Body-Fin Aerodynamic Interference for Low Aspect Ratio Missiles
Brent W. Bossi* and H. F. Nelson'
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO 65401
Abstract
The supersonic missile interference factor, KB(w),
is a measure of the change in normal force on the body
due t o the presence of the fins. An Euler code is used to
numerically evaluate KB(w) for low aspect ratio mis-
siles at Mach numbers from 3 to 4 and angles of attack
up t o 20 deg. Missile fin span to body radius ratios
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
(SIR) range from 1.3 t o 2.0, such that aspect ratios
vary fiom 0.05 to 4. Afterbody length effects are also
considered. Euler results compare well with available
experimental data. Body pressure isobars show that
shock and expansion waves from the fin interact with
the body and strongly contribute to KB(w), thus, Eu-
ler predictions differ significantly from those of slen-
der body theory (SBT). As aspect ratio decreases from
4 to 0.05, KB(w) increases t o a maximum value and
then 1) decreases for small values of angle of attack
and 2) remains fairly constant for high values of angle
of attack. The aspect ratio for the maximum K B ( ~ )
depends on SIR. Generally KB(w) increases in mag-
nitude and its maximum value shifts t o lower aspect
ratios when Mach number increases. KB(w) values are
presented graphically for use in conceptual and prelim-
inary design.
Nomenclature
AR = aspect ratio of wing formed by
CN
joining two fins
= missile normal force coefficient
CNB = body alone normal force coefficient
Ac& -
= CN Cfi
%,, = normal force curve slope of the fin
KB (W = incremental body interference factor,
A L ~ ( ~ ) / L ~
KW(B) = fin interference factor
= sideslip interference factor
ALBfwl. = incremental normal force on the body
, 7.7. He developed empirical correlations using test
in the presence of the fin
Lw = normal force of fin alone
'Graduate Student, Department of Me-
chanical and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
currently Engineer, Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division,
China Lake, CA 93555. Member AIAA.
tprofesor of Aerospace Engineering, Thermal Radiative
Transfer Group, Department of Mechanical and A m p a c e En-
gineering and Engineering Mechanics. Associate Fellow AIAA.
Copyright 0 1 9 9 2 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and conceptual
Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
LB = body alone lift
L W ) = body lift in presence of fin
M = freestream Mach number
P = freestream dynamic pressure
R = missile body radius
SBT = slender body theory
sw = fin planform area
= fin span to body radius ratio
SIR
z = missile axial coordinate measured from nose
ZA/R = afterbody length to body radius ratio
ZLE = z-location of the fin leading edge
ZN/R = tangent ogive nose length to body radius ratio
a = missile angle of attack
aeq = equivalent angle of attack
B = missile sideslip angle
Aav = vortex contribution to a,,
E = fin semivertex angle
Introduction
Current trends in missile design emphasize low as-
pect ratio fins so that missile launchers can be smaller
and to better use available launcher volume. Launch
tubes are often grouped together in a checkerboard
fashion. Figure 1 schematically shows how low aspect
ratio missiles can be efficiently stowed in a launch tube
to save space and allow clustering of a number of mis-
siles. The fin span to body radius ratio (SIR) of the
missiles shown in Fig. 1 is a. Typical S/R values
of current missiles range from 2 t o 4, so the fins must
be folded t o fit small launchers. This adds mechanical
complexity that is avoided with low aspect ratio fins.
Aerodynamic data are sparce for low aspect ratio
missiles. L u c e r ~ l developed
*~ empirical curves based
on Morikawa's3 interference factors to predict the nor-
mal force coefficient for a variety of low aspect ratio
missile configurations for Mach numbers from 2.5 to
data from 29 combinations of Mach number and missile
configuration for a up to 20 deg. The missile configur*
tions were cruciform, generally in the "+' orientation
though some were in the "xn orientation. The missile
fins included thick and thin lifting surfaces. Lucero's
empirical curves are used for preliminary design and
have been added t o Missile DATCOM;4 however, bet-
ter nonempirical methods are needed to improve the
and preliminary design data base.
The equivalent angle of attack method516 is gen-
