HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK MISSILE AERODYNAMICS

- CHALLENGES AND PREDICTION METHODS

By

D.RISHIKA
(2009501037)

M.POORANI
(2009501028)

DEPT. OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING,

MADRAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
ANNA UNIVERSITY,
CHROMEPET, CHENNAI - 600044.

Guided by

Ms.S.RAMA
Scientist ‘F’
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY
HYDERABAD-500058

1
 ABSTRACT

The present and future generation missiles, specifically in air to air and surface
to air role demand high maneuverability coupled with agility in wide spectrum of flight
envelope. This has necessitated operation in high angles of attack range, which in turn
poses few aerodynamic challenges. The flow phenomenon associated with high angle
of attack is extremely complex, aerodynamic characteristics are highly nonlinear and
multiple prediction methodologies need to be utilized. Reliable aerodynamic
configuration design and characterization is critical for trajectory simulation and system
modeling.

Comprehensive literature survey has been carried out to understand the flow
physics, challenges involved in high angle of attack aerodynamics and methods used
for aero characterisation in this regime. The synthesis covering need aspect of high
angle of attack in missile aerodynamics, physics associated with complex flow regime,
major challenges encountered during high angle of attack operation and various
methods utilized to predict the aerodynamic characteristics are presented in this note.

2
Sno. Contents Pg no.

Abstract 2
List of figures 4
1 Introduction 5
2 Need for high angle of attack in missiles 5
3 High angle of attack aerodynamics and associated problems 6
3.1 Vortex regions 7
3.2 Physics of vortex shedding 10
3.3 Reynold’s no. effects 12
3.4 Effect of roll angles 15

3.5 Nose geometry effects 16

3.6 Afterbody effects 18

3.7Lifting surface effects 19

4 Prediction methods 21
4.1 Semi Empirical methods 21
4.2 CFD techniques 23
4.3 Wind tunnel techniques 25
5 Conclusion 29
6 List of references 30

3
 List of figures

Fig.1 Vortex generation regimes

Fig.2 Flow at various angles of attack regimes

Fig.3 Slender body flow topology at high angles of attack

Fig.4 Slender body flow topology at high angles of attack

Fig.5 Two Dimensional crossflow about a cylinder

Fig.6 Side force/Normal force Vs Reynolds number

Fig.7 Variation of side force co-efficient with roll angle for a slender body with a
natural tip at various angles of attack

Fig.8 Variation of side force with angle of attack for various roll angles on a tangent
ogive cylinder LN /D = 3.5, M ∞, Re d = 0.8 * 106

Fig.9 Flow over a Delta Wing

Fig.10 Delta wing flow topology at medium angle of attack

4
HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK MISSILE AERODYNAMICS -

CHALLENGES AND PREDICTION METHODS

1. Introduction
There is a continuous growth in aerodynamic design requirements in various
classes of missiles under development in Indian and International scenario with
extended envelope of operation in terms of speed, altitude, maneuverability and agility.
Since the missiles are expendable unlike airplanes, maneuverability and agility
requirements are achievable by operation in higher angles of attack range. The high
angle of attack flow regime is highly nonlinear and complex and poses several
challenges to missile aerodynamicists. This is one of the frontier technological areas
in missile aerodynamic design and development. Hence, a systematic effort has been
made to understand the need aspect of high angle of attack aerodynamics, complex
flow physics, challenges involved and the capabilities of various techniques used for
prediction based on available literature. The details are presented in this note.

2. Need for high angle of attack in missiles

Operation in high angle of attack is encountered at various phases of missile
flight to cater to different mission requirements. They can be broadly classified into
three categories:
a) Maneuverability and agility requirements during terminal phase which can occur
from subsonic to hypersonic M, depending on the missile role (Ref.1, Ref.18)
b) Launch phase where the cross wind speeds are almost equal to the missile forward
velocity (Ref.2)
c) Helicopter launches (Ref 3)
The details of each of these cases are elaborated in this section.
Super maneuverability and high agility are very important performances for
modern tactical missiles. To achieve them they have to fly at high angles of attack,
even at a post stall state. In the air-to-surface missile launch at arbitrary aircraft
attitudes requires the missile airframe to be able to maneuver effectively through the
high angle of attack regime to ensure successful target intercept. Modern stealth
fighters are able to approach targets at close ranges without being detected. This

5
capability may require unusual missile launch geometries to ensure mission success.
For instance, in order to ensure a safe egress out of hostile territory, a missile launch
might be required while the aircraft is heading away from the target. Another launch
scenario may involve large magnitude missile maneuvers to avoid known obstacles in
order to achieve target intercept. In all these cases, the missile will encounter the high
angle of attack flight regime.
Vertical launch surface-to-air missiles (VLSAM) have their own unique
trajectories, allowing them to point at their targets after launch. As the VLSAM
exits the canister it enters the environment at low velocity and is subject to
potentially significant crosswinds. The resultant of the missile and crosswind
velocities could be a high angle of attack flow about the missile.
The use of helicopter launched missiles has mandated the need for high angle of
attack. While most missiles will never experience a geometric angle of attack of 90
degrees, a missile that flies through a helicopter rotor wake will experience a cross flow
that can equate to an effective 90 degree angle of attack. For example, as the missile
leaves the launch rail at a zero degree angle of attack, the rotor wake will impart a
velocity perpendicular to the missile. Depending on the missile launch profiles, the
rotor downwash can result in angles of attack approaching 90.

