44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2006-454

9 - 12 January 2006, Reno, Nevada

Application of Platform Knowledge and Adaptation of Store

Separation Analysis and Testing to Multiple-Carriage
Weapon Suspension Systems: A Case Study in F-16 /
BRU-57

Richard C. Snyder* and William E. Roberts†

Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office, Eglin AFB, FL, 32578

With the advent of smarter air-to-ground munitions and the ability to precisely attack
military targets in population centers, there has been a corresponding movement toward
lowering collateral damage potential by reducing the size of munitions. When smaller
munitions are integrated onto platforms with large payload carrying abilities, it is only
natural that multiple-carriage weapon suspension systems are developed to take advantage
of the aircraft’s gross weight capability and to add the ability to strike greater numbers of
targets on a single sortie. The numerous and complex configurations introduced by multiple-
carriage weapon suspension systems introduce unique challenges for store separations. Store
separation analysis and testing methods that typically support parent pylon configurations
may or may not be suited to support multiple-carriage weapon suspension system
configurations, and the more complex interference flow fields associated with them. In order
to minimize cost and reduce the time required for compatibility, it is desired to apply trusted
tools and experience developed in the analysis of parent pylon configurations to multiple-
carriage weapon suspension system configuration testing and analysis. This paper discusses
the applicability of experience and store separation analysis and testing techniques that were
developed to support single store configurations to complex multiple-carriage weapon
suspension system configurations. The techniques discussed include the application of
trajectory simulations (based on wind tunnel data), computational fluid dynamics, and flight
test methods.

Nomenclature
6-dof = six degrees-of-freedom, six degree-of-freedom simulation
ACSES = Aircraft Compatibility Scientific and Engineering Support
AEDC = Arnold Engineering Development Center
AFSEO = Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office
BRU = Bomb Release Unit
CAT = Computational Aeromechanics Team
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
GPS = Global Positioning System
IDAPS = Image Data Automated Processing System
INS = Inertial Navigation System
JSOW = Joint Stand-Off Weapon
LDGP = Low Drag General Purpose
TGP = Trajectory Generation Program
USAF = United States Air Force
USN = United States Navy
WCMD = Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
Xcg = longitudinal center of gravity location

*
Store Separation Engineer, TYBRIN ACSES Contract Support, 205 West D Avenue, Suite 348a.
†
Store Separation Engineer, TYBRIN ACSES Contract Support, 205 West D Avenue, Suite 348a.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes.
All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
 I. Introduction

I ntegration of guided weapons on modern aircraft is a complex undertaking, of which store separation is a single,
essential part of the overall aircraft/store compatibility process. Successful conduct of confident store separation
programs must thoroughly address any safety concerns while
balancing the technical challenges with affordability. Integration
of multiple-carriage weapon suspension systems have
historically challenged the community’s ability to safely and
efficiently demonstrate store separation from them, and modern
budget realities will not support the open-ended test programs of
old. This paper will illustrate the demands of multiple-carriage
weapon suspension system store separation programs, and the Figure 1. F-16D carrying a BRU-57 fully
applicability of proven methods to meet those demands, using loaded with JSOW stores adjacent to a
integration of the BRU-57 Dual Carriage Smart Rack with the 370-gallon fuel tank.
F-16C/D as a case study.
F-16 store separation testing and analysis experience has been built upon numerous parent pylon store separation
programs. Testing and analysis experience from multiple-carriage weapon suspension system configurations is
relatively minimal, and has been primarily limited to auxiliary suspension equipment with hardwired release
sequences. Multiple-carriage suspension systems for “smart” weapons feature automatic step-over capabilities,
supporting employment of desired numbers of fully operational weapons (while bypassing the release of
malfunctioning weapons), rather than releasing stores in a pre-defined order. The combination of relatively limited
testing and analysis experience with multiple-carriage weapon suspension systems, coupled with the increased
number of configurations introduced by step-over capabilities, culminates in an extensive store separation problem.
The tools and techniques used for external store separation analysis and testing have been successfully used in a
production environment in support of parent pylon flight test programs for many years. In addition, store separation
characteristics from F-16 parent pylon configurations can be expected to follow established general trends, which
simplifies store separation testing and analysis by limiting the configurations to be investigated. However, the same
can not necessarily be said for separation from multiple-carriage suspension system configurations because F-16
store separation from these systems has been both less extensive and without extensive support of modern analytical
means (wind tunnel test or computational data bases). Store separation testing and analysis conducted in support of
BRU-57 certification provided an opportunity to determine if the experience, tools, and techniques that support
typical parent pylon configurations could be confidently used for the separation of stores from the BRU-57.

a. Weapon Employment / Jettison b. Auxiliary Suspension Jettison c. Fuel Tank Jettison

Figure 2. Parent pylon configuration simplicity contrasted with dual-carriage smart weapon suspension
system configuration considerations for store separation certification.

Figure 2 illustrates the increased configuration considerations associated with even a simple dual-carriage smart
weapon suspension system. In this example, doubling the MIL-STD-1760 weapons at a single weapon station
increases the relevant store separation configurations from 2 to 12. Dual-carriage of unguided weapons on the same

