Anda di halaman 1dari 93

NOLTR

73,77

00

fHE JOINT NOLiRAEIWRE

FIESEATICH PROGRAM

ON BOMB DYNAMICS PART IIl

A LOW.DRAG

BOMB WITH FREEL'Y SPINNING STABILIZERS

 

I-

KW.

Shannon

(WRRE)

 

J4

"',Tinner (RAE)

NK

L

ORDNANCE LABORATORY.

WHITE OAK.

SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND

 

0PPROVEO

FOR PUBLIC RELEASE;

DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

Best Available Copy

UNCLASSIFIED

(S~ecuily

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA.- R It 0

clossiftrauion of t1110,

I.oyof ebstraIt And intlexifrg a.nnoffrion nust b

I

OIGIA

TNG itht)20.

CILITY(Copo~to

cnt

ea

fleoh

eat

reafi

lsild

REPORT

SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

Naval Ordnance' L~a1oratory

,F

ýýva.2b.

White Oak, Silver Spring, Maryland

UCASFE

GROU0

N/A

REPORT TifLFE

The

Jolint AC'Lr/Z.AE/WRE Research

Part.1"I ....

A Low-Drag

...............

Bomb with

Program on

Freely

Bomb Dynamics

Spinning

Stabilizers

0 x SCR!PT%v a1 -c

s (I2Vp.

ae rclI and Inclum~Avdates)

I

FF.

3.

Regan (NU)L),

J.

Hi.

W. Shannon

(WRE),

J.

F.

Tanner

(RAE)

M:PXFX

ay197

I&. CON TRACe 00

GRANT NO.

[b.POETN.NOLTR.

74. TOTAL' NO. OF PAGES-

9a. ORIGIN

7b.

NO.

OF

RP

UbAS

24''EOT

73-77

EAIRTASI( No. A320-320C/WF-32-323-20

t0. DISTRIBmUTION STATRMZINT

ob THER

RE

ORT4016

(Any other nubee thot "tybe &q*1&asd

O

this

ERrepo

"RO'lA-TR-73060

R

W1-9l

K

Ak

-'

-Approved.-for public release;.distribution unlimited.

*

It

SUPPLEMCNTARY

NOTES

tS.

ASYRACTWashington,

I7St.S1PONSORING

MILITARY

ACTIVITY

Naval

Air Systems

Commnand,

D. C. 20360

The~present-decumbtt is,the third in a series of reports on

a tripartit

bomb dynamics research program. It presents results relating to the

study

of free-fall stores having freely spinning cruciform and mono-

plane stabilizers. The freely spinning stabilizer is designed to

minimize or eliminate the roll-induced forces and moments which have

I-0

been-shown to be a significant contribution to ballistic dispersion.

Wind-tunnel measurements of the static and dynamic characteristico of

these stabilizers are presented, along with computer simulations of,

-~

actual trajectories of instrumented full-scale research vehicles.

The mechanical feasi~bility of freely spinning stabilizers is also

considered.6!Various stability criteria# based upon linear analysis*.

a-edeveloped"6r" freely spinning stabilizers of various fin geometries

This report is being-issued simultaneously by the Naval Ordnance

Laboratory, the.-Royal Aircraft-Establishment and the Weapons Research

r'-*Uishment.

N)*

t

A

'PAPE 1)'~~<

'b

-

UNCLASSIFI1LD

./ ..

...

 

NOLTR

73-77

 
 

THE JOINT

NOL/RAE/WRE

RESEARCH

PROGRAM

ON

BOMB DYNAMICS

4

PART

III

A LOW-DRAG

BOMB WITH

FREELY

SPINNING

STABILIZERS

 

Prepared

by:

 

F.

J.

Regan

(NOL)

 

J. H.

W.

Shannon

(WRE)

 

F.

J.

Tanner

(RAE)

ABSTRACT: Research on the free-fall dynamics of bombs has been

conducted as a cooperative program supported by organizations in the

United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

In

addition

to

full-

scale

flight trials

of

instrumented

research

stores

carried

out

by

the

Australian

Weapons

Research

Establishment

(WRE),

wind-tunnel

tests have been made on mutually agreed upon models at the Aircraft

Research

Association

and

Royal

Aircraft

Establishment

(RAE)

in

England;

the

Naval

Ordnance

Laboratory

(NOL)

in

the

United

States;

and at the Aeronautical Research

Laboratory

in

Australia.

RAE,

NOL

and WRE have separately prepared digital computer programs to simu-

late test vehicle trajectories

using

wind-tunnel

measurements

as

inputs.

Correlation

between

the

predicted

and

observed

flight

results

has

provided

considerable

insight

into

problems

associated

with dynamic behavior

during

the

critical

release

phase,

as

well as

stability

criteria

needed

for

good

ballistic

consistency.

The present document is the third report on the research program. It

presents results relating to the study of free-fall stores having

freely spinning cruciform and monoplane stabilizers. The freely

spinning

stabilIzer

is

designed

to

minimize

or

eliminate

the

roll-

induced forces and moments which have been shown to be a significant

"

.

contribution

to

the

static

and

ballistic

dispersion.

dynamic

characteristics

Wind-tunnel

measurements

of these

stabilizers

are

of

presented,

along with

computer

simulations

of actual

trajectories

of instrumented

full-scale

research

vehicles.

The

mechanical

feasibility

of

freely

spinning

stabilizers

is

also

considered.

Various

for

stability criteria,

spinning

based

linear

analysis,

are developed ..

This

freely

stabilizers

of various fin geometries.

upon

report

is

being

Laboratory,

the

Establishment.

issued

simultaneously

by

the Naval

Ordnance

Royal Aircraft

Establishment

and

the

Weapons

Research

NAVAL

ORDNANCE

LABORATORY

WHITE

OAK,

MARYLAND

.-

.

_,

NCLTR 73-77

NOLTR

73-77

4 May 1973

THE JOINT

PART

III

NOL/RAE/WRE

RESEARCH

A

LOW-DRAG

BOMB

WITH

PROGRAM

ON

BOMB

FREELY

SPINNING

DYNAMICS

STABILIZERS

The purpose

of this

report is

to

summarize

the

tripartite

cooperative

8

free-.all research effort among NOL, RAE and WRE. A study was made

of

the

characteristics

digital

of various

computer

report

freely

spinning

programs

being

stabilizers

and

by

using

wind

tunnels,

trajectory

is

also

instrumented

the Royal

free-fall

weapons.

This

issued

Aircraft Establishment

as

RAE

Technical

Report

73060

and

by the

Weapons Research Establishment as WRE Report 904 (WR&D).

This project was sponsored by the Naval Air Systems Command under Airtask No. A320-320C/WF32-323-201. ROBERT WILLIAMSON
This
project
was
sponsored
by
the
Naval
Air Systems Command under
Airtask
No.
A320-320C/WF32-323-201.
ROBERT
WILLIAMSON
II
Captaln,
USN
Commander
LEON H. SCHINDEL
By direction
-.
.
~-I.,
-L
.
.
.
,-'t
"
"
-
4
.
:
-.
.
..
o
.
..
-.
.
,
.
.
S.
.
-
....
.
-
.
..
-
.
..
.
.
:. •
..
•,
-, ..
"V
•,
..

NOLTR

73-77

CONTENTS

 

Page

 

1.0

 

INTRODUCTION

........................................

1

*

SYMBOLS

...............................................

2

 

2.0

 

WIND-TUNNEL

TESTS

...........

5

3.0

FLIGHT

TRIALS AND

RESULTS

.............................

13

 

3.1

The

Test

Vehicle

13

3.2

Results

of

Instrumented

Bomb

Trials

..............

14

 

4.0

 

FREE-FLIGHT

AERODYNAMIC

ANALYSIS

......................

16

5.0

COMPARISON

OF FREE-FLIGHT

AND WIND-TUNNEL

MEASUREMENTS.

19

 

5.1

Cruciform

Stabilizer

.19

5.2

Monoplane

Stabilizer

.............................

20

 

6.0

 

FLIGHT

SIMULATION

..

.....

......

........

.

....

.........

20

7.0

DESIGN

FEASIBILITY

.

.

.

.

...*

.

.

.

. *

*

**4

.

23

8

0

CONCLUSIONS

24

 

REFERENCES

.,

24

APPENDIX

A

..........

................

A-1

 

TABLES

 

Table

 

Title

 

.1

Test

Conditions

for Naval Ordnance

Laboratory

Supersonic

 
 

Tunnel

No.

1

 

2

Physical

Properties

of Cruciform

Spinning

Tail

Instrumented

 

Bomb

Test

Vehicles

and

Impact

Deviations

from

Particle

 

S

.Trajectories

 

3

Physical

Properties

of Monoplane

Spinning

Tail

Instrumented

 

Bomb

Test

Vehicles

and

Impact

Deviations

fro4=

Particl

..

Trajdectories

 

4

Flight

Condities

for Aerodynamic Analysis

 

.ILLUSTRATIONS

 

1

Research

Store with Freely•

Spinniing Monoplane

and

 

Cruciform

Stabilizers

 

2

Sting Geometry forz ARA and NOL Wind-Tunnel Models of

the

 
 

-M823

Research

Store

 

.3

Normal-Force

M823

Coefficient versus Angle of Attack for the

with a Fixed-Cruciform

Stabilizer

Research Store

 

at a. Mach Number of 0.85

ijj

NOLTR

73-77

ILLUSTRATIONS

(Cont 'd)

Figure

Title

  • 4 Pitch-homent

Coefficient

versus Angle

of Attack

for the

 

M823

Research

Store with a Fixed-Crucifor-m

Stabilizer

at

a Mach

Number

of

0.85

  • 5 Damping-in-Pitch

Derivative

versus Mach Number for

the

 

M823 Research

Store with

a Freely

Spinning

Cruciform

Stabilizer

with

a

Fin

Cant of

4

Degrees

 

Side-Force

  • 6 and Yaw-Moment

Coefficients

versus Angle

of

Attack

at

a

Fin

Cant of

2 Degrees

and

at

a Mach Number

of

0.80

Side-Force

  • 7 and Yaw-Moment

Coefficients

versus

Angle

of

Attack

at

a

Fin Cant

of

2 Degrees

and

at

a Mach Number

of 1.20

  • 8 and Yaw-Moment

Side-Force

Coefficients

versus Angle

of

Attack at

a

Fin

Cant of

4 Degrees

and

at

a Mach Number

of

0.80

Side-Force

  • 9 and Yaw-Moment

Coefficients

versus Angle

of

Attack

at

a

Fin

Cant of

4 Degrees and at a Mach Number

•10

of

1.20

Wind-Tunnel

Normal-Force

and

Pitch-Moment

Coefficients

versus Roll Angle for the Monoplane

Stabilizer with a

Fin Cant

of

4 Degrees

and

at

a Mach Number

of 0.81

 

11

Wi~d-Tunnel

Side-Force,

Yaw-Moment

and

Roll-Moment

Coefficients

versus

Roll

Angle

for

the Monoplane

Sta.iliz•u

with

a

.in

Cant of

4 Degrees

and

at

Mach

Number

of

0.81

 

Comparison

of Wind-Tunnel

Data

Between

NOL

Supersonic

t'unnel No.

1iand

RAE,

Bedford

8x8-root

Tunnel

for

a

 

*

Configuration

with

a Freely

Spinning

Cruciform

 

*

Stabilizer

of

4-Degree

Fin

Cant at

a Mach Number

of

  • 4 0.7 0)

 

:

J

  • 13 Internal

Details of M823 Test Vehicle with

Cruciform

Tall

Spinning

14a

11823 Rounds with Freely Spinning Cruciform Stabilizers

.14b M823 Rounds with Freely Spinning Monoplane Stabilizers

15

Roll Rate

Histories

of Ta.l

and

Forebody

for

Rourns

16

'.17

18

.

.3

733,

734,

736t 737 and 738

Comparison of Simulated

Angle

and Measured

Flight

History of

to

of At.tack and Angle of Sideslip

Referred

.Measured *Flight History: of Angle

Referred

to Forebody

Axes for

Forebody

Axes

for Round 733

of Attack :and Slides~lip

Round

734

I?

Meastoed

leasredFliht

istoy o

Anle

f Atack

Flight History

of Ar5le of Attack

Referred to Forebody'Axes

or

Round

735

and

and

Sideslip

Sideslip

*

Comparison

Angle

of,

Simulated

anei Measured

u

Flight

History

to

of Attack

and Anglc

Sideslip

Refe;Wrmed

of

.20

*

Forebody

Axes

for

4Aound

737

Measured

Flight

I'ietory of

Angle

of

Attack

and

Sideslip

Referred to Forebody Axes for Round

Angle

737

of

iv

NOLTR

73-77

ILLUSTRATIONS

(Conttd)

Figure

Title

  • 21 History

Measured

Flight

of Angle

of Attack

and

Angle

of

 

Sideslip Referred

to Torebody Axes

for Round

738

from

Zero

to Ten Seconds

Measured

  • 22 History of Angle

Flight

of Attack

and

Angle

of

 

Sideslip

Referred

to

Forebody Axes

for

Round

738

from

Eleven

to Twenty-Four

Seconds

  • 23 of Free-Flight

Comparison

and

Wind-Tunnel

Measurements

 

on

 

a Cruciform

Tail:

Variation

of

Normal-Force

and Pitch-

Mcment

Coefficients

with Arale of Attack

Comparison

  • 24 of Free-Flight

and

Wind-Tun;iel

Measureemvnta

on

 

a

Cruciform Tail:

Variation

of

Side-Force

and

Yaw-

Moment

Coefficients with Angle of Attack for

a Mach

Number

of

0.70

and

a

Roll

Angle

of

22.5

Degrees

  • 25 of Free-Flight

Comparison

and

Wind-Tunnel

Measurements

 

on

 

.a

Monoplane

Stabilizer:

Variationof

Normal-Force

and

Pitching-Moment

Coefficients

with Angle

of Attack

for

a

Mach Number

of

0.70

26

Comparison

of Free-Flight

and Wind-Tunnel

Measurements

on

aMonoplane Stabilizer:Variation of

Side-Force

and

Yawing-

"Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for a Mach

Number

of.0.70

  • 27 Measured

Comparison

of

Round

737

and

Simulated

Trajectories

for

  • 28 Simulated

Release

at

45,000

Ft.

Altitude

with a Fin-Cant

 

Angle

of

0.401

Degree

  • 29 3Angle

Simulated

of

Release

at

3.44

Degrees

10,000 Ft.

Altitude

with a Fin-Cant

  • 30 .:Simulated Release

at

4,000 -Ft.

Altitude

with a Fin-Cant

 

Angle

of

3.44

Degrees.

A-1

ýBody and

Stabilizer Axis Systems

 

A-2

'Yaw-to-Spin

•Ratio

versus

Pitch-to-Spin

Ratio-

A-3

Yaw-to-Svin

Ratio

versus

Pitch-to-Spin

Ratio.

A-4

Yaw-to-Pitch

Ratio

versus

Spin-to-Pitch

Ratio

A-5

Amplitude

Ratio

versus

Spin-to-Pitch

Ratio for-a Yaw-to

A-6

Pitch Ratio of

0.5

Yaw-to-Pitch Ratio

axi~mim

versus Spin-to-Pitch

of Forebody

Ratio

for

Amplification

Asymmetries

".'

i

""

 

V

NOLTR 73-77

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The history of the Tripartite Bomb Stability Program has been

described fully in Reference (1) and only a brief summary will be

given here.

The work began in 1960 as a cooperative program between

the United Kinigdom (U.K.) and Australia to study the dynamic behavior

of free-fall weapons and to produce new design criteria for, such

weapons. Technical discussion between representatives of-the two

countri.es and the United States research establishments broadened the

aims of the program and since 1964~ it has been pursued on a tri-

partite, or cooperative, basis.

As a tripartite efforts the scope

of

the research

program was

extended

to

the

followling three

obj'ýctives.

 

1'

To provide a more rigorous check on the validity of

current stability theories by making correlations between the. fAll~-

scale research vehicle's observed behavior and that predicted fron.

its mathematical model using t~he most complete sets of wind-tunn-el

and

free-flight

data

obtainable.

 

~

2. To investigate ideas$ boý_th experimentally and theoreti-

or

to

oive

Weapons of greater tactical flexibility.

 
 
  • 3. To

develop

new experimental'methods

for

obtaining

aerodynamic-data.,

 

Within

the

context -of item

2

bv)attention

was

g iven 'to

the

*testing off novel stabilization

devic~es,

such

as

the

split-lakirt

stabilizer 'Ref. (0)).

The

results

of the

tripartite

investigatioa

of these stabilizers

is

documented

in

Referenceo()

A second ijiwvative stabilizer

is

the

froely

spinning

stabilizer.,

other hand,

In the freely spinning stabiliier the panels are -pcirmitted to spin

th' byslntu

about~~~

In

axls.

The

fox'ebody,' ontha

has littie

or

no

spn.rate-

The

ballistic

advantages

of this

type

of. stabilizer

are

an

follows':

I.The effects of the

ya-nue

ocsand

moments

assoeiated

with

the

fixed-.cruoiform

stabili~zers

can be minizized

tv

:eliminated ..

min-imizied.

1Bomb-airciiaft. separation disturbances. are. therefore

  • 2. The tuorent

of illertia

in

roll of

the

tail

cone

is

an

  • 40 order of Wagnitude less- than that of the coymplete conflIguration. S in ce only the f ins. ro -tate, they rapidly accelerate after release to a roll rate above the bomrbls -pitch frequency, thereby- avoiding roil-. YAW resonance.

NOLTR 73-17

  • 3. The freely spinning tail offers tactical advantages in

that it can be used as an envi-onniental sensor by replacing the

commonly used air-arming vane.

  • 4. The freely spinning monoplane stabilizer (in which two

opposing panels are removed) has attractiveness in meeting space

restrictions of underwing stowage.

The engineering aspects of freely spinning stabilizers have also been

considered.

*Following

the general Drinciples,- established earlier. in the

research-program, careful~ at'tention has been given

to wind-tunnel

testing and to matirmatical model-ng, making use of the six-degre-e-of-

freodoit computer programs. Free-flight-experiments w'are preceded by

*wind-tunnel tests. It should be emphasized that'ini addition to

determining the .aerodynamic performance of theffreely spinning

stabilizer,

the. importan~t

underlying

prin~ciple is

the evaluation

of

comiDuter trajectory modelinig as a tool in the prediction of bo-mb

performance,

 
 

SYMBOLS

 

moment

of

iner-tia

of

forebody

about X axis,

 

A 1

moment

of-inertia

of tail assemb1y about X -axi4.S

 

- moment

of1

inertia4 of complete ve~hicle about Y'or ~ai

Croll-momuoft

coefficient,

14

IQSd

4,d~iwn-roll

-derivativeD

3(d2

 
 

'~Pi't h-rf~ant

derivative. with respect

to

arig, e -of

*

C +

C

da~ping-in-pitch derxyivtive-, 8 /3q +

IC.(Ad/2u)

Zz

yaQ-mozent Ce 'icie*nt, H IQsd.

2

C

C-C

C

~

NOLT14R 73-77

Magnus moment derivative, aCn/a~pdf2u)

damping-in-yaw derivative, 3C /&(rd/2u) -ac

/a(Ad/2u)

~~normal-force coefficient, -C

;

...

'

Cnormal-force derivative with respect to angle of

C1

C

attack, aCN/3a

axial-force coefficient, T /Q 5

  • C side-force coeffi&cient, F /QS

y

y

  • C side-force coefficient due to aerody~namic asymmetry

 

I ~force

C

 

~~~Magnus

force derivative,

9C /¼(pdf2u) ............

Coefficient along Z: av is), F /QS

 

Z

force

coeffic-ient

a long

Z4axis

due

to ae-rodynamic

 

zo

asymmnetry

..

 

A

reference

lengtn,

a~rAdi~4a

body

diameter,

*

dr.ag. force

F.comnponent of aerodynamic forcie along the X axis

F

:omponent of aeodyi;ainic force-along

the Y aNi

 

1

Component,

of

aer-odynamic

for1ce

4 long

the

Z2

axis

  • 8 x

roll moment., maoment eb -ut ...

the

X axis

pitch moment,

momentnt

abo~jt' the

Y axi'S

 

H

yaw iwa.ent,

Moment

about the

z

axis

mass of Comp.lete airssil10

M

~mI/(1/403d).

P pd/2u P PPtotal 0 - q *,- Q ¾ r S s T u v
P
pd/2u
P
PPtotal
0
-
q
*,-
Q
¾
r
S
s
T
u
v
V
}.-
w
X
x
0
Y
"*
.
.
.plane
7b.ody
"a
w.angle
y
.
......
 

"NOLTR 73-77

 

spin rate

of

stabilizer,

component

of stabilizer

 

angular

velocity

 

along X axis

 

reduced

spin rate

 

spin rate

of forebody,

component

of

forebody

angular

velocity

along

X axis

 
 

pressure

 

pitch

rate,

.omponent

of

angular

velocity

along Y axis

dynamic

pressure,

 

I/2pu2

2

yaw rate,

component

of angular

velocity

along *Z axis

reference

area

2

ird /4

 

Laplace

transform

 

variable

 

temperature

 

component

of

free-stream

velocity

along

the

X axis

component

of

free-stream

velocity

along

the

Y axis

free-~stream velocity

 

component

of

free-stream

velocity

along

Z axis

body

axis

colinear

 

with

the

longitudinal

axis

of

the

store

location of

aerodynamic

asymmetric

force

from moment

refeven-e

center

 

body

axis

normal

to

the

longitudinal

axis

and

in

a

defined

by

 

two

opposing

fins

 

axis

forming

a

right-handed

triad

with

the

X,

Y axes

 

angle

of

attack,

tan

u

 

-lv

 

.of sideslip,

 

ta

-

orientation of body frame with respect

to angle

of

 

:ack,

tan

4

I

NOLTR

73-';

.M

fin-cant

angle

complex

angle of attack,

ia

+

damping

ratiu of

the

nonrollin,j

missile

in pitch

damping

ratio

of the nonrolling

missile

in yaw

tnondimensionalized

pitch-damping

factor,

•,•/p

1

nondimensionalized yaw-damping factor,

yzW/p

p

air density

inertia ratio,

A2

+

A1

P/P

B

rcll angle

12

basic

oscillatory

freqiencies

in

nonrolling

axis

system

2bas:

oscillatory

.Urquencies

in

rolling

axis

system

Wa

natural

frequency

of nonrolling

missile

in pitch

natural frequency

of nonrolling

missile

in

yaw

2.0

WIND-TUNNEL

TESTS

In order

to

meet the

goals

of this

research

effort

as

set forth

in the Introduction,

it

was

necessary

to provide

the computer

program

with highly detailed aerodynamic

measurements.

Even

from the

begin-

ning of this tripartite

effort there

existed

strong

convictions that

static

aerodynamic

measurements

alone

would

not

be

sufficient.

Dynamic

flow

effects,

about

field

that

is, aerodynamic

would

also

the body,

loads

have

resulting

to

be

from

measured.

a changing

In

1963

a critical

examination

was

undertaken

to determine

if

the requirements

of

a

program

with

this

scope

could

be

adequately

met

by existing

wind-tunnel

measurement

capabilities.

Static wind-tunnel

measurements,

it

was

felt,

did

not pose

any

difficulties

(Ref.

(4)).

Certainly,

the

determination

of the normal

force,

pitch moment,

side

force,

yaw moment

and the

roll moment

would

involve

only well-estab-

lised test

techniques.

However,

drag,

which

is

generally

included

under

static

measurements,

is

often of doubtful

quality when obtained

in

a

wind

tunnel due

to

the

sting

support

influencing

the pressure at

the model's

base.

Because

of this

pressure

disturbance,

drag measure-

ments would not

b. considered

part

of

this

program.

This

was not

thought to be a serious restriction

for

it

was

felt

that drag would

not

be

an

important

consideration

since dispersion

at

impact would be

°%S

*~

."s

.

 

_

_

_

_

_

kg

.Rik-

NOLTR

73-77

of

little

concern

in this

study.

Rather,

as motion

during

the first

 

20 seconds

of flight

was the

focal point of-the

simulation

work,

drag

variations

would

assume

a relatively

minor role.

This posi.tion was

 

amply substantiated

by

the

results.

Drag

variations

of

the

order of

20 percent

had little

effect

on

the resulting

angular motion of the

store.

In

the

trajectory

studias

of the freely

spinning

stabilizer

the

drag data used

was

the

zero

lift drag coefficient,

C

derived

from

the

free-fall

trial measurements of the M823 Research Store

 

with a fixed-cruciform

SI

stabilizer.

 

When the

need

for highly.detailed

wind.-unnel measurements was

 

first considered, it was recognized

that the determination of dynamic

effects in the wind tunnel involved techniques that were less well

established than were the corresponding static techniques. For con-

figurations with the freely spinning stabilizers there was no doubt

)I

thaC roll-damping,

required.

The

pitch-damping

were

stabilizers

and

large

Magnus

measurements

would

be

flat panels whose normals were

perpendicular

to the axis.of rotation;

the roll-damping

moment.

therefore, contributed by these surfaces would be influential in

determining the steady-state spin rate of the stabilizer. The

stabilizer

coupling,

Magnus

spin

rate,

as

in

in

turn,

is

influential

in

the yaw-pitch modal

load through

the

measurements

as well

contributing

an aerodynamic

effect.

In addition,

pitch-damping

and Magnus

were also required.

The roll-damping

data were provided

by

the

Royal Aircraft

Establishment

(RAE)

from :oll-damping

measurements

made

at the Air-

craft Research

Association

on

the M823 Research

Store with the

fixed-

cruciform stabilizer.

This approximation

was

felt

to be justified

on the grounds that the~ forebody's contribution to the damping-in-

roll derivative

would be negligible.

Hence,

roll-damping

measure-

ments

on

the

fixed-cruciform

weapon would

be equally

applicable

to

the case where the tail alone was allowed to spin.

NOL carried out both the pitch-damping measuremcnts (using the

free-oscillation

support)

and

the Magnus measurements.

In both

of

these tests only the stabilizer was permitted to freely spin, with

spin

torque

being provided

by

the

fin cant.

Static and pitch-damping measurements were carried out in the

Naval Ordnance Laboratory's 16- x 16-inch Supersonic Tunnel No. 1.

This

is

a one-atmosphere

blrodown

facility whose essential

flow

 

characteristics

are

given

in Table

1.

The Magnus

measurements

were

conducted in the Naval Ship ReRearch and Developmant Center's (NSRDC)

7-

by

tunnel

10-foot

Transonic

Wind

Tunnel.

has thze c apability

of varying

Unlike

the NOL facility,

pressure

this

the total

head from

one-half

to one at -aphere.

This

facility's relevant flow character-

istics under conditions of one atmosphere are also given in Table 1,

togethe:-with

Association's