3. High angle of attack aerodynamics and related problems

High angle of attack aerodynamics is commonly perceived as arising on a
missile physically at a high angle of attack with flow separation occurring at leading
edges. The underlying flow (Ref.4) is that of a heavily loaded lifting surface, operating
at other than optimum lift-drag ratio. High-α is any situation in which a missile or any
of its components encounter off-design, high lift flight, and includes attached flows,
uncontrolled separated flows and organized flow separation in the form of vortices,
shock waves and a combination of these flow conditions. High angle of attack regime
encompasses local and global flow fields that can occur at subsonic through hypersonic
speeds. The flow fields can be highly interactive and either static or dynamic in nature.
One of the most important and fascinating issues in the field of high angle of
attack aerodynamics is the asymmetric vortex flow and associated side force generated
on the forebody of aircraft, which may happen even when the forebody is axisymmetric
and at zero sideslip. This phenomenon was first discovered by Allen and Perkins in the
early 1950s; since then, a great number of studies in this subject have been carried out

6
and tremendous progress has been made, and many review papers have been published.
However there are still some very important problems about the asymmetric vortex
flow, which are both ill understood due to the complexity and high non-linearity of the
flow and less studied due to the limitation of wind tunnel equipments. The main
problems are as follows:
(1) The flow mechanism underlying asymmetric vortex shedding resulting in side
forces and corresponding moments.
(2) Non-linear effects of various parameters on asymmetric flow

3.1 Vortex Regions

As a slender unyawed body changes angle of attack α from 0°-90°. The airflow
over the missile body transitions through four regimes as described by lricsson
and Reding. These regimes are characterized by the changing vortex patterns and
the resulting induced in-plane (normal) and out-of-plane (side)forces and moments
which act on the missile at zero side-slip and at high angles of attack. (Ref.2,
Ref.5)

These regimes are bounded by:

αSV - the angle of attack at which steady symmetric vortices are formed.

α AV- the angle of attack where steady asymmetric vortices are formed.

αUV - the angle of attack where unsteady vortices are formed.

Regime I - [ 0°<α < αSV ]

Low angle of attack (attached, symmetric, steady flow, linear lift variation)

The axial flow dominates and flow around the body remains attached for pointed
noses. If the nose is blunted, a separation bubble may occur .

Regime II - [αSV<α< α AV ]

Medium angle of attack (separated, symmetric rolled-up vortices, steady flow, non-
linear lift variation);

7
The crossflow begins to push the boundary layer to the leeward side where it
separates and a system of two or more pairs of symmetric vortices are formed.
These vortices originate at the nose of the body. For long bodies, more pairs of
symmetric vortices are generated along the body length. The number and strength
of the symmetric vortices increase with angle of attack. Symmetric vortices
typically start at αSV ≈5°

Regime III - [α AV <α < αUV]

High angle of attack (separated, asymmetric rolled-up vortices, steady/unsteady flow,

non-linear lift variation)

Crossflow begins to dominate, shedding asymmetric vortices which induce out-of-

plane or side forces on the body. These asymmetric vortices are relatively
steady, but may change from side to side at higher angles of attack near the
maximum side force magnitude . In some cases the side forces may exceed the
normal force. The vortices which are the most asymmetric yield the highest side
force magnitude. This regime typically starts at α AV ≈20°.

Regime IV - [αUV<α< 90°]

Very high angle of attack (separated, unsteady turbulent wake, post stall).

The crossflow dominates completely and flow separation becomes unsteady and
dependent on Reynolds number. At the critical Reynolds number the boundary
layer separates then re-attaches as a turbulent vortex sheet. The boundary layer is
shed as a random wake at supercritical Reynolds numbers, or a von Karman
vortex sheet at subcritical Reynolds numbers. Normal Force magnitude will
plateau and side force magnitude decreases to zero. This regime has been
observed to begin at αUV ≈60°.

8
Fig 2: Flow at various angles of attack regimes

9
3.2 PHYSICS OF VORTEX SHEDDING

An example of an axisymmetric slender body at medium angle of attack is

shown in Fig. 3. The flow separates in the crossflow plane and wraps up into two,
counter-rotating, symmetric vortices. These vortices then lift away from the fuselage,
and new vortices begin to form further downstream. The crossflow flow field topology
at one of the downstream crossflow planes is shown in Fig. 3. When the high angle
of attack regime is reached, the vortices become asymmetric, creating a flow topology
as shown in Fig. 4. At higher angles of attack, the adverse pressure gradient of the wing
causes vortex breakdown to take place, yielding an unsteady and highly non-linear flow
field. The breakdown location moves forward as the angle of attack is increased, further
complicating the features of the flow field.

The crossflow approaches the fuselage from the wind-ward side and forms a
boundary layer due to adverse pressure gradient that eventually separates at location
φS1 when momentum of the fluid element is insufficient to carry it into the region of
increasing pressure (see Figs 3 and 4).

The separated flow creates a pair of primary vortices that reattach at locations
marked φ A. The primary vortices induce an outward flow on the leeside of the
fuselage that eventually separates at φS2 to form secondary vortices. The secondary
vortices can also create tertiary vortices, with each set of vortices rotating in

10
opposite directions from the set above them. When the vortices are asymmetric,
as shown in Fig. 4, the pressure differences between the left and right side of the
fuselage cause a side force on the configuration which can often produce
significant yaw moments due to the large moment arm to the forebody or strake.
The flow topology is quite complex with separation points/lines (primary,
secondary, and tertiary, etc.), attachment points/lines, and vortex interaction. This
viscous-dominated flowfield is highly non-linear and can lead to complex flow
topologies, such as vortex breakdown.

