(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

A01-31195

AIAA Paper 2001-2431

USM3D Prediction of MK-83 Trajectories from the CF-18 Aircraft
J. Walsh and A. Cenko
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

19th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

11-14 June 2001 / Anaheim, CA

 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
USM3D Prediction of MK-83 Trajectories from the CF-18 Aircraft
J. Walsh*
A. Cenko%
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD 20754
Abstract:
This paper will explore the
advantages and disadvantages of using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to predict
store separation. The focus will be on comparing
CFD based store separation predictions with
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431
experimental data derived from wind tunnel and
flight tests. Of particular interest are the abilities of
various CFD packages to accurately predict store
captive loads and separation forces, moments and
trajectories in support of real stores clearance
processes. The F-18 aircraft will be used as the
basic aircraft under investigation. The first phase
will make use of existing pressure sensitive paint
(PSP) data from the National Research Council's
high speed wind tunnel and flight test trajectory
data from flight-tests on-going with the Canadian
Airforce. The specific store configuration under
analysis is the release of a single MK-83 from a
vertical ejector rack (carrying a second MK-83) on
the wing of an F-18.
NOMENCLATURE
BL: Aircraft Buttline, positive outboard, in.
Rolling moment coefficient, rt wing down
Pitching moment coefficient, positive up
C : Normal Force coefficient, up
N impractical for everyday use. Madson later
Yawing moment coefficient, nose right
CY: Side force coefficient, right
FS: Aircraft Fuselage Station, positive aft, in.
l.e. F-18 Wing leading edge flap
t.e. F-18 Wing trailing edge flap
M: Mach number
P: Store roll rate, positive rt wing down
Q: Store pitch rate, positive nose up
R: Store yaw rate, positive nose right
PHI: Store roll angle, positive rt wing down, deg.
PSI: Store yaw angle, positive nose right, deg.
* Midshipman, Student Member, AIAA
% Visiting Professor, Associate Fellow, AIAA
THE: Store pitch angle, positive nose up, deg.
WL: Aircraft Waterline, positive up, in.
Z: Store C.G. location, positive down, ft.
a: Angle of attack, deg.
e: Upwash angle, positive up, deg.
a: Sidewash angle, positive outboard, deg.
Note: all wind tunnel data shown are right wing,
flight test left (negative PSI, PHI, Y)
INTRODUCTION
Over the past ten years there have been
several organized efforts to validate, demonstrate
and accelerate the insertion of CFD methods into
the store certification process for external stores
carriage and release. Several significant efforts have
been documented in AIAA conference proceedings.
The first of these was the Wing/Pylon/Finned-Store,
which occurred in Hilton Head, SC in the summer
of 1992. An extensive set of wind tunnel store
carriage and separation data for CFD code
validation was made available for a generic wing
and store geometry3. Although Euler4'5 and thin
layer Navier Stokes6 (TNS) solutions were in good
agreement with these test data, solution times on the
order of 5 days7 on the Cray YMP made such tools
demonstrated8 that the TranAir full-potential code
could give results of similar quality in a fraction of
the time required for the higher order
The second sponsored conference was the F-
16/Generic Finned Store9"14 which occurred in New
Orleans in the summer of 1996 (ACFD Challenge
I). At the end of the meeting, the ACFD tri-service
technical leads evaluated the CFD tools that were
used to predict the F-16 Generic store carriage
loads.
Many important lessons were learned;
however, the experimental test case did not include
flight test data ("real" store trajectories). Because of
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
this limitation, store certification engineers
continued to express skepticism towards the
accuracy of CFD methods. Also, the CFD
community raised concerns about the credibility of
portions of the wind tunnel test data, criticizing
scale, model support interference, and wall effects.
Therefore, there was a desire within the ACFD15
program to reconcile these issues by conducting
additional analysis by using a data set that included
both wind tunnel and flight test data.
The last sponsored conference was the F-
18/JDAM CFD Challenge (ACFD Challenge II).
Large sets of wind tunnel and flight test data existed
for the F/A-18C JDAM configuration, Figure 1.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431
During the flight test phase, both photogrametrics
and telemetry were used to track the position of the
store during releases. Out of these tests, two release
conditions were selected for this CFD Challenge.
The basis for these two cases included the following
considerations: 1) matching aircraft and store
geometry in both wind tunnel and flight tests, 2)
correlation between wind tunnel data and flight test
data, 3) possession of both high transonic and low
supersonic cases with interesting miss distance time
histories, 4) ability to publicly release the wind
tunnel and flight test data to an international
audience.
The test cases selected were M = 0.962 at
6,382 ft. (flight 13) and M = 1.05 at 10,832 ft.
(flight 14). Both cases were for the aircraft in a 45-
degree dive.
For these two test cases, the configuration
geometry for the wind tunnel and flight test is
shown in Figure 1. The JDAM is mounted on the
outboard pylon, with the 330-gallon fuel tank on the
inboard pylon. The SUU-65 BRU-32A/A ejector
rack provided a nominal peak force of 7000#.
Eight papers by Cenko16 , Hall17, Tomaro18,
Woodsonft, Welterlen20, McGroy21, Fairlie22, and
Benmeddour23 were submitted for ACFD Challenge
II. The meeting was held at the AIAA Annual
meeting in Reno Nevada on January 12th, 1999.
Due to the interest in the Challenge the timing of
the session and the venue were changed to enable
seating for around 200 people; despite this, the
room was filled to capacity with over 50 people
having to stand in the back for four hours.
The first paper16 described the wind tunnel
and flight test results, while the other seven
described the application of seven different CFD
codes to the problem. Two of the papers17'21 were
not ready in time to be included in the meeting
proceedings, but all eight papers were either
presented at the meeting, or the results were
provided at a later date.
The quality of the invited papers and
presentations reinforced the approach used by the
AFCD Challenge sponsors. However, taking these
presentations as representative of state of the art for
applying current CFD-based tools for stores
carriage and separations indicates that wind tunnels
will still be relied on for the provision of the major
part of the aerodynamic data on which stores
certification are to be safely based. Indeed it is
acknowledged that the CFD solutions were in the
