An investigation has been made to determine the aerodynamic characteristics in pitch at a Mach number of 6.8 of hypersonic missile configurations with cruciform trailing-edge flaps and with all-movable control surfaces. The flaps were tested on a configuration having low-aspect-ratio cruciform fins with an apex angle of 5 degrees; the all-movable controls were mounted at the 46.7-percent body station on a configuration having a 10 degrees flared afterbody. The tests were made through an angle-of-attack range of -2 degrees to 20 degrees at zero sideslip in the Langley 11-inch hypersonic tunnel. The results indicated that the all-movable controls on the flared-afterbody model should be capable of producing much larger values of trim lift and of normal acceleration than the trailing-edge-flap configuration. The flared-afterbody configuration had considerably higher drag than the cruciform-fin model but only slightly lower values of lift-drag ratio

Bernot, P. T.

Robinson, R. B.

English

An investigation has been made to determine the aerodynamic characteristics in pitch at a Mach number of 6.8 of hypersonic missile configurations with cruciform trailing-edge flaps and with all-movable control surfaces. The flaps were tested on a configuration having low-aspect-ratio cruciform fins with an apex angle of 5 deg the all-movable controls were mounted at the 46.7-percent body station on a configuration having a 10 deg flared afterbody. The tests were made through an angle-of-attack range of -2 deg to 20 deg at zero sideslip in the Langley 11-inch hypersonic tunnel. The results indicated that the all-movable controls on the flared afterbody model should be capable of producing much larger values of trim lift and of normal acceleration than the trailing-edge -flap configuration. The flared -after body configuration had considerably higher drag than the cruciform-fin model but only slightly lower values of lift drag ratio

Bernot, Peter T

Robinson, Ross B

NASA Technical Reports Server

Aerodynamic Characteristics at a Mach Number of 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile Configurations, One with Low-Aspect-Ratio Cruciform Fins and Trailing-Edge Flaps and One with a Flared Afterbody and All-Movable Controls