The leeside vortices are gradually strong and enlarged because the vorticities were
continuously fed into the vortex cores from the primary separated lines. So it means
that the asymmetry must happen under a certain condition at which the strength of
vortices is strong enough. On the other side, the larger apex angle deduces higher onset
angle, supposing that the larger apex angle would lead to larger distance of a couple of
vortex cores on the nose and affecting the spread downstream. According to fore goings
it seems that the formation of the asymmetric vortices is related to the interaction of a
couple of symmetric vortices which are strong enough and occupy certain space. The
crowded interaction effect would happen and finally lead to change the status of a
couple of vortices, i.e. transforming to asymmetry from symmetry. As the result of
crowded interaction of a couple of vortices one of them occupies the main space on the
leeside of the body and locates near the body but another is pushed out away, the
asymmetric vortices are formed in this way. In other words if a couple of vortices are
not strong enough and not close enough, a couple of vortices would maintain the
symmetric status, even there is the mutual influence of two vortices but not crowded
interaction.(Ref 5)

Many researchers have related the unsteady two-dimensional von Karman vortex
street to the steady three-dimensional vortex array, by using the principle of
space-time equivalence. By this principle, flow development is related to time,
measured either from the beginning of an impulsive two-dimensional motion or
from the instant a fluid particle makes contact with a three dimensional body. In the
latter case, time is defined by a distance travelled along the body and the axial
component of freestream velocity. The steady asymmetric flow on the body results in
the generation of steady side forces and yawing moments on the body. Since the
asymmetric flow is steady, side force distribution along the length of the body is
11
sinusoidal and each maximum corresponds to the detachment of a vortex sheet from the
body. (Ref.6)

3.3 REYNOLDS NUMBER EFFECTS

Airflow over the missile body can be divided into normal and axial components.
The axial flow component follows along the missile body length and the
crossflow is essentially a two dimensional flow normal to a cylinder. The
crossflow analogy provides information for cylinder lift and drag which act in
the direction of the crossflow as seen in Ref.2. Side forces may exist at right
angles to the crossflow depending on the type of flow separation on opposite
sides of the cylinder. Mechanisms behind boundary layer transition and separation
provide an explanation for flow separation and subsequent asymmetric vortex
generation effects. The crossflow Reynolds number is the primary factor which
influences the separation point of the boundary layer. Viscous flow, surface
roughness, and turbulence are other factors which influence boundary layer
separation. Achenbach classified the flow around a cylinder into four distinct
regions delineated by differing flow separation and drag behaviour. These regions
are shown in Figure 5 and discussed below.

In the subcritical range the boundary layer is laminar and flow separation occurs
close to the lateral meridian where φ is defined as the angle from the direction
of the crossflow, varies from 80° to 90°. Asymmetric subcritical separation occurs
at φ≈90° where the side force just begins to reach a noticeable magnitude.

When the Reynolds number enters the critical range, the laminar boundary layer
separates from the body at φ≈90° and re-attaches as a turbulent boundary layer
which separates again from the surface at φ≈140 ° . Between the laminar
separation and the turbulent re-attachment, a laminar bubble is formed. In this
region, the flow separation can easily change back and forth from critical to
subcritical for small chances in Reynolds number. The changes occur on opposite
sides of the cylindrical section and when critical separation exists on one side of
the body and subcritical separation on the opposite side. a large difference in φ
from opposite transition points is possible. When this critical and subcritical
combination occurs, an asymmetry is observed in the generated vortices. The
pressure difference on opposite sides of the lateral meridian will produce the

12
side force. For the largest difference in φ the vortices will be at maximum
asymmetry, and the side force at the highest magnitude as seen in Figure 6.
The asymmetric vortices may also become susceptible to altering back and forth,
hence the cyclic change in the direction of the induced side forces. Maximum side
force occurs at the critical Reynolds number, making it an important parameter.

As the Reynolds number increases into the fully critical range, laminar transition
moves towards the direction of the crossflow. Turbulent separation will move
forward to φ < 140° and the laminar bubble is no longer formed. Asymmetric
critical separation occurs simultaneously on opposite sides of the body. The
asymmetric vortices produce nearly equal surface pressures at the lateral meridian
because the separation asymmetry only affects the surface pressures at φ >140°.
In this range the vortices are ineffective at producing a significant side force and
a sudden decrease in magnitude occurs as shown by the curve in Figure 6. The
boundary layer thickens and viscous properties of the fluid are the dominant
factor. Drag reaches a minimum.

Finally as the Reynolds number increases further to supercritical and into the
transcritical range. The laminar transition point works towards φ≈0 ° and
turbulent separation occurs at φ≈100°. The asymmetric transcritical separation
point moves towards the lateral meridian where the asymmetric vortices once
again produce a significant side force. Drag will continue to rise and settle out
at a level lower than subcritical conditions.