corresponding

data

(ARA)

8-

by

9-foot

on 'che Aircraft

Tunnel.

Research

6

P~-:

NOLTR 73-77

The wind-tunnel models of the freely spinning cruciform. aind'

f:.-ely spinning monoplane configurations are shown in Figure 2 ...

will be noted

in

the upper figure

It

that the freely spinni-ng cruciform

one piece for each panel.

1) is then

ELprmlts rapid changes in cant angles.

with blankýi.

stabil.izer is fabricated iri four pieces:

The mon~oplaine stabilizer (lower illustration in Fig

..

formed by -removing two opposing fin panels and replacing these panels

The particular design of the model~s stabilizer also

U ~tests,

The wind-tunnel sting and model

tests

are

base

in

geometry

Figure

2.

for

the

NOL

and

In

the Magnus

ARA-static w~nd-tunnel

slhown

Q.OnciL~ted by NOL at the NSRDC facility,

sting-body geometry

closely approx.-mated that indicated in-the -lower illustration of

Figure 2.

'1Afive-component st-ain-gage balance was used both by NOL and

RAF i. makirg s4-atL.' measurements.

At NOL the sting

was mounted into

a rotating ser'aor arm to provide the angle-of-attack traverse re-

quia:ed by the teist.

After tunnel flow was, established, the model was

.rotated through an angle--of-attack range. During this time the

strin-agesig .als were sar-oled and recorded on magnetic tape.

The

Theutpu

ofthe data-~.oeduction program is-a plotting tape fj.'om

which a graphiýcal record can be made of the various aerodynamic

Whennoral-frceandpitching-moment measurements are made wi~th

the stabilizer freely spinning the roll angle dependency, usually

evident in these coefficients, is t1.verag,-d.` This is essentially

true of the side force and yaw

moment ,s well.

This force and momcnt

was

virtually zero for all confi--gurati(ns with a freely spinning

stabilizer (sea Ref. (5)).- -imilar measuremnents on the same model

-with the stabilizer' fixed indi.cated si.de-force and -raw-moment co-

effivierits whion varied periodi~cally T,-ith four times' the-roll angle.

-,.The freely spinning stabilizer,.in averaging these roll-induced

-effects,

essantially eliminates theL44 influence (.n bomb angular

motion. Also, si-ace the fr 'eely spinning stabilizer

-the

is uncoupled _'rom.

fbrebody) the induced rolling monL-nt applied to the forebody-Itay

.be neglected.

-With the above infor~aat-4on in hand, it was decided to simulate

the fivst ten

Peconds or so of the flight of the store after release.

.The resulting poor agreement indicated that the assumption- of Iteady--

state spin-conditions was invalid. Rather~, it seemed .,-ore accurate

-that-the stabilizer

was

in

a

condition. of

spin

ac:!eleration,

and

the

roll averaging noted above was not entirely ef.ffective. Consequently,

use was made of the statin measurements of the fixed-cruciform

stabilizer.

These measurements wer12 Used to express the roll

dep~endency of all the statio: uoefficients.

-.

7

NOLTR

73-77

and

Figures

3 and

4 present

normal-forc6

measurements

representative

static pitching-moment

used

in

the

simulation

of

the freely

spinning

cruciform

stabilizer.

It

will

be noted

in

these

figures

that these normal-force

and

pitching-moment

coefficients

have

strong

roll angle dependencies. References (5), (0) and (7) present a de-

tailed compilation of static wind-tunnel measurements used in the

computer trajectory

simulations

monoplane stabilizers.

of the freely

spinning cruciform and

A bomb generally

undergoes

damped

oscillatory

motion

in

response

to a disturbance.

The damping-in-pitch

derivative,

Cm

+

Cm,

is

a

measure of the influence of model shape on the rate at

q

which

these

oscillations decay. O~e~way

of determining this

quantity

in