 erally used in conceptual and preliminary design. This
method analyzes the individual missile components
separately and then sums the results together to find
the total missile normal force coefficient. The c o m p e
nent separation for a wing-body configuration is repre-
sented by
The terms on the right side represent the body alone
normal force coefficient, the normal force coefficient on
the fins in the presence of the body, and the incrc-
mental normal force coefficient on the body due to the
fins, respectively. Interference factors are used to ac-
count for the mntnaI interference between the missile
components. They are included in the definition of the
equivalent angle of attack, which can be written as
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
where the terms on the right hand side represent the
effects from body npwash, fin sideslip angle and vortex
interaction, respectively. Equation 2 is used t o deter-
+
mine CNW(,) CN,(,) in Eq. 1 by multiplying a,
by the fin alone lift-curve slope, such that
The purpose of this research is to investigate the
interference factor KB(W)for low aspect ratio missiles.
A companion investigation of the interference factor
Kw(B) for low aspect ratio missiles is given in Ref. 7.
K B ~ wis) defined as
where ALB(w)is the incremental normal force on the
body in the presence of the fin. Lw is the fin alone lift. 6 predict the same value of AR. As Z/R approaches
When KB( w )is positive, the fin interference produces
a favorable effect on the body lift, because the body
produces greater lift than when i t is isolated. Like-
wise, when KBtW) is negative the fin interference is
unfavorable.
The literature on KB(W)for low aspect ratio mis-
siles is sparse. Nielsen8 developed theoretical K B ( ~ ) calculation
data using slender body theory (SBT). The SBT re-
sults are only a function of SIR; there is no depen-
dence on Mach number, aspect ratio or angle of attack.
SBT is a special case of linearized potential theory. In
addition t o being irrotational and isentropic, SBT as-
sumes that axial 0ow derivatives are smallcompared to
crossflow derivatives, the axial flow derivatives are ne- the body
glected. These assumptions limit SBT to small a and
preclude modelling effects from vorticity, shock waves
and expansion waves.
The only experimental KB(W) that is available
have been developed from the Triservice-NASA Data
BaseQby Nielsenlo for fins with aspect ratios of 0.5, 1.0
and 2.0 at taper ratios of 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0. Crucifom
configurations in the " +" orientation were considered
a t a from 0 to 40 deg, and Mach number from 2.5 to
4.5.
Methodology
Missile G e o m e t r y
The missile configuration used for this research is
shown in Fig. 2. The missile has a tangent ogive nose
with a length to radius ratio of six (ZN/R = 6) and a
cylindrical body for Z/R 2 6. It has clipped-delta fins
in the "+" cruciform configuration, which are modelled
as infinitely thin flat plates with a 45 deg semivertex
angle. The fin root chord leading edge was located at
ZLE/R = 30 to minimize nose effects. Aspect ratio
varied from 4 over the delta fin to as low as 0.05 over
the clipped-delta fin. The fin trailing edge is straight
and its location depends on S/R and aspect ratio. For
this research only the horizontal fins are analyzed.
Aspect ratio was controlled by the root chord
length. The aspect ratio for the small delta fin por-
tion at the front of the clipped-delta fin is given by
Starting at the rear of the delta fin ($ = %+ w)
the fin has constant span (S/R). Thus, while marching
down the missile, the fin area increases while the span
remains constant such that the aspect ratio decreases
as a function of Z/R according t o
At the trailing edge of the delta fin Eq. 5 and Eq.
infinity, Eg. 6 shows that AR approaches zero.
For the afterbody analysis, three aspect ratio (0.5,
0.1 and 0.05) fins were selected. For a given AR and
S/R, Eq. 6 was used to locate the fin trailing edge
(Z/R). The missile fuselage was then extended 10 mis-
sile radii beyond the fin trailing edge. This allowed the
of K B ( ~data ) in terms of afterbody length
and aspect ratio.
ZEUS
The numerical Euler code ZEUS"J2 (ZonalEUler
-
Solver) was used for this research. It is a finite volume
code developed by the Naval Surface Weapons Center
which predicts the steady, supersonic flowfield between
and the bow shock using a spatial marching
method. The flowfield solution is obtained using the