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS AT A MACH NUMBER 
O F  6.8 O F  TWO HYPERSONIC MISSILE CONFIGURATIONS,  ON^ WITH 
.. .. 
. a .  . 0 . .  .. 
. a  .. .. .. 
. . . . .. . . 
COPY 
.. a * .  .. 0 .  . 0..  .. RM L58D24 
-4' 
DJ 
n 
a3 In 
J 
I LOW -ASPECT-RATIO CRUCIFORM FINS AND TRAILING-EDGE? FLAPS ' I 
Z 
P; 
4 
2 
;I; 
I AND ONE WITH A FLARED AFTERBODY AND I 
\ NACA 
\ 7, 
'\. ,' 
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM 
I ALL-MOVABLE CONTROLS I 
B y  R o s s  B . Robinson and Peter T .  Bernot  
FOR AERONAUTICS 
WASHINGTON 
August 4 ,  1958 
Restriction/Classification Cancelled
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19710074595 2020-03-17T03:25:49+00:00Z
. . . . . . . 
... 0 .  
0 .  0 .  . ... . 0..  0 .  
. ... . 0 .  0 .  
NACA RM ~58D24 f.. ... . ... 0 .  0 .  0 .  
. ... .. 
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM 
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS AT A MACH NUMBER 
OF 6.8 OF TWO HYPERSONIC MISSILE CONFIGURATTONS, ONE WITH 
LOW-ASPECT-RATIO CRUCIFORM FINS AND TRAILING-EDGE FLAPS 
AND ONE WITH A FLARED AF-ODY AM) 
ALL-MOVABLE CONTROLS* 
By Ross B. Robinson and Peter T. Bernot 
SUMMARY 
An investigation has been made to determine the aerodynamic charac- 
teristics in pitch at a Mach number of 6.8 of hypersonic missile configu- 
rations with cruciform trailing-edge flaps and with all-movable control 
surfaces. The flaps were tested on a configuration having low-aspect- 
ratio cruciform fins with an apex angle of 5'; the all-movable controls 
were mounted at the 46.7-percent body station on a configuration .having 
a 10' flared afterbody. The tests were made through an angle-of-attack 
range of -2' to 20' at zero sideslip in the Langlky 11-inch hypersonic 
tunnel. 
The results indicated that the all-movable controls on the flared- 
afterbody model should be capable of producing much larger values of 
trim lift and of normal acceleration than the trailing-edge-flap con- i!' 
figuration. The flared-afterbody configuration had considerably higher 
drag than the cruciform-fin model but only slightly lower values of lift- 
drag ratio. 
INTRODUCTION 
In order to obtain information on stability and control of configu- 
rations that offer promise as hypersonic missiles, an investigation of a 
family of missile models has been undertaken. The initial phases of the 
investigation are reported in reference 1 for a Mach number of 2.01 and 
in reference 2 for Mach numbers from 2.29 to 4.65. Included in reference 1 
are the results of tests of some canard control surfaces for configurations 
with a flared afterbody and with cruciform fins. 
. . ... e. 
e e  0 .  
0 . .  e e .  
. e  e . .  . 
. . . a * .  
. e  0 .  
. . . l . . . t • l • l l • l • l 
TACA RM L5ijD24 
This general investigation has been extended to obtain control 
information at higher Mach numbers for modified versions of two of the 
configdraticns presented in references 1 and 2. These versions consisted 
of (1) trailing-edge-flap controls on a configuration having low-aspect- 
ratio cruciform fins and (2) a configuration with a lo0' flared afterbody 
equipped with all-movable cruciform controls. The two configurations 
were considerably different geometrically but were selected as possible 
hypersonic missile arrangements fi;cdm the standpoint of stability, man- 
euverability, and heating requirements. This report presents the results 
of an investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of these control 
arrangements at a Mach number of 6.8. 
ComICIENTS AND SYMBOLS 
The data are presented as coefficients of forces and moments with 
the center of moments at 50-percent of the body length. All data are 
referred to the body-axis system except lift and drag which are referred 
to the wind-axis system. 
CN normal-force coefficient, FN/qS 
c L lift coefficient, FL/qs 
C A axial-force coefficient, F~/q8 
C D 'drag coefficient, FD/qS 
C~ side-force coefficient, Fy/qs 
c 2 rolling-moment coefficient, bfX/qSd 
C m pitching-m~ment coefficient, bT~/~sd 
cn yawing-moment coefficient, ~ ~ / q s d  
F l ~  normal force 
FL lift 
FA axial force ' 
F~ drag 
F~ side force 
0 .  0.. . . 0 .  ... 0 .  
0 . .  0 .  0 .  0 .  
NACA RM L 5 8 D 2 4  0. m e .  • • 
... . 0 .  0 .  
. - 
. . . . . . . . ... 0 .  
4 rolling moment 
Mu pitching moment ' 
M~ yawing moment 
9 free-stream dynamic pressure 
S - cross-sectional area of cylindrical section of body 
d diameter of cylindrical section of body 
a . angle of attack of bodi center 'line, deg 
6c deflection of all-movable controls with respect to body cen- 
ter line, positive when trailing edge is down or left, deg 
&f deflection of trailing-edge flap with,respect to body center 
line, positive when trailing edge is down or left, deg 
L/D lift-drag ratio, CL/CD 
x longitudinal distance rearward of nose, in. 
R - /radius, in. 
MODELS AND APPARATUS 
Sketches of the models are shown in figure 1. The geometric char- 
acteristics of the models are given in table I, and the coordinates of 
the forebody are given in table 11. 
The model had a body consisting of a ?-caliber forebody with a 
round nose followed by a straight tapered section that fairs into a 
5-caliber cylindrical afterbody. The fins, 'trailing-edge flaps, and 
all-movable controls were flat plates with rounded leading edges and 
blunt trailing edges. 
The cruciform-f in configuration consisted of the body, cruciform 
fins having a 5O apex angle, and cruciform trailing-edge flaps in the 
plane of the fins (fig. 1) . An 0.033-caliber gap separated the fins 
and flaps. The hinge line of the flaps was at the 93.3-percent body 
.station and the 33.3-percent chord line of the flaps. 
. . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .  ..... 
. . l . . l . . . . .  4 . . . .  . . . . . . .  NACA RM L58D24 
....... 
The flared-afterbody configuration was composed of the body, a 
2-caliber 10' flared afterbody, and modified 70' delta cruciform all- 
movable controls. The control-surface hinge lines were at the 
46.7-percent body station and the 68.7-percent-chord line of the 
controls. 
Six-component force and moment data were measured by an internal 
strain-gage balance. Pressure recorders provided a continuous record 
of the settling-chamber and model base pressures. (see ref. 3.) The 
base pressures were measured by a single tube placed in the balance 
chamber slightly forward of the model base. 
The investigation was made in the Langley 11-inch hypersonic tunnel 
described in reference 4. The tunnel is of the intermittent-flow type 
employing a single-step, two-dimensional Invar nozzle. 
TESTS, CORRECTIONS, AND ACCURACY 
The tests were made at a Mach number of 6.8, a stagnation tempera- 
ture of about 650' I?, and a stagnation pressure of 21 atmospheres absolute 
(310 pounds per square inch). The Reynolds number was approximately 
6 3 . 1 ~  10 based on the body length of one foot. Based on previous expe- 
rience (see ref. 5)) the model boundary layer was believed to be laminar 
for these test conditions. Test-section temperatures were maintained 
above values necessary to prevent liquefaction of the air. The dewpoint 
was below -75' F measured at atmospheric pressure. Tests were made 
through an angle-of-attack range from -2' to 20' at zero sideslip only. 
The Mach number variation during a run was about 0.5 percent and 
flow angularities were negligible. No corrections have been applied to 
the data for these variations. 
The axial-force data were adjusted to a base pressure equal to the 
free-stream static pressure. Base pressures measured in the balance 
chamber were applied to the total base area of the model. The values 
of base pressure were accurate to within f2 percent and values of stag- 
nation pressure to within fl percent. 
Estimated probable errors in the results of the present tests based 
