A Program For Simulating Air-Launched Missiles

AIAA 2013-4015
Joint Propulsion Conferences

July 14 - 17, 2013, San Jose, CA
49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
2DZAP: A Program for Simulating Air-Launched Missiles
Andrew P. Pavacic1
Mundelein, IL, 60060
2DZAP is a stand-alone computer program for simulating the flyout performance of air-
launched missiles in 2-dimensional (2D) ballistic or constant-altitude trajectories. Users can
enter missile dimensions and launch conditions into a graphical user interface (GUI) and
save them for later use. The program displays a plot of the computed trajectory and a table
of instantaneous aerodynamic variables. Trajectory data can be exported to a text file for
later analysis (e.g. in MATLAB®). The program can be used to study the impact of
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-4015
individual parameters on the missile's flyout trajectory or launch zone against an airborne
target. Accuracy of computed trajectories is validated by comparison against NASA
simulations of the AIM-54C Phoenix and USN wind tunnel tests of the AIM-9L Sidewinder
air-to-air missiles, with agreement of key performance measures to within a few percent.
The program runs on Microsoft Windows® (PC version 98 or higher) and is freely available
from the websites www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/2dzap, www.uk-air.com, and
geimint.blogspot.com/2013/06/2dzap.html.
Nomenclature
α = angle of attack
α' = surface/fin local angle of attack
CN = normal force coefficient
Cn_D = drag component of normal force coefficient
Cn_L = lift component of normal force coefficient
δ = control surface deflection angle
Fpole = distance between launching platform and target at moment of missile interception
M = Mach number
Rmax = maximum launch range against constant velocity target
Rtr = maximum launch range against 6 G "turn-and-run" target
t = time
TP1 = burning duration of propellant 1 (boost grain), from moment of launch
TP2 = burning duration of propellant 2 (sustain grain), from moment of launch
WP1 = weight of propellant 1 (boost grain)
WP2 = weight of propellant 2 (sustain grain)
w p = total propellant weight flow rate
I. Introduction
C OMPUTER simulations are recognized as a valuable engineering design tool in both industry and education,
enabling reduced dependence on manufactured prototypes and rapid generation of results. Although simulators
used in missile engineering have historically been proprietary to government and industry, privately developed
computer programs for calculating the flyout trajectory of ground-launched rockets have recently become available
for public use.1-3 Such programs are used by the hobby rocket community and casual enthusiasts alike, and can
contribute to public understanding and informed discussion of geopolitical affairs.
2DZAP is a privately developed computer program for simulating the flyout trajectory of air-launched missiles,
intended for engineering students and military historians. Users define the missile characteristics and launch
conditions as a set of parameters, and the program iteratively calculates the flyout trajectory in a series of discrete
time-steps until a termination condition is satisfied. By this method, the missile's maximum aerodynamic range and
1
Electrical Engineer, Mobile Devices, 27 S Bristol Ct, Mundelein, IL 60060, Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2013 by Andrew P. Pavacic. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
other measures of performance are determined. Simulated trajectories are 2-dimensional (2D) and may be ballistic
or constant-altitude, with the latter including trim control at each time-step to maintain zero pitching moment.
Guidance control and lateral maneuvers are not modeled, however parameters of an airborne launching platform and
target can be entered to calculate launch zones of guided air-to-air missiles.
II. User Interface

The program user interface (UI) consists of a single dialog window for all data entry and display (Fig. 1). The
left side of the UI window contains data entry fields that are used to define the missile as a set of numerical
parameters. Additional data entry fields for simulation and launch parameters are located in the middle of the UI
window, together with a rectangular display area for plotting the trajectory. The right side of the UI window is
occupied by a table of instantaneous data values. Button controls for starting and stopping the simulation are located
in the lower left corner, and standard drop-down menu controls permit data files to be saved for later use.
Figure 1. The 2DZAP user interface.
Figure 2. Tabbed pages of data entry fields for numerical missile parametrization: (a) body, (b) fins,
and (c) motor (default AIM-7 Sparrow example shown).
Missile parameters define the weight and dimensions of the missile and its fins, and specifications of its rocket
motor and propellant. They are subdivided into separate, tabbed pages of data entry fields for the body, fins, and
motor (Fig. 2). Missiles are assumed to be axisymmetric, and to have one set of four fixed fins and one set of four
moving control fins. Tail control missiles without wings can be modeled by setting the surface area of fixed fins to
2
zero. Roll configuration is assumed constant during flight, and may be selected as either "+"- or "x"-oriented. Rocket
motor parameters support a dual-thrust (i.e. boost-sustain) propellant envisioning two grains in a single chamber,
both ignited simultaneously at the moment of launch, with each grain having independently defined weight, burn
time and center of gravity. Single-thrust (i.e. boost-only) motors are modeled by setting the weight and burn time of
the secondary (sustain) propellant to zero. Contrary to convention, center of gravity and fin leading edge positions
are defined with respect to the tail end of the missile instead of the nose; this was chosen to permit these parameters
to remain constant during experiments with nose bluntness diameter that may displace the missile apex.
Launch parameters specify initial conditions such as speed, altitude and elevation angle at the moment of launch.
The altitude and speed of an airborne target are also entered, in order to calculate launch zones and to implicitly
select either ballistic or constant-altitude flight for the missile. A key performance metric for air-to-air missiles is the
maximum launch range against a non-maneuvering target (Rmax), which exceeds the distance flown by the missile by
an amount proportional to target speed. A similar calculation determines the launch range against a "turn-and-run"
target (Rtr, or "no escape zone") that executes a 6 G course reversal at the moment of launch. Pursuit Rmax against a
receding target can be simulated by entering a negative value for target speed. The distance between the launching
platform and target at the moment of interception (Fpole) is also calculated, assuming both maintain constant velocity
after launch. Constant-altitude missile flight is implicitly selected by entering equal values for launch and target
altitude and setting the launch elevation angle to zero; otherwise, the missile follows a ballistic trajectory. Ground-
launched rockets can be simulated by setting launch speed and altitude parameters to zero and choosing an elevated
launch angle.
Simulation parameters provide control over the length and quantity of discrete simulation time-steps, to
accommodate cases where a compromise between trajectory precision and available computer memory is required.
The user can define a minimum missile speed to be used as a termination condition, and experiment with the
gravitational factor to adjust fin loading and induced drag in constant-altitude trajectories.
Missile, launch, and simulation parameters can be entered manually, or loaded from a suitably formatted text
file. Default parameters based on the AIM-7 Sparrow medium range air-to-air missile4 are built into the program,
allowing users to experiment with individual modifications to a working reference example. The output window of
instantaneous trajectory data values (e.g. dynamic pressure, angle of attack) is updated after every modification. A
UI button lets the user opt for metric or International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) measurement units, or to
have speed values expressed as Mach numbers (e.g. the button labeled "(4) Mach (ICAO)" in Fig. 1 indicates toggle
state 4, for which speed parameters are entered as Mach numbers, and trajectory data are displayed in ICAO units of
feet, nautical miles, and knots; clicking the button cycles its toggle state through four possible settings).
When the user initiates a simulation (e.g. by clicking the "Launch" UI button), a self-scaling animated plot of the
trajectory is shown in the rectangular display area. At each time step, atmospheric conditions including air density
and dynamic pressure are calculated for the instantaneous missile altitude and speed. Missile weight is
decrementally reduced as appropriate to model propellant consumption. If the launch parameters specified a
constant-altitude trajectory, nested iterative algorithms determine the missile angle of attack (α) and control fin
deflection angle (δ) required for trimmed level flight with zero pitching moment. From these angles, missile
parameters, and the atmospheric conditions, coefficients of drag and normal force are calculated. Base, wave,
friction, and induced drag coefficients are calculated (in accordance with Ref. 4) as separate contributions from the
missile body, fixed fins, and control fins, permitting users to identify dominant contributors to drag and
opportunities for structural optimization. The program calculates specific impulse from the exit nozzle geometry and
instantaneous local air pressure at each time-step prior to motor burnout, in order to model the effects of launch from
varying altitudes. After the lift, drag, weight and thrust forces are determined, the position, velocity, and acceleration
of the missile are updated, and the simulation advances to the next time-step. Calculated values of interest are stored
in a data array to record the time history of a 2D trajectory.
At each time-step, the program tests against an array of defined termination conditions (e.g. missile descending
to target altitude or until it hits ground, or decelerating below minimum velocity for controlled flight), some of
which may be set as user-entered parameters. If a termination condition is satisfied, the simulation stops, updates the
data in the output window (distance flown, maximum Mach number and altitude achieved, etc.), and displays a
notification message. The user may then either reset the program to start a new simulation, or resume simulating
until the next termination condition is reached. For detailed trajectory study, the user may advance through
individual time steps under manual control by using the "Single Step" UI button, in order to observe computed drag
coefficients and other data at moments not corresponding to a termination condition. The complete array of
trajectory data may also be exported to a text file for later analysis (e.g. in MATLAB ®).
Running on a modern example laptop computer equipped with a 2.8 GHz processor, 2DZAP simulated
trajectories (e.g. the Phoenix missile's April 1973 distance record depicted in Fig. 1) typically reach termination
3
within 2 to 5 seconds of real time. Constant-altitude flight through to ground impact, requiring a higher number of
calculations to determine trim angles at each time step, may run for 20 seconds or longer. The 2DZAP program
consists of a single executable file, requires no installation, and occupies 112 kB of disk space.
III. Aerodynamic Calculations

Aerodynamic quantities are generally calculated in accordance with the methods for solid propellant rockets
described in Ref. 4. Extensions specific to 2DZAP include support for an optional "x"-oriented roll configuration
and improved modeling of dual-thrust motors.
For constant-altitude trajectories, the program displays the induced drag and lift components of the normal
coefficients (Cn_D and Cn_L) as separate contributions, after applying a recursive algorithm to determine the
missile angle of attack (α) and control fin deflection (δ) required to counteract gravity with zero pitching moment.
For the cylindrical missile body, the induced drag and lift components are calculated from α and the normal force
coefficients of Ref. 4 as shown:
Cn _ Dbody  (CN ) Body sin( ) (1)
Cn _ Lbody  (CN ) Body cos( ) (2)
The induced drag and lift coefficients of the fins are similarly calculated from α. For a missile with "+"-oriented
roll configuration, only the horizontal fins contribute to lift and drag, and each pair may be treated as a single wing
surface as described in Ref. 4. If the user selects an "x"-oriented roll configuration, then a 45º rotation about the
longitudinal axis is applied, and the coefficients are doubled to account for four fins instead of two (i.e., two wing
surfaces instead of one). For the fixed fins, 2DZAP calculates these coefficients as:
Cn _ D fixed  2(CN ) Surface cos( / 4) sin( ) (3)
Cn _ L fixed  2(CN ) Surface cos( / 4) cos( ) (4)
where (CN)Surface is calculated in accordance with Ref. 4 as a function of the local fin angle of attack α', defined for
the case of a fixed fin in "x"-oriented roll configuration as:
 fixed  sin 1[cos( / 4) sin( )] (5)
For moving control fins, the induced drag and lift components must also account for control fin deflection angle
(δ). In the "x"-oriented roll configuration, the missile pitch and control fin deflection axes are not perpendicular, so
the induced drag and lift components are calculated from the normal force coefficient by three-dimensional matrix
multiplication, rotating the surface normal vector sequentially through the axes of deflection, roll, and pitch, with the
result:
Cn _ Dcntrl  2(CN ) Surfacecos( / 4) sin( ) cos( )  cos( ) sin( ) (6)
Cn _ Lcntrl  2(CN ) Surfacecos( / 4) cos( ) cos( )  sin( ) sin( ) (7)
where (CN)Surface is calculated in accordance with Ref. 4 as a function of the local control fin angle of attack:
 control
  sin 1[cos( / 4) sin( ) cos( )  cos( ) sin( )] (8)
Note that for the degenerate case δ = 0, Eqs. (6) and (7) reduce to Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively.
Motor thrust and specific impulse are also calculated in accordance with Ref. 4, applying a simple substitution to
support modeling of dual-thrust motors that have both boost and sustain propellant grains burning simultaneously
4
during the boost phase. The propellant weight flow rate for each propellant grain is assumed constant for the
duration of its burn, such that the contribution of each to the total propellant flow rate is its starting weight divided
by its burning time:
WP1 / TP1   WP 2 / TP 2 , t  TP1  TP 2


w p   WP 2 / TP 2, TP1  t  TP 2 (9)
 TP1  TP 2  t
 0,
Although the assumption of constant burn rate is an approximation (in reality, a sustain grain would burn faster
during the short time that the boost grain is simultaneously burning, due to increased chamber pressure), this model
was found to yield more realistic calculated values of thrust and specific impulse than modeling the propellants as
burning in sequence, for examples where public data on propellant grain ratio is available. 5
IV. Validation
A. Ballistic Trajectories
Functional accuracy of the program was validated in part by comparison against published NASA Dryden
simulations of the AIM-54 Phoenix long range air-to-air missile, which was decommissioned in 2004 and
considered for use as a hypersonic research platform in 2007. 6 Designed to intercept air targets at ranges exceeding
100 nmi by adopting a high altitude midcourse trajectory (for optimum drag and motor efficiency)7, the Phoenix
missile represents an excellent test case by operating across a range of Mach numbers, altitudes, pitch angles and
flight durations.
Figure 3. Comparison of launch elevation angle effects: NASA vs 2DZAP (Mach 1.2, 45,000-ft
launch conditions).
Figure 3 illustrates a comparison of Phoenix missile ballistic trajectories, as computed by 2DZAP and NASA
Dryden's in-house trajectory analysis code, when launched at a Mach number of 1.2, altitude 45,000 feet, and
elevation angles of 0, 30 and 45 degrees.8 High correlation between the two simulators indicates close agreement in
atmosphere model, aerodynamic equations, and missile parameters. NASA's simulated missile launch weight of
1024 lbs was used, together with Phoenix missile dimensions available from public sources. The rocket motor was
parametrized on the basis of published data9, nozzle dimensions estimated from photographs, and empirical
adjustments (not exceeding 10%) that were found to improve correlation with NASA simulated trajectories. The
varying launch elevation angle trajectories of Fig. 3 are especially helpful for comparing the atmosphere model,
5
since the missile reaches widely varying altitudes at burnout and apogee depending on elevation angle (27.5, 61.5,
and 78.1 kft burnout and 45.0, 64.9, and 112.6 kft apogee altitudes for the 0-, 30-, and 45-degree elevation angles
respectively, as computed by 2DZAP). Close agreement of the post-burnout trajectories throughout the missile
descent from apogee to sea level implicitly demonstrates atmosphere model commonality at all altitudes. Slight
differences in post-burnout trajectory not correlated to altitude are more likely caused by minor differences in drag
equations and parameterized missile dimensions. An observed 2.1% difference in the burnout Mach number of the
0-degree trajectory is likely dependent on motor modeling (i.e. propellant weight, or parameters affecting the
dependence of motor impulse on altitude).
Figure 4. Comparison of initial launch Mach number effects: NASA vs 2DZAP (45-deg elevation
angle, 45,000-ft launch conditions).
Figure 5. Comparison of missile weight effects: NASA vs 2DZAP (Mach 1.2, 45-deg elevation angle,
45,000-ft launch conditions).
6
Figure 4 compares 2DZAP and NASA simulated ballistic trajectories when launched at an altitude of 45,000
feet, elevation angle 45º, and Mach numbers 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2. In this case, the altitudes (61.2, 69.2, and 78.1 kft
burnout and 67.2, 86.6, and 112.6 kft apogee for launch Mach numbers 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2 respectively) are more alike
than in Fig. 2, offering a better opportunity to isolate differences in aerodynamic drag calculations that are
dependent on Mach number. Results from the two simulators are practically identical up to and shortly after motor
burnout. Differences in post-burnout trajectory are small and generally increasing with time, with low correlation to
Mach number. They may be caused by slight differences in the parametrized missile dimensions.
NASA's evaluation of the Phoenix missile as a potential research platform considered the substitution of
instrumentation payloads that could weigh less than the missile warhead and guidance sections they would replace,
thereby increasing maximum achieved Mach number. Figure 5 compares simulated trajectories when the Phoenix
launch weight (1024 lbs) is reduced by 85, 135, and 250 lbs (i.e. 8%, 13%, and 24%, respectively). Close agreement
between the two simulators in this comparison helps further validate the 2DZAP atmosphere and aerodynamic drag
models, thanks to an even wider range of covered Mach numbers and altitudes (162.3 kft apogee for -250 lb weight
reduction) than seen in Figs. 3 and 4. This comparison also helps isolate the simulated propellant weight, as the
acceleration curve of the missile is correlated to the fraction of its launch weight that is expended at burnout.
Assuming 390 lbs of propellant was found to yield the closest agreement in burnout Mach number and immediate
post-burnout deceleration between the two simulators. The 1024 lb launch weight of the original missile is thus
reduced by 38% to 634 lbs after motor burnout, whereas the 774 lb launch weight of the -250 lb reduced missile is
reduced by 50% to 384 (i.e., a 39% reduction of post-burnout weight with respect to the unmodified missile). It is
noted that the simulated propellant weight of 390 lbs, chosen to provide best agreement with NASA simulations,
exceeds the published value of 364 lbs by about 7 percent.9
The results of Fig. 5 permit reconsideration of the 2.1% difference in burnout Mach number observed for the
zero-degree trajectory of Fig. 3. Having eliminated differences in propellant weight as a possible cause, this
discrepancy is most likely due to differences in impulse sensitivity to altitude, which is primarily a function of
exhaust nozzle geometry. Good agreement between the two simulators for the 30- and 45-degree trajectories while
the NASA simulator exhibits a lower burnout Mach number for the 0-degree trajectory suggests that the NASA-
modeled rocket motor has lower specific impulse at low altitiude (i.e., is optimized for a higher operating altitude)
than 2DZAP's model. However, adjusted exhaust nozzle dimensions in the 2DZAP model were already found to
exhibit maximum specific impulse at altitudes greater than 100,000 feet. Therefore, no further adjustment was
deemed realistic.
B. Constant-Altitude Trajectories
Figure 6. Comparison of normal force coefficient, AIM-9 wind tunnel vs 2DZAP: (a) M=1.14,
(b) M=2.50. Burnout weight = 128.6 lbs, reference area = 0.1364 ft 2, "+"-oriented roll configuration.
7
Trim lift and induced drag calculations for constant-altitude trajectories were compared against available wind
tunnel data for the AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-to-air missile.10 Figure 6 compares the normal force coefficient
(CN), including contributions from the missile body, fixed fins, and control fins, for a "+"-oriented roll configuration
at Mach numbers M=1.14 and 2.50. Fin surface contributions to CN calculated by 2DZAP are based on slender wing
theory plus Newtonian impact theory for low Mach numbers, and linear wing theory plus Newtonian impact theory
for high Mach numbers, as described in Ref. 4. Whether a Mach number is high or low for a given fin surface
planform is determined by its aspect ratio. For the Sidewinder's fixed tail fins, slender wing theory is applied for
both M=1.14 and M=2.50. For the moving control fins, slender wing theory is applied for M=1.14, and linear wing
theory for M=2.50.
Differences between measured and computed values of CN appear primarily attributable to diminished
effectiveness of the forward control surfaces in the wind tunnel when compared against prediction (possibly due to
stalled condition for α + δ > 25º). This is most evident at low Mach numbers and angles of attack, as shown in Fig.
6a. At M=1.14 and α=8.5º, slender wing and Newtonian impact theory predict that deflecting the control fins from
δ=0º to δ=20º should raise total CN by 81%; however, wind tunnel data exhibits CN values that are higher for δ=0º
and lower for δ=20º, such that control fin deflection contributes only 10% effect. For M=2.50, the predicted control
fin contribution is based on linear wing theory, and agreement with measurement is somewhat improved: at α=6º,
control fin deflection is predicted to have up to 64% effect, compared to the 33% measured effect.
The AIM-9 Sidewinder thus represents a desirable test case for evaluating the practical impact of observed
normal coefficient discrepancies, as the aspect ratio of its control fins and the Mach numbers over which it operates
exercise multiple aerodynamic theories. The greatest impact of the discrepancies on predicted missile performance
was found to be an increase in the predicted maximum available load (e.g., approximately doubled for M=1), a
measure of performance that is not directly reported by the 2DZAP simulator. Rather, 2DZAP uses CN to calculate
lift and drag coefficients for trimmed constant-altitude (i.e. 1 G) trajectories, in which the values of α and δ are
lower than the maximum load condition during most of the missile's flight time. Diminished fin effectiveness was
simulated in 2DZAP by increasing the gravitational load factor from 1 to 2 G, forcing the missile to fly with
increased α and δ to maintain trimmed level flight. The calculated distance and time taken for a Sidewinder launched
at M=1 and altitudes of sea level and 10,000 feet to decelerate to a flight termination condition of M=1 changed by
less than 1% under the increased load factor. Time and distance to M=0.5, however, were reduced by 8% at sea level
and 13% at 10,000 feet, due to significantly increased α and δ at Mach numbers below M=1. Constant-altitude
trajectories (i.e. time and distance of flight) calculated and reported by 2DZAP might thus be considered as
maximally accurate for supersonic speeds, with diminishing accuracy (i.e. overestimated flight time and distance) as
the missile decelerates below M=1. A flight termination condition of M=1, which can be modified by the user as
desired, is thus chosen as a default high-accuracy setting for 2DZAP simulations.
Figure 7. Sea level thrust history: AIM-9 motor vs 2DZAP simulation model.
8
Calculated flyout performance of the Sidewinder was compared against the industry simulations of Ref. 10,
which were based on AIM-9 wind tunnel data and a rocket motor model having time-varying sea level thrust history
(Fig. 7). 2DZAP employs a constant-thrust model for boost-only motors, which was scaled to deliver an equivalent
14,084 lbf·s of total sea level impulse over a burn time of 4.8 s.
Simulated velocity and flown distance are compared in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The impact of the 2DZAP
constant-thrust motor model is apparent as increased maximum velocity around the moment of 2DZAP motor
burnout (at 4.8 s), followed by improved velocity agreement at the moment of reference motor burnout (at 6.2 s).
Figure 8. AIM-9 flyout velocity: 2DZAP vs industry simulator at sea level, 10 kft, and 20 kft constant
altitudes ("+"-oriented roll configuration and Mach 0.9 launch conditions).
Figure 9. AIM-9 flyout distance: 2DZAP vs industry simulator at sea level, 10 kft, and 20 kft
constant altitudes ("+"-oriented roll configuration and Mach 0.9 launch conditions).
Figure 9 indicates that the distance flown by the missile is relatively insensitive to fine details of motor thrust
modeling, so long as total impulse remains the same. It is noted that in order to match the zero-lift drag coefficients
9
reported in Ref. 10, it was necessary to add 0.431 ft2 base area to the Sidewinder body reference area of 0.1364 ft2,
representing the drag contribution from launching lugs and rollerons. This is supported in 2DZAP by a multi-
purpose "Additional Base Area" parameter, independent of the reference area that is calculated from the missile
body diameter. The additional base area was found to contribute between 25 to 37 percent of the total drag at Mach
numbers between 0.4 and 0.5, significantly reducing the relative contribution of induced drag from the fins below
M=1. The distance profiles of Fig. 9 thus identify the Sidewinder as an example for which the 2DZAP simulator can
provide meaningful performance predictions down to lower altitudes and Mach numbers.
V. Conclusion
A computer program for simulating air-launched missiles, possessing operational characteristics comparable to
software employed by government and industry, has been demonstrated, and is now freely available for public use
on personal computers. In addition to modeling ballistic and constant-altitude trajectories, the program's
optimization toward air-to-air missiles allows flyout performance to be conveniently framed in the context of an
aerial interception, where parameters of the launching platform and target affect key measures of performance.
Users are able to model existing rockets and missiles according to a growing body of publicly available data, or
experiment with their own modifications and original designs.
Identified opportunities for future development (e.g. as student work in an academic collaboration) include
adding support for new motor configurations (e.g. multi-stage motor or time-varying thrust history) and fin
geometries (e.g. grid control surfaces), improved correlation of normal force coefficient with wind tunnel
measurements (e.g. stall modeling), calculation of maximum available load, and expanded 2D trajectory options
(e.g. missile steering into lofted trajectory after horizontal launch, pitching downward after motor burnout, constant
flight path angle for surface-to-air missiles, or scripted maneuvering commands).
The 2DZAP program can thus help advance public understanding of air missile operational principles in
publishing and educational applications today, and may find new applications in the future.
Acknowledgments
A. Pavacic appreciates the patience and support of all who contributed their time and knowledge to this project.
He is especially grateful to Eugene L. Fleeman for encouragement and support of missile simulations in engineering
education, Thomas L. Moore for assistance with historical references, Taras N. Tataryn, Sean O'Connor, and the
University of Toronto for web hosting support, and George Lianeris for testing. He will always remember the love
and support of his family, who set aside their own projects and goals to help make this work possible.
This work is dedicated to the memory of those aboard Siberia Flight 1812, lost in an accident on Oct. 4, 2001,
caused in part by a poor understanding of how far a missile could fly.
References
1
Niskanen, S., “Development of an Open Source model rocket simulation software,” M.Sc. Thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology, Finland, 2009.
2
Forden, G., “GUI missile flyout: a general program for simulating ballistic missiles,” Science and Global Security, Vol. 15,
No. 2, 2007, pp. 133-146.
3
RockSim, Software Package, Ver. 9.1, Apogee Components, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 2011.
4
Fleeman, E. L., Tactical Missile Design, 2nd ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2006, Chaps. 2-3, 7.
5
Thiboutot, S., Ampleman, G., Lapointe, M.C., Brochu, S., Brassard, M., Stowe, R., Farinaccio, R., Gagnon, A., Marois, A.,
and Gamache, T., “Study of the deposition of ammonium perchlorate following the static firing of MK-58 rocket motors,”
Defence R&D Canada - Valcartier, DRDC Valcartier TR 2008-240, Quebec, Quebec, Canada, Oct. 2008.
6
Jones, T. P., “Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed (PMHT) Project Concept Overview,” NASA Technical Report ID
20070035912, Oct. 2007.
7
Bonds, R. and Spick, M., The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, Portland House, New York, 1987, Chap. 10.
8
Bui, T. T., Lux, D. P., Stenger, M. T., Munson, M. J., and Teate, G. F., “New Air-Launched Small Missile (ALSM) Flight
Testbed for Hypersonic Systems,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2006.
9
Moore, T. L., “Solid Propulsion Enabling Technologies and Milestones for Navy Air-Launched Missiles,” AIAA Centennial
of Naval Aviation Forum "100 Years of Achievement and Progress," AIAA, Reston, VA, 2011.
10
Rapp, G. H., “Performance Improvements with Sidewinder Missile Airframe Variants,” 17th Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 1979.
10

A Program For Simulating Air-Launched Missiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Program For Simulating Air-Launched Missiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA 2013-4015

Joint Propulsion Conferences

2DZAP: A Program for Simulating Air-Launched Missiles

II. User Interface

Figure 1. The 2DZAP user interface.

III. Aerodynamic Calculations

Cn _ Dbody  (CN ) Body sin( ) (1)

Cn _ Lbody  (CN ) Body cos( ) (2)

Cn _ D fixed  2(CN ) Surface cos( / 4) sin( ) (3)

Cn _ L fixed  2(CN ) Surface cos( / 4) cos( ) (4)

 fixed  sin 1[cos( / 4) sin( )] (5)

Cn _ Dcntrl  2(CN ) Surfacecos( / 4) sin( ) cos( )  cos( ) sin( ) (6)

Cn _ Lcntrl  2(CN ) Surfacecos( / 4) cos( ) cos( )  sin( ) sin( ) (7)

WP1 / TP1   WP 2 / TP 2 , t  TP1  TP 2

You might also like