majority of cases within the error range of the wind
tunnel and flight test data. Accuracy would not
therefore seem to be issue, but rather the time
required to produce a solution needs to be decreased
significantly. Given this development CFD-based
tools should become far more prevalent in use
during Requirements Definition and Systems
Engineering trade-off studies for the aircraft and
stores thereby reducing the likely hood of expensive
aircraft and/or store redesign after hardware has
been made.
One other general result was the consensus
that improvements in the ejector modeling and
ejector foot/store interaction during the ejection
needed to be accomplished.
The principal drawback of CFD Challenge II
was that all the CFD results, using both Euler and
Navier Stokes, as well as a simulation that ignored
the JDAM canards gave similar results. Does that
mean that Navier Stokes formulation does not have
to be used, or were the test cases selected fortuitous
for the inviscid formulation. Indeed, Welterlen
showed that his inviscid calculation was superior to
the viscous one. Since diagnostic data were not
available, it is impossible to say whether the
SPLITFLOW viscous formulation was at fault, or
that the inviscid results had a fortuitous canceling
error. It was the consensus of the participants that
another CFD Challenge, one that would have
diagnostic data (store and wing pressures) was
merited.
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
TTCP Panel WPN-TP 2 KTA 2-18
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF),
Canadian Forces (CF), and the US Navy use, and
will continue to use for some time, variants of the
F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet aircraft as their primary
fighter weapons delivery platform. For stores
clearance purposes, all these countries use similar
approaches to performing Aircraft/Stores
Compatibility (ASC) based on the methodology of
MIL-HDBK-1763 which has traditionally relied
heavily on the use of prior analogous stores results,
wind tunnel and flight testing. Based on the
demonstrated capability of CFD to predict aircraft
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431
store aerodynamics and trajectories in realistic
timeframes, it appears that CFD has the possibility
to dramatically reduce wind tunnel and flight test
costs and time. In order to reduce duplication and
redundancy in the US Navy's Flight Clearance,
Australia's ASC Clearances and Canada's Stores
Clearance processes, a new KTA was proposed
under the auspices of The Technical Cooperation
Program (TTCP) subgroup W.
Although this KTA has only been recently
approved by WPN Group, significant quantities of
experimental data have already been gathered,
reviewed and organized in preparation for
experimental data-to-CFD prediction comparisons.
The large wind tunnel PSP data set and store
captive loads data sets from NRC/IAR's high speed
tunnel have been reviewed and the appropriate data
is being prepared for use in comparative studies. To
date, specific subsets of the PSP data for the CF-
18/MK-83 test case have been provided to
interested participants under the auspices of
TTCP/KTA 2-18. It should be noted that the
empirical data related specifically to the test case
under analysis has intentionally not been released to
participating countries to date. This comparative
data will not be furnished until CFD computations
have been completed, in an effort to
demonstrate/evaluate the true capability of CFD in
solving real-world stores separation problems.
CF-18/MK-83 stores separation flight-
testing is ongoing at the Aerospace Engineering
Test Establishment (AETE) in Cold Lake, Alberta
Canada. Flight test trajectory data have been
gathered for the first test case to be analyzed under
this KTA. It is anticipated that the complete flight
test database for single MK-83 releases from the
CF-18 will be available to KTA participants shortly.
CFD predictions by KTA 2-18 participants
have not been produced to date. However, all
participants have agreed upon the test case
configuration. Figure 2 provides an overview of the
first test case configuration being investigated by
the participants. This paper presents the results of
the first part of the navy effort for the KTA 2-18
program.
THE CODE USED
The NASA Tetrahedral Unstructured
Software System (TETRUSS) was developed
during the 1990's to help provide a rapid
aerodynamic analysis and design capability to
aerodynamicists. The system is composed of
several different integrated software pieces.
Grid Generation
The grid generation is done through a
program named GridTool. This program helps to
change the Computer Aided Design (CAD) into a
grid representation, which can be used by the rest of
the programs. The process of geometry and grid
parameter preparation with GridTool constitutes 50
- 90 percent of the total grid-generation time. It
also provides the input file for VGRID, which is the
next software package in the process. VIDRIDns is
a program for automatic generation of tetrahedral
unstructured grids suitable for computing Euler and
Navier-Stokes flow solutions. The process is based
on an Advancing front and an Advancing layer
method. Both of these techniques are based on a
marching process in which tetrahedral cells form on
top of each other.
Flow Solver
USM3Dns27'28 is a tetrahedral cell-centered,
finite volume Euler and Navier-Stokes (N-S) flow
solver. Inviscid flux quantities are computed across
each cell face using Roe's29 flux-difference splitting
(FDS). Spatial discrimination is accomplished by a
novel reconstruction process 30, which is based on
an analytical formulation for computing solution
gradients within tetrahedral cells. The solution is
advanced to a steady state condition by an implicit
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
backward-Euler time-stepping scheme31. Flow
turbulence effects are modeled by the
Spalart-Allmaras (S-A) one-equation model32,
which is coupled with a wall function to reduce the
number of cells in the sub layer region of the
boundary layer.
The USMSDns code is designed for the easy
addition/modification of boundary conditions
(B.C.). It supports the standard B.C.'s of flow
tangency or no-slip on solid surfaces, characteristic
inflow/outflow for subsonic boundaries, and
freestream inflow and extrapolation outflow for
supersonic flow. Some additional special boundary
conditions are available as well.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431
The version of the program that we used
included parallel processing. The tetrahedral grid is
divided into a certain number of pieces and
communication between these partitions is
accomplished through Message Passing Interface.
This speeds up the solution process better than the
number of processors that you use. The solution is
also un-affected by the splitting process.
Results and Discussion
During the study, there were several tests
run when the F-18 had either an external fuel tank
(F-18/EFT) or the combination of the external fuel
tank and two MK-83 bombs (F-18/EFT/Mk-83). All
