. Test data were available at Mach numbers 0.60 to 2.2 and angles of attack from 15 to 165 degrees.
Mac. MR
Jet momentum ratios tested were as follows:
0.60 0.85 1.20 1.80 2.0
60.1 30.1 19.1 73.6 49.3
Jet-on data were available only for a body-strake-tail configuration, with jet-off data obtained on body alone and body--strake-tails configurations. It was, therefore, necessary to derive ACN from available data. Parameters
measured by integrating surface pressures included normal force coefficients for the body in the presence of strakes and tails, jet-off and Jet-on (CNB(ST) and CN ); body alone normal force coefficient, Jet-off (CNB); total tail
normal force coefficient in the presence of the body, Jet-off and jet-on N totaland CNT( )p N -Ns(B) total ACNTP from known data is as follows: Given the basic equation otal + (CBt AC N T()total1oa AC~ (B The terms CN T(B)P tota data. and CN T(B)totaIB(T)P (CNT(B)tot + I B(T)) (50) and total strake normal force coefficient, and CN S(B)Ptotal
jet-off and Jet-on
The procedure for computing
may be determined directly from test
335
The e*,uation may then be expressed as

-
CN
BPtot
C. (B)Itotal
.BTP. A
(51)
Swhere
AIB(T)P - IB(T)P - IB(T) The incremental normal force coefficients, IB(ST) and IB(ST)P, due to
presence of strake and tail, were developed previously in Section 5.5.1 One can then define
A(ST)P
3B(ST)P
B(ST)
(52)
It was assumed that the changes in tail carryover on the body due to the Jet would be proportional to that for a strake plus tail in the same manner as the change in normal force on the tail due to a jet is proportional to that for a st:ake plus tail. B(T)P
1
Therefore: ACN (B)

-
(53) T(B)
5'B(ST)P
ACN S(B)
AC N
The results of equation (53) may then be substituted into equation (51) eetermine AC
"TP*
Method Development Figure 165 shows the general form of curves of IACNN attack for 0.6 < H < 1.2 and 1.2 < M
<
versus angle of
2.2.
Both curves show no Jet effects up to
at angles of attack less than 20 degrees, followed by increasing IJC a - 55%. Jet effects decrease to approximately zero at a - 90*.
-
Peaks for all
Fach numbers tested occur at a

-
10! and a - 160%, while zero points fall at

120' for 1.2 < M < 2.2. ACN TI' euals zero at
135" for M < 1.2 and at a
-a
le80
at all Mach numbers due to symmetry.
The value and sign cf ACNTP A power series formulation let momentum ratio,
55%, 110%, and 160' are Mach numbet depende.At.
Incorporating the effects of angle of attack, Mach number.
and tail area was the approach seiected to fit a general cirve to the datt.
336
Assuming A
varies linearly with .Rand
R, then
NC~ TP MR*RT
M) ST
where RT - tail area ratio -
s
ref
A(ca) is defined by the general curve forms in Figure 165, and varies in magnitude from zero to one. (CTP /HRRT)
at a - 550,
The magnitude of A(a) is sr.aled by the values of

respectively, in the three
110* and 160,
ranges of angle of attack.
Power series curves with a value of zero at 55%, 1100, and 1600 Curves The
S- 20,
90,
135%, and 1800 and a value of 1.0 at a
were then constructed for Mach numbers less than or equal to 1.20. constructed for M > 1.2 had zero values at a final form of the equation is:
ACNTP MR * RT * K *Ar
-
90%, 120* and 180".
where MR - jet momentum ratio

RT - tail
qj/q=o
area ratio - ST/Sref
K - kmplification factor
- K5 5 for 0* <
a < 90* (0.6 < M < 2.2)
SK
11 0
for 900 < a < 135 (0.6_< M < 1.2) ' for 90* < a < 1200 (1.2 < M-< 2.2)
"- Y1 6 0
for 135< a < 180 (0.6 < M < 1.2) ifor 120* -,,a < 180, (1.2 < M < 2.2)
A - Power series defining curve form.
337
Solution of the equation necessitates dividing the angle of attack range into four intervals. 0 < a < 20" A 0 .. ACN,= 0 For Mach numbers from 0.60 to 1.2:
200 < a < 900 K -K55

