stability and. .control- characteristics of elliptic missile, · pdf file ·...

\ -

NASA Technical Paper 13 5 2

. . , -

I .

. ..

' . , Stability and. .Control- Characteristics . ,

of I a- -Monoplanar Elliptic . Missile, Model

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790009637 2018-05-21T08:23:38+00:00Z

NASA Technical Paper 1352

Stability and Control Characteristics of a Monoplanar Elliptic Missile Model at Mach Numbers From 1.60 to 2.86

Wallace C. Sawyer and Giuliana Sangiorgio Latzgley Research Center Hatnpton, Virginia

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical Information Office

1979

I

SUMMARY

An investigation has been conducted of a monoplanar maneuverable missile concept having a nose forebody with a circular cross section and a centerbody and afterbody with elliptical cross sections. The tests involved several component changes and were conducted in the low Mach number test section of the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel at Mach numbers of 1.60, 2.16, and 2.86 , at angles of attack ranging from - 4 0 to 280, and at sideslip angles ranging from - 4 0 to 8O.

The most significant result was that at the highest Mach number ( 2 . 8 6 ) , the configuration with the infrared nose produced nearly twice the axial force as the same configuration with the radar nose. The cranked wing had a destabilizing effect on the longitudinal stability and had no effect on the lateral- directional stability. The nose strakes had no effect longitudinally and were detrimental to the lateral-directional stability.

INTRODUCTION

A continuing research program has been under way at the National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration for several years to provide a broader technological base for monoplanar maneuverable missile concepts. (See refs. 1 to 3.) The monoplanar concept is aerodynamically interesting because it provides a natural shape for conformal carriage. In addition, the concept provides gen- erally higher range efficiency and, if maneuvered with pitch-roll control logic, offers good terminal maneuver capability (ref. 1 ) .

As part of this technological effort, a limited number of configuration variables have been tested for a maneuverable air-to-air missile configuration concept (MAAM) currently under study (ref. 2 ) . Tests were conducted at Mach numbers of 1.60, 2.16, and 2.86, with angles of attack ranging from -4O to 28O, and sideslip angles ranging from - 4 0 to 80. The limited testing considered minor configuration variables which included cranked wing, nose strakes, and nose shape.

SYMBOLS

The coefficients of force and moment are referred to the body-axis system with aerodynamic moments about a point 40.335 cm aft of the radar nose configuration. This point of reference was used in order to correspond to the data of reference 2. The physical quantities are given in the International System of Units (SI) . (See ref. 4. )

CY

d

M

Axial force

qs axial-force coefficient,

base axial-force coefficient

Rolling moment rolling-moment coefficient,

qSd

Pitchins moment - pitching-moment coefficient,

qSd

Normal force normal-force coefficient,

qs

Yawing moment

qSd yawing-moment coefficient,

Side force

qs side-force coefficient,

model reference diameter, 0.0582 m

free-stream Mach number

free-stream dynamic pressure, Pa

model reference area, 0.00265 m2

2

cc model angle of attack, deg

B model angle of sideslip, deg

6P pitch control deflection angle (positive deflection gives positive pitching moment), deg

6, yaw control deflection angle (positive deflection gives positive yawing moment), deg

6a roll control deflection angle (positive deflection gives positive rolling moment), deg

Component designations:

B body

T1 tail

WC wing with cranked leading edge

W wing with 45O swept leading edge

NS nose strakes

IN infrared nose

RN radar dome nose

MODEL

Details and dimensions of the elliptical model components are shown in figure 1. The model that was tested represented a maneuverable monoplanar missile having an elliptic cross section throughout the afterbody and centerbody, a circular cross-section nose, and four tail control fins. The configurations tested involved five different combinations of the following components: cranked wing, nose strakes, radar nose, infrared nose, and a set of tail fins. The four tail fins were used to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control.

WIND TUNNEL

The investigation was conducted in the low Mach number test section of the Langley Unitary P l a n wind tunnel, which is a variable-pressure, continuous-flow facility. The test section is approximately 2.13 m long and 1.22 m square. The nozzle leading to the test section has an asymmetric sliding block which permits a continuous variation in Mach number from about 1.5 to 2.9.

