Small Air-Launched Cruise Missile

(SALCM)

SharkWorks Engineering

Aerospace Design II, University of California San Diego

Jacobs School of Engineering
Dr. James D. Lang, Project Advisor
Mr. Hans Dall, Project Contact

Engineering Team
SharkWorks
Engineering

Sean Kamkar

Andrew Tchieu

Modeling

Propulsion

Aerodynamics

Structures

Trade Studies

Materials

Ruth Lee

Abigail Torcedo

Weights

Cost

CAD

Manufacturing

Layout

Performance

Presentation Outline
SharkWorks
Engineering

Project Overview/Introduction

Subcomponents

Goals
Mission Profile
Assumptions and Estimation
Design Process
Layout
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Stability and Control
Structures
Materials
Weights
Manufacturing
Cost

Performance
Trade Studies
Future Work
References

Project Goals
SharkWorks
Engineering

Satisfy Mission Requirements

Develop Conceptual Design
Time Considerations
Minimize Cost
Experience
Collaboration with industry

Current Schedule

SharkWorks
Engineering

Shortened and concentrated on research

Assumptions and
Estimations

SharkWorks
Engineering

Conceptual Design
Reduced detail, quick analysis based on
simplifying assumptions

Limited Resources on Cruise Missile

Design Tools Available
Lack of CFD

Uncertainty
Low uncertainty in propulsion data but high
uncertainty in aerodynamics
6

Mission Profiles
SharkWorks
Engineering

Best Case Scenario

Launch
and
Descend

Cases differ by launch position

Energy methods used to find fuel to climb

500 NM

Effects of worst case launch

Cruise @ M = 0.9

Designed for worst case scenario

BCA

Descend
Destroy
Target

Worst Case Scenario

500 NM

Cruise @ M = 0.9
Climb
BCA

Launch

Descend
Destroy
Target

Design Process
SharkWorks
Engineering

INITIAL
CONCEPTS

FLUSH INLET

AERODYNAMIC
PERFORMANCE

Design Process
SharkWorks
Engineering

INITIAL
CONCEPTS

MULIT-STAGE WING DEPLOYMENT

ELLIPTICAL AIRFOIL

Design Hurdles
SharkWorks
Engineering

Weight estimation techniques were not sensitive

enough
Many empirical cost formulations were not
sensitive enough
Data of cruise missiles was severely limited (for
historical estimation of properties)
Little innovation in missile design
Limited tools to achieve high accuracy
Gravely dependent on cost and manufacturability
10

CAD Model

SharkWorks
Engineering

11

External View

SharkWorks
Engineering

12

External View - Deployed

SharkWorks
Engineering

13

Internal View

SharkWorks
Engineering

14

Deployment Schedule

SharkWorks
Engineering

t = 0 s, missile is dropped
missile continues
transient behavior

t = 1 s, wing deploys
in less than .1 s (including
rear stabilizers)

t = 30 s, Missile attains
steady state operation and
guidance kicks in (allowable)

t = 2 s, engine fires and

Is started

15

Configuration
Characteristics

SharkWorks
Engineering

Aspect Ratio

8.5

Wetted Fuselage

26 ft2

Wing Wetted

3.6 ft2

Wing Reference

1.8 ft2

Wetted Area / Reference Area

16.4

Span

3.91 ft

Wing Taper (lambda)

1.0

Max Wing Thickness

15%

Leading Edge Sweep

41

Mean Aerodynamic Chord

0.46 ft

Fuselage Length

7.7 ft

Fuselage Diameter (Approx)

1 ft

Max Cross Section

0.79 ft2

16

Weights and Loadings

TOGW (launch)

197.5 lb

TOGW (halfway)

179.8 lb

TOGW (target)

161.6 lb

Wing Loading (launch)

109.7 lb/ft2

Wing Loading (halfway)

99.8 lb/ft2

Drag at Cruise
(halfway; alt = 40k,M = 0.9)

25.1 lb

SharkWorks
Engineering

17

Aerodynamics
SharkWorks
Engineering

Rudimentary Approach
No CFD for full body
Empirical Estimation Methods

Function of Mach number

Airfoil Selection
Estimation Error

18

Aerodynamic Properties
SharkWorks
Engineering

Parasitic Drag

Constant for subsonic regime

Component Drag Buildup
Subsonic Drag = 0.051
MDD = 0.85

Induced Drag

Max Efficiency = 0.86

Oswald Span Efficiency Method
Leading Edge Suction Method
19

Airfoil Selection
NACA 2415
Advantages/
Disadvantages
Camber
Stall
Characteristics
Thickness
Controllability
Max Lift
Coefficient
Transonic
Performance