-
A - 2.4498
16.7515a + 37.3514a 2 [a"
29.J329a 3 + 7.7740a 4
radians]
90* <a< 1350 K =K 110 A - -256.1760 + 494.7937a-359.0437a

2 3 -14.3837a +116.7324ac 4
(a-radians] 1354 <.a< 180' K,, K160 16.0493a4
2 A - 1046.9190 -1501.6280a+ 798.0073aa -185.0520c 3+
[ai-radians] For 1.2 <M < 2.2: 0 <a< 200
ACNTP
200 <a< 90
K -K A-
55
2.4498 -16.7515m+
4 37.3514a 2 -29.8329a3 + 7.7740a
[f aradians )
338
90' <a< 120" K

-
K1 1 0
3
A " -1840.2781 + 4055.1289a-3352.6751a2 +1232.9331a [a -wradiana] 120 <a< c 180 K wK 160 A

-
-170.118l
-265.5403 + 417.9143o-248.1630a2 + 55.9331a
-6.5953a4
[a,-radians]
Values of X55, KIN,
and K1 6 0 have bean determined empirically and are plotted Powe- series A is presented versus angle of
versus Mach number in Figure 166.
attack in Figure 167a for M< 1.2 and in figure 167b for 1.2 < M < 2.2. It should be noted that available test data incorporated only one jet momentum ratio at each Mach number. While these represent realistic values
for the configuration tested, estimates obtained for a missile with greatly different Jet momentum ratios should be used with caution. importance is the fact tat Also of
the effects of varying nozzle exit diameter and The ratio of
nozzle-to-tail distance cannot be derived from existing data. nozzle exit diameter to body diameter (dnoz/dref)
for the 0onfiguration
tested was 0.87; the distance from tho nozzle exit plane to the tail trailing edge was 0.42d. Variation of these parametera can be expected to have
come as yet undetermined effects on the values of ACNTp predicted by this

method.
339
Use of Method
The method is used as follows: Given a tangent ogive-cylinder with horizontal tails of area ratio, RT. and a main jet momentum ratio, MR. Proceed thus: 1 Determine K5 5 , Ki1 (Figure 166) 2 Look up values of A for the desired angles of attack in the appropriate Mach range. 3 Compute (Figure 167) A
0
, and K1 6 0 for the desired Mach number.
CNP=MR * RT *K for 0 < a < 90g
where K - K55
-
Kil 0 for 90* < a < 1350 if
M < 1.2
- Kil 0 for 900< a < 1200 if
1.2 < M < 2.2
- K1 6 0 for 135 0 < c <1800 if M < 1.2

-
K1 6 0 for 1200 < a < 180'
if
1.2 < M < 2.2
Numerical Example Given the following parameters, compute ACNTP for a slender tangent 0 to a =180 at Mach 0.85
ogive-cylinder body with horizontal tails from a

and Mach 1.80.
MR -'30.1 at M
MR
0.85
73.6 at M = 1.80
RT =0. 84
At Mach 0.85: 1 From Figure 166: K5 5 0.065, Kil 0 o -0.028,
K60
= 0.015
340
2-
*
167a)
MR
RT
ACNTp
(Figure
0 20 40 55 70 90 110 0. 0. 0.67 1.0 0.65 0. 1.0
30.1
0.84
0.065
0 '0 1.10 1.64 1.07 0
-0.028
120 135
150
0.83 0.t
0.65
-0.71
-0.59 0
0.015
0.25
0.38 0
160
170 180
1.0
0.80I 0.
0.30 0
34 1
At Mach 1.b. 1 From Figure 166:

K55 - 0.004, K110 -
0.004, X160 * *
0.021
2-3
AcN-p
(Fig. 167b) 0 20 40 55 70 90 100 110 0. 0. 0.67 1.0 0.65 0. 0.86 1.0 0.004 73.6 0.84 0.004 0. 0. 0.17 0.25 0.16 0. 0.21 0.25
120
.140 160 180 Data Comparisons
..
0.74 1.0 0. -0.021 -0.96 -1.30 0.
In Figure 168, method results are plotted along with those data used in formulating the zethod. The curve-fitting approach used yields a good apA lack of independent data
proximation of LCNTP across the Mach range tested. makes further comparisons impossible at this time.
342
0.6 < M <