second order G o d u n ~ v ' ~ .method
'~ in conjuction with
the Riemann15 problem. The code is extremely robust
and flexible. Its accuracy is well d o c~rnented~~*'"~~
for a wide spectrum of applications from missiles with
 noncircular fuselage cross-sections to spinning projec-
tiles used in tank guns. Many more examples exist,
but these references show the versatility of ZEUS.
M e s h Size
For body alone ZEUS calculations at small a , fine
grids generate spurious crossflow effects that lead to
inaccurate body force predictions.20 In this research
results from three mesh sues (18 x 24 (r x $), 36 x 36
and 36 x 36 with clustering) were compared with wind
tunnel data and the coarse mesh gave the best results.
Additionally, using fine grids (36 x 36, clustered 36 x
36, 60 x 60, etc.) over the finned portion of the missile
also produced inaccurate body forces. Consequently,
an 18 x 24 (r x $) grid mesh was used over the missile
forebody and finned sections to obtain accurate body
force predictions. The accuracy of the 18 x 24 results
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
for K B ( w )is verified in Ref. 21.
Data Reduction
ZEUS solves the Euler equations to determine the
pressure distribution on the missile surface and inte-
grates it over the surface to determine the lift in the
presence of the fins. The solution is marched in Z/R
along the fuselage, so each step results in new fin trail-
ing edge position, or a new, lower AR. Two computer
runs are necessary to evaluate K B ( w ) . First, a body
alone analysis is done t o find the lift ( L B )on the body
in the absence of fins. Next, the wing-body configu-
ration is analyzed to find the lift on the body in the
presence of the fins (LB(w1). The difference between
these two quantities is ALB(W).For consistency and
simplicity, linear theory was used to find Lw. The
equation for Lw is
which is valid for fins with supersonic leading edges.
The equation may not be accurate for fins with long
root chords; however, i t was used to keep the reference
lift consistent. Once and Lw are known, Eq.
4 is used t o find K B ( W ) .
Resulta and Discussion
K B ( ~results
) from slender body theory are
strictly a function of SIR. However, Euler solutions
show that K B ( ~is )also a function of a, AR and Mach
number. This research extends KB(W) data for as-
pect ratios from 4.0 t o 0.05 with SIR values of 1.3, 1.5
and 2.0. Mach number was varied between 3.0 and 4.0
with angles of attack u p t o 20 deg. Afterbody length
(ZA/R) was varied from 0.0 to 10.0. When ZA/R =
0.0, KB(W)data in terms of aspect ratio was generated
by marching down the missile and utilizing Eq. 6 to
convert position to aspect ratio. When ZA/R > 0.0,
the fins have a specific aspect ratio and trailing edge
location and the solution is continued for Z/R beyond
the fin trailing edge. Afterbody analysis was done for
fins with aspect ratios of 0.5, 0.1 and 0.05.
All computations were performed on the IBM 4381
computer at the University of Missouri-Rolla. CPU
times up to 30 minutes were required for complete flow-
field solutions over the entire missile.
Comparisons to Previous Work
Theoretical predictions of K B ( w )have been pre-
sented by Nielsenl0 using slender body theory; how-
ever, these predictions are generally two times larger
than the current Euler results. Instead of placing the
SBT results on the figures, they are summarized in
Table 1. Recall that SBT results are not a function of
AR.
Table Slender Body Theory KB(W)Results
lww
When possible, the results of this research are
compared with experimental data. Only one source
of experimental KB(W)values (Nielsenlo) was found
and it was for missiles with afterbodies. Comparisions
t o experimental data are presented in this paper for
missiles with specific values of afterbody length.
No experimental KB(W data for non-afterbody
missiles was found. However, Bossi2' showed that the
Enler equations accurately predict ACNw for these
types of missiles. Referring to Eq. 1, ACNw is de-
fined as
where the sum of CNw(,) and CN,(,) is found from
Eq. 3 using the interference parameters K W ( ~and )
K B ( W ) Equation
- 8 can be written as
by combining Eqs. 2 and 3. Comparisons of the
predicted ACNw were made with wind tunnel data
from Spearman and T r e s ~ o t tand
~ ~ the differences
were found to be within 10%. B o s ~ i ~ has? ~ 'shown
that ZEUS gives accurate KW(B) predictions; conse-
quently, KB(w predictions for missiles without after-
