ISST1,E DATCJM: APPLICATIONS TO PROJECTILES

William B. Blake *
Control Dynamics Branch
Wright Research and Development Center
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433

Reference area
ABSTRACT
Free-stream velocity
Missile Datcom, a component build-up
aerodynamic prediction code, is applied to projectile Distance from nose to center of gravity
configurations. The methods included in Missile Datcom
are discussed, with emphasis on the dynamic derivative Distance from nose to center of pressure
methodology. Techniques for modeling secant ogive
nose shapes are discussed. Data comparisons are made Angle of attack
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370

with both non-finned and finned projectiles. Good

agreement is found for all predicted parameters. Equivalent angle-of-attack

NOMENCLATURE Fin deflection angle

Axial force coefficient /(.5pV S) Fin-fin interference factor

Rolling moment coefficient / (SpV SD) Atmospheric density

Normal force coefficient / (.5 pV S) Normal force slope, a CN/a o:
Yawing moment coefficient / (.5 pV SD) Linear normal force slope, (aCN/ao:)M=~
C ~ M O
Body diameter Cmq+ CmC Pitch damping,
Boattail (or flare) diameter

Fin-body carryover factor c ~ 0 1 damping,

1 a Cl/a @DW)
'P
Overall body length = LN + LC + LT Cn Magnus moment, acn/a@D/v)
P
Nose length
INTRODUCTION
Center body length
Accurate predictions of the static and dynamic
Boattail (or flare) length stability characteristics for both guided and non-guided
projectiles are essential in the preliminary design phase.
Mach number parameter, eqn [5] For guided projectiles, a satisfactory control system
design requires good knowledge of the aerodynamic
Free-stream Mach number response due to control deflection. For non-guided
projectdes, good estimates of both the static and dynamic
Power law body exponent stability characteristics are required. Sufficient dynamic
stability is required to damp the initial disturbances that
Roll rate occur during launch. For statically unstable projectiles,
sufficient spin velocity is required for gyroscopic
Pitch rate stabilization.
Ogive radius, calibers Widely differing techniques for estimating the
stability and control characteristics are available. In the
design environment, proper matching of the prediction
method to the specific need in terms of accuracy, speed,
* Aerospace Engineer, Member AIAA and cost is essential.

This paper is declared a work of the U.S. Government and

is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
 The first comprehensive set of aerodynamic
stability and control prediction methods, the USAF
Datcom (ref. l), was originally published in 1960. Many Table 1 - Body Alone Aerodynamic Methods
organizations applied the aircraft based Datcom methods
to missile and projectile configurations with mixed
success. A study completed in 1981 (ref. 2) concluded Normal force slope and
that a separate Missile Datcom should be developed. Linear center of pressure
Development of the Missile Datcom began in 1981, and Mw L 1.2
has continued to the present time. In the early phases of Empirical (MBB charts)
the development effort, methods applicable to tactical + Empirical (NWSC TR-8 1-156)
missiles at supersonic speeds received primary emphasis. + Empirical (AMCP 706-280)
Now, there is renewed interest in applying the code to M, 1 1.2
projectile configurations at subsonicltransonic speeds (ref. Van Dyke hybrid theory
3). This paper will discuss the capabilities of the code for or Second order shock expansion
these applications. Mw 1 1.2 (user option)
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370

Modified Newtonian (Digital Datcom)