12 < M < .
1.2
2.2
F55 110
6~
40
80
120
160
Figure 165.
General Curve Forms,
IACNTPI
343
0.08
0.06
K 55
0.04
0.02
0 0 0.4 0.8. 1.2 MACE NUHBER 0.02 1.6 2.0
K 1 10 -0.02
-0.04 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 MACH NUMBER Figure 166. Amplification Factors for Calculating ACNTP '1.6 2.0
344
0.04
0.02
0 K160
__
-0.02.
____
____
-0.04
______
__
-0.06
0.4
0.8
1,7
1.6
2.0
Figure 166 (Cont.).
MACH NUMBER Amplification Factors for Calculating
ACN 3T4
345
C4
54
00
VI
14. v-
OD
IT
-4
V4
00
-4t
3474
II
Jo
I-I
.
S* ....
'C _
__ _ _ _0(
_'
"
"
Z'
00* 414
o
e4
go
V4
'00
'.V4
'4
H0
04'
e) Ilach 2.20
<> --'-Test Data Prediction HR=49.34
ACN
ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEG. Figure 168 (Cont.). Comparisona Between Predictions And Experimental Data ACNTP
350
5.5.4
Effective Center of Pressure of Incremental Tail Normal Force Due to flume Effects
Summary
A method is presented for predicting XCPT(B)P, the effective center of Data
pressure of the incremental tail normal force due to plume effects.
comparisons showed no difference between 4et-on and jet-off tail chordwise center of pressure for Mach numbers between 0.6 and 2.2 and angles of attack to 180 degrees. it ' .refore, it is not necessary to develop a new method and
is recommended that the existing method of Sec ton 5.1.5 be used to
CPT calculate XCP /CR which is equivalent to X Background
-/CR'
When predicting the aerodynamic characteristics fur a missile at high angles of attack, the presence of an exhaust plume must be taken into account. At high angles of attack, the plume produced by a thrusting mwssile can alter local surface pressures through either direct impingement or by its influence on the flowfield forward of the plume. Methods for predicting plume effects
on body normal force, body center of pressure, and t.I. normal forcp have been presented in Sections 5.5.1 through 5.5.3. This section deals specif 4 -
tally with the effects of a plume on tail chordvise center of pressure. A study has been completed on the effects which rocket motor exhaust pLumes have on tail center of pressure. Data used in the study were obcainLud _nfizunain "on
fron wind tunnel tests of a particular USAF body-strake-tail missile ration. Tests were conducted using a pressure model witi and wit'iou,'
jet simulation at Mach numbers from 0.6 to 2.2 and angie; of rtta-k 15 -o Iif; degrees.
The ratio of jet total pressure to free stream t'Eta Dressure
pressure and thp ratio of jet dynamic pressure to free streat &na3ric
simulated in the tests were as follows: /q 60.58

30.10
Mech 0.6
0.85
PTJ/PT_ 135
107
1.2 1.8 2.2
89 328 176
19.14 73.63 49.34
Integrated pressure data provided total configuration normal force and center of pressure plus normal force and center of pressure on each t-oroponent, including interference effects. Comparisons of tail ,:hordwise
centers of pressure on the horizontal fins of a cruciform configuratLon in the "plus" altitude with and without jet sitrulation are piespated in Figure 169. (0.6-2.2) These comparisons, covering the entire Mach numlber range tested, indicate or no
and angle of attack range (15 to 165 degree!-)
that for the conditions tested, the presence of a plurc has little impact on chordwise center of pressure.
No additional method is required Therefore,
to account for the effects of a plume on tail center of pressure. as in the case of no plume,
the method of Sectien 5.1.5 can be used to pre-
dict XCP T(B)/CR which can be expresbed in terms ,f body diameters by the appropriate geometric relationships, i.e.,:
XCPT(BS).
d
XTLE d
+_ XC'T(B) CR d
lw qw
CiC
10
I0
XL I
03
1*44
000
00
41
S.'
.44
4,
4-'
0L
U4
00
4-
C44
C,,
to
4-44
354,
K>
*1
*44
00
-iii
-
--.
0 -4
44
s.
.4.40
0 -4 V. 4-*
4"
0
-4
----
s
41
00
1
a
0 '0
4I
*4
40 -4 c.4 41
-___
a
0 IN
... 4
10
0-4
bl
355
*! 441
6.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study shows that the availability of systematic test data permits the development of methodology to predict reasonably accurate aerodynamic characteristics. The applicability of the methods is limited only by the As for any semi-empirical method, 'the methods should
range of the test data.
not be used beyond the range of the test data base until the real limits of applicability can be ascertained. This can only be accomplished over a
period of time' as additional test data becomes available. Experience gained-in using the methods shows that although they are suitable for "hand" calculations, it is desirable to computerize them. This was not included as part of the present contract, and is therefore' recommended for future consideration. The success of the methods developed here supports the view that this approach could well be extended as the systematic data base grows. Areas
which were identified as deficient in data or as fertile ground for the continuation of the effort begun here are summarized below: 1 Since wind tunnel testing does not, in general, match flight Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers simultaneously, this causes a question about the accuracy with which Reynolds number effects can be accounted for in the methods. This uncertainty
manifests itself primarily in the modeling of the viscous contribution to the body normal force. Additional'tests
aimed specifically at assessing the viscous effects on body