The Reynolds number dictates the greatest influence on the normal force and
drag characteristics, especially within the critical range. Maximum normal forces
on the missile should occur when the boundary layer flow is completely laminar
or completely turbulent, because crossflow drag is high. Surface roughness and
viscous effects are also present. Experiments by Lamont and Wardlaw show that
maximum asymmetric loads follow the same behavior as the normal force with
the lowest vortex induced side forces occurring at transcritical conditions. The
largest lift to drag ratio occurs at the critical Reynolds number where drag is a
minimum. Maximum vortex asymmetry has been observed to occur at the critical
subcritical Reynolds number explained above. Thus the maximum side force to
normal force ratio may be expected to be found at the critical Reynolds number.

13
 Fig 5: Two Dimensional crossflow about a cylinder

Fig 6: Side force/Normal force Vs Reynolds number

14
3.4 Effect of ROLL ANGLES

Fig 7: Variation of side force co-efficient with roll angle for a slender body with a
natural tip at various angles of attack

Fig 8: Variation of side force with angle of attack for various roll angles on a
tangent ogive cylinder LN /D = 3.5, M ∞, Re d = 0.8 * 106
15
In figures 7 and 8, there are four flow patterns (Ref.1):

(1) Symmetric vortex wake flow pattern at low angles of attack, where the side force is
near zero and there is no effect of roll angles;

(2) Asymmetric vortex wake flow pattern I at middle angles of attack, where the side
force varied with roll angles continuously like a sinusoid;

(3) Asymmetric vortex wake flow pattern II at high angles of attack, where the side
force varied in a square-wave and two-cycle form with roll angles, as shown in Fig. in
the range of angle of attack40° <α< 60° The asymmetric vortex flow in this regime
exhibited a mirror image state, called a bi-stable state. Most side force values located at
a regular state where the side forces reached the maximum value in either of both
positive and negative direction at α = 53° in Fig 7. The transition states can exist as
shown at α = 44° and they are located at the cross-over regions with almost zero side
force. In order to find the correlation between the side force and the asymmetric vortex
flow structure with roll angles, Dexter and Hunt applied the tuft grid visualization
technique to study the special flow structure for the asymmetric vortex. It was found
that the asymmetric vortex flow patterns were changed into their mirror image through
the crossover regions as the slender body model was rolled, which corresponds to the
side force values in the regular state. At any fixed roll angle, the vortex wake in the
regular state regime was completely repeatable and stable. However, if the roll angle
falls into the cross-over region, the vortex flow pattern appears symmetric, which
corresponds to the side force near zero with rather strong vibration.

( 4) Karman Vortex-Street-Like Flow Pattern at very high angles of attack (e.g. α ≥

65◦), where the vortex wake flow would be shed in a manner similar t o Karman vortex
street, so the magnitude of the time average side force coefficient dropped to zero, as
shown in Fig 7.

3.5 NOSE GEOMETRY EFFECTS

The initial separation point of the shed vortices occurs at the nose of the slender
body. These vortices shed from the nose will dominate other vortices shed along
the body length. Thus the nose geometry becomes an important factor in vortex
generation and disposition. Axisymmetric missile nose geometry falls into two shapes:

16
cones and ogives, both pointed and blunt. Noses are dimensionalized for comparison
by their length to base diameter ratio or fineness ratio, (l/ d)nose

Two different types of vortex asymmetry can occur (Ref 2):

1. On a pointed, slender body steady vortex asymmetry usually begins at the

nose and the frequency at which the vortices are shed increases with angle of attack.

2. On slightly blunted bodies steady vortex asymmetry usually begins at the aft
end of the body and with a further increase in angle of attack, the asymmetry
becomes stronger and moves forward until it reaches the nose tip of the body
at high angles of attack. Alternate vortex shedding does not occur as readily,
and thus side force cells are much larger and can cover the entire cylindrical body.

For pointed conical and ogive noses, observations indicate that αAV occurs as a
function of the semi-vertex angle θA. At all Mach numbers, asymmetric vortex
shedding begins when the angle of incidence is greater than the apex angle of the
nose where θA=θC, for a conical nose.

For a tangent ogive nose(is constructed from a constant radius arc with the center
of the arc Iying in the plane of the base of the nose and some distance away
from the nose axis.) , with length lN and base diameter d:

A close approximation for slender- bodies is:

For pointed ogive-cylinders with and without afterbodies show that small
variations in roll angle alter the asymmetric vortex structure and side forces. The
surface imperfections and deviations in the nose axisymmetric geometry are the

17
sources of this phenomenon. The direction and magnitude of the side force becomes
unpredictable.

Blunting the nose may cause a second type of asymmetric vortex shedding to
develop at the rear of the nose. The blunt nose causes a separation bubble to
form on the leeward side of the nose. Asymmetric vortices originate at the rear
of the blunted nose, and tend to dominate the induced effects from the afterbody
vortices. The asymmetric vortices generated by a blunted nose do not alternate
from side to side as readily as those generated a pointed nose. Side force
magnitudes are also reduced.

Nose fineness ratio has an effect on the asymmetric vortex induced side force. In
general side force magnitude increases with larger nose fineness ratio. As the
nose fineness ratio increases, the nose apex angle decreases and the angle of
attack for the onset of asymmetric vortices will decrease. Thus, a missile with
high nose fineness ratio may become more susceptible to induced side forces at a
lower angle of attack than a missile having a lower nose fineness ratio.
Jorgensen demonstrated that decreasing the nose fineness ratio is more beneficial
in reducing side force than blunting the nose .