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
suspension equipment would only require consideration of 8 configurations (since four configurations are associated
with release order variations that would only be considered as failure cases for unguided weapons). This simplified
example does not include potential adjacent store influences or the potential for employment demonstration
requirements due to non-similarity of jettison and employment modes, both of which can contribute significantly to
the complexity of the configuration set.
A range of tools and techniques were used to analyze and test the numerous store separation configurations
illustrated in Fig. 2. Trajectory simulation based on wind tunnel test data was used in support of the employment /
jettison configurations shown in Fig. 2.a. CFD trajectory predictions were used in support of jettison of the BRU-57
configurations shown in Fig. 2.b. Incremental flight test progressions based on supporting analysis were used for
most of the flight testing, but flight test alone was used to clear fuel tank selective jettison from the configurations
shown in Fig. 2.c.
Flight test trajectory data for correlation with analytical predictions were obtained using photogrammetric
reduction of store position and attitude data from high-speed film using Eglin’s well established Image Data
Automated Processing System (IDAPS). All IDAPS data used for comparison in this paper has been verified
against flight test film and are considered representative of the trajectories captured by onboard film/video of the
store separation event and are therefore used as a truth source for comparison with analysis results.
This paper discusses the applicability of established tools used in support of BRU-57 flight testing, including
trajectory simulations based on wind tunnel test data and CFD trajectory predictions. In addition, this paper
discusses flight testing techniques used to support BRU-57 configurations, including incremental flight test
progression and single-endpoint flight test demonstration. The single-endpoint flight test demonstration technique is
discussed as a subsection of jettison of the BRU-57 since this technique was used for during that phase of flight
testing.

II. Description of the BRU-57/A and Test Stores

The BRU-57 is a two-station multiple-carriage weapon suspension system capable of carrying one or two 1000-
pound class (or smaller) stores (see Fig. 3). The BRU-57 has the ability to relay communications between “smart”
weapons and the aircraft via MIL-STD-1760 electronics. It consists of a central hardback, two BRU-46 ejector rack
units in a side-by-side configuration, electronics housed within the forward and aft aerodynamic fairings, and
external umbilical connectors. The BRU-46 ejector rack units are canted 5.5° degrees about the longitudinal axis of
the BRU-57 (see Fig. 4). The BRU-57 weighs 250 pounds, is approximately 70 inches long, 30 inches wide, and 11
inches tall.

Figure 3. Empty BRU-57 suspended from a standard Figure 4. Aft view of BRU-57 illustrating
weapons pylon on F-16 Station 7. the canted angle of the BRU-46 ejector
rack units.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The initial requirements for BRU-57 certification include compatibility with both WCMD and JSOW stores,
which were both previously certified for use from the F-16 parent pylon. The certification flight testing conducted in
support of a 370-gallon fuel tank jettison capability from BRU-57 configurations and a BRU-57 auxiliary
suspension jettison capability was dependent upon a mixture of tests conducted using JSOW and WCMD stores
suspended from the BRU-57. Discussion of store separation analysis and flight test data for stores released from
BRU-57 configurations is represented herein primarily using JSOW results, due to the relatively high fidelity
analytical data available for both JSOW parent pylon and JSOW BRU-57 configurations, and the representative
nature of JSOW trajectory characteristics (compared to those for WCMD). Figures 5 and 6 depict the JSOW and
WCMD stores, respectively, carried by a BRU-57 suspended from a standard weapons pylon on an F-16 aircraft.

Figure 5. In-flight image of two JSOW stores Figure 6. In-flight image of two WCMD stores
carried by a BRU-57 suspended from a standard carried by a BRU-57 suspended from a standard
weapon pylon on an F-16 aircraft. weapon pylon on an F-16 aircraft.

Figure 7. AGM-154 JSOW Figure 8. CBU-104 WCMD

Length 160 in. Length 92 in.
Cross-Section (max) Diameter 15.5 in.
Height 17.5 in. Weight 745 lb.
Width 13.25 in.
Weight 1065 lb.

The JSOW is a 1000-pound class unpowered glide weapon with INS/GPS navigation (Fig. 7). The weapon was
originally designed to dispense submunitions, but a terminal seeker variant has been developed that incorporates a
unitary warhead. Although a number of payload/seeker variants have been proposed and developed, the only variant
currently certified for use with USAF aircraft is the AGM-154A with BLU-97 submunitions.
The WCMD stores are canister systems with a simple inertial navigation and control system that corrects the
ballistic trajectory for release affects and winds aloft. The WCMD family of stores includes the CBU-103,
CBU-104, and CBU-105, which are converted from CBU-87, CBU-89, and CBU-97 Tactical Munition Dispensers,
respectively. Although the weapons are externally similar (from a store separation perspective), the WCMD stores
weigh 745 to 960 lbs. depending upon submunition payload and tail kit variant. The CBU-104 (Fig. 8) is commonly
used to represent all three primary variants for store separation testing because it is the lightest variant, and its
longitudinal center of gravity (Xcg) is in the most aft location (which often presents the most challenging
combination for safe and acceptable store separation characteristics).