normal force are recotmmended. 2, Since maneuverability implies the use of a control system, the test data base and methods should now be extended to
356
deal with deflected control surfaces. 3 Certain geometric features, e.3., boattails and nose
bluntness, should also be tested systematically to complement the (-irrent data base. 4 The effects of arbitrary roll angle should be treated systematically beyond angles of attack of 45 degrees which was treated in the recent Martin Marietta study (Reference 38) conducted for the U. S. Army. One of
the problem areas of particular interest in this regard ta the prediction of hinge moments on the leeside surfaces even at small angles of attack wherein the occurrence of couples complicates the prediction of the center of pressure on the tail. 5 Finally it should be recalled that this study dealt whereas similar methods
only with static aerodynamics,
can and should be developed for some of the dynamic stability derivatives.
357
I~
IN
7.0 1.
REFERENCES
Fidler, J.E., "A Systematic Experimental Approach to Upgrading Missile Aerodynamic Methodology" 9th U.S. Navy Symposium on Aero-ballistics, May 1972. Fidler, J.E. and Bateman, M.C., "Aerodynamic Methodology (Isolated Fins and Bodies)", Final report on U.S.A. MICOM contract DAAH03-72-C-0487, 1973 Fidler, J.E. and Bateman, M.C., "Aerodynamic Methodology (Bodies with and without Tails in Transonic Flow)". Report issued under U.S. Navy NAVAIR Contract, N00019-73-C-0108, 1974. Fidler, J.E. and Bateman, M.C., "Aerodynamic Methodology (Bodies with Tails at Arbitrary Roll Angle)" OR 13,375-1, Final Report on U.S. Army MICOM Contract DAAH01-74-C-0621, 1974 7idler, J.E., "Data Report" (issued under USAF Flight Dynamic Laboratory Contract No. F33615-75-C-3052, CDRL Item No. A005) Hoerner, S.F., "Fluid Dynamic Drag", published by author, 1965 Ed.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
Fidler. J.E. and Bateman, M.C., "Asymmetric Vortex Effects on Missile Configurations", presented at AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan 1975, AIAA Paper 75-209 Briggs, M.M., Clark, W.H., and Peoples, T.R., "Occurrence and Inhibition of Large Yawing Moments during High Incidence Flight of Slender Missile Configurations," AIAA Second Atmosphere Flight Conference, Palo Alto, CA, Sept. 1972. Ward, G.N., "Supersonic Flow Past Slender Pointed Bodies," Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, Vol. I, Pt. 1, 1949. Allen, H.J. and Perkins, E.W., "Characteristics of Flow Over Inclined Bodies of Revolution," NACA RM A50L07, March 1951. Kelly, H.R., "The Estimation of Normal Force, Drag and Pitching Moment Coefficients for Blunt Based Bodies of Revolution a Large Angles of Attack,"J. Aero. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 8, August 1954, P 549-555. Jorgensen, L.H., "Prediction of Static Aerodynamic' Characteristics for Space-Shuttle-Like and Other Bodies at Angles of Attrck from 0* to 180" NASA TN D-6996, January 1973 Baker, W., Static Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Series of Generalized Slender Bodies with and without Fins at Mach Numbers from 0.6 to 3.0 and Angle of Attack from 0 to 180 Deg., AEDC-TR-75-124, May 1976.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
358
14.
Barth, H., "Datenblatter zur Ermittlung Aerodynamischer Beiwerte Schlanker Bug-Zvlindor-Konfigurationen im transsonischen (Data Sheets for Determining the Aerodynamic geschwindikeitsbereich. Coefficients of Slender Nose Cylinder-Configurations in the Transonic Speed Ringe), Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm GMBH, TN WEI2-88/70, 1970. Barth H., "Datenblatter zur Ermittlung von Normalkraft-Momenter-und Tangentialkraftcharackteristiken Schlanker Bug-Zyltnder-Konfiguzationen 1m transsonischem geschwindikeitsberelch." (Data Sheets for Determining the Normal Fo,'ce, Moments - and Axial Force Characteristics of Slender Nose-Cyl1nder-ConftigaratIons in the Transonic Speed Range), MBB, TN
15.
WE2-97/69,
16.
1969.