SharkWorks
Engineering

XFOIL
Advantages
Disadvantages

Airfoil Pressure Distribution at Cruise

20

Airfoil Behavior

Minimum drag of 0.0071 (at CL

= 0.34)
Lower drag obtained with higher
Re (for large CL)

SharkWorks
Engineering

Higher Re increases stall angle

CLmax = 1.46 (at Re = 8*105)
Camber shifts curve by 2

Camber responsible for shift

21

Airfoil Behavior

SharkWorks
Engineering

Max efficiency is obtained at

midrange Reynolds number
Higher Reynolds numbers best
for cruise conditions
Airfoil at cruise, operating at
70% of max efficiency
Higher Reynolds Numbers
produce more stable pitching
moment
Quarter chord moment of -.05 for
cruise flight

22

Propulsion

SharkWorks
Engineering

Assumptions and Limitations

Performance
Desired Conditions
Inlet Design

23

Assumptions and
Limitations
95% pressure recovery
(inlet designed well)
Scaling is proportional
Developing a new
engine requires $
Dimensions and weights
are given
Data only available from
M = .4 to M = .95 and up
to 40,000 ft (static thrust
unknown)

SharkWorks
Engineering

Scaled Engine Model

(Dimensions provided by NGC)

24

Engine Performance

SharkWorks
Engineering

Operating at Full
Power
25

Engine Performance

SharkWorks
Engineering

26

Engine Performance

SharkWorks
Engineering

Fuel flow rate at 85% (our

cruising conditions)
Check to make sense of fuel
weight calculations
27

Inlet Design

SharkWorks
Engineering

Scaled inlet design on an arbitrary

missile body (Isometric, last half of the

body only, lines hidden)

Underside view of the flush inlet

Flush inlet design

Reduced drag
93% recovery
Different
configurations
Decrease radar
cross-section
No moving parts
28

Inlet Specifications

SharkWorks
Engineering

Numbers based on
Raymers approximations
Inlet Area, A = .350 SQFT
Estimated mass flow rate,
m = 21.9 lbm/s (100%, SL)
Remember, we need more
detailed design and more
engine data!
7 degrees

Capture Area

Inlet Dimensions (bottom face view)

Side View of Flush Inlet (from Raymer)

29

Weights, Stability, and

Control

SharkWorks
Engineering

We had few resources!

Component Weight
Estimations

Stability
CG plots

Control
Simple control and actuation
Initial digital suggestions and examples
30

Component Weights
Component

Weight (lb)

Airframe

Engine
Forward Avionics
Payload
Fuel System
Fuel
Aft Avionics
Total

SharkWorks
Engineering

CG (in)

42.4

wing

9.3

46

V-tail

1.6

83

fuselage

31.5

46

40

83

60

23

38

37.5

46

5.5

68

197.4

45.43

There may be more weights associate actuation systems for the wing and rear stabilizers. This list
represents the major components in the aircraft. In addition, CG location is for the deployed case.

31

Stability

SharkWorks
Engineering

32

Control

SharkWorks
Engineering

Only ailerons to control the vehicle

Will use the roll coupling to (aided by computer
control) to achieve sufficient yaw control
Ailerons will act as elevators also.

Simple, low cost, durable actuators

Control depends gravely on a good aerodynamic
model
6-DOF equations of motion
Linearization

Much digital control design is deferred to later

study
Tools will mostly include Simulink to linearize and
analyze the stability of the system
33

Example Control

Example control law to implement 3-DOF control (Simulink)

SharkWorks
Engineering

6-DOF complete modeling & linearization

Simulink! A very powerful tool in control design!

Further refinement into 6-DOF and working with
state systems in Simulink!
34

Guidance

SharkWorks
Engineering

Utilize low cost SAASM GPS aided autopilot,

navigation, and avionics suite
Mission is pre-planned, but must be able to update
GPS mid-flight (feedback)
Estimation (using Kalman filter) of GPS location must
be fed back in order to minimize location error

Navigation will switch to IR mode when the target

is less than 1000 ft away (arbitrary)
Software should implemented such that missile
can abort mission
Guidance deferred to future design work
35

Structures and Materials

We will take cost as the
driving factor of the
structure design and
material selection
Look at:
General basis for material
selection
Loadings
Structural design
Simple weight comparison
to metals
Manufacturing method