of the tests were run with the same test case
parameters. The grids used in both of these test
cases can be seen in Figure 3.
Test Case Parameters
The test case selected was M = 0.95 and an
angle of attack of 4.5 degrees. The number of cells
on the F-18/EFT was 1,033,677, while the number
of cells on the F-18/EFT/Mk-83 was 1,337,305.
Convergence History
The density residuals for all of the test cases
were usually reduced by a factor of between 2 - 3 .
The number of iterations also usually varied
between 1200 and 2000. For the F-18/EFT, the
final run was made at 1200 iterations because there
was not a noticeable reduction in the residual after
that and the total test took 12.582 hours on an SGI
Origin 2000 running on 4 processors. The final run
for the F-18/EFT/Mk-83 was made at 1500
iterations for the same reason as before and the total
test took 24.825 hours on the same machine.
Pressure Comparisons
For the F-18/EFT configuration (330 gallon
tank inboard, clean outboard pylon) we have 2 other
sets of data to compare our results with in order to
check the validity of our data. We have the Pressure
Sensitive Paint (PSP) and OVERFLOW33 results for
the same configurations. The OVERFLOW code is
a finite difference, Chimera flow solver capable of
solving the Averaged Navier-Stokes equations in
overlapping grids. Since the developer of the
PEGSUS34 interface system ran the OVERFLOW
flow solution in viscous mode for the wing, pylon
and fuel tank, these predictions represent the best
that can be expected from CFD.
USM3D, OVERFLOW and PSP test data35
comparisons for wing pressures for the F-18/EFT
configuration are shown in Figure 4. As may be
seen from the plot of Cp vs. % x/c on the lower
surface of the wing at 47% span station, the
USM3D prediction is in good agreement with the
PSP test data and the OVERFLOW prediction. As
expected for an inviscid solution, the USM3D shock
is stronger and further back than either the test data
or the OVERFLOW prediction. Note that the PSP
data is not in close agreement with the
OVERFLOW solution. However, the accuracy of
the PSP measurements are uncertain, since Tang35
observed significant differences between the PSP
and pressure transducer results during the test.
Note that the PSP data are obviously in error at the
wing I.e.
The USM3D predictions are not nearly in as
good agreement with OVERFLOW and the test data
for the outboard wing station, 65% span. There is a
large discrepancy at 25% and 75% chord between
the USM3D prediction and the other results. This is
attributable to the inviscid code overprediction of
the flow acceleration about the I.e. and t.e. of the
wing pylon; this wing station is less than ten inches
from the wing pylon (60% span).
The comparisons for the lower surface of the
External Fuel Tank (EFT) are shown in Figure 5.
USM3D predicts the shocks to be stronger and
farther back than the PSP test data. However, the
USM3D prediction is in close agreement with
OVERFLOW.
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
The other configuration that was examined
was the F-18/EFT/Mk-83, Figure 2. This
configuration included two Mk-83's on the outer
pylon of the wing. Since this was intended to be a
blind test, no PSP data for this configuration were
provided. However, the OVERFLOW predictions
for this configuration can be compared to the
USM3D prediction. As may be seen from the plot
of Cp vs. % x/1 on the lower surface of the inboard
and outboard Mk-83 (Figure 6 and 7), the USM3D
prediction is in close agreement, except for the 25%
and 75% locations. It appears that the inviscid code
may not properly model these effects. It will be
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431
interesting to compare these predictions to PSP
data.
Trajectory Predictions
Although there were significant differences
between the USM3D and OVERFLOW store
pressures, the true test of the solution's validity is
the capability of the code to predict the store
trajectory. As may be seen in Figure 8, the two
methods predict essentially the same trajectory.
These trajectories were calculated using the
approach described by Davids36, with the input
loads and moments predicted by the two codes.
Although the flight test results for this case have not
yet been made available, the large yaw shown by
the store tail towards the pylon appears reasonable,
since the store tail actually contacted the CF-18
pylon for this flight. This is supported by the store-
to-store miss distance predictions, as shown in
Figure 9.
Summary
The Euler version of the USM3D code has
demonstrated an impressive capability of predicting
complex flowfield aerodynamics at transonic
speeds. The OVERFLOW predictions were
performed by a CFD expert, while an undergraduate
student learned to use the USM3D code, and was
able to produce useful results, in a short time frame.
It appears that USM3D has matured to the point
where it can predict aircraft store aerodynamics and
trajectories in realistic timeframes, and has the
possibility to dramatically reduce wind tunnel and
flight test costs and time.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their
appreciation to S. Woodson and LCDR M. Overs
from NAVAIR, and N. Frink, S. Pope and S.
Pirzadeh from NASA Langley, without whose
assistance this work would not have been possible.
REFERENCES
1. Cheveney, J. V., 'The Challenge of
Combat Superiority Through Modernization,"
Keynote Paper RTO Symposium on Aircraft
Weapon System Compatibility and Integration,
Chester, UK, Oct. 1998.
2. F. Taverna and A. Cenko, "Navy
Integrated T&E Approach to Store Separation,"
Paper 13, RTO Symposium on Aircraft Weapon
System Compatibility and Integration, Chester,
UK, Oct. 1998.
3. Heim, E., "CFD Wing/Pylon/Finned-
Store Mutual Interference Wind Tunnel Experi-
ment," AEDC-TSR-91-P4, 1991.
4. Newman, J.C. and Baysal, O. "Transonic
Solutions of a Wing/Pylon/Finned Store Using Hy-
brid Domain Decomposition, AIAA paper 92-4571,
Aug. 1992.
5. Parikh, P., Pirzadeh, S., and Frink, N.T.,
"Unstructured Grid Solutions to a Wing/Pylon/Store
Configuration Using VGRID3D/USM3D," AIAA
Paper 92-4572, Aug. 1992.
6. Meakin, R., "Computations of the
Unsteady Viscous Flow about a Generic
Wing/Pylon/Finned-Store Configuration," AIAA
Paper 92-4568, Aug. 1992.
7. Millett, D., "More than a Pretty Picture,"
Leading edge, Dec. 1992.
8. Madson, M. et al "TranAir Computations
of the flow about a Generic Wing/Pylon/Finned-
Store Configuration," AIAA paper 94-0155, Jan.
1994.
9. T. Welterlen, et al, "Application of
Viscous, Cartesian CFD to Aircraft Store Carriage
and Separation Simulation," AIAA-96-2453, June
1996.
10. Madson, M. and M. Talbot, "F-
16/Generic Store Carriage Load Predictions at
Transonic Mach Numbers using TranAir," AIAA-
96-2454, June, 1996.
11. D. Chine, et al, " Calculation of
Generic Store Separation from an F-16 Aircraft,"
AIAA-96-2455, June 1996.
12. S. Kern and C. Bruner, "External
Carriage Analysis of a Generic Finned-Store on the
F-16 Using USM3D," AIAA-96-2456, June 1996.
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