Spring. D.J., "The Effect of Nose Shape and Afterbody Length on the Normal Force and Neutral Point Location of Axisymmetric Bodies at Mach Numbers from 0.80 to 4.50," Report No. RF-TR-64-13, U.S. Army Missile Command, July 1964. U.S. Air Force Stability and Control DATCOM. Jernell, L.S., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Bodies of Revolution at Mach Numbers from 1.5 to 2.86 and Angles of Attack to 1800, "NASA TM X-1658, 1968. Fleeman, E.L. :ind Nelson, R.C., "Aerodynamic Forces and Moments on a Slender Body with a Jet Plume for Angles of Attack up to 180 Degrees," AIAA 12th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Paper No. 74-110, January 1974. Gudmundson, S.F. and Torngren, L., "Supersonic and Transonic Wind Tunnel Tests on a Slender Ogive-Cylinder Body in Single and in Combination with Cruciform Wings and TAils of Different Sizes," The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, FFA-AU--772, 1972. Saffell, B.F. Jr., Howard, M.L. aid Brooks, E.N. Jr., "A Method for Predicting the Static Aerodynamic Characterlstics of Typical Missile Configurations for Angles of Attack to 180 Degrees," R&E RPT. 3b45 Naval Ship R&D Center. 1971. Gersten, K., "Calculation of Non-Linear Aerodynamic Stability Derivatives of Aeroplanes" NATO, AGARD Report 342, 1961. Bartlett, G. E. 'and Vidal, R. J., "Experimental Investigation of the Influence of Edge Shape on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low-AspectRatio Wings at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds", Cornell Aero. Lab Report AF-743-A-8, 1956. Brown, C.E. and Michael, W.H., "Effects of Leaoing - Edge Separation on the Lift of a Delta Wing", Jour. Aero. Sdi. 21, 1954, pp 690-694.
17. 18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
359
I~~~'0040 .
IlIIlI
III
25.
Flax, A.H. and Lawrence, H.R. "The Aerodynamics of Low-Aspect-Ratio Ratio Wings and Wing-Body Combinations", Cornell Aero. Labs, Rept. CAL-37, 1951. Wickens, R.H., "The Vortex Wake and Aerodynamic Load l)lDtribution Thb' Effects of 20-Degree Bend at of Slender Rectangular Plates. Midchord", Nat. Res. Coun. of Can. Aeto., Rept. 1976. Royal Aeronautical Society, Data Sheets, 5.0l.0-'1O5 and 5.01.03.06. l4ings 5.01.03.03, 5.01.03.04,
26.
27.
28.
Emerson, H.F., "Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Effect of Clipping the Tips of Triangular Wings of Different Thickness, Camber and Aspect Ratio - Transonic Bump Method", TN1671, 1956, NACA. Kirkpatrick, D.L.I.. "Analysis of the Static Pressure Distribtition' on a Delta Wing in Subsonic Flow", RAE Farmborough, R&M No. 3619, 1970. Pitts, W. C.. Nielsen, J. A., and Kaatari, G. F., "Lift and Center of Pressure on Wind-Body-Tail Combinations at Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds," NACA Report 1307, 1957. Unpublished test data taken at NASA Langley Unitarv Tunnel using Martin Marietta model, 1968. "Monthly Contract Statns Report for Aerodynamic! Stability Tei-hnology for Maneuverable Missiles," period ending May 24, 1975. Ibid, period ending June 24 1975 L968.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33. 34. 35.
Martin Marietta/NSRDC Tail Effectiveness Test Data,
Fournier, R. H. and Spearman, M. L., "Effects of Nose Bluntlits", (n1 the Static Aerodymic Characteristics of a Cruk-iform-Witn. Missile at Mach numbers 1.50 to 2.86," NAS:, TMX-2299, July 1)71. Graves, E. B., "Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Low-,speco Ratio Missile Model with Wing and Tail Controls and with Tails in Line and Interdigitated" NASA TMX-2531, 1972. Carter, S. K., et al "Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Missile Configuration in the Presence of an Exhaust Plhme at Angles of Attack to 180 Degrees (U)," MDAC Paper WD 2521, July 1975. Aiello, G. F., "AFRODYNAMIC METHODOIOCGY, Bodies with Arbitrary Rol' Angles (Transonic and Supersonic)," AR 14,145, Final Report on U.S. Army MICOM Contract F13615-75-C--3.52, 1976., Aiello, G. F. and Bateman, M. C., Asymmetric Vortex Effect'. Computitr Program, Martin Marietta Report OR 14028, December 19'.
36.
37.
38.
39.
360
.' n 'I 'I I' ,,t PIl,1'tlt q Of(I ICo 1 917c) tS700 ,58