3

TEST CONDITIONS

Tests were performed at the following tunnel conditions:

Mach number

1.60 2.16 2.86

Stagnation Reynolds number Stagnation temperature, K per meter pressure, kPa

31 1 54.6

6.6 98.4 31 1 6.6 68.5 31 1 6.6 x lo6

The dew point was maintained low enough to-insure negligible condensation effects. All tests were performed with boundary-layer transition strips on the body 3.05 cm aft of the nose and 1.02 cm aft of the leading edges measured streamwise on both sides of the wing and tail surfaces. The transition strips were approximately 0.16 cm wide and were composed of No. 50 sand grains sprin- kled in acrylic plastic.

MEASUREMENTS

Aerodynamic forces and moments on the model were measured by means of a six-component electrical strain-gage balance which was housed within the model. The balance was attached to a sting which, in turn, was rigidly fastened to the tunnel support system. Balance-chamber pressure and base pressure were measured by means of static-pressure orifices located in the vicinity of the balance. Axial force was corrected for conditions of free-stream static pressure acting over the entire base of the model.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Figure

Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with pitch control . . . . .

Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with roll control . . . . .

Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with yaw control . . . . . .

Effect of wing planform shape on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration . . . .

Effect of nose strakes on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, and radar nose configuration . . . . . . . .

2

3

4

5

6

4

Effect of nose shape on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, and nose strakes configuration . . . . . . .

Effect of nose strakes on lateral-directional characteristics for straight wing configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of nose strakes on lateral-directional characteristics for cranked wing configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Directional stability characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration in sideslip at angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roll control characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yaw control characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Variation of base drag at angle of attack for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The comparison of the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for the configuration concepts tested is shown in figures 2 to 7. In general, all configurations exhibited a slight pitch-down tendency with increased angle of attack. The addition of the strake to the basic wing resulted in a slight decrease in stability at Oo angle of attack and a slight increase in linearity of the pitch curves. As expected, the bluntness of the infrared nose produced nearly twice the axial force produced by the radar nose.

The basic lateral-directional stability data are presented in figures 8 and 9 for the nose strakes (NS) and cranked wing (WC) . These derivatives were taken from sideslip angles ranging from Oo to 3O. The fundamental linearity of the lateral-directional stability derivatives is demonstrated in figure 10. All the configuration concepts show a high loss of directional stability with increased angle of attack, especially at the lower Mach numbers. The addition of the strakes to the basic wing configuration had no effect on the lateral- directional stability. However, addition of the nose strakes proved to be detrimental to lateral-directional stability characteristics.

The lateral-directional control data in figures 1 1 and 12 indicate that sufficient control is available to overcome the directional instability for the configurations investigated in this study.

5

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Wind-tunnel tests were conducted in the low Mach number test section of the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel in order to extend the data base for a specific monoplanar missile concept and to investigate the aerodynamic effects of minor configuration variables.

The most significant result was that at the highest Mach number (2.86), the configuration with the infrared nose produced nearly twice the axial force produced by the radar nose. The cranked wing had a destabilizing effect on the longitudinal stability and had no effect on the lateral-directional stability. The nose strakes had no effect longitudinally and were detrimental to the lateral-directional stability.

Langley Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Hampton, VA 23665 January 19, 1979

REFERENCES

1. Sawyer, Wallace C.; Jackson, Charlie M., Jr.; and Blair, A. B., Jr.: Aerodynamic Technologies for the Next Generation of Missiles. Paper presented at the AIAA/ADPA Tactical Missile Conference (Gaithersburg, Maryland) , Apr. 27-28, 1977.

2. Smith, Dale K.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Three Maneuvering Air-to- Air Missile Models at Mach Numbers From 0.5 to 1.6. AEDC-TR-77-25, AFATL-TR-77-3, U . S . Air Force, June 1977. (Available from DDC as AD BO18 815L.)

3. Graves, Ernald B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Monoplanar Missile Concept With Bodies of Circular and Elliptical Cross Sections. NASA TM-74079, 1977.

4. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conversion Factors (Second Revision). NASA SP-7012, 1973.