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
III. Flight Testing Techniques (Incremental Progression and Single-Endpoint Demonstration):
370-Gallon Fuel Tank Jettison Adjacent to the BRU-57
An incremental flight test progression is implemented
when the risk of envelope expansion can be mitigated by
progressively increasing the risk (i.e. risk associated with
increasing motion, reduced miss distance, or increased
uncertainty) from an accepted initial point to worst-case
flight condition. This implementation is valid regardless
of aircraft configuration, or even type of flight testing.
Properly conducted incremental flight test
demonstrations can be used to clear store separation
envelopes without supporting analysis. Though a test-
only approach to establishing store separation capability
is not the preferred technique, the exigencies of a
situation sometime dictate that test-only techniques are
viable solutions.
There is no confident predictive capability to support
a fuel tank jettison flight test progression from legacy
parent pylon configurations or BRU-57 configurations.
Figure 9. Visualization of 370-gallon fuel tank However, there is a large body of flight test
jettison flight test results. The image on the left demonstrations for 370-gallon fuel tank jettisons from
illustrates the incremental flight test progression configurations including various adjacent stores and
(from red to blue) in airspeed/Mach, with yellow other multiple-carriage suspension equipment. Previous
representing a matching (with blue) release from the demonstrations have shown that 370-gallon fuel tank
opposite wing for the BRU-57 JSOW configuration. jettison characteristics are influenced by adjacent store
The image on the right illustrates the results from a geometry, and stores with greater frontal area tend to
BRU-57 WCMD configuration single endpoint drive the fuel tank trajectories closer to the aircraft
jettison demonstration. during the separation transient. Based on the knowledge
inferred from the large body of 370-gallon fuel tank jettison testing, the worst-case BRU-57 configuration adjacent
to 370-gallon fuel tank being jettisoned was assumed to be with the BRU-57 fully loaded. A flight test plan was
devised to jettison the 370-gallon fuel tanks at progressively more challenging flight conditions from the selected
worst-case adjacent store configuration, the BRU-57 fully loaded with two JSOW stores. Based on the successful
fuel tank jettisons from JSOW configurations, a single-endpoint demonstration was implemented to support 370-
gallon fuel tank jettison limits from configurations including the BRU-57 loaded with WCMD stores. Consistent
with the 370-gallon fuel tank jettison tests representing BRU-57 / JSOW configurations, the worst-case adjacent
WCMD configuration was assumed to be the BRU-57 loaded with two WCMD stores.
Although the worst-case configuration assumption was not directly verified by flight testing using the possible
adjacent BRU-57 / store combinations, the successful flight testing supported the required jettison envelope for the
370-gallon fuel tank. The additional confidence in the test design was based on nearly three decades of flight test
experience and the selective application of knowledge gained from the large body of 370-gallon fuel tank jettison
testing conducted in support of numerous legacy systems. The successful flight testing from the JSOW configuration
in turn supported a single-endpoint flight test demonstration for jettison of the 370-gallon fuel tank from the BRU-
57 WCMD configuration. This case is a positive example of how incremental flight test progressions can be
successfully used to build confidence at increasingly challenging flight conditions while expending limited numbers
of test assets, for even the most difficult scenarios. The incremental flight test progression and single-endpoint
demonstration techniques were successfully used in support of BRU-57 configurations.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the BRU-57
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predicted
trajectories for auxiliary suspension jettison of
multiple store loading configurations for the
BRU-57 were generated using the BEGGAR solver
and inviscid solution techniques. The BRU-57
loading configurations included fully loaded,
inboard only, and outboard only configurations of
both WCMD and JSOW, as well as an empty rack.
The trajectories were predicted for F-16
configurations including an adjacent 370-gallon fuel
tank. Due to the limited scope of this paper, the
CFD discussion is limited to the application of
results and does not discuss the details of the
predictions. Further details of the CFD code used to
predict trajectories are contained in the referenced
CFD report1.
CFD BRU-57/store auxiliary suspension jettison
trajectory predictions were generated to mitigate the Figure 10. Representative time step extracted
risk of not flight testing all of the possible BRU- from a CFD trajectory prediction of auxiliary
57/store configurations. Since the requirement for suspension jettison. Relative surface pressures are
auxiliary suspension jettison of the BRU-57 loaded depicted. Store is the BRU-57 fully loaded with
with WCMD required considerable envelope JSOW.
expansion, the flight testing implemented an incremental progression as discussed above. The required jettison
envelope for the empty BRU-57 and for the BRU-57 loaded with JSOW is restrictive compared to the envelope for
the BRU-57 loaded with WCMD, and computations supported expectations that BRU-57/WCMD jettisons would be
more benign than BRU-57/JSOW trajectories for the same rack/store configuration, so flight testing of BRU-57
auxiliary suspension jettison configurations began with the WCMD configurations. Flight testing of BRU-57/JSOW
and empty BRU-57 at restrictive flight limits followed similar demonstrations of BRU-57/WCMD configurations,
using single-endpoint demonstrations. Based on provided USN flight test results with the similar BRU-33/A
(Vertical Ejection Rack, or VER) and BRU-33A/A (Canted Vertical Ejection Rack, or CVER), experience showed
that maintaining nose-down attitudes on the BRU-57/store assemblage near carriage was essential for safe store
separation. Using capabilities inherent in the MAU-12D/A ejection rack used on the F-16, AFSEO specified a strong
nose-down pitch rate setting to impart a nominally 65% forward and 35% aft force distribution to BRU-57/store
configurations at release (produced with a “-5/-3” metering orifice setting). Expectations for CFD correlation were
low, especially for the empty BRU-57, based on the strong pitch rates and large attitudes expected to result from the
BRU-57/store ejections.
Since the shape (and therefore the aerodynamics) of the WCMD and JSOW stores are different, and the
interference aerodynamic flow fields in which the stores are immersed are as a result different, examples of rack
jettison predictions using both stores with the BRU-57 are presented to potentially support application of the
computational methods for a limited range of store types carried from the BRU-57. The three sets of BRU-57
configuration iterations investigated (using WCMD, JSOW, and empty) no longer represents the entire range of
BRU-57 configuration possibilities, and the completed flight test demonstrations should not be expected to fully
represent the range of auxiliary suspension jettison characteristics for all BRU-57 configuration options (including
options for unguided legacy stores, lighter weight “smart” weapons, etc.). However, unlike with the test-only
techniques used to clear 370-gallon fuel tank separation, if adequate confidence can be established with the existing
computational methods by correlation with completed flight testing, CFD can be applied with some confidence to
dissimilar BRU-57/store configuration auxiliary suspension jettison trajectory predictions, potentially supporting
certification of new configurations without requiring additional flight testing.
CFD trajectory predictions were generated pre-flight (unless used in a diagnostic mode) and were only
regenerated if aircraft/store geometry modeling or computational grid determination compromises were suspected to
be responsible for reduced simulation fidelity. Advanced techniques (directed search algorithms, etc.) developed to
complement post-flight trajectory matching with AFSEO 6-dof tools have not yet been developed for use in
conjunction with comparable computational-based tools.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The challenges associated with CFD application to trajectory prediction are not specific to multiple-carriage
weapon systems, but the nature of multiple store suspension systems complicates computational efforts. The
increased number of grid cells required to model the larger number of configuration items is compounded by the
increased number of configurations associated with multiple-carriage weapon system. In addition, the problem is
complicated by increasing the number of potentially critical analysis cases (and the time needed to assemble the
computational girds) and lengthening the time required to generate the appropriate solutions.
The following sections that describe the CFD predictions are ordered chronologically based on completion of
flight testing for the specific results shown. The flight test sequence was a product of risk mitigation efforts and
competing flight test program priorities, and the actual progression is retained for its importance to the discussion.
CFD predicted trajectories were generated to investigate jettison of the BRU-57 with dual store
(BRU-57/2xWCMD, BRU-57/2xJSOW) and single store (BRU-57/1xWCMD, BRU-57/1xJSOW) configurations of
the BRU-57. To reduce flight test sorties, BRU-57/single store investigations were concentrated on the inboard store
load. The expected rotation, and the smaller miss distance anticipated was justification for focusing attention on the
BRU-57 configuration with an inboard store loaded.