3.6 AFTERBODY EFFECTS

The presence of the afterbody at a constant roll angle has almost no effect on
vortex generation from the pointed nose of slender bodies . The first pair of
vortices generated by a pointed nose will set the pattern for vortices shed along
the body. The afterbody will also shed asymmetric vortices, but these will not
affect the nose vortices generation, although the afterbody forces will contribute
to the overall magnitude of induced forces from the nose-body combination.
Should the afterbody roll angle change, with nose roll angle remaining constant,
the afterbody vortices will change the side force magnitude and direction as
shown in research by Kruse. Since the nose and body of a missile do not rotate
independently of each other, the vortex system generated by the nose should still
dominate afterbody vortices on an axisymmetric missile configuration.

18
Afterbody vortices from a blunt nose missile remain closer to the body and are
easily shed throughout the missile length. Thus blunting the nose will reduce the
effects of vortex asymmetry and the induced side force. (Ref.2)

3.7Lifting surface effects

3.7.1 WINGS

Compared to aircraft, missiles generally use low aspect ratio wings. Mutual effects
from a wing-body combination are important since in some cases the missile
wing span approaches body diameter as in Ref.2. Nose vortices dictate flow behavior
over the missile body at high angles of attack. In turn, the effects may also be felt
by the wings. Without wings the nose and body vortices tend to move away
from the body with increasing angle of attack. The addition of wings causes the
vortices to take a different trajectory, moving them closer to the body. As the
vortices move closer to the body the result is comparable to increasing the
effective angle of attack causing unsteady asymmetric vortices.

A significant fraction of the normal force from a missile wing is proportional to

the square of the angle of attack. This is attributed to the vortex lift effects from
flow around a sharp leading edge delta wing (A common wing planform shared
by numerous missiles.). As vortices curl around the wing leading edge a low
pressure area forms on top of the wing providing lift as shown in Figure 9
below. Since a cruciform missile has an equilateral wing arrangement, equal lift
may be provided in the normal and side directions depending on the wing angle
of attack to the flow. For wings with low aspect ratio, a large proportion of the
lift generated by the wing will be due to vortex lift. The net effect of the wing-
body combination seems to be a reduction In the effective angle of attack for the
onset of asymmetric vortices and side forces.

19
Fig 9: Flow over a Delta Wing

(left drawing shows vortices curling over sharp leading edge for low Reynolds
numbers, right drawing is cross-section B-B)

Fig 10: Delta wing flow topology at medium angle of attack

3.7.2 TAILS

The tails of a missile have little influence on flowfields on the forebody,

especially at low angles of attack. At high angles of attack interference on the
flowfield caused by wings and the afterbody may effect tailflow which depends
a great deal on the placement of the wings, the length of the afterbody between
the wings and tails, and the missile's angle of attack. For higher angles of attack,
nose and wing vortices may be sufficiently displaced away from the body to
have only a slight effect on the tailflow. Should a large distance between wings
and tails exist, afterbody vortices may dominate the airflow over the tail surfaces.
Hence, most missile configurations with long after bodies utilize canard or wing
control while missiles employing tail control have short after bodies and low
aspect ratio wings with long root chords. The additional asymmetric vortices

20
from the after body will also contribute to the overall side force on the
missile.(Ref.2)

3.7.3 STRAKES

Strakes on a missile may lessen the effect of asymmetric body vortices since the
strakes would cause interference with the crossflow component around the body.
The real benefit of incorporating strakes with low aspect ratio wings is from the
strong vortices produced by the strake which enhance vortex lift effect.(Ref.2)

4.0 Prediction methods

The prediction methods can be broadly classified into semi empirical methods,
CFD techniques and Wind tunnel testing. Each of these methods have their own
advantages and disadvantages. Describing the methods in detail is beyond the scope of
this report and hence salient details are given below.
4.1 Semi empirical methods
Semi empirical methods are in general based on test data and one of the major
semi empirical methods widely used in missile aerodynamics is DATaCOMpendium
developed by USAF and is generally referred as DATCOM and is elaborated in this
section.
Missile Datcom employs several prediction methods in order to accurately
predict the aerodynamics of multiple missile configurations. A combination of
empirical and theoretical methods is used throughout the code, and method choice is
based on the configuration geometry and flight conditions. Missile components are
analyzed separately and then joined using various carryover and synthesis methods as
in Ref.3.
4.1.1 Prediction of longitudinal characteristics

A. Body Alone Methodology

For body alone data at subsonic speeds, Missile Datcom employs a combination of
aerodynamic prediction methods. At low angles of attack (less than 5-10 degrees), the
normal force and pitching moment are computed using both empirical correlations and
slender body theory. At high angles of attack, Allen and Perkins’ viscous crossflow
method is utilized. Axial force is also computed using two distinct methodologies.
Below 30 degrees angle of attack, a modified version of Allen and Perkins’ method is

21
used, and above 30 degrees angle of attack, Jorgensen’s slender body theory is used.
This gives the contribution to axial force due to angle of attack. Contributions due to
skin friction, wave, and base drag are also included in the total axial force computation
and are assumed to be independent of angle of attack.

B. Fin Alone Methodology

The fin alone aerodynamics are calculated using a similar approach as that used for the
body. Linear and non-linear contributions are calculated for the normal force and
pitching moment and these contributions are then summed. In general, lifting line,
lifting surface, and empirical methods are used depending on the fin planform
geometry. The pitching moment, or hinge moment, of the fin is derived from the linear
and non-linear portions of the fin normal force. The linear, or potential, term is
assumed to act at the quarter chord of the fin. The non-linear, or viscous contribution,
acts at the fin center of pressure, which is assumed to be the fin centroid. Axial force
is calculated in the same manner as the body. Angle of attack independent values of
the skin friction, pressure, wave, and base drag are calculated and then added to the
axial force due to angle of attack.

