AERODYNAMICS OF A ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE I7
AERODYNAMICSOF A ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILEI7L.E.TisserandThe Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics LaboratoryLaurel,Ilu. ABSTRACT*For guidance-relatedIMarylandreasons,there isconsiderable interestin rolling missiles having single-plane steering capability.Tothe aerodynamic design of these airframes,Saida unique investigation into the aerodynamics of a rolling, steering missile hasbeen carried out.It represents the firstknown attempt tomeasure in a wind tunnel the aerodvnamic forces and moments thatact on a spinning body-canard-tail configuration that exercises canard steering in phase with body rollposition.Measurements were made with the model spinning at steadystate rollrates ranging from 15 to 40 Hz over an angle-ofattack range up to about 1616'.iThis short, exploratory investigation has demonstrated thata better understanding and a more complete definition of theaerodynamics of rolling, steering vehicles can be developed byway of simulative wind-tunnel testing.,INTRODUCTIONjIn mid-December1978,wind tunneltests were conducted usingthe newlyfabricated model of a Rolling Airframe Missile.The Applied PhysicsLaboratory planned] and conducted the testing for the Navy under APL sub-contract with the Vought Corporation, High Speed Wind Tunnel.General2))pDynamics, Pomona Division, designed and fabricated the test item.The purpose of this wind-tunnel investigation was to gain a betterunderstanding of the configuration's aerodynamic characteristics, underproper oimulative conditions, that would lead to the development of betterPrior to this effort, aerodynamic characteristicspredictive capabilities.used in designing and evaluating rolling, steering missiles have been derivedfrom wind tunnel data collected on nonspinning models and from the cumulativeLexperiences1Lgainedfrom analyses of flight test data.Those aerodynamicdescriptions of rolling airframes emphasize their longitudinalcontrol characteristicsyawing moments.but ignore the likelihood of induced sideThe work reported in this paper was supported by NAVSEA,Contract N00017-72-C-4401, Task A3BO.-.6-.I,stability1252.'andforces andPMS-404-50,underMAR.8
This exploratory test was limited purposely to 35-hours of test time.It represents Phase One of a two-phase wind-tunnel in,;ettigation into theThe objectives of this shortaerodynamics of the rolling, steering airframe.test were to check out the test item, test procedures and data acquisition,and to probe the aerodynamics of the configuration under dynamic-flight conIt was proposedditions at a representative transonic and supersonic speed.that, after an evaluation of all aspects of this test, a second tunnel entrywould be made to fully document the aerodynamics of the configuratiolL throughout its performance envelope, and to conduct configurational breakdown investigations appropriate to the identification and sizing of relevant aerodynamic causes and effects.This first phase of the proposed test program was a success.data have been evaluated and the results documented.6The testSYMBOLS AND NOMENCLATUREThe aerodynamic forces and moments presented herein are referred to anthat pitchef, with the missileaxes system of rectangular coordinates (xyz)but does not roll with the missile, and does not roll to the angular orientationThe flight-paLh velocityfor the occurrence of peak-steering deflection.vector is denoted by V with projections u, v, w on the x,y,z-axis reThe positive sense0 for the axes system selected herein).spectively (vand steeringcoefficients,momentandforceof the velocity componentb,of symbols are:Definitionspage.nexttheonshownarecontrol deflectionCA) CycN)m ý ncoefficients:A'YNorthogonal set of aerodynamicCmA- x/qS,m -FCm My /qSd,Cy Fy/qS,Cnnreference length,Fx)Fy)FzM.M)mx y ziCNIforce and moment-Fz/qS,C Mx/qSdMz /qSdbody diameter (inches)projections of the total aerodynamic force (lbs) andtotal aerodynamic moment (in-lbs) onto the nonrolling x, y, z-axis respectivelysteering deflection amplitude, i 0 increases a andi 0 decreases a [an observer riding in the nonrolling axes system will see the instantaneoussteeringdeflection vary as i I cos 0 ; an observer riding in therolling body-fixed axes system wilI see the instantaneoussteering deflection vary as i cos 0]I11-126-