AERODYNAMIC FORMULATION
Non-linear normal force and
Missile Datcom uses the "compocent buildup" Non-linear center of pressure
method to predict configuration forces and moments (ref. Modified crossflow (Jorgensen)
4). Using this technique, the contributions of the isolated
body and fins are determined, and summed using Axial force (cx = 0)
appropriate interference methods. Mw L 1.2
Empirical (NSWC TR-81-156)
Body Alone + Empirical (AMCP 706-280)
Mw 1.2
At sub/transonic speeds, all bodies in Missile
Datcom are modeled as nose-cylinder-tail configurations. Empirical (NSWC TR-81-156)
A body which has continually changing radius (typical of + Empirical (AMCP 706-280)
bombs) cannot be modeled directly. It is recommended + Van Dyke hybrid theory
that for any such configuration, the "tail" length be kept or Second order shock expansion
to a minimum. This will minimize the adverse effects of Axial force (a 1 0)
extrapolation from the existing data base. At supersonic Modified crossflow (Allen & Perkins)
speeds, any longitudinal variation of body radius may be
modeled. Longitudinal dynamic derivatives
Mw L 1.0
To aid in rapid modeling of a configuration, five Slender body theory (LMSC code)
types of nose shapes may be specified in Missile Datcom. 1.0 L Mw L M*
These are: (1) conical, (2) tangent ogive, (3) power law, Linear fairing (LMSC code)
(4) L-V Haack, and (5) Von Karman. Power law bodies
Mw 1 M*
are defined by:
Modified Newtonian (LMSC code)

where the user specifies D, LN, and n. There is no option
for specifying a secant ogive. The methods included in
the code for body-alone analyses are shown in Table 1.
The sub/transonic the body-alone methods are
primarily empirically based. Power Law, L-V Haack, and
Von Karman noses are all treated as tangent ogives in this
speed regime. The MBB design charts referred to in
Table 1 encompass the following range of geometries:
Magnus derivatives
Empirical (Spinner code)
Note that the center bodies have a fineness ratio greater
than 6. Many projectiles have low fineness ratio
centerbodies, so the accuracy of Missile Datcom could be
degraded. The boattaiVflare methods are based on even
more limited data bases.

Ogive Cone Fin Alone

The Missile Datcom methods for fin-alone

characteristics are shown in the Table 2. The majority of

Table 2 - Fin Alone Aerodynamic Methods
Section characteristics
Moo L Mcrit
Conformal mapping (Digital Datcom)
Mw 1 Mcrit
Linear Theory (Digital Datcom)
Normal force slope
M, L 0.8
Lowry-Polhamus (USAF Datcom)
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370
0.8 L Mw L 1.4
Linear Theory (RAS Data Sheets)
Mw 1 1.4
Linear Theory (USAF Datcom)
Non-linear normal force
Empirical (USAF Datcom)
Linear center of pressure
Semi-empirical (Digital Datcom)
Non-linear center of pressure
Panel centroid
Axial force (or = 0)
Mw L 0.8
Empirical (USAF Datcom)
0.8 L Mw L 1.05
Empirical (USAF Datcom)
+ Linear Variation
1.05 L Mw L 1.2
Potential Theory (NWL TR-3018)
+ Linear Variation
1.2 L Mw
Potential Theory (NWL TR-3018)
Axial force (a 1 0)
Mo. L 1.4
Empirical (USAF Datcom)
Mw 1 1.4
Invariant with or
Longitudinal dynamic derivatives
Mco L 0.8
Lifting surface theory (USAF Datcom:
0.8 L M, L 1.2
Linear fairing (USAF Datcom)
Mw 1 1.2
Linear theory (USAF Datcom)
the methods are from the USAF Datcom. As is evident
from an inspection of Tables 1 and 2, the methods
selected for a particular parameter may change with Mach
regime. This creates the possibility of discontinuous
predictions at the Mach number boundary. These effects
were minimized where possible during the development
of Missile Datcom. However, it is virtually impossible in
a large component build-up code to eliminate all such
discontinuities.
One discontinuity present in Missile Datcom is the
fin normal force slope prediction. The methods, taken
from the USAF Datcom and RAS Data Sheets, do not
precisely match at the Mach boundaries. Experience has
shown (Figure 1) that the size of the mis-match is a
function of the fin aspect ratio. As the aspect ratio
increases, the differences become more pronounced.
Body-Fin Synthesis
The methods for fin-body interference are
summarized in Table 3. The fin-body aerodynamics are
synthesized using the "equivalent angle-of-attack"
concept developed by Hemsch and Nielsen (ref. 5).
Briefly, the individual contributions to panel loads (e.g.
deflection, vortex interference) are treated as increments
to the angle of attack of an isolated fin. These angles are
summed and used to interpolate the predicted fin-alone
normal force and axial force characteristics.
Table 3 - Interference Methods
Fin-body carryover
Slender body theory (NACA 1307)
Body vortices
Empirical (NWC TP-5761)
Fin vortices
Slender body theory (NACA 1307)
Panel loads
Equivalent angle-of-attack(NEAR)
Two different formulations for including the
effect of fin deflection in the equivalent angle of -attack
have appeared in the literature. They are:

from reference 5. Equation [2] is utilized in all versions
of Missile Datcom released up to the January 1989
version. In March 1989, it was replaced with equation
[3]. This is because q. [3] allows for the possibility of
orq exceeding 90 degrees (ref. 5).
DYNAMIC DERIVATIVES
Pitch Axis Derivatives
Previously published references (refs. 2,4,7,8,9)
give excellent summaries of the methods used by Missile
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370
Datcom for computing the static aerodynamic parameters.
Since no summary has been given for the dynamic
derivatives, one will be presented here. At the current
time, only the pitch axis dynamic derivatives are given by
Missile Datcom for body-fin configurations. Magnus
(roll rate) derivatives are given for spin stabilized bodies
only.
The body alone dynamic derivatives (Table 1) are
estimated using the methods Ericsson developed for the
LMSC code (refs. 10-11). At Mach numbers less than
unity, a slender body relation is used,
where K = ( 0.77 + 0.23 M', 3 following ranges:
Note that eq. [4] is independent of the nose shape. At
Mach numbers above a critical Mach number, M*, a
Newtonian method is used. M* is given by,
for DT/D 1 1.0, and
for DT/D 4 1.0
The subsonic and Newtonian predictions are connected
by a linear relation. Figure 2 presents a correlation using
the method as coded in Missile Datcom. Figure 2
duplicates fig. 10A in reference 11; good agreement is
shown.
The methods selected for Missile Datcom for
isolated fins alone are taken directly from the USAF
Datcom (Table 2). The Datcom methods for the pitch
acceleration derivatives assume a planform with zero
taper. Overall configuration derivatives are assembled
using the following procedure:
+ 1 1cm(CNaICNa,l (KB + KF) Ifm
sets q
+ E [C~,(C~,IC~,J (KB + KF) Ifin 161
sets
The normal force derivatives are assembled in a similar
manner. The variation with angle of attack is assumed to
be proportional to the variation in lift curve slope of the
isolated body (for the body contribution) and the lift
curve slope of the isolated fin (for the fin contribution).
The summation procedure used for the acceleration
derivatives neglects the contribution of the downwash lag,
i.e. additional terms due to vortex interference
downstream are not included. The impact of this on the
overall predictive accuracy is not clear at this time.
Magnus Derivatives
The methods for computing the Magnus
derivatives for spin stabilized bodies are taken from refs.
12-13. Predictions are given for the magnus force and
moment derivatives per sin a , as well as the spin decay
derivative CI . The methods are empirical and restricted
in applicab#ty to body geomemes falling in the
Many of the projectiles present in the empirical
data base had tangent or secant ogive nose shapes. The
ogive radius of the nose is one of the geometric
parameters used in the empirical tables. Missile Datcom
uses an ogive radius of 500 calibers for a conical nose.
For tangent ogive, L-V Haack, and Von Karman noses,
the exact tangent ogive relation is used:
For power law bodies, the following approximate relation
is used:

where
It is recommended that a secant-ogive nose be represented
as an equivalent power law body. The exponent, n, of the
equivalent power law shape, as a function of the nose
fineness ratio and the secant ogive radius, is given by:
where
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370
A comparison of the exact secant ogive nose shape with
the power law approximation is shown in figure 3. For
reference, a tangent ogive of the same fineness ratio is
shown.
Many projectiles utilize a secant ogive radius of
about twice the tangent ogive radius. Substituting two
times the right hand side of equation [7] into equations
[9-101 gives
Missile Datcom does not currently predict the roll
rate derivatives for finned projectiles. Incorporation of
methods for predicting these parameters is planned.
Whyte (ref. 12) collected an extensive data base
on non-finned projectiles to develop the empirical
equations used in the SPINNER program. This data base
was used as a baseline for comparison with Missile
Datcom predictions. The 5-, 7-, and 9-caliber "Spinner"
projectiles are a part of this data base. These consist of a
2-caliber secant ogive nose followed by a cylindrical
afterbody.
As noted before, a secant ogive nose cannot be
directly specified. The accuracy of approximating the
secant ogive as other shapes using the "Spinner" data is
presented below.
Noseshape CNN AXcp A vortex filament representation used by Missile Datcom is
Power Law 4.1% 0.020 L 4.4%
Tangent Ogive 8.2% 0.044 L 8.4%
Cone 10.0% 0.050 L 6.5%
Only supersonic data (M 1 1.2) are reflected in the table
above. The power law body approximation discussed
above yields the best results. At sub/transonic speeds, a
power law body would be treated as a tangent ogive for
static derivative predictions. The Magnus derivatives
would use the ogive radius calculated from eq. [9].
A more complete set of comparisons using the
projectile data presented by Whyte is given in Figures
4-8. The projectiles represented in these Figures are the:
5-cal Spinner, 7-cal Spinner, 9-cal Spinner, 1 0 4
cone-cylinder, 175mm M437, 20mm M56A3, and 5/54
Navy. The correlations for normal force slope and center
of pressure location (Figs. 4-5) are both very good.
Switching from the empirical method (transonic) to the
theoretical method (supersonic) does not markedly
change the correlations. For the zero lift drag predictions
(Fig. 6), this is not the case. The supersonic predictions
are definitely more accurate than the transonic
predictions. The wave drag method switches from
empirical to theoretical at M, = 1.2. This may explain
the overall improvement in the predictions. The roll
damping and magnus moment derivatives (Figs. 7-8)
show outstanding agreement in all cases. This is not
suprising, since these methods are strictly empirical, and
were partially derived from the configurations for which
data are shown.
NASA FINNED PROJECTILE
A wealth of wind tunnel data exists on finned
projectiles at many flight conditions. A four finned
projectile (Figure 9) was tested by NASA at transonic
speeds (ref. 14). Missile Datcom was used to predict the
static, dynamic, and control derivatives of this
configuration. The groove on the body nose, the slots
forward of the fins, and the fin tip geometry could not be
treated by Missile Datcom.
Modeling Assum~tions
The change in the fin chord and trailing edge
sweep near the tip can be specified in Missile Datcom.
However, the code replaces such planforms with an
equivalent straight tapered planform of identical aspect
ratio, area, and mid-chord sweep. In this case, the impact
on the overall predictions should be negligible. If there
were an aft set of fins, differences in the tip vortex
structure could slightly alter the results. However,
Missile Datcom makes no attempt to accurately define the
vortex structure downstream of the fin, so accurate
modeling of the tip planform would have no effect. A
much greater concern (not typically found with
projectiles) is that of close-coupled fin sets. There, the
physically unrealistic, a vortex sheet representation would
be superior.
While not obvious in Figure 9, the horizontal and
vertical fins are mounted at different axial locations along
 the body. These were NOT treated as two independent
fin sets. This is because of the vortex uacking algorithm
in Missile Datcom. Missile Datcom would shed a single
vortex filament at the trailing edge of each pitch fin.
Each filament would be tracked downstream to the center
of pressure of the yaw fins. Unfortunately, the yaw fins
are upstream of the pitch fin trailing edge. This situation
is not allowed in Missile Datcom. To avoid this, while
stiU accurately representing the vehicle, two input models
were used. For the longitudinal analyses, all four fins
were located at the pitch fin position, for the directional
analyses, all four fins were located at the yaw fin position.
Data Com~arions
Normal force slope correlations for the finned
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370
projectile are shown in Figure 10. Method switchover
discontinuites are evident at Mach numbers of 0.6 and
1.4. The predicted variation near Sonic speeds is more
pronounced than the data indicate. Continuation of the
subsonic prediction to higher Mach numbers would yield
superior agreement at the low transonic speeds. The
overall values, however, are good. Center of pressure
predictions are shown in Figure 11. The prediction
discontinuities are small in this case. These predictions
meet the accuracy goal of 2% body length for center of
pressure. The pitch control effectiveness comparisons in
Figure 12 are very good. Side force and yaw control
comparisons (not shown) were identical in nature to the
normal force and pitch control results.
Zero lift drag comparisons for both the isolated
body and the complete configuration are shown in Figure
13. The body alone predictions are high by about 30%.
This is larger than the errors typically found with the
transonic method shown in Figure 5. This additional
discrepancy is probably due to the grooves, slots, etc. that
could not be modeled by Missile Datcom. The fin drag
increment (the gap between the body alone and body +
fin results) is well predicted. Induced drag predictions
are good, as shown in Figure 14. Missile Datcom
underpredicts (L/D),, by about 15%. This discrepancy
is due to the overprediction of the zero lift drag. Pitch
damping comparisons for both the isolated body and
complete configuration are shown in Figure 15. While
there is significant scatter in the data, the overall
predictions are excellent.
CONCLUSIONS
The application of the Missile Datcom computer
code to projectile configurations has been assessed. The
following observations are made:
a) Missile Damm can be applied to projectile
configurations with confidence. The effect on predictive
accuracy of approximation of minute configuration
features is small for all parameters except drag.
b) Predictions for finned projectiles may be
discontinuous with Mach number due to method
switchover. The magnitude of the discontinuity increases
with fm aspect ratio.
c) The dynamic derivatives are well predicted
within the applicability of the respective methods. Secant
ogive nose shapes can be approximated as power law
bodies with minimal degradation in prediction accuracy.
REFERENCES
1. Hoak, D.E., et al, "USAF Stability and Control
Datcom," AFWAL TR 81-3048, October 1960 (revised
1978).
2. Vukelich, S.R., "Development Feasibility of
Missile Datcom," AFWAL TR 81-3130, October 1981.
3. Mikhail, A.G.. "Application and Assessment of
Two Fast Aerodynamic Prediction Codes for a Class of
Guided Projectiles," AIAA 85-4085, October 1985.
4. Vukelich, S.R., and Jenkins, J.E., "Evaluation of
Component Build-up Methods for Missile Aerodynamic
Predictions," Journal of S~acecraftand Rockets, Vol. 19,
No. 6, November-December 1982.
5. Hemsch, MJ., and Nielsen, J.N., "Equivalent
Angle-of-Attack Method for Estimating Nonlinear
Aerodynamics of Missile Fins," Journal of Suacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 4, July-August 1983.
6. Nielsen, J.N., Hemsch, MJ., and Smith, C.A., "A
Preliminary Method for Calculating the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Cruciform Missiles to High Angle of
Attack Uncliding Effects of Roll Angle and Control
Deflection," ONR CR2 l5-226-4F, November 1977.
7. Vukelich, S.R., and Jenkins, J.E., "Missile
Datcom: Aerodynamic Prediction of Conventional
Missile Using Component Build-Up Techniques," AIAA
84-0388, January 1984.
8. Vukelich, S.R., "Aerodynamic Prediction of
Elliptically-Shaped Missile Configurations Using
Component Methodology," AIAA 85-0271, January
1986.
9. Jenkins, JE., and Blake, W.B., "Missile Datcom:
Enhancements for Design Applications," paper # 4,
AGARD CP 45 1, March 1989.
10. Ericsson, L.E., "Modification of Aerodynamic
Prediction of the Longitudinal Dynamics of Tactical
Weapons," LMSC-D646354, August 1979.
11. Ericsson, L.E., "Modification of Aerodynamic
Prediction of the Longitudinal Dynamics of Tactical
Weapons - Addendum to Final Report," LMSC-
D646354A. August 1979.

12. Whyte, R.H., "Spin-73, An Updated Version of
the Spinner Computer Program," TR-4588, G.E.
Armament Systems Department, November 1973.
13. Whyte, R.H., "A Revised Clp Algorithm for
Spin-73," G.E. Armament Systems Department,
December 1979.
14. Boyden, RP., Brooks, C.W. Jr., and Davenport,
E.E., "Transonic Static and Dynamic Stability
Characteristics of a Finned Projectile Configuration,"
NASA TM 74058, April 1978.
APPENDIX
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370
In his 1985 paper (ref. 3), Dr Mikhail applied both
Missile Datcom and the NSWC code to a class of guided
projectile. For each code, he gave a list of recommended
areas of improvement. Many of his suggestions apply
equally to all types of configurations, not just projectiles.
Improvements have been made in many areas; the status
on each of the limitations Mikhail addressed is given
below. "Status" refers to the March 1989 version of
Missile Datcom.
Fin Limitations
Critique: Only 2 or 4 fin panels per set allowed
Status: Up to 8 fins allowed per set, each fin at any roll
orientation
Critique: Only 2 fins sets allowed
Status: Up to 4 fins sets allowed
Critique: No fin body gap effects
Status: No change (no method available)
Critique: No interdigitated wing and tail fins
Status: Any relative roll orientation between fin sets now
allowed
Critique: No wrap around fins
Status: No change (no method available)
Critique: Poor delta wing correlations
Status: Errors found and corrected
Critique: Non-streamwise tips not allowed
Status: No change
Critique: No dynamic derivative predictions
Status: Pitch axis derivatives (force and moment)
provided
Future Status: Roll and yaw damping derivatives will be
added
Body Limitations
Critique: No body fin slot effects
Status: No change (no method available)
Critique: No body groove effects
Status: No change (no method available)
Critique: Base drag calculated, but not added to overall
drag
Status: Base drag included added at option of user
Critique: Base drag not a function of alpha
Status: No change
Future Status: Jet plume effects will be added
Critique: Poor blunt nose predictions at high Mach
Status: No change
Critique: No forebody vortex effects
Status: Pair of line vortices shed with empirical path and
strength
Future Status: The "vortex cloud" technique will be
incorporated into the code as an option
Critique: No dynamic derivative predictions
Status: Pitch axis derivatives (force and moment)
provided. Magnus terms given for spin stabilized bodies
Outuut Limitations
Critique: Control derivatives not explicitly output
Status: No change
Future Status: This output will be added
 Figure 1. Method Switchover Discontinuity Figure 4 . Non-Finned Projectile Comparisons

0 Supersonic

1 2 3 4

Mach Number Experimental Normal Force Slope

Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370

Figure 2. 3-caliber "Spinner" Comparisons Figure 5. Non-Finned Projectile Comparisons

A Transonic

1
Mach Number Experimental CP (% body length)

Figure 3. Nose Shape Comparison Figure 6. Non-Finned Projectile Comparisons

0.50 -

In
L
0
e
- 0

-
m
0
0.25 -
.-
J

D
al
0
.-
u
2
0.00 , 0
a
0.0 'I
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 I.oo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
X (calibers) Experimental Zero Lift Drag Coefficient
 Figure 7. Non-Finned Projectile Comparisons Figure 10. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

-.04 -.03 -.02 -.01 0.00

Experimental Roll Damping Mach Number
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370

Figure 8. Non-Finned Projectile Comparisons

Figure 11. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

Experimental Magnus Moment Derivative

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Mach Number

Figure 9. NASA Finned Projectile

Figure 12. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

Mach Number
 Figure 13. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

0.5I
4 Body + Fins

Mach Number
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1989-3370

Figure 14. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

Mach = 1.1

Drag Coefficient

Figure 15. NASA Finned Projectile Comparisons

0 1 ° 1

Mach Number