C. Component Buildup Methodology

Component interference effects are used to combine the aerodynamics of the body and
fins. For angles of attack in the linear range (i.e. less than 5 degrees angle of attack),
the method outlined by Nielsen, Pitts, and Kaattari is used to calculate the body and fin
carryover loads. Although this method is only valid in the linear range, it can be applied
up to 10 degrees angle of attack with reasonable confidence. Beyond this point, an
equivalent angle of attack method is used that provides accurate predictions up to
approximately 30 degrees angle of attack. The equivalent angle of attack method
assumes the contributing factors to the fin normal force can be expressed as increments
in angle of attack and summed to create an equivalent, or effective, angle of attack.
There are no mentions of the validity of this approach above 30 degrees angle of attack,
although the code will still run at these conditions.

4.1.2 Prediction of lateral characteristics

M3F3CA code has been extended from angle of attack 45-90 degrees. This code
includes the effects of rotational rates and non-uniform flow effects. The method uses

22
the equivalent angle of attack concept which includes the effect of vorticity and
geometric scaling.

M3HAX predicts both the longitudinal and lateral-directional aerodynamic

characteristics of missiles at angles of attack upto 90 degrees. (Ref 11)

4.2 CFD techniques

CFD techniques are widely used for complex geometries and complex flow
field simulations. The computational challenges involved in high angle of attack
aerodynamics are
a. Governing equation complexity
b. Turbulence modeling
c. Transition modeling
d. Algorithm symmetry
e. Grid generation and density
f. Numerical dissipation
CFD techniques involve a) mesh generation b) solving the complex equations
using correct turbulence model. Literature survey has indicated development of few
CFD codes which have the capability to address high angle of attack aerodynamics.
Details about a particular CFD code USER3D which use Euler and thin layer Navier
Stokes solution for missiles at supersonic speeds and high angles of attack is discussed
in this section. Further details about another commercial software CFD++ is also
discussed. (Ref.5)

4.2.1 Aspects of USER3D code

(A) Grid generation

The unstructured grids used for the Euler computations are generated using
the commercially available CAD tool, I-DEAS TM . Although this tool is not very
convenient for generating the appropriate grid suitable for our present studies,
various control features of the code are used until an appropriate grid distribution is
achieved. However, one of the basic advantages of using this tool for grid
generation lies in the fact that the available geometry directly comes from this
design package. Thus, any major modification made to the external geometry of the
missile is passed directly to the CFD analysis. In order to get nearly the same

23
grid distribution as in the ONERA studies, another in house developed grid
generation code is used. Although this is a structured grid generation code, it has
the capability of generating structured tetrahedral grids with appropriate grid
interconnectivity feature suitable for interfacing with the USER3D.

(B) Flow solver

The unstructured Euler flow solver, USER3D which is used in this study,
is developed in ROKETSAN. This code employs a fully-conservative cell centered
finite volume method applied to the tetrahedral cells of the computational grid.
Second order spatial discretization is based on Roe’s flux difference splitting method.
For time integration, m-stage Runge-Kutta time-stepping scheme is used. Local time
stepping and implicit residual smoothing accelerate its convergence to steady state.
Higher order interpolation and reconstruction schemes together with total variation
diminishing (TVD) limiter scheme are incorporated into the code to enhance the
numerical accuracy of the computations. In this way, a higher order accuracy in
space is obtained even in highly stretched bad grids.

The three dimensional structured thin layer Navier- Stokes (TLNS) solver
which was used in this study is a multiblock flow solver adapted on the finite
differencing with second order accuracy in space and time. This code uses an
implicit approximate factorization algorithm of Beam and Warming’ and a
diagonalization procedure with similarity transformation suggested by Pulliam and
Chaussee”. In the matrix solution, LU-AD1 technique ( Alternating Direction
Implicit method with Lower and Upper bidiagonalization ) is applied. This flow
solver is also capable of using variable time stepping for fast convergence to
steady-state solutions. As for the dissipation models, fourth order explicit and
second order implicit smoothing terms are adapted into the scheme.

4.2.2 CFD ++

A commercially available code, CFD++ is used for the numerical simulations.

The basic numerical framework in the code contains unified-grid, unified-physics, and
unified-computing features. The 3-D, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are
solved using the following finite volume method. The numerical framework of CFD++
is based on the following general elements: (1) unsteady compressible and