MMach numbcrMRCmoment reference center locateddownstream of body nose tipqdynamic pressureSreference area,A- gI,,uQ'ameters4r.(psf)body cross-sectional aurcaýsq.ft)xy, FCyzxNXCPlongitudinal center of pressure (used to indicate thileresultant center-of-pressure location for the normal.force coefficient where body station is given in modeldiameters measured Lownstream from nose tip)atotal angle of attack (deg) measured between the totalvelocity vector (V) and the centerline of tihe missile"(x-axis): a arctan (w/u)0"00, 0 is thk aerodynamic roll angle (deg) measuredwhenfrom the angle-of-aL -ck plane (defined by Lhe totalvelocity vector and ch. centerline of the mi.sile? to thecenterline of the reference leeward canard; when 0 ý 0,0 is the steering-control direction defined as the angle(deg) measured from the angle-of-attack plane to the rollattitude for the occurrence of peak-steering deflection. 0 roll rate (liz);0 0 isclockwise1-127spin looking upstream
ýd/2Vspin parameter (radians)8differential deflection angles (deg) set onlifting e of Cy at a 0'nonzero value of Cn at a 0*partial differentiation as in OC y/aTEST ITEMThe configuration tested is shown in Figure 1.The model is 42.408incher long and its outer diameter is 1.925 inches.The nose section consists of a hemispheric nose stepped into a conical-transition section leadingto the cylindrical body.'wo hemispherically-tipped antennas are mounted on.the transition section in line with the two fixed, rectangular-planformilcanards that are canted differentially (6 - 0.75") for the intended purposeof supplementing aerodynamic rolling momenLt.The two steering canards havea delta planform with 45' leading-edgu sweep.Provisions exist for testing,steering-deflection amplitudes of 00,5001100, :L5' or L20*.Four liketail panels are mounted on a cylindrical sleeve which islijp-fltted over,and fastened to, the cylindrical afterbody.The cruciform tail arrangementis interdigitated at 450 relative to the canard panels.Asyniiietric wedgingof the tail leading edges yields a camber effect, and small flap-type tabsat the trailing edges are deflected differentially (87.5') to produceaerodynamic roll-driving mnoment.The base is flared.-A special st.1ng support was designed and fabricated to be compatiblewith the model's large i,',gth-to-diameter ratic.Packaged inside the modelare: (a) a five-component strain guage balance to measure the orthogonalaerodynamic 'orces (less drag) and muoments that act on the model, (b) a DCmotor to provide roll torque supplemental to aerodynamic rol1-driving momellt,and (c) an interchangeable steerizig cam to produce mechanically sinusoidaldeflection of the steering canards in phase with body roll position.Thesting support, balance, motor casing , and cam are locked together as one unitthat does not spin; the model is Alip-fitted over, and fastened to, a spinbearing case that is fre.e to totate.The roll rate of the model can be controlled remotely by regulating the power supply to the torque motor.Pretests showed the model's mass asynune try in roll isthe effects of motor-generatedof the balance are negligible.qulite small,R esonantmodel-balance-stLing assembly are 12,frequencies of the cantilevered22 and 24 HIz.-1I21-128Ii:andheat and magnetic fields oil the; performance
TEST CONDI TIONSA dynamic variable to be duplicated in tunnel testing is the missile'sHence, torate, ý.spin parameter, Od/2V, rather than the missile's rollratessimulate properly the flight conditions associated with missile rollof 8 to 15 Hz, it is necessary for the 0.385-scale model. to experience steadyResenant frequencies within the simulativerates of 15 to 30 Hz.state rollrates would have been a serious problem had it not beenrange of model rollFigure 2to control the rollrate of the model remotely.for the abilityrates tested and the equivalentshows, for Mach 1.2 and 2.5, the model rollmissile roll rates (evaluated at sea level)of the spin parameter.determinedfrom the equivalenceMeasurements were taken under conditions of pitch and pause at the nomThe effects of. . .,160.inal angles of attack of -2 , 00, 20, 40, 60rate, Reynolds number, Mach number, and steering condata sampling rate, rolltrol (directed "in"and "out" of the angle-of-attack plane) on the configuration's rigid-body aerodynamics were examined.RESULTSA pretest calibration of the balance provided a measure of the basic,The root-mean-square variations in thestaticaccuracy of the instrument.balance-measured forces and moments are shown in subsequent plots of coefresults has shown the repeatability ofEvaluation of alltestficient data.balance measurements is excellent and the measurements satisfy principles ofThese importanL data properties are used as justifisymnmetry when required.cation to define some coefficient behavior to finer precision than the adver-tised accuracy of the balance.Some pertinent results follow.given inAdditional iinformation and detail arethe final report.