13. S. Kennon, et al, "STORESIM: An Journal, Vol. 36, No. 11, pp 1975-1982 November
Integrated System for Multi-Body CFD 1998.
Simulation," AIAA-96-2458, June 1996. 29. Roe P. Characteristic based schemes for
14. T. Wey and F. Martin, "Application of
the OVERFLOW Code to the F-16 Configuration," the Euler equations. Annual Review of Fluid
AIAA-96-2459, June 1996. Mechanics, Vol. 18, pp 337-365,1986.
15. Cenko, A., "ACFD Applications to Store 30. Frink, N. Recent progress toward a
Separation," ICAS Paper 98-2.10.4, Sept. 1988. three-dimensional unstructured Navier-Stokes flow
16. Cenko, A., "F-18C/JDAM CFD solver. AIAA 94-0061, January 1994.
Challenge Wind Tunnel and Flight Test Results," 31. Anderson W and Bonhaus D. An
AIAA Paper 99-0120, Jan. 1999. implicit upwind algorithm for computing turbulent
17. Hall, L., "Navier-Stokes/6-DOF
Analysis of the JDAM Store Separation from the flows on unstructured grids. Computers Fluids, Vol.
F/A-18C Aircraft," AIAA Paper 99-0121, Jan. 23, No. l,pp 1-21, 1994.
1999. 32. Spalart P and Allmaras S. A one-
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