24
incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with turbulence modeling (unified-physics),
(2) unification of Cartesian, structured curvilinear, and unstructured grids, including
hybrids (unified-grid), (3) unification of treatment of various cell shapes including
hexahedral, tetrahedral, and triangular prism cells (3-D), quadrilateral and triangular
cells (2-D), and linear elements (1-D) (unified-grid), (4) treatment of multiblock
patched aligned (nodally connected), patched nonaligned and overset grids (unified-
grid), (5) total Variation Diminishing discretization based on a new multidimensional
interpolation framework, (6) Riemann solvers to provide proper signal propagation
physics, including versions for preconditioned forms of the governing equations, (7)
consistent and accurate discretization of viscous terms using the same multidimensional
polynomial framework, (8) pointwise turbulence models that do not require knowledge
of distance to walls, (9) versatile boundary condition implementation includes a rich
variety of integrated boundary condition types for the various sets of equations, and
(10) implementation on massively parallel computers based on the distributed-memory
message-passing model using native message-passing libraries or MPI, PVM, etc.
(unified-computing). The code has brought together several ideas on convergence
acceleration to yield a fast methodology for all flow regimes. The approach can be
labeled as a “preconditioned-implicit-relaxation” scheme. It combines three basic id
eas: implicit local time-stepping, relaxation, and preconditioning. Preconditioning the
equations ideally equalizes the eigen values of the inviscid flux Jacobians and removes
the stiffness arising from large discrepancies between the flow and sound velocities at
low speeds. Use of an implicit scheme circumvents the stringent stability limits
suffered by their explicit counterparts, and successive relaxation allows update of cells
as information becomes available and thus aids convergence.(Ref.11)

4.3 Wind tunnel techniques

Wind tunnel testing of scaled models at higher angle attack is complex and
poses many challenges. The constraints of test facility size, availability of suitable high
capacity balances to measure the higher loads, suitable stings to attach the model to the
support system and model incidence mechanisms.
The complex flow pattern visualization is usually carried out in wind tunnel and
synthesis of available literature on this is summarised in this section.(Ref.15)

25
4.3.1 Visualisation of high angle of attack flow phenomena results

The flow around a slender aerodynamic shape such as missile at high angles of
attack is characterized by large regions of flow separation. The separated flow may
contain highly organized vertical flow structures that can be symmetric or asymmetric,
steady or unsteady or wake which is completely turbulent.
The flow structure surrounding a missile is divided into four principal regimes: vortex
free flow, symmetric vortex flow, steady asymmetric vortex flow and wake like flow.
For practical interest, is the region where the wake is dominated by either steady
symmetric or asymmetric vortices. Hence, the interaction of vortex wake with lifting
surfaces is studied.
Hunt: Experimental studies have shown that the asymmetric vortex wake is extremely
sensitive to free stream turbulence, geometric asymmetry, nose geometry and
Reynold’s no.

Lamont: If the boundary layer flow is transitional, one can usually expect to find the
lowest vortex induced side forces.
The maximum asymmetric loads occur when the boundary layer is completely laminar
or completely turbulent. When angle of attack increases, the body or wing leading edge
vortices undergo dramatic change. The axial velocity within the vortex goes to zero, the
diameter increases and circumferential velocity decreases. This sudden change in
vortex structure is called the vortex breakdown.

4.3.2 Interference Flows

In solid-walled tunnels, pressure measurements at the tunnel surfaces may be used to

determine singularity strengths which define the model envelope, including both
regions of open or closed separation and the far-wake displacement surface. Having
determined the singularity strengths which represent the model envelope, image
methods or their equivalent may be used to compute the interference flow field.

In porous or slotted-walled tunnels, the procedure is similar in principle but less

straight- forward in application. Normal velocities are now present at the tunnel
boundaries and these must be measured. To avoid local effects near slots or holes in the
tunnel surface, a control surface is usually defined a short distance inside the physical
boundary. The experimental techniques are more difficult than before because the

26
normal velocities are small. Pressure probes used to measure pitch angle are quite
inconvenient and may lack the desired sensitivity. The use of the laser welocimeter has
been suggested for flow measurements near the boundary. The above methods are
essentially extensions of traditional techniques. The important difference is that, rather
than relying on known model geometry and "guesstlmated" wake profiles, new more
reliable Information, i.e. measured boundary conditions, is employed to size and locate
the singularities which describe the effective model/wake surface.

4.3.3 Effect at the Model

The fact that the interference flow field is calculable does not guarantee that its effects
on the model will be. For simple attached flow cases surface pressure correction may
be straightforward. Measured forces or moments may be also correctable, in moderate
velocity gradients, though with somewhat less confidence. However, if tunnel-induced
velocity gradients are large enough to modify the character of the model's viscous flow
substantially, proper correction may be difficult or impossible.

Even If the nature of the viscous effects Is proper, moment correction (in particular) in
high angle of attack tests may not be trivial. As pointed out by Heyson, the three
moments involved in typical angle-of-attack plus yaw cases could be affected by one or
more of the three spatial gradient of each velocity component. Though not all of the
nine gradient terms may affect a particular moment, it is evident that careful thought
and work is needed to produce an effective and reliable correction scheme.

The traditional solution to the above problem is to use models which are small in
relation to tunnel cross section and accept the resulting small Reynolds number. This is
the approach now being taken in testing models of fighters at high angles-of-attack.
However, power simulation requirements frequently dictate the use of relatively large
models, particularly in V/STOL tests. The continuing use of large, existing facilities
for these tests indicates that there will be a continuing need for correction procedures
for tests with high levels of interference. (Ref.16)

4.3.4 Adaptive and Partially Adaptive Wind Tunnels

Adaptive wind tunnel technology has been developing steadily during the past decades.
Here, the first, wall-sensing stage is the same as described above but the measured wall
data are used to determine surface contour modifications or wall porosity changes