[EFFECTS OF ROLL RtATEAND DATA SAMPLINGU ILTrate constant at -17,-30 or -40Tests were made holding the model roll11z.At each pause, 48 data points were recorded at the rate of 240 data pointsper second.This yielded about 16 data points per one revolution of the model-30 lHz, and 6 datawhen 0 -17 liz, 8 data points per revolution when 0In th'e data reduction program, these-40 liz.points per revolution when 048 lines of coefficients were divided into four equal groups, and for eachgroup, a mean value and standard deviation were computed for each coefficient.Hence, in the figures, four mean values could appear at each condition ofpause; less Lhon four plotted points indicates no significant difference in"some of the coefficient's computed mean values.rate on theFigures 3, 4 and 5 show, for Mach 2.51, the effect of rollIt is evidentacrodynamiic forces and moments that act on the configuration.that normal force and pitchlng moment coefficients are not sensitive to theThe data allow smooth fairings without anomalies.ratLs tested.rollSI .-129
The induced side force and yawing moment coefficients, Figure 5, show adependence on roll rate and angle of attack. Although these forces and moments induced out of the plane of maneuver are small compared to the normalforce and its associated pitching moment, their appearance was not unexpected.If these fairings of induced coefficients are shifted to a common origin, itis possible to combine the slopes for low angles of attack into second-orderexpressions of the form,a )pandan. --nfor 0'1.' a 4', where P -S 3P2V'which are used commonly to describe the behavior of Magnus effects on bodiesof revolution.It is not proposed that Magnus foroes acting on the model'sbody are the only contributors to the configuratiou's induced side force and6yawing moment characteristics,!,iTests were made to determine the effect of data sampling rate on aerodynamic output.Holding 0 - - 30 Hz, measurements were taken over the angleof attack range -2* to 16' using data sampling rates of 80, 240 and 320 datapoints per second respectively.Comparison of results obtained indicates nomeasurable effect of data sampling rate on the recorded aerodyvnamic forces ormoments.One test run was made with the balance rolled to a different orientation relative to the angle-of-attack plane, and it is significant that thebalance output (when resolved to the axes system adopted herein) duplicate theresults for 0 -30 liz presented in Figures 3, 4, and 5.EFFECTS OF STEERING CONTROL DIRECTEDIN THE ANGLE OF ATTACK PLANEThe results presented in this section are for conditions where peaksteering deflection occurs as the steering canards become normal to the angleof-attack plane, i.e., 00 .,Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristicsand Induced Side Force and Yawing Moment CoefficientsFigures 6 and 7 show, for Mach 2.51, the effect of steering-deflectionamplitude on the contributcrs to longitudinal stability and control.Thevariations of normal force and pitching moment coefficients with angie ofattack and steering control show remarkably smooth and consistent behavior.Figure 8 ahows the behavior of the induced side force and yawing moment characteristics.The fairings for zero incidence are the same as shown earlierand their nonzero intercepts with the ordinate are designated, for purposes ofdiscussion, as Zeta (and Xi ().t zero angle of attack, principles ifsymmetry require that the incremental force and incremental moment resultingfrom plus and minus steering deflection to be equal and opposite; this condition is satisfied if increments are measured from a 1 and I respectively.1-130,
I1The test data should also image about zero angle of attack;(a j,i k)Cy (a -j,i -k)and Cn(aj,i k)i.e.,-CCynThese conditions are satisfied (for the range of data taken)(u - -j, i -k).when the origins of the plots are shifted (withont rotation) to CI and I respective ly.[IFigures 9, 10 and 11 show, for Mach 1.19, the effects of angle of attackMeasand steering-deflection amplitude on the force and moment coefficients.urements taken with a substantial increase in Reynolds number show no observable change in normal force coefficient and a 0.2-diameter upstream shift inlongitudinal center of pressure throughout the angle-of-attack range tested.Due to the nature of transonic flowfields, it was expected that measurementstaken at Mach 1.19 would indicate some abrupt changep in the components of theaerodynamic force and moment coefficients; however, it can be observed thatthe normal force and pitching moment fairings are without anomalies.Tests were conducted with the direction of spin reversed.For the forcesrand moments induced out of the maneuver plane to be real and aerodynamic inorigin, these coefficients