SharkWorks
Engineering

Manufacturing

Cost

Structural
Design

Materials
Selection

36

Material Selection

SharkWorks
Engineering

Carbon Composite Materials

Advantages
High specific strength (3 times of
steel)
Nearly half the density of
aluminum
Excellent stiffness (less
deformable)
Corrosion resistant
Manufacturability
Tailorable properties
Disadvantages
Higher cost per pound
Toxins
Non-abrasive

37

Wing Configuration

Missile carrythrough structure

SharkWorks
Engineering

Localizes bending to
the wing
More fuselage space
Lightweight structure
Ease of
manufacturability

38

Wing Loading

SharkWorks
Engineering

For simple structure analysis and

comparison

Schrenks approximation for

spanwise loading with n = 2.5
load factor

39

Structural Design

SharkWorks
Engineering

Ease of manufacture (discussed later)

Simple box spar
No riveting, very few parts!

Primarily
Unidirectional Fibers
High density foam to
maintain shape

Simple single spar

design

Tri-axial weave
graphite composite
(thickness
undetermined)
Reinforced +/- 45 graphite
for increased shear strength

40

Structural Comparison
Graphite
Composite

Aluminum

Spar Cap Thickness

(per cap)

.030 inches

.170 inches

Spar Web Thickness

(per web)

.020 inches

.006 inches

Total Weight per unit

length

.005 lb/in

.029 lb/in

Weight Factor
(compared to Al)

1/5.8

SharkWorks
Engineering

Front view of the composite

main spar (to scale, all
measurements in inches)

* Tensile strength for graphite was 290 KSI (low grade), while aluminums was
73 KSI (see references for more material properties). The shear strength of
carbon depends on lay-up. Here a very conservative value was used.

41

Manufacturing

SharkWorks
Engineering

Generally three ways to manufacture composites via molds

Autoclaving

Theroset (high temp usage)

High fiber volume (~65-70%)
Resin already in fabric

Vacuum Assisted RTM

One sided tooling

Low temperature cure
Dry fiber (no refrigerator)

Resin Transfer Molding

Two sided molding

May apply pressure via press
Can use high temperature with
presses
Low quality (not uniform resin)

Ultimately cost became a driving factor

42

Cost of Manufacturing

SharkWorks
Engineering

VaRTM is the way to go!

Cost of manufacturing per pound

(minus capital cost)

Very low processing costs

Very low capital costs
Good repeatability
Good fiber volume (~5060%)

Must concentrate on
quality though!
43

Capital Cost Comparison

VaRTM versus Autoclave

Assumptions

The small autoclave at UCSD

(image provided by J. Kosmatka)

Autoclave cost concerns

Initial investments in autoclave
Freezers
Facilities (high flow heated and
cooled water, e.g. UCSD)
Cure time, limited space

(cost data given by Dr. Kosmatka,

UCSD)

Location cost were estimated and

held constant for both processes
Mold cost were proportional to the
volume of the aircraft

SharkWorks
Engineering

See next few slides for cost

comparisons (including
processing)

VaRTM example cure

44

VaRTM Airframe Cost

SharkWorks
Engineering

45

Autoclave PrePreg Airframe

Cost

SharkWorks
Engineering

46

Average Unit Procurement

Price

SharkWorks
Engineering

47

Cost Summary
SharkWorks
Engineering

Airframe and AUPP Costs

48

Performance

SharkWorks
Engineering

Compliance Matrix
Specific Excess Power Envelops
Maneuverability

49

Compliance Matrix
Requirement

Threshold

Goal

SharkWorks
Engineering

As Designed

Mission Planning

Compatible with
existing/planned mission
planning systems

In flight Programmable up to
missile launch

Unknown

Mission Plan Loading

Automated loading without

use of aircraft data interface

Use standardized aircraft

interface

Unknown

Carriage Configuration

92'' max length, cross section

defined by figure

Same

Fits within dimension

specifications

Launch Conditions

Straight and level 1-G Flight;

5000' AGL to 25K' MSL
300 KCAS to 550 KCAS
(<0.9 M)

Straight and level 1-G Flight;

5000' AGL to 40K' MSL
250 KCAS to 550 KCAS
(<0.9 M)

Straight and level 1-G Flight;

Sea Level to 40K' MSL
250 KCAS to 550 KCAS
(<0.9 M)