A. Comparison of CFD Predicted Trajectories and Flight Test Data for Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of
BRU-57 / WCMD Configurations
Experience from parent pylon configurations was
applied to reduce the number of aircraft / store
configurations tested in support of jettison testing of the
BRU-57. Testing and analysis were limited to a
particular aircraft configuration that provided the
strongest aerodynamic influence (based on platform
knowledge gained from the large body of parent pylon
testing) and reduced miss distance due to installed
clearances. Although not directly verified by analysis or
flight test, jettison from other related aircraft / store
configurations (e.g. without an adjacent 370-gallon fuel
tank, with adjacent rails/missiles) should be as safe/safer
due to increased miss distances and reduced interference
effects, as established from historical parent pylon Figure 11. Front view of a BRU-57 loaded with
testing and the limited legacy of multiple-store WCMD stores, suspended from F-16 Station 7.
suspension equipment jettison.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the BRU-57 Fully Loaded with WCMD (BRU-57/2xWCMD)

Figure 12. Comparison of CFD predicted and IDAPS reduced trajectories of auxiliary suspension jettison
of the BRU-57 fully loaded with WCMD stores.

A representative CFD jettison trajectory prediction for the BRU-57 fully loaded with WCMD stores
(BRU-57/2xWCMD) is presented in comparison with data reduced from flight test (Fig. 12) for the same
configuration at the same release conditions (within typical test condition tolerances). The comparison shows that
while the CFD prediction does not match flight in all axes, it is a coarse predictor of the BRU-57/2xWCMD
trajectory motion. Either the general predicted trends (i.e. initial direction of motion) are comparable to the reduced
data, or the magnitude of both the predicted and reduced motion is relatively small. The CFD predicted pitching
motion is substantially greater than the observed motion. No immediate attempt was made post-flight to improve
the CFD model used to predict the trajectory (e.g. adjustments to increase grid densities or model fidelity), and
investigations to improve the post-flight correlation between the CFD simulation and flight was delayed to a follow-
on test program. Incidentally, the fully loaded BRU-57/2xWCMD configuration was successfully flight tested
without incident and certified to the planned end point release conditions.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a. Inboard store loading b. Outboard store loading
Figure 13. CFD predicted auxiliary suspension jettison trajectories for the BRU-57 loaded with single
WCMD store options.
Two CFD predicted trajectories were generated to compare the jettison trajectory characteristics of both
BRU-57/1xWCMD configurations. Predicted trajectories (Fig. 13) showed that the motion relative to the installed
WCMD were essentially the same, and motion relative to the release aircraft for the two cases was generally similar,
but the reduced miss distances associated with the BRU-57/1xWCMD configuration with the single store inboard
(installed minimum clearance distance from the inboard WCMD to the 370-gallon fuel tank is 11.6 inches) was
justification for limiting flight testing to the single BRU-57/1xWCMD configuration. A comparison of the trajectory
reduced from flight test and the CFD predicted trajectory is shown in Fig. 14.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the BRU-57 with One WCMD (BRU-57/1xWCMD), Inboard loading

Figure 14. Comparison of CFD predicted and IDAPS reduced trajectories of auxiliary suspension jettison
of the BRU-57 loaded with a WCMD store on the inboard station.

The comparison shown in Fig. 14 for the BRU-57/1xWCMD configuration yields similar results as the
comparison shown in Fig. 12 for the fully loaded BRU-57 configuration. As before, this comparison shows that
while the CFD prediction does not match the IDAPS reduced data in all axes, it is a coarse predictor of the
BRU-57/1xWCMD trajectory motion. The trajectory resulting from jettisoning the inboard loaded BRU-57 at the
same release condition is more dynamic compared to the fully loaded BRU-57 (especially noteworthy is the larger
roll rate), but predictions with the higher rates are no less comparable. Again, no attempt was made in conjunction
with flight testing to improve the CFD model to improve the predictive capability for BRU-57 jettisons.
The predictive confidence using the existing CFD models could be a concern if substantive changes were made
to the ejector performance or mass properties of the BRU-57/store configuration. The over-prediction of pitch rate
for the BRU-57/WCMD configurations in this case would not confidently support flight testing with a reduced nose-
down pitch ejector setting or an assemblage with a significantly forward Xcg position (effectively reducing nose-
down pitch if the ejector setting were retained).