on balance calibration, zero shifts, and repeatibility are as follows: 
CN and CL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  t0.050 
CA and CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  f0.007 
Cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  f 0.040 
c, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  fo.009 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  cn t0.019 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .  Cy .' 20.015 
a,deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  f0.2 
6, and 6,, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  f0.l 
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 
The aerodynamic characteristics in pitch for the various configura- 
tions are presented as follows: 
Figure 
Body alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2 
. . .  . . . . . . . .  Body with 5' fins and trailing-edge flaps ; 3 
Body with lo0 flare and all-movable controls . . . . . . . . . .  4 
Variation of Cm with CN for trailing-edge flap control and 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  all-movable control configurations 5 
Roll control with trailing-edge flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6 
Roll control with all-movable controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7 
SlJl@W3Y OF RESULTS 
The finned configuration with trailing-edge flaps and the flared 
afterbody configuration with all-movable controls indicate approximately 
the same level of static longitudinal stability. (see fig. 5.) However, 
of the two configurations investigated, the all-movable control arrange- 
ment is considerably more effective than the trailing-edge-flap arrange- 
ment in producing trimed normal force or normal accelarations. 
I 
For zero control deflection, the finned configuration with trailing- 
edge flaps has a higher maximum lift-drag ratio L/D than the flared 
afterbody configuration with all-movable controls. (see figs . 3 (b) and 
4(b) .) However, the losses in L/D due to control deflection are greater 
with the trailing-edge flaps than with the all-movable controls. As a 
result, even for the most rearward center-of-gravity position permissible 
to avoid regions of longitudinal instability, the values of trimmed L/D 
would be about the same for the two configurations. 
Both control arrangements, when deflected differentially, provided 
positive roll effectiveness that increased slightly with increasing angle 
of attack. With all four trailing-edge flaps deflected differentially, 
a favorable yawing moment was produced throughout the angle-of-attack 
range. With the vertichl. all-movable controls deflected 'differentially, , 
an increasingly adverse yawing moment occurred with increasing angle of 
attack. 
_ - -_-Langley-Aeronautical Laboratory, - -_ -- - -- - -- - 
- - - -  - 
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 
Langley Field, Va., April 10, 1958. 
REFERENCES . , 
. . .  
1. Robinson, Ross B.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at a Mach Number of 2.01 
of the Aerodynamic Characteristics in Combined Angles of Attack and 
Sideslip of Several Hypersonic Missile Configurations With Various 
Canard Controls. NACA RM ~58A21, 1958.. . . . . 
2. Turner, Kenneth L., and Appich, W. H., Jr.: Investigation of the 
, . 
. . Static Stability Characteristics of Five Hy-personic Missile Con- 
figurations at Mach Numbers From 2.29 to 4.65. NACA RM L58D04, 
1958 
3. McLellan, Charles H., Williams, Thomas W., and Bertram, Mitchel H. : 
Investigation of a Two-Step Nozzle in the Langley 11-Inch Hy-personic 
hnel. NACA TN 2171, 1950. 
4. McLellan, Charles H., Williams, Thomas W., and Beckwith, Ivan E.: 
Investigation of the Flow Through a Single-Stage Two-Dimensional 
Nozzle in the Langley 11-Inch Hy-personic Tunnel. NACA TN 2227, 1950. 
5. Becker, John V., and Korycinski, Peter F.: Heat Transfer and Pres- 
. sure Distribution at a Mach Number of 6.8 on Bodies With Conical 
Flares and Extensive Flow Separation. NACA RM ~ 5 6 ~ 2 2 ,  1956. 
....... ............... 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
..... ....... 
NACA FW ~58D24 to. f m e  '.'. o . . . . .  . 0 .  0 .  
... 
TABLE I.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODELS 
Body : 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Length. in  12.00 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Diameter. i n  1.20 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Cross-sectional area. sq i n  1.13 
. . . . . . . . . .  Length-diameter r a t i o  of nose . . . . . . . . .  ' 5.0 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Length-diameter ra t io ,  t o t a l  10.0 
Moment center location. percent length . : . . . . . . . . . . .  50.0 
Flare : 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Length.in 2.40 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Base diameter. i n  . 2.046 
B a s e a r e a . s q i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3.29 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Apex angle. deg 10.0 
Fins (~ncluding  f laps)  : 
Areaof twopane l s  exposed. s q i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.90 
Root chord. exposed. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7.61 
Tip chord. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.20 
Span. exposed. i n  . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.08 
Aspect r a t i o  of exposed f i n s  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.38 
Leading-edge apex angle. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5.0 
Span-diameter ra t io .  t o t a l  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.90 
Trailing-edge f laps : 
Area. per pair.  sq i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.30 
Span. each. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.54 
Chord. each. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.20 
P e r c e n t o f f i n a r e a  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26.5 
. Leadlng-edge sweep. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  C. . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Hinge l ine.  percent body length 93.3 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Hingel ine.percent .chord 33.3 
Gap. in  . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.04 
All-movable controls: 
Area. exposed. per pair. sq i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.50 
Root chord. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2-55 
Tip chord. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.14 
Span. exposed. i n  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.89 
Leading-edge sweep. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70.0 
Hinge line.  percent body length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46.7 
Hinge l ine .  percent root chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68.7 
TABLE 11.--COORDINATES OF FOREBODY 
X ,  i n .  
0 
.lo6 
2.400 
2.800 
3.200 
3.600 
4.000 
4.400 
4.800 
5.200 
5.600 
6.000 
R, i n .  
0 
.lo6 
385 
.429 
.470 
505 
534 
-558 
576 
590 
597 
.600 
a 
I- Hinge line 
' I- Hinge line I 
Figure 1.- Details of models. All linear dimensions are in calibers. 
Figure 2.- Aerodynamic characteristics in pitch for body alone. 
. . 
-, (a) - Body axis. . 
Figure 3.- Effects of control deflection on aerodynamic characteristics 
in pitch. Body with 5' fins and trailing-edge-f lap control. 
(b) Wind axis. 
Figure . 3 .  .- Concluded .. 
. . . . . . . 
... . .. .. . ... . ... .. 
. . .. . .. 0 .  . 0 . .  .. NACA RM ~ 5 8 ~ 2 4  : m e  :om m a  e m  e .  
. ... 0 .  
-2 
- 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 
a, deg 
(a) Body axis. 
Figure 4.- Effects of control deflection on aerodynamic characteristics 
in pitch. Body with flare and all-movable control. 

Figure 5.- Effects of control deflection on variation of C, with CN. 
. . . - . . . . . . . . . ..a 9. 
a .  a .  . . . . - 
. . a. 1). e . a * * *  
. a  a .  . 
. . . • • . . • • • • • 
NACA RM ~ ~ 8 ~ 2 4  
a, de9 
(a) Variation of , Cz, and. Cy with a. 
Figure 6. - Effects of differential deflection for roll control. Body 
with 5O fins and trailing-edge-flap control; body-axis system. 
a, deg 
(b) Variation of , CA, and CN with a. 
Figure 6.  - Concluded. 
(a) Variation of Cn, Cl, and Cy with a. 
Figure 7.- Effects of differential deflection for roll control. Body 
with flare and all-movable control; horizontal controls at zero 
deflection; body-axis system. 
....... .......... 
. . . . .  .. 0 .  0 .  
..... 
........ . . . *   0 .  0 .  
..... .*...... 
NACA RM ~ 5 8 ~ 2 4  
(b) Variation of C, CA, and CN with a. 
. . 
Figure 7.- Concluded. 
NACA - Langley Fir!d. Va. 



Aerodynamic Characteristics at a Mach Number of 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile Configurations, One with Low-Aspect-Ratio Cruciform Fins and Trailing-Edge Flaps and One with a Flared Afterbody and All-Movable Controls

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server

NASA Technical Reports Server