18. Tomaro, R., et. al.,"A Solution on the F- equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows.
18C for Store Separation Simulation using AIAA Paper 92-0439, January 1992.
COBALT," AIAA Paper 99-0122, Jan. 1999. 33. Buning, P.O., et.al., "OVERFLOW
19. Woodson, S., and Bruner, C., "Analysis User's Manual," Version 1.6u, NASA Amesr
of Unstructured CFD Codes for the Accurate
Prediction of A/C Store Trajectories," AIAA Paper Research Center, 21 August 1992.
99-0123,Jan. 1999. 34. Suhs, N. E. and Tramel, R. W.: PEGSUS
20. Welterlen, T., "Store Release Simulation 4.0 Users Manual, AEDC-TR-91-8, November
on the F/A-18C Using Split Flow," AIAA Paper 99- 1991.
0124, Jan. 1999. 35. Tang, F.C., et. al., "Pressure
21. McGroy, W., et. al.,"Store Trajectory Measurements on a F-18 Wing Using PSP
Analysis About the F/A-18C Using GUST Technique," RTO meeting Proceedings 16, Sept.
Unstructured Grid Generation and Flow Solver
Package," AIAA Paper 99-0125, Jan. 1999. 1998.
22. Fairlie, B., and Caldeira, R., "Prediction 36. Davids, S., and Cenko, A., "Grid Based
of JDAM Separation Characteristics from the F/A- Approach to Store Separation," AIAA Paper 2001-
18 Aircraft," AIAA Paper 99-0126, Jan. 1999. 2418, June 2001.
23. Benmeddour, A., "Application of the
Canadian Code to the F/A-18C JDAM Separation,"
AIAA Paper 99-127, Jan. 1999.
18. T. Welterlen, et al, "Application of Viscous,
Cartesian CFD to Aircraft Store Carriage and
Separation Simulation," AIAA-96-2453, June 1996.
24. Noak, R., and Jolly, B., "Fully Time
Accurate CFD Simulations of JDAM Separation
from an F-18C Aircraft," AIAA Paper 2000-0794,
January, 2000.
25. Sickles, W. L., Denny, A. G., Nichols,
R. H. " Time-Accurate CFD Predictions for the
JDAM Separation from an F-18C Aircraft," AIAA
Paper 2000-0796, January 10-13, 2000.
26. Cenko, A and Lutton, M., "ACFD
Applications to Store Separation - Status Report,"
The Aeronautical Journal, Oct 2000.
27. Frink N. Upwind scheme for solving the
Euler equations on unstructured tetrahedral meshes.
AIAA Journal, Vol., No. 1, pp 70-77, January 1992.
28. Frink N. Tetrahedral unstructured
Navier-Stokes method for turbulent flows. AIAA
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