must change sign when spin direction is reversed,and must image about the abscissa or a line parallel to the abscissa.inRun No. 45, the model was spun In the clockwise direction looking upstream.The tail-tabs settings were not reversed, nor was the differential cant onthe rectangular canards; hence, the test setup for Run No. 45 is similar butYvot identical to that of No. 44.The torque motor was used to override theaerodynamic roll-driving moment, coll-damping moment and bearing friction, andas a result, the motor could not produce a steady-state roll rate larger than 15 liz (cw).Neverthelessý comparisons of normal force and pitching momentcoefficients (Figures 9 and 10) from Run No. 44 and 45 show good agreement.Figure 11 compares the measured side force and yawing moment coefficientswhen roll direction is rEversed.The results show clearly that both sideforce and yawing moment reverse sign and exhibit elements of symmetry whenviewed about new abscisgas drawn through C2 and ,2'Since the magnitude ofthe roll rates differ, mirror images of the coefficient traces wouid not beexpected.Plans to interchange the model's tail assembly with an extra assemblypreset to produce near identical test conditions for clockwise and counterclockwise spin were not carried out due to an unexpected installation problem.Transonic tests were made holding angle of attack constant (00, 40 and80) while increasing Mach number from 0.6 to 1.10. Roll rate was - 30 11z.These Mach number sweeps provided some valuable information about the configuration's low-speed aerodynamics and were appropriate to this probing investigation.Measurements taken under conditions of pause yield smoothfairings for the normal and side force coefficients and for the pitching andyawing moment coefficients.It is significant that the side force and yawingmoment coefficients obtained at a 30 with clockwise spin ( 25 - 12 11zas M0.6 - 1.1) are opposite in sign to those obtained at a 80 with0 - 30 Hz, but their magnitudes differ (note that deflections on roll producing surfaces were riot reversed).1-131
Aerodynamic Roll Driving andRoll Damping CharacteristicsIt was planned to evaluaLe the aerodynamic roll-driving characteristicsfrom nonspin test data.Under these conditions, measurements obtained fromrollmoments resultingthe balance roll gauge provide the summations of allfrom differential ueflection on the nonsteering canards (when installed),asynumetric wedging of tailleading edges, tail-tabdefle2tions, and canardto-tailinterferences.It was planned to evaluate roll-damping characteristicsone-degree-of-freedom equation of motion ia roll:I C, qSd C(d/V)by solving theqSd.The roll-ratefeedback loop in the motor controller maintained very accuratelya constant roll rate during the data-recording interval,-; therefore, steadystate conditions are satisfied.Motor current was recorded, and using a pretest calibration curve of current versus torque, data reduction provided aprintout of motor torque coefficient.There is,of course, f.riction in thespin-bearing case that acts always to oppose model rotation.The summation oftorques that act on the model can be written as:V6dC-Caero Cfrictionor, with some approximation,aerowhere,0motor(Od/2)as C-CC Cbalancebecause of motor losses,(Od/2V)IIC-C'VfrictimotorThe aerodynamic roll-driving coefficients were determined from angle-ofattack sweeps conducted at selected rollattitudes without spin.For es of attack, the rollingangles with i 00 were averaged, and these mean values were taken to berepresentative of the model's aerodynamic roll-driving moment (CI) whenspinning.a'eroAerodynamic roll-damping coefficients calculated from the equation ofmotion in roll under steady-state conditions are presented in Figure 12 forMach 2.51.These computed roll-damping derivatives show a decreasing trendfor the increasing rollrates tested.Also, these roll-damping derivativesexhibit an apparent dependence on steering-deflection,iplitude at low anglesof attack.1-132"".-''
IIThe orderly dependence of the computed damping coefficients on steeringdeflection forces reconsideration of the assumption made in these calculations,namely, that the roll-driving coefficients determined from statictest datawhen i 0 are independent of spin 1 parameter and steering-deflection amplitude.Perhaps roll-driving moment, or rl-damping moment, or both, depend orl spinparameter and steering control.[Aero- 1 ynamic roll-driving and roll-damping coefficients deduced from testdata collected in the transonic Mach sweeps with i O0 are well behaved andexhibit expected trends.ICONFIGURATIONAL BREAKDOWN TESTSSince this was an exploratory investigation, a few tests were made withsome model components removed.With the rectangular-planform canards '1'emoved,tests with and without spin were carried out at Mach 1.19 and 2.51.A significant result obtained is that the rectangular canards, canted differentiallyto produce an increase in net roll-driving moment to offset their contributionto total roll-damping moment, indmce a nulling increment of roll-reversalmoment 7 on the downstream tails.Tests made at Mach 1.19 with both the rectangular canards and tailsremoved give further insight into the configura-tional contributors to both pitch and yaw aerodynamics,evidencethat steering-deflectionamplitude affects rolland o:fer additionaldamping.EFFECT OF STEERING CONTROL DIRECTED OUT OF THE ANGLE OF ATTACK PLANEThe flight vehicle will respond to guidance called-for maneuvers directed in or out of the instantaneous angle-of-attack plane by causing thesteering deflection amplitude to occur in or out of the angle-of-attack plane.Tests were made to determine the effect on maneuver force and itsassociatedmoment characteristics due to steering-deflection amplitudes of 10' and 200directed to rollattitudes of 00, -22.5' and -450.The brevity of the tunneltest limited this portion of the study to Mach 2.51.Viewing collectively the results obtained, it is concluded that theeffect of directing steering control out of the angle-of-attack platte can beapproximated, for the conditions tested, by directing the control-force increments and control-moment increments obtained when 0 0' to the new steeringdirection, then resolving these increments back to the nonrolling axes systemused herein.The accuracy of this procedure (exact at zero angle of attack)deteriates somewhat as angle of attack increases.Evaluation of the test data indicates that steering-control directionaffects substantially the aerodynamic contributors to rollcharacteristics.It is deduced that steering control directed out of the angle-of-attack planeinduces a net change in roll-driving moment somewhat like the rollmomentsinduced by roll-stabilized missiles with vertical tailsdeflected to port orstarboard.For the rolling airframe, however, the induced roll-moment increments (dependent on steering amplitude and direction) will increase or decrease the airframe's roll-driving moment (ccw) depending on whether nose-upsteering control is directed to the starboard side or port side respectively.1-133' ,,.-.-'. 4,-
CONCLUSIONSThe normal force and pitching moment data provide smooth definitionsof the configuration's longitudinal stability and control characteristics.These forces and moments are not sensitive to the values of spin parameterstested.Small side forces and associated yawing moments, induced out of the planeof maneuver, show dependence on Mach number, angle of attack, steering-controlamplitude and direction, and spin parameter. Before this test, aerodynamicdescriptions of rolling, steering airframes omitted aerodynamics induced inthe yaw plane because there were no systematic data from experiment on whichto base predictions. The importance of these induced side forces and yawingmoments to the airframe's flight behavior can be determined from dynamicflight simulations.Results show that steering control directed in or out of the angle-ofattack plane affect the aerodynamic contributors to roll cL aracteristics.1-134
REFERENCES1. L. E. Tisserand, "Test Plan for Wind Tunnel Investigation of the0.385-Scale AS1'ID Block I Rolling, Steering Airframe - Phase One (U),(Unclassified), APL/JHU Internal Memorandum BFD-l-77-032, 30 November1977.2.H. Beutel, "ASMD Wind Tunnel Model Design (U)," (Unclassified), GeneralDynamics Pomona Division, Technical Memorandum 6-420-615, 14 November19;'8.3.F. Shum, "ASMD Wind Tunnel Model Controller (U)," (Unclassified),General Dynamics Pomona Division, Technical Memorandum 6--420-594,September 1978.4.F. D. Fernandes, "Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients forASMD Block I with 3-Inch Body Spacer (U)," (Unclassified), GeneralDynamics. Pomona Division, Technical Design Information 6-332-101.53-59,19 May 1977.L. E. Tisserand, "Wind Tunnel Investigation by JHU/APL of the 0.385-Scale3lnck I Rolling Airframe Missile -- Results From Phase One Testing (U),"(Unclassified), APL/JHU Internal Memorandum BFD-I-79-012, 31. Jtly 1979.6.j. C. Uselton and J. B. Carmon, "A Study of the Magnus Effects on aSoir.nding Rocket at Supersonic Speeds," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 'o27.A.8,RNo.Eaton,1, January 1971,Jr.,pp.28-34."Experimental Investigations of Roll-Reversal Effectsfor Generalized Missile Configurations at Supersonic Velocities,"Bumblebee Aerodynamics Symposium, 4-5 November 1948, pp. 237-265.1-1357;--"-,.
Body station(diameters)Wings and d7.C C-MMRCTail-1.001,4500.381.05 ;T194519.450.6290.941.2022.03Note:Fig. 1Dimensions normalized with bodydiameter (1.92 in.)Sketch of external configuration.1-136" . .- "--7- 7 -*'-.--- -- - -- - -- -. . . *2P.' -*
I(a) Mach 2.51Model rill rate (Hz) obtaineLl with airflowvelocity - 1900 fL/s10-10-20-30-40!/d-0-10-20-30-40Missile roll rate (Hz) evaluated at sea level(b) Mach 1.19Model roll rate (Hz) obtained with airflowvelocity - 1200 ft/s0-4,0-20-30-40-/0-10-20-30-40Missile roll rate (Hz) evaluated at sea levelFic. 2IModel roll rates tested and equivalent missile roll rates.1-3I".IJ, ,,,
46-0.0080-0.0024-0.01082.51 Re x 10-6(per ft)(deg)Data I1I6zC-,S40211 TIAdvertisedstatic accuracyf balance0Fig f 3rll ffetateonnorn lforeoeficintanceter ofccesurearael1 T--80EI1--SAngleFig. 30210of attack, ax (deg)1214Effect of roll rate on normial force coefficient and center of pr-essure travel.1-138
6-0.0080-0.0024-0.0108 2.51Re x 10-6(per ft)i(deg)Data ertisedstatic accuracy-2of balanceEE M -4 -4-r-6C:000.,-12E---14-E16- --14-18-201-4-201II24681012Angle of attack, a (deg)Fig. 4Effect of roll rate on pitching moment coefficient.III1-139141618
MSymAo0C2.51Re x 10-6(per 080-0.0024-0.0108i(deg)Data 10-0,2Advertisud ,,uf , -0.2c --0,o -4-2SAngloFig. 50246810of attack, (y (deg)121416Effect of roll rate on indu ced side force and yawing momeint coefficients.TI418
IMSylr(14z)ua0v0('140b1317-30-30 0-204KII1, . . . . . 1. . . . . i l.0)-:Aldof atak u-oi0i]D.-.9 *fl hiV I:,,UFig.6Variation in normel force coefficient and center of pressure travel withangle of attack and steering deflection amplitude.