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. Comparison of CFD Predicted Trajectories and Flight Test Data for Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the
Empty BRU-57
Multiple CFD jettison trajectories were generated for
the empty BRU-57, and a single (post-flight) trajectory is
shown as the representative “nominal” trajectory. The
multiple trajectory predictions include parent pylon
MAU-12 ejector rack variability as well as iterative
adjustments to the input store geometry and 6-dof
simulation modules. The illustration in Fig. 16 compares
the trajectory reduced from flight test film with the
representative CFD predicted trajectory. The CFD
prediction did not accurately predict the separation
characteristics or trends for the empty BRU-57 jettison.
Fortunately, flight testing of the empty BRU-57 was not Figure 15. View of the empty BRU-57 suspended
required beyond the benign initial condition demonstrated, from F-16 Station 7.
so the lack of a confident predictive capability did not hamper the test conduct. The primary concerns, assuring that
a nose-down pitch attitude and relative vertical separation were maintained, were verified on the endpoint mission
and only moderate effort was expended to improve the CFD correlation with flight for the empty rack configuration.
Follow-on efforts will focus on the modeling of this challenging store separation case, to better support the
potential store separation requirements of this system (and similar systems) from other aircraft configurations.
Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the empty BRU-57

Figure 16. Comparison of CFD predicted and IDAPS reduced trajectories of auxiliary suspension jettison
of the empty BRU-57.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
C. Comparison of CFD Predicted Trajectories and Flight Test Data for Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of
BRU-57 / JSOW Configurations
The same BRU-57 CFD grid model used for
WCMD predictions was used to generate
BRU-57/JSOW trajectory predictions. Cases
were generated for the BRU-57 fully loaded
with JSOW stores (BRU-57/2xJSOW) and both
single store loading options (BRU-57/1xJSOW)
at nominal conditions. The same runs were
rerun with reduced ejector forces to determine
the effects, if any, of less than nominal ejection
forces on safe separation characteristics.
(Instrumented ejector racks were not available
to confirm the initial conditions from the
BRU-57/WCMD jettisons, and ejector
performance (reduced pitch rate) was a possible
source of the correlation discrepancy between Figure 17. Front view of JSOW carried on the inboard
flight and CFD.) Figures 18 and 20 compare the position of the BRU-57 suspended from F-16 Station 3.
CFD predicted trajectories and the flight test Note “dummy” BRU-46 mass representative shape
results at similar flight conditions. substituted at unloaded BRU-46 position.

Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the BRU-57 Fully Loaded with JSOW (BRU-57/2xJSOW)

Figure 18. Comparison of CFD predicted (with nominal and reduced ejector forces) and IDAPS reduced
trajectories of auxiliary suspension jettison of the BRU-57 fully loaded with JSOW stores.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Representative CFD jettison trajectory predictions using nominal and reduced pitch rate ejector settings for the
BRU-57 fully loaded with JSOW stores (BRU-57/2xJSOW) are presented in comparison with data reduced from
flight test (Fig. 18) for the same configuration at the same release conditions (within typical test condition
tolerances). The comparison shows, as it did for the BRU-57/2xWCMD, that the CFD prediction does not match
flight in all axes but is a coarse predictor of the BRU-57/2xJSOW trajectory motion. Again, the CFD predicted
pitching motion is substantially greater than the observed motion. It was becoming clear that the simulation over-
prediction of pitch was more likely associated with the computational modeling rather than physical ejector
performance. The nominal performance of the MAU-12 ejector rack had been established from extensive ground
testing and a long operational history. Anomalous ejector performance was ruled out by the repeated over-prediction
for several rack/store combinations. The prediction for the BRU-57/2xJSOW trajectory was clearly not sensitive to a
reduction in ejector rack performance, which indicated that aerodynamic factors were dominant and the most likely
source for improved computational correlation. It is also interesting to note that the BRU-57/2xWCMD and
BRU-57/2xJSOW flight test trajectory results (although conducted at different flight conditions) were very similar
(over the initial 300 ms), though the CFD prediction correlation (especially roll and yaw orientations) suggested
different trends.
Similarly to WCMD predictions, two sets of CFD predicted trajectories were generated to compare the jettison
trajectory characteristics of both BRU-57/1xJSOW configurations and results confirmed that the outboard store
loading was potentially less threatening to the release aircraft. Predicted trajectories (Fig. 19) showed that the
motion relative to installed store were essentially the same, and motion relative to the release aircraft for the two
cases was generally similar, but the reduced miss distances associated with the BRU-57/1xJSOW configuration with
the single store inboard (installed minimum clearance distance from the inboard JSOW to the 370-gallon fuel tank is
16 inches) was justification for limiting flight testing to the single BRU-57/1xJSOW configuration. A comparison of
the trajectory data reduced from flight test and the CFD predicted trajectories (for nominal and reduced ejector
forces) is shown in Fig. 20.

a. Inboard store loading b. Outboard store loading

Figure 19. CFD predicted auxiliary suspension jettison trajectories of the BRU-57 loaded with single
JSOW store options.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Auxiliary Suspension Jettison of the BRU-57 Loaded with One JSOW (BRU-57/1xJSOW), Inboard loading

Figure 20. Comparison of CFD predicted (with nominal and reduced ejector forces) and IDAPS reduced
trajectories of auxiliary suspension jettison of the BRU-57 loaded with a JSOW store on the inboard station.

The comparisons shown in Fig. 20 for the BRU-57/1xJSOW configuration yielded similar results as the previous
comparisons. The comparison for BRU-57/1xJSOW shows the best correlation between the CFD prediction and the
flight test result, with good comparison on trends, magnitudes and rates for the trajectory orientations. As indicated
by the BRU-57/2xJSOW CFD predictions, the investigation of reduced ejector performance (pitch rate, total force)
did not produce an improved correlation. The trajectory motion for the BRU-57/1xJSOW jettison corresponds
closely with the similar BRU-57/1xWCMD jettison at the same release condition, suggesting that the response of the
assemblage is dominated by the initial imparted pitch and roll rates along with the BRU-57 aerodynamic
contribution, with the aerodynamic contribution of the store a somewhat generic influence. The store aerodynamic
contribution will continue to be explored as additional stores are certified with the BRU-57.