FIGURE 1 F/A-18C/JDAM Test Case

Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

FIGURE 2 CF-18/MK-83 Configuration

 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

Figure 3. Surface Grids Used For Testing

Cp on Lower Surface of the Wing at 47%

Cp on Lower Surface of Wing at 65%

Percent Chord
Percent Chord

Figure 4: USM3D/OVERFLOW/PSP Wing Cp distributions for F-18/EFT

 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

Cp on Lower Surface of Tank

M = 0.95 a = 4.5

-0.4

-0.2

Cp 0.2
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

USM3D
PSP Test data
...A.--OVERFLOW

Figure 5: USM3D/OVERFLOW/PSP Cp distributions at EFT for F-18/EFT

Cp on Lower Surface of In-Board Mk-83

Percent Chord
-0.8

-0.6

Figure 6: USM3D/OVERFLOW Cp distributions at Inboard Mk-83 for F-18/EFT/Mk-83

 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

Cp on Lower Surface of Out-Board Mk-83

Percent Chord
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

Figure 7: USM3D/OVERFLOW Cp distributions at Outboard Mk-83 for F-18/EFT/Mk-83

M=0.95 h=20,000'

Figure 8: USM3D/OVERFLOW CF-18/MK-83 Trajectory Prediction

10
 (c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

Miss Distance

/„«•'
12 -i———————————————————————
J.J/V'
10 - •—- -o0—- - OVERFLOV
Euler
V U<^-'
PO-

/
/ \-
r-t^i

/
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 18, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2431

I" _
4

2 A
i—n—D—D_Q—^ N>.
a^X>-..f
————^a=~J: k
0 - —————
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Time, sec

Figure 9: USM3D/OVERFLOW MK-83 Miss Distance Prediction

11