Aerodynamic Stability Technology For Maneuverable Missiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Aerodynamic Stability Technology For Maneuverable Missiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFFDL-TR-76-55 Volume I

MANEUVERABLE MISSILES Volume I. Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics

Approved for public release; distri ution unlimited.E

Reproduced From Best Available Copy

W. H. LANE Project Engineer Control Dynamics Branch

R. O. ,ANDERSON, Chief Control Dynamics Branch Flight Control Division

FOR THE COMMANDER

f" EPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

ET'S CAT AL GV. NUMBE R

i n7al . 417jw.c~hVN17 -47 27 t7R

Gennaro F./Aiello Michael CIaea

11o PROGIIAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA 4 RORK U NIT NUMIOERI

Martin Marietta Corporation Orlando Division, PO Box 5837 Orlando, FL 32805

STATEMENT (of (hit

Ap proved for public release; distribution unlimited

STATEMEN4T (of IA. o.I,..t

orte,.d I. Mock 20. Of diII.,.ot I-~.

KEY W011110 *r.non,,

noe..wv aid Identiv~ by .inc.V.

P., bl"., k nrmn,

DD ~2~I ,~ P I OV 113 '.

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,

number F33615-75-C-3052 as part of Project 8219.

The work was performed Florida.

at the Orlando Division of Martin Marietta Aerospace in Orlando,

body plus tail data bank.

ACCssio1 For DDC TAB

Avail and/or special

Experimental Data Sources and Models .......

Formulation of the Aerodynamic Prediction Equations Aerodynamic Methods . . 5.1

77 91 122 143 143 .161

Chordwise Center of Pressure .................

.. 171 190 190

Body-3trake-Tail Configurations ......... 5.3.1 5.3.2

Schematic of Total Data Base ...........

-LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)

15 16 17a 17b 17c l8b l8b

(1N/d - 1.5) ...... (tN/d = 2.5)..................

Curves for Supersonic CN (1N/d

.......... ......... o54

Curves for Determining Transonic Values of n ... .......

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)

40A (a-f) 41a

Curves for Determining CA

(IN/d - 2.5) .......

Scaling Factor for C.A. .....

Variation of CA with Mach Number .....

Basic Curves of f(M, a) Calculated from Power Series

104 ... 105 .. 107

Maximum Increment of Normal Force Above a' . . . . .......... ....................

Comparison of PredicLed and Experimental CN Comparison of Predicted and Experimental CMT,

Mach -0.8 110 Mach - 0.98 111 111

Mach No., a - 3,0" (A

CN (30), with To ..... ........... .........

113 114 115

with Mach Number .....

Comparison of Method and Test ,C

Comparison of Method and testCN X0.5,AR=0.5;AO0,AR-l.O0

M - 3.0 (CN )(k=1.0,AR=1.0) 121 M - 3.0 (CN)(I- 0,AR-l.0) 121 136

to 180 Chordwise Center of Pressure Variation Degrees ................ .........................

Basic Curves for 175-180 Degrees

BasicDCurves for 1-180 Degrees