Operating Airspeeds

0.6 M to 0.9 M @ 35K' MSL

0.35 M to 0.85 M @ 5K'
MSL

0.6 M to 0.93 M @ 35K' MSL

0.35 M to 0.85 M @ 5K'
MSL

0.4 M to 0.95 M @ 35K' MSL

0.4 M to 0.9 M @ 5K'
MSL

Range

500 NM

600 NM

500 NM

Operating Alt. (Launch)

5000' AGL to 25K' MSL

5000' AGL to 40K' MSL

Sea Level to 40K' MSL

50

Compliance Matrix
Requirement

Threshold

Goal

SharkWorks
Engineering

As Designed

Operating Alt. (Post Launch)

2000' AGL to 35K' MSL

1000' AGL to 40K' MSL

Sea Level to 40K' MSL

Climb Rate

> 6000 fpm

> 7000 fpm

14200 fpm

Maneuverability

2 G's at 25K' MSL

2 G's at 30K' MSL

2 Gs at 40K MSL

Shelf Life

15 years

20 years

Unknown

Mission Reliability

0.91

0.94

Unknown

Affordability - AUPP (04

dollars)

$125 K

$75 K

$109.3 K

51

Specific Power

SharkWorks
Engineering

1-g Maximum Thrust Specific Excess Power Envelop

52

Specific Power

SharkWorks
Engineering

5-g Maximum Thrust Specific Excess Power Envelop

53

Doghouse

SharkWorks
Engineering

Maximum Thrust Maneuvering Performance at Sea Level

54

Doghouse

SharkWorks
Engineering

Maximum Thrust Maneuvering Performance at 25,000 ft

55

Doghouse

SharkWorks
Engineering

Maximum Thrust Maneuvering Performance at 40,000 ft

56

Trade Studies
SharkWorks
Engineering

57

Trade Studies
SharkWorks
Engineering

Effect of Payload Weight

- Nonlinear relationship
- Better performance with
higher payload

Effect of Wing Area

- Linear with TOGW
- Exponential with Wing
Loading
- Design implications

58

Future Work Needed

SharkWorks
Engineering

Controls
Estimate the dynamics and stability of the aircraft
Digital control implementation

CFD
More accurate aerodynamic estimation of drag on a missile body
Wing lift estimation (3D)
Aeroelasticity

Finite Element and Structure

More detailed design of ribs and stringers (fuselage)
Finite element analysis to properly estimate forces and stress

Specific guidance
GPS switch to IR?
Low level flight path?

Specific subsystems
Actuation of wings and fins
Electric generator

Cost concerns
More research on costs of manufacturing and hard numbers

59

Almost done!

SharkWorks
Engineering

60

References
SharkWorks
Engineering

Books:

Bushnell, Dennis M., Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary Layers, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 123,
AIAA
Clemow, J., Missile Guidance, Temple Press Limited, 1962
Covert, Eugene E., Thrust and Drag: Its Prediction and Verification, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 98,
AIAA
Dow, Richard B., Fundamentals of Advanced Missiles, John Wiley and Sons
Hoskin, Brian C., Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures, AIAA, New York, 1986
Jensen, E. Gordan, Tactical Missile Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Virginia, 1996
Mahoney, John J., Inlets for Supersonic Missiles, AIAA, Washington DC, 1990
Mendenhall, Michael R., Tactical Missile Aerodynamics: Prediction Methodology, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
Vol. 142, AIAA
Nielsen, Jack N., Missile Aerodynamics, McGraw Hill, 1960
Nielson, Jack, Tactical Missile Aerodynamics, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Virginia, 1994
Nixon, David, Unsteady Transonic Aerodynamics, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 120, AIAA
Oatses, Gordan C, Aircraft Propulsion Systems Technology and Design, AIAA, Washington, 1989
Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 3rd Ed., AIAA, Virginia, 1999

Websites:

Introduction to Composite Materials, May 1, 2004, <

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/composites/comp_intro.cfm?search_string=composite>
e-Composites Database, May 15, 2004, <http://www.e-composites.com>
Kosmatka, John B., UCSD Composite Aerospace Structures Laboratory, May 20, 2004, <http://casl.ucsd.edu>
Military Database, April 26, 2004, <http://www.fas.gov>
Barrenberg, Jerry, Composites and Plastics, May 3, 2004, <http://composite.about.com>

61

Thanks to

SharkWorks
Engineering

James Lang (Design Professor)

John Meissner (Design Teaching
Assistant)
Hans Dall and Northrop Grumman
John Kosmatka and Marc Robinson
(Structures and Materials Professor)

62

Thanks

SharkWorks
Engineering

63