D. Discussion on the Use of CFD Predictions in Support of Multiple-Carriage Weapon Suspension Systems
Flight Test Conduct
As is the case with all analysis techniques that support store separation, the primary purpose is to support
confident flight test planning and conduct. Absolute accuracy of the predictive capability, while the obvious goal, is
not an absolute necessity for the technique to be useful in flight test conduct. As such, CFD trajectory predictions
have been an important capability for many years, first as the predictor of incremental effects (particularly aircraft
configuration effects) and more recently as a confident predictor of individual trajectories. In support of the BRU-57
Auxiliary Suspension Jettison flight test program, it was only possible (due to flight schedule restrictions) to
generate CFD predictions using existing inviscid models of the BRU-57 (and stores) that were readily available or
modifiable in the time allotted. Although expectations were guarded, due to the anticipated nature of the trajectories
(i.e. high angular rates possibly leading to stores tumbling end-over-end) the solutions were simulated to investigate

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
their utility in a situation for which they were not well suited. The resulting comparison with the flight test
observations show that the pre-flight CFD predictions using inviscid techniques were a useful indicator of
BRU-57/store trajectory characteristics, capturing the essential trends and providing insight into the nature of the
relative motion with the release aircraft.

V. Wind Tunnel Data Trajectory Simulation: Store Jettison from the BRU-57
Wind tunnel testing was conducted at AEDC to support development of an aerodynamic database useful for
production store separation predictive methods for stores separated from the BRU-572. Multiple F-16 / BRU-57
store configurations, as well as comparative F-16 / parent pylon JSOW configurations were tested for a range of
database and/or simulated release conditions. Wind tunnel methodologies contain little in the way of innovation, yet
typify the application of AFSEO interactive test approaches used to optimize data collection and the production
application of established methods. Although the tests were run to support individual store separation programs, the
available data allows convenient comparison of parent pylon techniques versus BRU-57 techniques.
One feature of the wind tunnel test was the additional
effort to characterize the F-16 interference flow field in
proximity to the BRU-57. Grid data traverses were obtained
at 15° and 30° radially from the 5.5° radial that described the
ejector plane (Fig. 21). These traverses were added to support
investigation of the flow field volume that might be
encountered in the event of BRU-57 flexure under ejection
loads (in effect rotating the ejector plane). Data was only
obtained for the inboard BRU-57 position, where miss
Zp
distance relative to the adjacent 370-gallon fuel tank was of
35.5° concern. The grid data clarified that the flow field gradients
20.5° in the region of the inboard tank were not dramatically
5.5°
PHIRAD different with the changing rotational angle. In actuality, rack
Figure 21. Sketch depicting the radial flexure effect on the orientation of the ejector plane was not a
angles at which grid data were obtained concern for the F-16 pylon/MAU-12 ejector rack/BRU-57
from the inboard BRU-57 position. system, and 6-dof trajectory predictions using the existing
rigid approximation were sufficient. Representative JSOW
flow field data along the Fig. 21 radial angles for a single Mach number are shown in Fig. 22.
Mach DTHA DPSI PHIRAD

Normal Force Delta Coefficient Pitching Moment Delta Coefficient

Lateral Force Delta Coefficient Yawing Moment Delta Coefficient

Axial Force Delta Coefficient Rolling Moment Delta Coefficient

Vertical Translation, ft Vertical Translation, ft

Fig. 22. Representative F-16 / BRU-57 / JSOW flow field force and moment “delta” coefficients for a
set of radial angles (Delta Coefficient, dCx = 0 describes equivalent free-stream coefficient value).

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The jettison characteristics of stores from the BRU-57 have been documented for both the MK-83 LDGP3 and
JSOW4, and a WCMD test series was recently completed. The predictive tools and methods applied in those
scenarios were identical to the methods presented in exhaustive detail many times for external pylon separation
analysis.
The store separation wind tunnel test was designed to explore all download sequences and a wide range of
aircraft / rack / store configurations. Pre-flight analysis activities were directed at selecting preferred download
sequences, as well as identifying the worst-case separation scenarios, regardless of how unlikely that aircraft / rack /
store configuration was to occur in training or combat operations. A number of combinations of adjacent air-to-air
missile, fuselage chin pod, and centerline store configurations were removed from consideration based on either
direct wind tunnel test measured effects or by analogy with similar aircraft configuration testing. The test
configurations were selected due to their critical nature, the representative behavior of separation characteristics
from the configuration compared with other wind tunnel tested configurations, or by a need to directly measure
separation characteristics for that configuration to support the eventual certification recommendation. The four flight
test configurations are depicted in Fig. 23.

Configuration 1 Configuration 2 Configuration 3 Configuration 4

Single store configuration Outboard first download Inboard first download Inboard first download
Outboard position Outboard position Inboard position Inboard position
Adjacent 370-gal tank Adjacent 370-gal tank Adjacent 370-gal tank Centerline 300-gal tank
Figure 23. Comparison of the F-16 BRU-57 JSOW jettison flight test configurations.

Since it was not feasible to flight test the store separation characteristics of all possible BRU-57/store
configurations, it was important to establish the validity of the supporting wind tunnel data and 6-dof tools for
selected critical configurations and apply that experience to the analysis of the remaining configurations. Simulation
support of JSOW jettison from the BRU-57 produced mixed results of pre-flight predictive and post-flight
investigative results, but it was proven that the simulation correlated well (pre-flight or adjusted post-flight) with the
selected critical configurations. Subsequently, analytical results for the remaining configurations were confidently
adopted for configurations with less dynamic store separation characteristics or for configurations with larger miss
distance margins.

Configuration 5 Configuration 6 Configuration 7 Configuration 8

Single store configuration Inboard first download Outboard first download Outboard first download
Inboard position Outboard position Inboard position Outboard position
Adjacent 370-gal tank Centerline 300-gal tank Centerline 300-gal tank Centerline 300-gal tank
Figure 24. F-16 BRU-57 JSOW Jettison Configurations cleared by analysis alone.