6

(a) BWCRNTI.

Figure 1.- Details of model configurations. Model dimensions are in centimeters unless otherwise noted.

I

8.890

.274 I

6.096

(b) Cranked wing, Wc.

Figure 1.- Continued.

&19.624-”---=1_1 1 5 . 4 0 5 4 20.163 1 a 23.846

.874

.381

( c ) Wing, W.

Figure 1 .- Continued. W

1.905

-4.039 ; \

2.308 2.308d

450 .953

.222

.478

t 6.350

4.039

(d) Tail, TI.


MS 8.890

MS 4.775 ,4.11d L1. 829 rad.

MS 0.000

890

!25

Infrared nose, IN

9.952-

Radar nose, RN

(e) Noses used on model configurations.

Figure 1 .- Continued.

,157

140 27' 47 I ' ll 19O 48 ' 48"

M S I

M S

M S 12.220

M S 18.948

( f ) Nose strake, Ns.

Figure 1 .- Concluded.

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 2.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with pitch control.

13

(b) M = 2 .16 .


14

I

(c) M = 2.86 .

F i g u r e 2.- Concluded.

15

1

i

1

1

cN

2

‘A

2

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 3.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with roll control.

16

4

2

- 2

- 4

2 4

2 0

16

12

cN

8

4

0

- A

2

cA

- 2

- -8 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 16 20 2 4 28 32

a , d e g

(b) M = 2.16 .

Figure 3. - Continued.

17

(c) M = 2.86.

F i g u r e 3 . - Concluded.

18

2

‘A

- 2

2

2

1

1

CN

- 4 0 4 a 12 16 20 24 za 3i a, d e g

2

CA

0

?

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 4.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration with yaw control.

19

- 4 0 4 8 1 2 16 20 2 4 2 8 3 2 a, d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


20

I

a, deg

(c) M = 2 . 8 6 .


21

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 5.- Effect of wing planform shape on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration.

22

a. d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


D

23

a, d e g

(c) M = 2.86.

Figure 5.- Concluded.

24

4

2

Cm o

-2

- 4

2 4

20

16

12

CN

a

4

0

-4 0 4 a 12 16 20 24 2 a 32 a. d e g

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 6.- Effect of nose strakes on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, and radar nose configuration.

25

(b) M = 2.16.


26

Ib -

a. d eg

(c) M = 2.86.


27

'8 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 2 8 3 2 0 . d e g

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 7.- Effect of nose shape on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, and nose strakes configuration.

28

a. d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


29

I

2

CA

0

30

. 4

. 3

. 2

. 1

- . 1

-. 2

-. 3

-. 4

- . 5

0

-. 1

C yp - . 2

-. 3

- . 4

.08

. 0 4

0

. 0 4 cz p

' . 08

' . 12

.. 16

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 8.- Effect of nose strakes on lateral-directional characteristics for straight wing configuration.

31

. 4

. 3

. 2

. 1

CnB o

-. 1

-. 2

-. 3

-. 4

0

- . 1

CYp -. 2

-. 3

-. 4

(b) M = 2.16.


. o a

. 0 4

0

.. 04 czB

.. 08

' . 12

. 1 6

32

C "D

C YP

a. d e g

(c) M = 2.86.

Figure 8.- C o n c l u d e d .

. 08

. a 4

1 0

- . 0 4 c[

- . oa

12

16

33

. .

. 4

. 3

. 2

. 1

0

-. 2

-. 3

- . 4

-. 5

- . 6

0

- . 1

CYp - . 2

-. 3

- . 4

.08

. 0 4

0

.. 1 2

.. 1 6

a. d e g

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 9.- Effect of nose strakes on lateral-directional characteristics for cranked wing configuration.

34

. 4

. 3

.2

. 1

-. 1

- . 2

-. 3

- . 4

0

-. 1

CYp -. 2

-. 3

- A - 4 0 4 a 1 2 1 6 2 0

a , d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


2 4 2 8

. 08

. 0 4

0

- . 04 'Zp

- . o a

- . 1 2

-. 1 6

35

. 0 8

. 0 4

0

.. 0 4 cl

. 0 8

. 1 2

. 1 6

- 8 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 16 2 0 2 4 2 8 3 2 a . d e g

(c) M = 2.86.


36

" .

Figur

4

3

2

1

Cn o

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

1

0

- 1

- 2 -8 -6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

' P , d e g

(a) M = 1.60.

e 10.- Directional stability characteristics for body-taill, cranked wi .ng nose strakes, and radar nose configuration in sideslip at angle of attack.

37

4

3

2

1

cn

0

- 2

- 3

1

0

- 1

a - 6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 B , d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


38

.8

.4

O cz

-.4

-. 8

2

Cn

4

3

2

1

0

- 1

- 2

- 3

. 4

1

0

-1

- 2 -6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 a 10 1

P, d e g

0

cl

-. 4

-.a

2

(c) M = 2.86.


39

7

6

5

4

Cn 3

2

1

0

-1

1

0

CY

- 1

-2

,. 2

. a

. 4 C[

0

. 4

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 11.- Roll control characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration.

40

2

1

0

-1

1

0

CY

- 1

- 2

. 2

. a

. 4 Cl

0

. 4

a. d e g

(b) M = 2.16.


41

a , d e g

(c) M = 2.86.


42

7

6

5

4

2

1

0

- 1

1

0

CY

-1

- 2

.. 2

. 4 Cl

0

. 4

(a) M = 1.60.

Figure 12.- Yaw control characteristics for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration.

43

. 2

. a

. 4 Cz

0

. 4

0 , d e g

(b) M = 2.16 .


44

I

2

a

4 cz

0

4

a. d e g

(c) M = 2.86.


45

I . . ". .

c A . b

Figure 13.- Variation of base drag at angle of attack for body-taill, cranked wing, nose strakes, and radar nose configuration.

46

1. Report No. I 2. Government Accession No.

5. Repon Date 4. Title and Subtitle

3. Recipient’s C a t a l o g No.

NASA TP- 1 3 52 I

STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF A February 1979 MONOPLANAR ELLIPTIC MISSILE MODEL AT MACH I NUMBERS FROM 1.60 TO 2.86

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s1 8. Performing Organnation Report No.

Wallace C. Sawyer and Giuliana Sangiorgio L-12268 10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-11-23-03 NASA Langley Research Center .Hampton, VA 23665 1 1 . Contract or Grant No.

. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Paper

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

An investigation has been conducted of a monoplanar maneuverable missile concept having a nose forebody with a circular cross section and a centerbody and afterbody with elliptical cross sections. The tests involved several component changes and were conducted in the low Mach number test section of the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel at Mach numbers of 1.60, 2.16, and 2.86, at angles of attack ranging from -4O to 28O, and at sideslip angles ranging from -4O to 8O. The most significant result was that at the highest Mach number (2.86), the configuration with the infrared nose produced nearly twice the axial force as the same configuration with the radar nose. The cranked wing had a destabilizing effect on the longitudinal stability and had no effect on the lateral-directional stability. The nose strakes had no effect longitudinally and were detrimental to the lateral- directional stability.

7. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) I 18. Distribution Statement

Monoplanar missile Missile stability control Missile aerodynamics

I Subject Category 02 9. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this p a g e ) 1 21. NO. of Pages 1 22. Price*

W s s i f ied 46 $4.50 * For sale bv the Natlonal Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginla 22161

NASA-Langley, 1979

, -

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ,.

Washington, D.C. I . /

I ,

' , 20546

_ . . .

T H I R D - C L A S S B U L K R A T E '

.. 1 . '

., ._

~" .

I

Postage and Fees Paid National Aeronautics and Space Administration N A S A 4 5 1 ' i

. I

. - . .

. .

. . .~ . .

, . I - . -.

5 I 1u ,a , 020279 S00903DS DEPT OF THE A I R F O R C E BF WEAPONS LABORATORY ATTN: TECHNIQ&L ' Z I B f t A R Y (SUI,) KTRTLAND APB- N M . 87117

If Undeliverable (Section 158 Postal Manual) I?o Not, Return , . .

stability and. .control- characteristics of elliptic missile, · pdf file ·...

Documents