M - 2.51Re x 10-6(per 30-0.00818.5-20Sym(deg)2-0-46M)-14- -20-22 . - .I.t-4-2Fig. 7. .0l246810Anglo of attack, e (dog)1214Variation ii pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack andsteering deflection amplitude.1-142-.-16. . ."-."a18
MSymaiI,RunNo,(Hz)2.51ý.d/2VRe x 10-6(per ft(red)(deg)14-30-0,00828,420a 9-30-0.00818,51005v 13017-30-30-30-0,0080-0.0081-0,008 246AnlEfataka ngleaaof attack,81dgmltde.)(t.rrgdfeto1-14 321611
MSyrnRun(Hz)Nu,1.19ý d/2VRe x 10-6(rid)(per It)a 43o 24(3.812,2(deg)20000-, 48302-00LAzC)q-4-20246810141216Angle of attlick, a (deg)Fig. 9V/ariation in normal force coefficient and center of pressure travelwith angle of attack and steering deflection amplitude.1It-Ai18
,,*4Mt10M 1.196-IRe x 10-6(pi ft)Sy1iRunNo. b(Hz) 00o46-30-0,012412.20(rd)(dcu)42U.48 I2 -6S0Eo0.0u"-10-12-14--0-18 --20(I%-i--22 - ; -24,-2S-410]i Fig.ii l"I 10246810121416uf attack, ax (deg):,AngleVariation in pitching moment coefficient with angle of Cattack andsteering deflection amplitude.I--14 518
Syrno30*aRunNo.(Hz)0 /2V(rad)43444445-30-30-16.6 15-0.0127-0.0126-0.0070 n,0062Re x 10 -a(per ft)7.26.96.96.8(dog)j20000jo -0. 1 -0.2a 1.6*1.4W1.2I0.0.a.0.8 CL.00.CE- 0.20-0.4I-4 -20witha2864AnlEfatak ngleof attackanstern def1-1460dg1etogmpiue111
M 2.51Symao*0a-Re x 1(per ft)RunNo(Hz)ý 2028'1064Angle of attack, ce (deg)SyinHullNo,0(Hz)d/2V(red)Ho x 1(per 20,.o.TFig 12Cluae1oldmigcaatrsis1-147141618
aerodynamics of the rolling, steering airframe. The objectives of this short test were to check out the test item, test procedures and data acquisition, and to probe the aerodynamics of the configuration under dynamic-flight con-ditions at a repre
Aerodynamics is the study of the dynamics of gases, or the interaction between moving object and atmosphere causing an airflow around a body. As first a movement of a body (ship) in a water was studies, it is not a surprise that some aviation terms are the same as naval ones rudder, water line, –File Size: 942KBPage Count: 16Explore furtherIntroduction to Aerodynamics - Aerospace Lectures for .www.aerospacelectures.comBeginner's Guide to Aerodynamicswww.grc.nasa.govA basic introduction to aerodynamics - SlideSharewww.slideshare.netBASIC AERODYNAMICS - MilitaryNewbie.comwww.militarynewbie.comBasic aerodynamics - [PPT Powerpoint] - VDOCUMENTSvdocuments.netRecommended to you b
airframe supports side by side for the lengths of the airframe support that overlap. If the stabilizer foot will interfere with the previous Airframe support, turn the support 180 degrees. When installing the last airframe supports in any column,
A history of car aerodynamics G. Dimitriadis Experimental AerodynamicsVehicle Aerodynamics. Experimental Aerodynamics What has aerodynamics . such as Audi, BMW, VW Daimler-Benz and others. Experimental Aer
5 Number of Occasions Score A % absence rate Score B 1 – 3 occasions in a rolling 12 month period 1 2% absence in a rolling 12 month period 1 4 – 6 occasions in a rolling 12 month period 2 2 – 3.9 % absence in a rolling 12 month period 2 7 – 9 occasions in a rolling 12 month period 3 4 – 5.9 % absence in a rolling 12 month period 3 10 - 15 more occasions in a rolling 12 month
The Airframe technology development is performed within the VSR&T project. The focus herein is the Airframe technology development. (As a result of NASA’s refocus on exploration, the ISTP has been modified, and the Airframe subproject, as well as much of NGLT, has been cancelled effective the end of FY04.)
to airframe fatigue damage limitation. When delivering the material concerned with construction methods in learning outcome 2, tutors should emphasise the modular nature of the construction of the whole airframe and how the major airframe components are assembled. Examples should al
aircraft are discussed first. Next, the key features of the aerodynamic airframe design are outlined, elucidating how a step change in noise reduction and enhanced aerodynamic performance are achieved. The evolution of the airframe design along with the characteristics of three generations of designs is briefly summarized. The airframe design
HDBaseT Automotive Guaranteeing EMC Robustness over Unshielded Wires and Connectors March 2019 Daniel Shwartzberg Director of Technical Pre-Sales www.valens.com info-auto@valens.com 2 1. Introduction 2. EMC’s Red Light The automobile is one of the harshest electromagnetic environments there is. A multitude of sensitive electronic circuits are fitted in close proximity to many sources of .