Four configurations were cleared by analysis without any flight test demonstrations (Fig. 24). Single store
configurations (Configurations 5, 6, and 7) were cleared due to the improved jettison motion predicted without an
outboard store present (Configuration 5) or because predicted motion was similar to configurations with an adjacent
store but without the possibility of impact since the adjacent store is not present (Configurations 6 & 7).
Configuration 8, outboard store jettison from a dual store configuration without an adjacent 370-gallon fuel tank
present, was cleared because analysis showed that the JSOW jettison motion from this configuration was essentially
identical to Configuration 2 (with the tank present). Flight test results from Configurations 1-4 increased the
confidence associated with Configurations 5-8 analysis basis, and confirmed the validity of the flight test selections.

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The four BRU-57 JSOW configurations shown in Fig. 23 were tested in serial because of their interdependence.
The first two configurations tested were JSOW jettisons from the outboard position.

• The first configuration tested verified the separation characteristics of a single (outboard position) JSOW
jettisoned from the BRU-57 without an adjacent store on the BRU-57. This jettison was executed at the
intended end-point airspeed / Mach condition based on previous MK-83 LDGP jettison test results for the
same aircraft / rack configuration, the predicted JSOW trajectory motion, and the lack of adjacent hardware to
contact. Pre-flight predictions were representative of the observed motion, and little adjustment or additional
sensitivity analysis was necessary in preparation for Configuration 2 flight testing.

• The second configuration tested was also a JSOW jettison from the outboard position, but with an adjacent
JSOW present, representing an outboard first release sequence. Testing of Configuration 2 was abruptly
terminated after the first of three planned missions. The store separation analysis had indicated trajectory
motion for Configuration 2 could result in contact with the adjacent store, so the first demonstrated condition
was executed well below the airspeed / Mach condition expected to possibly result in contact. The first
release at the lowest planned airspeed / Mach came close to the adjacent hardware and adjusted post-flight
analysis indicated that demonstrating increased release limits was not worth the potential risk of store re-
contact. Although the pre-flight predictive accuracy of the 6-dof was not accurate to the inch, the
characteristic trends were captured and sensible flight test progression was selected based on that analysis,
thus in-flight re-contact was avoided.

The BRU-57 JSOW simulation was adjusted to reflect the results of the outboard position releases. It was
recognized that the simulation offsets applied for the outboard position were unlikely to be well suited for separation
predictions for the inboard position, but Configuration 3 trajectories were expected to have increasing tail clearance
due to the nature of the motion for that configuration (Fig. 25). The first inboard position configuration tested,
Configuration 3, represented the inboard first release for the same aircraft / rack / store loadout as Configuration 2.

a. IDAPS Data Reduction b. TGP Post-flight Prediction

Figure 25. Comparison of a post-flight 6-dof trajectory with a flight results for a representative release
condition. Inboard first jettison of JSOW from the BRU-57 at Station 7 is shown for Configuration 3,
with the adjacent 370-gallon fuel tank.

• Flight test results confirmed analysis predictions of severe store motion, with tail motion that would increase
the relative separation with the adjacent store. Pre-flight analysis predictions captured all but the yawing
characteristics of JSOW jettisons from this configuration, and post-flight simulations were readily adjusted to
more accurately match the 6-dof results with IDAPS reduced data. The adjusted simulation response,
including yaw orientation, associated with a typical adjusted post-flight trajectory is shown in Fig. 26.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Axial Translation, ft Pitch Orientation, deg

Lateral Translation, ft Yaw Orientation, deg

Vertical Translation, ft Roll Orientation, deg

Time, sec Time, sec

Figure 26. Position and orientation correlation for Configuration 3 flight test data, Pre-flight
prediction, and adjusted post-flight prediction.

The final flight tested configuration investigated the inboard first release for the same download sequence
represented by Configuration 3, but without the 370-gallon tank present. Configuration 4 trajectories were re-
analyzed with offset cases from the Configuration 2 and Configuration 3 post-flight matching effort. The options for
Configuration 4 flight test conditions were reduced to two approaches.

(1) Retain the planned starting release condition based on nominal Configuration 4 trajectory predictions and
the improved clearance indicated by Configuration 3 offset cases. The Configuration 3 offsets were
generated for jettisons from the same release position, but the characteristic motion was markedly different
from the predicted Configuration 4 motion.

(2) Revise the starting release condition based on the more pessimistic results generated using Configuration 2
offset cases, which were for a different aircraft configuration and release station. The primary consideration
for applying Configuration 2 offset cases was that configuration’s similarity with anticipated relative tail
motion from Configuration 4. Baseline predictions did not indicate contact at the planned condition, but
sensitivity analysis results indicated contact was possible.

Option 1 was selected. The planned release condition was not modified, and the initial Configuration 4 jettison
resulted in glancing tail contact with the adjacent BRU-57 store. (For this program, multiple release missions were
specifically avoided so that the most likely hardware to be struck was returned with the aircraft each mission.) Even
a slight contact between guided stores with control fins could result in the captive store becoming unusable and store
contact that might be acceptable for unguided munitions was strictly avoided for JSOW. The analysis predictions
were re-visited post-flight, and a lower airspeed / Mach was selected by analysis and safely flight tested (Fig. 27).

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a. IDAPS Data Reduction b. TGP Post-flight Adjusted Prediction
Figure 27. Comparison of an adjusted post-flight 6-dof trajectory with a flight results for a representative
release condition. Inboard first jettison of JSOW from the BRU-57 at Station 7 is shown for a
Configuration 4, without the adjacent 370-gallon fuel tank.