bodies should be acceptable for preliminary design.
Aspect Ratio
The K B ( W )results are plotted vs. 1/AR to en-
hance the low aspect ratio regime in Figs. 3 , 4 and 5 at
five angles of attack (3,6,10, 15 and 20 deg) for SIR =
2.0, 1.5, and 1.3, respectively. Figure 3 shows K B ( w )
a t S I R = 2.0. For each a , KB(W)steadily increases
with 1/AR until 1/AR = 5 (AR = 0.2). As 1/AR in-
creases above 5, KB(W)steadily decreases for small a
whereas, at larger a it remains fairly constant. Fig-
ures 4 and 5 show the same general trends for KB(W)
as Fig. 3 does, except for three differences. First, the
 peaks in K B ( ~shift ) t o larger values of 1/AR. Sec-
ond, for large a and very small 1/AR, Figs. 4 and 5
show t h a t KB(W)decreases before steadily increasing
t o its maximum value. This trend is more pronounced
at SIR = 1.3 (see Fig. 5). Finally, as S/R decreases
the maximum value of KB(W)increases; however, this
is due t o the normalhation of K B ( W )not , to the flow-
field physics. Large S/R fins have greater effects on
body force and produce larger ALB(W) values then
small S I R fins, but when S I R is decreased A L B ( ~ )
decreases at a slower rate than Lw resulting in larger
maximum KB(W) values as in Figs 4 and 5. These
normalbation effects do not effect KW(B)and K4, be-
cause for these interference factors the numerator deals
with the fm force and not the body force as it does for
K B ( W ) .In this situation the fin area cancels, eliminat- 4 = 90+ (located just below the fin) increases. These
ing the sensitivity t o normalisation.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
A n g l e of Attack
In order t o investigate the effect of a, the data
shown in Fig. 5 was replotted versus a in Fig. 6 for AR
= 2.0, 0.5, 0.1 and 0.05. Figure 6 shows that K B ( W )is
a nonlinear function of a a t low aspect ratios. At larger
aspect ratios, (AR = 2.0) K B ( ~does ) not change sig-
nificantly with a. NielsenLOfound similar trends in the
experimental data.
Mach Number
Figures 7 and 8 show effects of Mach number on
K B ( ~as) a h c t i o n of 1/AR a t a = 3 and 20 deg, re-
spectively. As Mach number increases the maximum
value of KB(W) shifts t o larger values of 1/AR. At
both angles of attack K B ( ~decreases
) with increas- mum K B ( ~value ) occurs near 1/AR = 5 (AR = 0.2)
ing Mach number a t low 1/AR and increases with in-
creasing Mach number a t large 1/AR. Changing Mach
number has a larger effect on K B ( W )a t low a than a t
high a. Explanations of these trends will be presented
in the flowfield analysis section.
Afterbody Effecte
For this analysis, the ratio ZA/R represents t h e
extension of the body beyond the trailing edge of the
fin in ten- of body radii, and it is referred t o as the
afterbody. Figures 9,10 and 11show the effect of after-
body length on K B ( w )for fins with aspect ratio- 0.5,
0.1 and 0.05 at S/R = 2 and M = 3.5, for a = 3, 10
and 20 deg, respectively. Only the AR = 0.5 d a t a show
a strong dependence on afterbody length. K B ( w ) ini-
tially increases as ZA/R increases, but reaches a m a -
imum and then decreases slightly. For the two smaller
aspect ratios, K B ( ~shows) little dependence on ZA/R.
Note that as a increases Figs. 9 and 10 show
that the effect of afterbody length on KB(W)decreases.
Nielsenl0 predicted this, but did not have enough d a t a
to pursue it. Nielsen1° used the Triservice-NASA Data
BaseQ t o generate experimental KB(W)values. Some
of his data are presented on Figs. 10 and 11 and it
compares extremely well to the Euler results.
Flowfield Analysis
The Euler K B ( W )data presented in Figs 3-11 are
strongly effected by the expansion and shock wave in-
teraction between the fins and the body. Figure 12
shows body pressure versus Z/R for six angular (4)
locations around the missile cross-section. Changes in
aspect ratio, angle of attack and Mach number directly
effect the body pressure distribution which in turn ef-
fects K B ( W ) .A good understanding of the pressure
d a t a shown in Fig. 12 is needed to understand how
AR, a and Mach number effect KB(W).
Figure 12 shows PIP, vs. Z/R at several values of
4 starting from the fin leading edge location for a mis-
sile with SIR = 2.0 (AR = 0.05). The position of the
fin trailing edge, G Eis , also shown. At the fin lead-
ing edge the PIP, curve labeled 4 = 90- (located just
above the fin) decreases while the PIP, curve labeled
two curves show how the body pressure varies along the
top and bottom root chord, respectively. The pressure
along the 4 = 90- curve decreases due to the expan-
sion wave from the fin, while the pressure along the 4
= 90+ curve increases due t o the fin shock wave. The
pressure along the remaining angular locations is not
affected by the fin until a short distance downstream
from the fin leading edge where the shock and expan-
sion waves intercept the fuselage. At Z/R = 40 the
shock and expansion waves have entirely intercepted
the body as shown by the pressure along the 4 = 0
and 180 curves and pressure recovery begins to occur.
The pressure curves in Fig. 12 help explain the
maximum KB(W)values shown in Fig. 3. The maxi-
for a = 3 deg. Recall from Eq. 6 that the missile
length that corresponds t o AR = 0.2 is Z/R = 40.5
Figure 12 shows that the shock and expansion waves
have completely intercepted the body (reached 4 = 0
and 180 deg.) and the body pressure is starting to
recover a t Z/R = 40.5. This implies that the maxi-
mum K B ( ~value ) occurs when the fin expansion and
shock waves intercept the entire body. For longer mis-
siles (Z/R 2 40.5) pressure recovery occurs along the
fuselage. During the pressure recovery (Z/R 2 40.5,
or AR 5 0.2) K B ( ~steadily
) decreases toward zero at
small a. At high a, the shock and expansion waves are
stronger and have larger wave angles, thereby delaying
pressure recovery as shown by Fig. 13, which shows
PIP, vs. Z/R at a = 10 deg. This is the major rea-
son that KB(W)is a nonlinear function of aspect ratio
and angle of attack as shown in Fig. 6.
When S I R decreases the maximum values of
K B ( W )shift t o larger values of 1/AR (Figs. 3, 4 and
5). The shift is a geometry effect based on the relation
between AR and S I R (Eq.6). Figure 14 shows PIP,
vs. Z/R for a missile with S I R = 1.5 (AR = 0.05).
Pressure recovery begins near Z/R = 40, just as it did
in Fig. 12 for a missile with S I R = 2.0. However, be-
cause S/R is smaller, AR = 0.1 at Z/R = 40, which is
one-half the AR associated with the fin in Fig. 12 at
 Z/R = 40,hence, when K B ( ~is )plotted vs. 1/AR the
maximum of each KB(W)curve naturally shifts toward
larger 1/AR (smaller AR) values.
Recall that K B ( ~initially
) decreases a t very low
1/AR and large a before steadily increasing to its maxi-
mum as 1/AR is increased (see Fig. 5). This occurs be-
cause the high a delays the shock and expansion wave
interaction with the body, because the shock and ex-
pansion wave angles become larger. Figure 15 shows
P/P, vs. Z/R for a small fin (SIR = 1.3) at a = 15
deg. The only portion of the body effected by the shock
and expansion waves is the side (4 = 90- and 4 = go+),
which has a negligible effect on the body lift. At Z/R
= 31 a significant upper portion of the body is effected
by the expansion waves as shown by the decrease in the
4 = 45 curve. The associated aspect ratio for a missile
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
of length Z/R = 31 is 0.705 (1/AR = 1.42) for S I R
= 1.3. For Z/R <_ 31, A L B ( ~experiences
) negligible body l i t and hence on K E ( ~ ) .
change while Lw increases due to the fin area increase,
causing K B f W )to decrease. K B ( ~begins
) to increase with AR = 0.5 fins (S/R = 1.3). The fin trailing edge
for 1/AR 2 1.42, because the expansion waves effect
enough of the body to significantly change
Figure 6 showed K B ( w )to be a nonlinear function
of a. This occurs because shock and expansion wave
interaction between the fins and the body changes with
a. However, At high a K B ( ~was ) relativity insensitive have not completely intercepted the body. Hence, they
to a, while at low a K B ( ~increased
) slighlty as a are carried over to the afterbody and cause KB(w)to
increased from 15 to 20 deg. Referring to Fig. 15' (a
= 20 deg), the expansion and shock waves do not have
the immediate impact on the body pressures as they
do for the lower angles of attack (see Fig. 12), because
of the larger shock and expansion wave angles. The
expansion waves have a minimal effect on the body
pressures that strongly effect body lift (i-e. 4 = 45 and
0 deg).
The preceding paragraphs have explained the in-
dividual aspects of Figs. 3-6. The nature of K B ( w )
is mainly dependent on the shock and expansion wave
interaction between the fins and the body. The key ele-
ments that determine KB(*) are 1)the strength of the
shock and expansion waves, 2) the location where they
have completely intercepted the body and 3) the body
pressure recwey after the shock and expansion waves
have intercepted the body. Each of these three ele-
ments is a function of S/r, AR, a and M. As these pa-
rameters change, they produce the complicated KB(w )
curves shown in Figs. 3-6.
Figures 7 and 8 showed that the maximum K B ( ~ )
values increase and shift to lower aspect ratios with in-
creasing Mach number. As Mach number increases, the
iin shock and expansion waves become stronger and
their angles become smaller so that they take more
distance to completely intercept the body. Thus, the
change in the body pressure acts over a larger por-
tion of the body. As a result, KB(W)increases with
the maximum value located at a larger Z/R, which
corresponds t o a lower aspect ratio. The cross-over
point discussed earlier naturally occurs as Mach num-
ber increases, because the maximum K B ( w )shifts to
the lower aspect ratios.
Finally, shock and expansion waves are directly re-
sponsible for the afterbody effects. Figures 9, 10 and
11 showed that K B ( ~changed ) very little with after-
body length for missiles with very low aspect ratio fins,
while for missiles with larger aspect ratio fins a signif-
icant increase in K B ( W )occured as afterbody length
increased. For small AR missiles the body pressure re-
laxes close to its fi-ee stream value at the fin trailing
edge. Figure 16 shows PIP, curves on the afterbody
for a 0.05 aspect ratio fin with S I R = 1.3. The fin trail-
ing edge is located at Z/R = 42.15. On the afterbody
(Z/R 2 42.15) the only pressure curves that show sig-
nificant change are 4 = 90- and 90+. They are located
on the side of the fuselage and have negligible effect on
Figure 17 shows the body pressure for a missile
is located at Z/R = 31.35; consequently, the afterbody
begins at Z/R = 31.15. For missiles with larger aspect
ratio fins, the fin root chord length is short, so that the
fin trailing edge is located closer t o the fin leading edge.
At the fin trailing edge the shock and expansion waves
increase with afterbody length. Once the shock and
expansion waves have completely intercepted the body,
pressure recovery begins and K B ( W )begins t o decrease
with Z/R.
ZEUS is an Euler code, so it does not include any
boundary layer effects along the missile fins and body.
For small S/R fins with long root chords, the boundary
layer thickness may be significant and effect K B ( w ) .A
detailed boundary layer analysis is beyond the scope
of the research. However, a flat plate analysis (Ref.
23) for M = 3.5 over an insulaked wall yields a bound-
ary layer thickness (6/R) on the fin a t its the trailing
edge of the order of 0.005 t o 0.01 depending on the 6x1
aspect ratio. The same magnitude of boundary layer
thickness also occurs on the body. Thus, the effects of
boundary layer thickness on the fins and body appears
to be negligible. This analysis only shows order of mag-
nitudes and i t does not include high angle of attack or
body-fin interaction effects.
Conclusions
An Euler code has been used t o examine the ef-
fects of a, SIR, and AR on K B ( ~for) low aspect ratio
missiles at Mach numbers from 3 t o 4. This analysis
extends K B ( w ) data well beyond the limits of slen-
der body theory, in which KB(W) is only a functicn
of S/R. Aspect ratio was varied from 0.05 to 4.0 and
S/R ranged from 1.3 to 2 for angles of attack up to 20
deg. K B ( W )
was found to be a strong and complicated
function of both AR and a. K B ( w Iincreases as aspect
 ratio decreases below 4 and reaches a maximum at AR
= 0.2. For AR less than M 0.2, KB(WJshows two dif-
ferent trends depending on angle of attack. For small
a , K B ( ~decreases
) as AR decreases, but for high a
K B ( ~ remains fairly constant with decreasing AR.
KB(W is strongly dependent on shock and expan-
sion wave interference from the fins. For missiles with
no afterbody (trailing edge of fin is at the base of the
missile) the maximum KB(W) values occur when the
combination of S I R and AR is such that the shock and
expansion waves from the fin leading edge intercept the
entire body cross section. This occurs at a specific Z/R
value. If the missile is longer than this Z/R, pressure
recovery occurs along the fuselage at small values of a,
which tends t o decrease KB(W)for the missile. At high
a the pressure recovery is much slower, because of the
newtonian nature of the flow and KB(W)remains near
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
its maximum value.
KB(W)significantly varies with afterbody length
only for the larger aspect ratio missilies. The after-
body itself does not alter the flowfield enough to change
K B ( w ) . The determining factor is the fin root chord
length, which is short for the larger aspect ratio fins.
The trailing edge of these fins is reached before the
shock and expansion waves have completely interacted
with the body. Hence, these interactions are carried
over to the afterbody and effect K B ( w ) .
In the future, boundary layer effects on KB(W)
need t o be examined. KB(W)data should be extended
to include larger angles of attack and a wider range
of Mach numbers. Extensions should also be made to
other fin configurations and nonckcular fuselage cross
sections. Also, the vertical position of the fins on the
fuselage wU influence K B ( W ) and this effect needs to
be investigated.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by McDonnell
Douglas Missile Systems Company, St. Louis, Mis-
souri Contract monitors were Andrew A. Jenn and
Kurt D. Bausch. Additional funds have been provided
by the Missouri Research Assistance Act. Approved
for public release: distribution is unlimited. Case No.
92-1494.
References
1. Lucero, E. F., "Approximate Method for Predict-
ing Supersonic Normal Force Coefficient of Very-
Low-Aspect-Ratio Lifting Surfaces," AIAA Paper
840575, 1984.
2. Lucero, E. F., "Predicting the Supersonic Aero-
dynamics of Very-Low-Aspect-Ratio Lifting Sur-
faces," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 22,
No. 6, March-April 1985, pp. 114125.
3. Morikawa, G., 'Supersonic Wing-Body Lift,"
Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 4,
April, 1951, pp.217-228.
4. Bruns, K. D., Moore, M. E., Stan, S. L. and Vuke-
lich, S. R., "MISSILE DATCOM", Wright Patter-
son Air Force Base, Report WL-TR-91-3039, 1991.
5. Hemsch, M. J. and Nielsen, J. N., "Equivalent
Angle-of-Attack Method for Ektimating Nonlinear
Aerodynamics of Missile Fins," Journal of Space-
craft and Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 4, July-Aug. 1983,
pp. 356-362.
6. Hemsch, M. J., "The Component Build-Up
Method for Engineering Analysis of Missiles at
Low-to-High Angles of Attack," Tactical Missile
Aerodynamics, Volume 11-Prediction Methodol-
ogy, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
Edited by M. R. Mendenhall, AIAA, New York,
to be published 1992.
7. Bossi B. W. and Nelson, H.F., " Fin-Body Interfer-
ence for Low Aspect Ratio Missiles," AIAA Paper,
AIAA-922682, 1992.
8. Nielsen, J. N., Missile Aerodynamics, Nielsen En-
gineering and Research, Mountain View, Califor-
nia, 1988.
9. Shaw, D. and Sawyer, W., "Tkiservice-NASA Data
Base," NASA Langley Research Center, 1991, (un-
published)
10. Nielsen, J. N., "Supersonic Wing-Body Interfer-
ence a t High Angles of Attack with Emphasis on
Low Aspect Ratios," AIAA Paper 860568, 1986.
11. Wardlaw, A. B. and Davis, S. F., "A Second Order
Godunov Method for Tactical Missile," Naval Sur-
face Weapons Center, Report NSWC T R 86-506,
Dec. 1986.
12. Wardlaw, A. B. and Priolo, .F. J., "Applying the
ZEUS Code," Naval Surface Weapons Center, Re-
port NSWC T R 86508, Dec. 1986.
13. Glae, N. M. and Wardlaw Jr., A. B., "A High-
Order Godunov Scheme for Steady Supersonic Gas
Dynamics," Journal of Computational Physics,
Vol. 58, No. 2, April, 1985, pp.157-187.
14. Krispin, J. and Glae, H. M., "Second Order Go-
dunov Methods and Self-similar Steady Super-
sonic Three Dimensional Flowfields," AIAA Paper
91-1653, 1991.
15. Osher, S., "Reimann Solvers, The Entropy Con-
dition, And Difference Approximations," SZAM
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, April 1984, pp. 217-235.
 -
16. Talpalliker, M., 'Numerical Solutions to Wing-
Body Interference of Missiles in Supersonic Flow,'
M. S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechan-
ics, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1989.
17. Est, B. E., "Computational Aerodynamics of Su-
personic Missiles With Noncircular Cross Sec-
tion," M. S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Me-
chanics, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1991.
2. 1 zd
Fig. 2. Missile Geometry Configuration.
18. Evans, J. and Wardlaw, A., "Prediction of Tilbu-
lar Projectile Aerodynamics Using the ZEUS Euler
Code," AIAA Paper 89-0334, 1989.
19. Priolo, E. F., Wardlaw Jr., A. B., "Euler Space-
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638

Marching Computations With Crossflow Seper*

tion For Missile-Type Bodies," AIAA Paper 90-
0616, 1990.
20. Baltikus, F., Personal Contact, Feb., 1990
21. Bossi, B. W., 'Computational Aerodynamics of
Low Aspect Ratio Missiles in Supersonic Flow,'
M. S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechan-
ics, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1991.
22. Spearman, M. L. and Trescott, Jr., C. D., "Effects
of Wing Planform on the Static Aerodynamics of a
Cruciform Wing-Body Missile for Mach Numbers
u p to 4.63," NASA TMX-1839, July 1969.
23. Anderson Jr., J. D., Hypersonic and High Tem-
perature Gas Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, Fig. 3. K B f Wvs.
) l/AR, S I R = 2.0, M = 3.5.
1989, pp. 243.

Rg. 4. K B I w )VS. 1/AR, S I R = 1.5, M = 3.5.

Fig. 1. Missile Stowage Advantages for Low As-

pect Ratio Fins.
 0 10 20
1IAR
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638

llAR

Fig. 5. KB(W)VS. 1/AR, S/R = 1.3, M = 3.5. Fig. 8. Mach Number Effects on Ks(w), S/R =
2.0, a = 20 deg.

Fig. 6. KB(W)VS. a , S/R = 1.3, h4 = 3.5. Z A IR

Fig. 9. Afterbody effects, vs. ZA/R, M =

3.5, SIR = 2.0, a = 3 deg.

AR = 0.05
AR = 0.1
AR = 0.5
0 Nielsen

0 5 1 0 1 5
20
1IAR Z A IR
Fig. 7. Mach Number Effects on K B ( ~ )S/R
, =
) Z*/R, hf
Fig. 10. Afterbody effects, K B ( ~VS.
2.0, a = 3 deg.
- 3.5, S/R = 2.0, a = 10 deg.
 AR = 0.05
* AR = 0.1
AR = 0.5
0 Nielsen
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638

Fig. 11. Afterbody effects, KB(W)

vs. ZA/R, M
= 3.5, S/R = 2.0, a = 20 deg.
ZI R
Fig. 14. PIP, vs. Z/R, SIR = 1.5, AR = 0.05,
M = 3.5, a = 3 deg.

Fig. 12. PIP, vs. Z/R, SIR = 2.0, AR = 0.05,

M = 3.5, cr = 3 deg.

Fig. 15. PIP, vs. Z/R, SIR = 1.3, AR = 0.05,

M = 3.5, a = 20 deg.

ZIR
Fig. 13. PIP, vs. Z/R, SIR = 2.0, AR = 0.05,
M = 3.5, cr = 10 deg.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638

ZI R
Fig. 16. PIP, vs. Z/R, Afterbody Analysis for
fin trailing edge at Z/R = 42.15,, AR = 0.05, SIR =
1.3, M = 3.5, a = 3 deg.

Fig. 17. PIP, vs. Z/R, Afterbody Analysis for

fin trailing edge at Z/R = 31.25, AR = 0.5, S I R = 1.5,
M = 3.5, a = 3 deg.