27
which eliminate interference velocities within the test section. The technology is
currently well advanced for two dimensional testing and the principles for extension to
three dimensions are understood. However, the practical difficulties for three
dimensional application are quite impressive. Even when these are overcome, there is a
substantial body of opinion that no more than one or two such tunnels will be
commissioned in the U. S. within the next decade. Nonetheless, such tunnels will be
very valuable for providing "benchnvirk" test results for checking high angle-of-attack
results from conventional tunnels. A number of compromise solutions have been
suggested which lie between the entirely passive and fully adaptive approaches. Some
of these recognize that the principle problem concerns velocity gradients, since even
gross tunnel-induced changes in mean angle-of-attack or speed cause little difficulty in
applying corrections. Kemp has suggested the interesting concept of the "correctable"
wind tunnel which is adaptive only to the degree that velocity gradients are removed.
Once the mean interference velocities are determined in such a tunnel, completion of
the correct -h' process is likely to be trivial. Another compromise solution, suggested by
Joppa, is to employ a three-dimensional system which is adaptive only in the lifting
direction. While this can remove longitudinal variations in angle of attack and
blockage, the impact upon transverse gradients, which may also be significant, is
unknown One of difficulties with such "mixed" systems is determining the residual
corrections. The fact that the effective floor and roof contours are irregular in shape and
change from data-point to data-point limits the usefulness of this particular
compromise. Research along the traditional line of tailoring porous or slotted walls for
minimum interference has also continued in recent years. Variation of porous wall
open area and the use of "tailored" slots designed via recently developed methods are
being pursued for tests on limited classes of models. This work, also, is relevant to high
angle-of-attack testing, particularly if it can be combined with passive wall sensing
schemes, since it is applicable to the present-day tunnels which will be the mainstay for
production testing for a considerable time to come. (Ref.17)

28
5 Conclusions

 Comprehensive literature survey has been carried out to understand the high
angle of attack missile aerodynamics.
 The need aspect of high angle of attack in missile aerodynamics, complex flow
physics and the vortex patterns involved in various regimes have been
analyzed. The capability and state of art of various available prediction
methods involving semi-empirical, CFD and test techniques have been
evaluated.
 The synthesis based on available open literature is presented precisely in this
report.

29
6 List of references

1) Recent progress on the study of asymmetric vortex flow over slender bodies X. Y.
Deng · W. Ti a n · B. F. Ma · Y. K. Wang

2) Turbulence effects on the high angle of attack aerodynamics of a vertically launched

missile, M. Peter Rabang, June 1988

3) High Angle of Attack Aerodynamic Predictions Using Missile Datcom, Eric J.

Abney Dynetics, Huntsville, AL 35806 Melissa A. McDaniel U.S. Army Aviation and
Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, Redstone Arsenal, AL, 35898

4) High angle of attack aerodynamics, Gary E.Erickson

5) Computational challenges in high angle of attack flow prediction, Russell M.

Cummingsa , James R. Forsytheb , Scott A. Mortonb ,Kyle D. SquiresC

6) Asymmetric vortices and alleviation on slender bodies with and without wings Nan-
QianChenBeijing (Univ. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China) Zhen-Yu
WangBeijing (Univ. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China) ZhengHuangBeijing
(Univ. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China) AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting &
Exhibit, 35th, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 1997

7) Recent progress on the study of asymmetric vortex flow over slender bodies X. Y.
Deng · W. Ti a n · B. F. Ma · Y. K. Wang ARL-TR-3549

8) AIAA 2005-5086, High Angle of Attack Aerodynamic Predictions Using Missile

Datcom, Eric J. Abney Dynetics, Huntsville, AL 35806 Melissa A. McDaniel U.S.
Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, Reds ton
Arsenal, AL, 35898.

9) Prediction of the aerodynamic characteristics of cruciform missiles including effects

of roll angle and control deflection by Daniel J. Lesieutre, Michael R. Mendenhall , El
Susana M. Nazario, Michael J. Heinsch.

10) AIAA96-3392, High angle of attack missile aerodynamics including rotational rates
program M3HAX, D. Lesieutre, J. Love, M. Dillenius, Nielson engineering and
research Inc., Mountain view, CA.

30
11) Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics to a Monoplane Fixed-Wing Missile
With Elliptic Cross Sections by Karen Heavey and JubarajSahu.

12) North Atlantic Treaty organisation, Research and Technology Organisation, BP

25, 7 Rue Ancelle, F-92201 Neuilly-Sur-Seine Cedex, France.

13) Industrial use of CFD for missile studies : New trends at Matra BAE dynamics
France.

14) NASA technical paper 2230, feb 1984, Wind-Tunnel Free-Flight Investigation of
a Model of a Forward-Swept-Wing Fighter Configuration by Daniel G. Murri, Luat
T. Nguyen, and Sue B. Grafto.

15) NASA Technical Memorandum 86790 High-Angle-of-Attack Pneumatic Lag and

Upwash Corrections for a Hemispherical Flow Direction Sensor by Stephen A.
Whitmore, Jennifer Heeg, Terry J. Larson, L.J. Ehernberger, Floyd W. Hagen, and
Richard V. DeLeo.

16) Evaluation of Gritting Strategies for High Angle of Attack Using Wind Tunnel and
Flight Test Data for the F/A-18, Robert M.Hall, Gary E.Erickson, and Charles H.Fox,
Jr.Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia Daniel W.Banks and David F.Fisher,
Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California.

17) AGARD REPORT No. 692 Wind Tunnel Corrections for High Angle of Attack
Models.

18) Differential Game Based Guidance Law for High Angle of Attack Missiles P. K.
Menonand G.B. Chatterji

31