Axial Translation, ft Pitch Orientation, deg

Lateral Translation, ft Yaw Orientation, deg

Vertical Translation, ft Roll Orientation, deg

Time, sec Time, sec

Figure 28. Position and orientation correlation for Configuration 4 flight test data, pre-flight
prediction, and adjusted post-flight prediction.
The need to predict accurate yaw behavior for Configuration 4 was highlighted by the store re-contact
experienced during the initial release from that configuration. Conservative prediction of yaw orientation (increased
nose inboard yaw) was established with the simulation pre-flight. Successful flight test demonstration from that

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
configuration at alternative release conditions provided a basis for more accurate revised yaw and pitch behavior.
Post-flight simulations were readily adjusted to more accurately match the 6-dof results with IDAPS reduced data
(Fig. 28).
Even after three configurations were tested, five JSOW stores were jettisoned from the BRU-57, and a
substantial analysis effort was expended in support of the flight test condition determination, confident pre-flight
determination of the appropriate simulation offsets for Configuration 4 was elusive. The use of post-test correlation
derived simulation offsets are flight condition and aircraft configuration dependent and cannot be confidently
applied for higher airspeed / Mach conditions, or for differing configurations, as this example demonstrated.
These representative examples typify the experience for store jettison from the BRU-57; the simulation was
capable of producing accurate pre-flight results based on a wind tunnel data based 6-dof simulation. In situations
where the accuracy was less than desired, post-flight adjustments were readily devised to replicate flight behavior.
Issues associated with employment of weapons from the BRU-57 are not addressed in this paper. Employment
concerns such as MIL-STD-1760 umbilical retention hardware function, control system performance, or the
acceptability of a given employment scenario are all important to accurately ascertain, and they are dependent upon
accurate characterization of the jettison motion. Demonstrating the ability to accurately model jettison establishes
the validity of the aerodynamic database and the simulation technique, which supports employment predictions
dependent upon controls system modeling, control surface deployment, etc. In the specific case of the JSOW, there
is potential to expand the employment capability beyond the jettison capability. Employment envelope expansion
would be an expensive proposition without a confident simulation capability, requiring numerous expensive test
assets (to begin testing at/below demonstrated jettison conditions and incremental test progressions).

VI. Conclusion
In general, the analysis and flight testing methods that support parent pylon configurations are also applicable in
support of store separation of/from multiple-carriage weapon suspension systems. However, like any store
separation program, the limitations of the specific suspension system being tested need to be considered. The flight
test comparisons presented in this paper show that the analysis and testing methods used in support of store
separation associated with BRU-57 configurations were successfully implemented as intended.
The incremental flight test progression technique is implemented for most store separation tests, even when
supported by analysis. The fuel tank jettison testing from BRU-57 configurations confirms that the incremental
flight test progression technique is applicable in specific situations: without confident simulation; for a non-
developmental store; for a relatively inexpensive store (compared to associated mission costs); and for stores with
extensive flight legacies. This technique is a basic testing method that is applicable to all elevated risk (of store
impact) store separation flight testing.
CFD trajectory predictions in support of BRU-57 auxiliary suspension jettison testing produced mixed results.
However, the use of CFD trajectory predictions to support jettison of multiple-carriage weapon suspension systems
can be useful in mitigating risk for jettison flight test programs. In the case of BRU-57, trajectories were predicted
showing no threatening or unanticipated motion in proximity to the release aircraft, which supported the
determination of risk for the flight test program. CFD trajectory predictions may be useful to mitigate the risk of
single endpoint demonstrations for the numerous store configurations associated with multiple-carriage weapon
suspension systems, as long as the restrictions and assumptions used in CFD calculations are not violated. Currently,
however, the use of inviscid predictive techniques, used outside its limitations, still can provide useful predictive
capability in limited scenarios. (In this case the analyst was constrained by the flight test schedule to accept inviscid
solutions for a “tumbling” store and the predictions were used accordingly.) Ongoing improvements in the
applications CFD arena have already benefited store separation analysis for other multiple-carriage weapon
suspension systems and parent pylon configurations alike. CFD will provide a staggering benefit when a confident
absolute predictive ability can be established, due to the high cost associated with the demonstration of auxiliary
suspension jettison, the sheer number of configurations that must be addressed, and the problems associated with
legacy store separation wind tunnel test methods (i.e. instrumenting suspension equipment models).
Despite the different aerodynamic characteristics of JSOW and WCMD stores, jettisons of similar BRU-57/store
configurations with the two were quite similar. This suggests that for BRU-57/store configurations with similar mass
properties, the BRU-57/store configuration jettison characteristics are strongly influenced by the BRU-57
aerodynamic contribution.
The 6-dof store separation experience from the BRU-57 demonstrated that the simulation was capable of
producing accurate pre-flight results. In situations where the accuracy was less than desired, post-flight adjustments
were successfully devised to replicate flight behavior. The BRU-57 store separation analysis demonstrated that the

20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
tools used in support of external parent pylon flight testing can also be confidently used for predicting trajectories
for stores jettisoned from multiple-carriage racks with strong flow field gradients and minimal miss distances.

Acknowledgments
The work described herein is a consolidation of contributions made by a large segment of Air Force SEEK
EAGLE store separation and computational aerodynamics teams, and the authors thank them for their efforts and
their contribution to this paper.

References

1
Rizk, Magdi, Ellison, Steven and Prewitt, Nathan C., “Beggar – A Store Separation Predictive Tool”; AIAA Paper
02-3190, 32nd Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, St. Louis, Missouri, June 2002.
2
Veazey, D.T., “Documentation of a Wind Tunnel (4T) Test to Investigate the Separation Characteristics of Several
Stores from the Weapons Pylon and BRU-55 of the F-16 Block 40 Aircraft”; AEDC-TSR-97-P13, November 1997.
3
Price, Bryan, “F-16 / BRU-57 Initial Separation Testing with the MK-83”; ITEA Aircraft-Stores Compatibility
Symposium XII, Destin, Florida, March 2001.
4
Roberts, Eddie, “Lessons Learned: Limitations of Modern Tools and Applications for Store Separation
Prediction”; ITEA Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Symposium XII, Destin, Florida, March 2001.

21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics