I ' NASA

TP
1316
C. 1

NASA Technical Paper 1316

Wind-Tunnel Investigation
at Supersonic Speeds of
a Canard-Controlled Missile With
Fixed and Free-Rolling Tail Fins

A. B. Blair, Jr.

SEPTEMBER 1978

NASA
 ,

.. .

'= II
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB. NM

IllllllSl0334438 lllII1
ll lllI l
NASA Technical Paper 1316

Wind-Tunnel Investigation
at Supersonic Speeds of
a Canard-Controlled Missile With
Fixed and Free-Rolling Tail Fins

A. B. Blair, Jr.
Langley Research C e ~ t e r
Hamptozz, Virgiltia

NASA
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Scientific and Technical
Information Office

1978
 r e f e r e n c e d i a m e t e r , 6.604 c m (2.600 i n . )

1 r e f e r e n c e body l e n g t h , 99.060 c m (39.000 i n . )

M Mach number

f r e e - s t r e a m dynamic p r e s s u r e , N/m2 (Psf a )

a n g l e o f a t t a c k , deg

droll d i f f e r e n t i a l d e f l e c t i o n s of t w o c a n a r d s ( c a n a r d s 2 and 4, shown i n

s k e t c h ( a ) ) for r o l l c o n t r o l ; i n d i v i d u a l c a n a r d s a r e d e f l e c t e d
i n d i c a t e d amount: n e g a t i v e to p r o v i d e c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e r o t a t i o n
when viewed from r e a r , deg

Gyaw y a w - c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n o f t w o c a n a r d s ( c a n a r d s 1 and 3 , shown i n

s k e t c h ( a ) ) ; p o s i t i v e for l e a d i n g e d g e r i g h t when viewed from r e a r ,
deg

@C m o d e l r o l l a n g l e ; p o s i t i v e clockwise when viewed from r e a r ( f o r

@c= Oo, c a n a r d s are i n v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e s ) , deg

r o l l r a t e o f t a i l - f i n a f t e r b o d y ; p o s i t i v e c l o c k w i s e when viewed from

r e a r , rpm

s t a t i c l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y para.meter

Canards

I 3

Rear v i e w

Sketch (a)

I
 APPAKATUS AND TESTS

Wind Tunnel

The investigation was conducted in the low Mach number test section of the
Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel, which is a variable-pressure, continuous-flow
facility, The test section is approximately 2.13 m ( 7 ft) long and 1 . 2 2 m
( 4 ft) square* The nozzle leading to the test section is of the asymmetric
sliding-block type, which permits a continuous variation in Mach number from
about 1 . 5 to 2 . 9 . (See ref. 7 . )

Model

Dimensional details of the model are shown in figure 1 (a) and a model
photograph is shown in figure 2. The model was a cruciform missile configura-
tion that consisted of a cylindrical body with canards, aft tail fins, and a
tangent ogive nose of fineness ratio 3 . 0 . The complete model body had a fine-
ness ratio of 1 5 . The canards and tail fins had slab cross sections with
beveled leading and trailing edges. In order for the model to have a free-
rolling tail-fin assembly, the tail-fin afterbody was mounted on a set of low-
friction ball bearings and was free to rotate through 3 6 0 0 (lock screw out).
For the fixed-tail configuration (lock screw in), the tail fins were locked in
line with the canards, For both the fixed and free-rolling tail configura-
tions, the canards were deflected to provide roll control and yaw control.
The tail fins were not deflected (zero cant angle) and the tail-fin assembly
had no braking system.

Test Conditions

Tests were performed at the following tunnel conditions:

Reynolds number
Mach
number
per meter per foot

1.70 339 150 56.4 1178 6.6 x lo6 2.0 x 106

2.1 6 339 150 68.5 1430 6.6 2.0
2.36 339 150 75.7 1580 6.6 2.0
2.86 339 150 98.4 2056 6.6 2.0

The dewpoint temperature measured at stagnation pressure was maintained

below 2 3 9 K (-300 F) to assure negligible condensation effects. All tests
were performed with boundary-layer transition strips measured streamwise on
both sides of the canards and tail fins and located 3.05 cm ( 1 . 2 0 in.) aft of
the body nose and 1 . 0 2 cm ( 0 . 4 0 in.) aft of the leading edges. The transition
strips were approximately 0 , 1 5 7 cm wide ( 0 . 0 6 2 in.) and were composed of No. 50
sand grains sprinkled in acrylic plastic. (See ref. 8 . )

4
I

r e f e r e n c e d i a m e t e r , 6.604 c m (2.600 i n . )

1 r e f e r e n c e body l e n g t h , 99.060 c m (39.000 i n . )

M Mach number

9 f r e e - s t r e a m dynamic p r e s s u r e , N/m2 (psfa)

a n g l e o f a t t a c k , deg

d i f f e r e n t i a l d e f l e c t i o n s o f t w o c a n a r d s ( c a n a r d s 2 and 4 , shown i n
s k e t c h ( a ) ) €or r o l l c o n t r o l ; i n d i v i d u a l c a n a r d s a r e d e f l e c t e d
i n d i c a t e d amount; n e g a t i v e t o p r o v i d e c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e r o t a t i o n
when viewed from r e a r , deg

&yaw y a w - c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n o f t w o c a n a r d s ( c a n a r d s 1 and 3, shown i n

s k e t c h ( a ) ) ; p o s i t i v e f o r l e a d i n g e d g e r i g h t when viewed from r e a r ,
de9

@C model r o l l a n g l e ; p o s i t i v e clockwise when viewed from r e a r ( f o r

@c= 0°, c a n a r d s a r e i n v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e s ) , deg

@tail r o l l r a t e o f t a i l - f i n a f t e r b o d y ; p o s i t i v e c l o c k w i s e when viewed from

r e a r , rpm

aCJaC, s t a t i c l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y parameter

Canards

Rear v i ew

Sketch (a)

I
 APPARATUS AND TESTS

Wind Tunnel

The investigation was conducted in the low Mach number test section of the
Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel, which is a variable-pressure, continuous-flow
facility. The test section is approximately 2.13 m ( 7 ft) long and 1 . 2 2 m
(4 ft) square. The nozzle leading to the test section is of the asymmetric
sliding-block type, which permits a continuous variation in Mach number from
about 1 . 5 to 2.9. (See ref. 7.)

Model

Dimensional details of the model are shown in figure l(a) and a model
photograph is shown in figure 2, The model was a cruciform missile configura-
tion that consisted of a cylindrical body with canards, aft tail fins, and a
tangent ogive nose of fineness ratio 3.0. The complete model body had a fine-
ness ratio of 1 5 . The canards and tail fins had slab cross sections with
beveled leading and trailing edges. In order for the model to have a free-
rolling tail-fin assembly, the tail-fin afterbody was mounted on a set of low-
friction ball bearings and was free to rotate through 360° (lock screw out),
For the fixed-tail configuration (lock screw in), the tail fins were locked in
line with the canards. For both the fixed and free-rolling tail configura-
tions, the canards were deflected to provide roll control and yaw control,
The tail fins were not deflected (zero cant angle) and the tail-fin assembly
had no braking system.

Test Conditions

Tests were performed at the following tunnel conditions:

. -.

Machr- ~~
Stagnation
temperature
Reynolds number

per meter per foot

~-

1.70 339 150 56.4 11 78 6.6 x lo6 2.0 x 1 0 6

1 11 : 9” 1
2.1 6 150 68,5 1430 6.6 2.0
2.36 150 75.7 1580 6.6 2.0
2.86 339 150 98.4 2056 6.6 2.0

The dewpoint temperature measured at stagnation pressure was maintained

below 2 3 9 K (-300 F) to assure negligible condensation effects. All tests
were performed with boundary-layer transition strips measured streamwise on
both sides of the canards and tail fins and located 3.05 cm ( 1 . 2 0 in.) aft of
the hotly nose and 1 . 0 2 cm ( 0 . 4 0 in.) aft of the leading edges. The transition
strips were approximately 0.157 cm wide ( 0 . 0 6 2 in.) and were composed of No. 50
sand grains sprinkled in acrylic plastic. (See ref. 8.)

4
i
Y
i The p r i m a r y method f o r c o n t r o l l i n g t a i l - f i n r o t a t i o n a l speed was by l i m i t -
i n g t h e model a n g l e of a t t a c k - I n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h i s t e s t program, t a i l -
f i n r o t a t i o n a l speed was n o m i n a l l y l i m i t e d t o 200 rpm as a s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n ;
however, t h i s l i m i t w a s e x t e n d e d t o 500 rpm as more c o n f i d e n c e was g a i n e d - I n
o r d e r to s a t i s f y t h e s e l i m i t s , o n l y small c a n a r d d e f l e c t i o n s were made.

Measurements

Aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments on t h e model were measured by means o f a

six-component e l e c t r i c a l s t r a i n - g a g e b a l a n c e which was housed w i t h i n t h e model.
The b a l a n c e w a s a t t a c h e d t o a s t i n g which was, i n t u r n , r i g i d l y f a s t e n e d t o t h e
model s u p p o r t system. Balance-chamber pressure ( b a s e pressure) was measured by
means o f a s i n g l e s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e o r i f i c e l o c a t e d i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e b a l -
ance. One l i g h t - e m i t t i n g d i o d e w i t h a p h o t o - t r a n s i s t o r r e c e i v e r pick-up mounted
on t h e s t i n g was used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a c o l o r - c o d e d r i n g a t t h e b a s e of t h e
model t o r e c o r d t a i l - f i n a f t e r b o d y r e v o l u t i o n s . The a c c u r a c y o f t h i s r e c o r d i n g
s y s t e m was 520 rpm. N o a t t e m p t w a s made t o measure t h e a f t e r b o d y torque t h a t
was produced by t h e i n t e r n a l b a l l - b e a r i n g f r i c t i o n , v i s c o u s - l a y e r s k i n f r i c t i o n ,
or aerodynamic damping -
Correct i o n s

The a n g l e s o f a t t a c k h a v e been c o r r e c t e d f o r d e f l e c t i o n of t h e b a l a n c e and

s t i n g due t o aerodynamic l o a d s . I n a d d i t i o n , a n g l e s o f a t t a c k have been cor-
r e c t e d f o r tunnel-flow misalignment. The d r a g and a x i a l - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t d a t a
have been a d j u s t e d t o f r e e - s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e a c t i n g o v e r t h e model b a s e .
T y p i c a l measured v a l u e s o f b a s e a x i a l - f o r c e and d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e p r e s e n t e d
i n f i g u r e 3.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Figure

E f f e c t of f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l on l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of model w i t h z e r o c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n a t -
@ c = o0 - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
@,=450 ............................... 5

E f f e c t of c a n a r d s on l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model
w i t h f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l a t @c= 0 0 .................. 6

E f f e c t of f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l on l a t e r a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
model w i t h z e r o c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n a t -
@c=oo ................................ 7
@,=26.60 .............................. 8
@,=450 ............................... 9

I
 Figure

Effect of canards on lateral aerodynamic characteristics of model with

free-rolling tail at @c = 0 0 . e , , .. ., , , .. ..
, , ., 10

Roll-control characteristics of model with fixed and free-rolling tail

at -
@c=OO ................................ 11
@,=450 ............................... 12

Yaw-control characteristics of model with fixed and free-rolling tail

at @ C = O O.............................. 13

Table

Summary of test data from free-rolling tail configuration with -

........................
Zero control deflection I
Canardoff .............................. I1
Two canards differentially deflected 0,5O each for negative roll
control.. ............................. 111
.. . .
Vertical canards deflected 5O for positive yaw control * , IV

DISCUSSION

Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics

The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the model with zero control

deflection are presented in figures 4 and 5 for @c = Oo and 45O, respectively.
In general, at low angles of attack (a 6 4O), both the fixed and free-rolling
tail configurations have about the same lift-curve slope CL, and stability

level aG/aC,, At the higher angles of attack for @c = 0°, the free-rolling
tail configuration has more nonlinear pitching-moment coefficient characteris-
tics with a slight pitch-up tendency and, in general, less restoring moment
than the fixed-tail Configuration. These aerodynamic differences between the
two configurations for the @c = 45O case (fig. 5) are less pronounced, with
the pitching-moment curves.becoming more nearly linear with increases in Mach
number for the free-rolling tail configuration+ However, the fixed-tail con-
figuration now exhibits the pitch-up tendency that characterized the free-
rolling tail configuration at @c = Oo. This pitch-up trend is typical for a
missile with cruciform tail fins in the x-position (@c = 45O) at supersonic
speeds. Flow-field effects, in conjunction with adverse panel-to-panel inter-
ference between the windward and leeward tail-fin surfaces, result in a small
overall reduction in tail lift capability. This loss of lift for the fixed-tail
configuration (@c = 45O) can be seen in the lift-coefficient curves presented in
figure 5 and for the free-rolling tail configuration at @c = Oo in figure 4.
Visual observation has shown that for @c = Oo, the free-rolling tail fins are
generally interdigitated to the canards (x-position) when rotation stops and are
therefore in a similar flow environment as the fixed-tail case when aC = 45O*
This loss in tail lift would account for the pitch-up tendency,
yaw-control capability than the fixed-tail configuration. Again, the aero
lockup is delayed to higher angles of attack. (See table IV.)

CONCLUSIONS

A wind-tunnel investigation was made at free-stream Mach numbers from 1.70

to 2.86 to determine the effects of fixed and free-rolling tail-fin afterbodies
on the static longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic characteristics of a cruci-
form canard-controlled missile model. The effect of small canard roll- and
yaw-control deflections was also investigated. The results of the investiga-
tion are as follows:

1. The fixed and free-tail configurations have about the same lift-curve
slope and longitudinal stability level at low angles of attack,

2. For the free-rolling tail configuration, the canards provide conven-

tional roll control with no roll-control reversal at low angles of attack,

3 . The free-rolling tail configuration reduced induced r o l l due to model

roll angle and canard yaw control.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, VA 23665
August 9, 1 9 7 8

9
 REFERENCES

1. Sawyer, Wallace C. ; Jackson, Charlie M., Jr. i and Blair, A. B., Jr. : Aero-
dynamic Technologies for the Next Generation of Missiles. Paper presented
at the AIM/ADPA Tactical Missile Conference (Gaithersburg, Maryland),
Apr. 27-28, 1977.

2. Schult, Eugene D.: Free-Flight Measurements of the Rolling Effectiveness

and Operating Characteristics of a Bellows-Actuated Split-Flap Aileron
on a 60° Delta Wing at Mach Numbers Between 0.8 and 1.8. NACA RM L54H17,
1954.

3. Regan, Frank J,; and Falusi, Mary E.: The Static and Magnus Aerodynamic
Characteristics of the M823 Research Store Equipped With Fixed and Freely
Spinning Stabilizers, NOLTR 72-291, U.S- Navy, Dec. 1, 1972. (Available
from DDC as AD 751 658.)

4. Regan, F. J.; Shannon, J. H. W.; and Tanner, F. J.: The Joint

N.O,L,/R.A.E./W.R.E, Research Programme on Bomb Dynamics. Part 111.
A Low-Drag Bomb With Freely Spinning Stabilizers. WRE-Report-904
(WRbD), Australian Def. Sci. Serv., June 1973.

5. Darling, John A,: Elimination of the Induced Roll of a Canard Control

Configuration by Use of a Freely Spinning Tail. NOLTR 72-197, U.S. Navy,
Aug. 16, 1972-

6. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units -

Physical Constants and
Conversion Factors (Second Revision). NASA SP-7012, 1973.

7. Schaefer, William T., Jr.: Characteristics of Major Active Wind Tunnels at

the Langley Research Center. NASA TM X-1130, 1965.

8. Stallings, Robert L., Jr.; and Lamb, Milton: Effects of Roughness Size on
the Position of Boundary-Layer Transition and on the Aerodynamic Charac-
teristics of a 55O Swept Delta Wing at Supersonic Speeds. NASA TP-1027,
1977.

9. Spahr, J. Richard; and Dickey, Robert R.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the

Vortex Wake and Downwash Field Behind Triangular Wings and Wing-Body Com-
binations at Supersonic Speeds. NACA RM A53D10, 1953.

10. Dillenius, Marnix F. E.; and Nielsen, Jack N.: Prediction of Aerodynamics
of Missiles at High Angles of Attack in Supersonic Flow. NEAR TR 99
(Contract No. N00014-74-C-0050); Nielsen Eng. & Res., Inc., Oct. 1975.
(Available from DDC as AD A078 680.)

11. Hardy, Samuel R.: Subsonic Wind Tunnel Tests of a Canard-Control Missile
Configuration in Pure Rolling Motion. NSWC/DL TR-3615, U.S. Navy, June
1977. (Available frcm DDC as AD A044 957.)

10
 TABLE I.- SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM FREE-ROLLING TAIL CONFIGURATION

WITH ZERO CONTROL DEFLECTION

M a, l a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpmi Remarks
deg Counterclockwise

.70 -1.9 11 5
-.
8 122
0 11 5
1.2 127
2.2 97
4.4 88
6,6 80
8.9 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
11.1 0 9ero lockup
13.5 0 Jery small o s c i l l a t i o n angle
J-
17.9 0

.70 -2.0 108

-.
5 133
-.
1 121
1.1 127
2.1 116
4.5 12 Rotated very slowly
6.6 116 Roll r a t e a p p a r e n t l y i n c r e a s i n g w i t h a

.70 -2.4 15 105

-* 9 71 2
0 123
.9 11 2
2.2 124
4.4 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
6.5 0 Very small o s c i l l a t i o n angle
8.8 21 Rotated very slowly
J.
17.8 0 Rero lockup

2.16 -1.2 0 120

.l 114
1 .o 112
2.2 11 0
3.3 96
5.5 75
7.7 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; a e r o lockup
J.
24.7 0
-

aWhen viewed from t h e rear.

11
 TABLE I.- Continued

M a,
deg
@c,
deg Counterclockwise
-
- -I
Tail-fin r o l l rate, rpma Remar k s
1
2.16 -1.0 26.4 121
-.1 122
.9 130
2.1 107
3.2 96
5.4 0 Stopped rolling
7.5 0
7.8 199 Roll rate apparentljr increasing with a
-

2.16 -1.4 45 100

-.1 104
1 .o 99
2.1 100
3.2 87
5.4 0 Stopped rolling
7.5 0
9.9 114 Started rolling
12.0 128
14.1 195 Roll rate increasing with a
2.36 -1 .5 0 143
-. 2 129
.9 83
2,o 78
2.9 72
5.2 37
7.3 27
9.6 0 Stopped rolling; aero lockup
J-
23.7 0 Large oscillation angle

2.36 -1.5 26.6 80

0 94
.9 98
2.0 61
3.1 0 Stopped rolling
5*3 0
194 Roll rate apparently increasing with a
I L - -
aWhen viewed from the rear.

12
 TABLE I.- Continued

M 3,
rail-fin roll rate, Remarks
IC I
de9 geg Counterclockwi:
2.3t -1 .o 45 56
.3 70
1.3 100
2,4 56
3.5 54
5.6 0 Stopped rolling
7.7 33 Started rolling
9.9 118 Roll rate increasing with a
12.0 161
14.4 167
16.5 122
18.7 0 Stopped rolling; aero lockup
J.
23.8 0

2.8E -2.9 0 23 Low roll rates

-1 .6 71
-. 5 64
.7 62
1.8 36
3.8 0 Stopped rolling; aero lockup
J.
22.0 0

2.8t -2.8 26.5 33

-1.5 49
-,6 51
.6 0 Oscillated; 2 or 3 revolutions
1.8 50 Started rolling
3,7 0 Stopped rolling
5.9 0
8.0 131 Started rolling
10.0 0 Stopped rolling
11.5 230 Roll rate apparently increasing with C

SWhen viewed from the rear.

13
 TABLE I.- Concluded

-
M T a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpma Remarks
Counterclockwise

2.86 -2.5 45 27 Low r o l l r a t 3

-1.5 51
-.
5
.7
93
50
1.7 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
3.9 0 Small o s c i l l a t i o n a n g l e
5.9 0
8.1 75 Started rolling
10.3 120 Steady r o l l i n g
12.6 124
14.6 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
17.0 0
19.1 0
20.2 157 Started rolling
- ~

aWhen viewed from t h e r e a r ,

14
 I

TABLE 11.- SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM FREE-ROLLING T A I L CONFIGURATION

WITH CANARD OFF

M 3,
Tail-fin r o l l r a t e , rpma Remar k s
)C
deg leg Clockwise

70 -2.0 0 54 Very l o w r o l l r a t e s
-.9 37
0 39
1 .o 46
2.1 47
4.0 31
6,O 31
8.0 0 Stopped and s t a r t e d t o r o l l
10.0 0
12.1 30
14,2 28
16.4 26 Aero lockup

!.1 6 -1 . 6 0 33 Very l o w and steady r o l l r a t e s

-. 9 34
-. 1 31
1 .o 47
2.0 20
3.0 30
5.0 23
7.0 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
9.1 0 Stopped; s t a r t e d f o r s e v e r a l revolu-
11.3 0 t i o n s a t a very slow r a t e
13.4 26 Stopped; s t a r t e d ; o s c i l l a t e d
J.
23.2 27 Rolled h e s i t a n t l y and i r r e g u l a r l y

aWhen viewed from t h e r e a r .

15

I
 TABLE 11.- Concluded

-I
a, r a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpma Remarks
de9 Clockwise
-
-1.2 0 74 Low r o l l r a t e s
-.3 47
.8 86
1.8 52
2.8 102
4.9 88
6.9 45 Stopped; s t a r t e d ; and o s c i l l a t e d
9.0 0 Rolled h e s i t a n t l y and i r r e g u l a r l y
J.
23.0 42
__
-2.5 0 39 Low r o l l r a t e s
J.
5.6 28
7.8 0 Stopped r o l l i n g
9.8 0 3 s c i l l a t e d through s m a l l angle
J.
21 .6 0

3When viewed from the r e a r .

16
 TABLE 111.- SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM FREE-ROLLING TAIL CONFIGURATION

WITH TWO CANARDS DIFFERENTIALLY DEFLECTED 0.50

EACH FOR NEGATIVE ROLL CONTROL

M 3, ' a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpma Remarks

deg Clockwise
I .7 -2.2 98
-1.1 96
0 90
1.2 100
2.4 114
4.5 123
6.6 131
8.9 97
11.1 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero l o c k u p
f
17.9 0 Small o s c i l l a t i o n a l i g l e

I .7 -2.3 102
-1 .3 81
-. 1 83
1.3 105
2,2 104
4.3 128
f
10.8 207 Roll r a t e i n c r e a s i n g w i t h (3;
(3 > 110; rpm > 500

2,l -1 * 2 93
0 97
1.1 109
2.2 122
3.3 136
5.5 154
7.6 164 Steady r o l l i n g
J.
16.7 138
18.9 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero l o c k u p
J.
24.8 0

3When viewed from t h e rear.

17
 TABLE 111. - Continued

Pail-fin r o l l r a t e , rpma Remarks

Clockwise
-1.3 45 82
0 84
1 .o 95
2.1 95
3.3 104
5,4 150
7.6 207 Steady r o l l i n g
J.
12.0 151
14.3 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero lockup
J.
24.5 0
~~ ~

-1 .3 0 109
-. 1
.8
121
103
2.0 95
3.1 147
5.2 123
7.3 110
9.6 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero lockup
J.
24.4 0

-1 .o 45 88
-4 71
1.3 105
2.3 93
3.4 108
5.6 168
7.8 3 78
10.0 156
12.2 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero lockup
+
24.2 0

3When viewed from the r e a r .

18
 TABLE 111.- Concluded

M I bCI
r a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpma Remarks
~~

e9 fieg Clockwise
?.86 2.7 0 51
1.5 67
-. 4 87
-7 104
2.1 80
3.8 99
5.9 123 Steady r o l l i n g
J-
4.7 133
7.0 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero lockup
J.
2.6 0
- -

2.86 2.6 45 84 Low r o l l r a t e s

1.5 58
-. 5 65
.6 71
1.7 73
3. a 105 Steady r o l l i n g
J.
0.3 42
2.5 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; aero lockup
J.
12. E 0

‘When viewed from the rear.

19
 TABLE I V , - SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM FREE-ROLLING TAIL CONFIGURATION

WITH VERTICAL CANARDS DEFLECTED 5O FOR POSITIVE YAW CONTROL

-
T a i l - f i n r o l l r a t e , rpma
M -

: l o c k w i s e Counterclockwise
-
I .70 -2.2 360
-1 .1 134
0 80 Roll d i r e c t i o n changed
1 .o 31 4 Roll r a t e i n c r e a s i n g w i t h a
2.1 463 Excessive r o l l r a t e
-_ _ ~ ~
-

2,16 -1 .3 152
0 53 Low r o l l r a t e
1.1 240
2.2 430
3*3 51 7
6.2 522 Excessive r o l l r a t e
.
. -
- ~
.
. ~ ~

2.36 -1 93 191
-* 2 36 Jery l o w r o l l r a t e both d i r e c t i o n s
.9 187 Roll r a t e i n c r e a s i n g w i t h a
2,o 360
3.0 50 0
6.7 590 Xxcessive r o l l r a t e
.-

I . 86 -2.7 351
-1 .5 177
-* 5 55
.6 84 3011 d i r e c t i o n changed
1.7 206 3011 r a t e i n c r e a s i n g w i t h
3.9 439
5.8 527
8,3 507
10.3 35 4
12.5 94
14.1 0 Stopped r o l l i n g ; " s t a b l e " a e r o lockup
J.
22.7 0

aWhen viewed from t h e r e a r .

20
 a,
m
....
N
-d
3

0
m
m
a,
4
c
51

n
m
m
Y

21
 I
T-

1
22
It

23
 ~
...
. .
...

~~~

...
...

...

.. . ..

...
, ., ..

,, . ..
I .

I
I

0 m

24
 !

Tail
3 Fixed
7 Free

-4 0 12 16 20 24

(a) M = 1.70.

Figure 4.- Effect of free-rolling tail on longitudinal aerodynamic char-

acteristics of model with zero control deflection at Oc = Oo.
25

I
 200

- 200

.2
I 0 Fixed
1 0 Free
0

-. 2
Crn

-.4 4

-.6 3

-.8 'D

20 0

16

12

a,
deg 8

-4
-2 0
i~.
. ..

2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16

( a ) Concluded.

F i g u r e 4.- Continued.

26
 .8

. 4 CA

a . deg

(b) M = 2.16.

F i g u r e 4.- Continued.

27
 20(

mtail , rpm ( $-

- 201

.2 Tail
0 Fixed
0 Free
0 6
zl
b '1
-.2 'rl
5

Cm

-. 4 'I, 4
a

-.6 D'
#
-.8 2

24 1

20 0

16

12
0,
deg
8

-4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

(b) Concluded.

Figure 4.- Continued.

28
 200

@tail .
rpm o C
n
- 200

.2

-.2
Cm

-. 4

-. 6

-.8

12

10 Tail
0 Fixed
0 Free
8

6 4
cN
4

D
U
c

-2

M = 2.36.

F i g u r e 4.- Continued.

29

I
 200

@tail , rpm O

- 200

Tail
.2
Q Fixed
0 Free
5
0

5
-. 2
Cm
I 4
-.E

3 cD
-. 1

1
2

0
2

2 4 10 14 16
0

( c ) Concluded I

F i g u r e 4.- Continued.

30
 200

*tail I rpm 0 i
CL

.. ,
.I ,

- 200 .
..
. I '
!,'I
1:: I
, :../ ;/.:!I;

.2

0
-t

Cm - . 2

-.4

-. 6

Tail
Fixed

1
I I
i

'N

i
I
0

F i g u r e 4.- Continued.

31
 Tail
0 Fixed
Free

CO
2

OB! !
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 a 10 1 1 16

(d) Concluded.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

32
 200

-2oc

.2

-. <
Cm

-. 1

-. 1
8

‘A

1 Free 1

CN

-4 16 20 24

Figure 5.- Effect of free-rolling tail on longitudinal aerodynamic char-

acteristics of model with zero control deflection at @c = 45O.
33
 200

I
. ..
@ t a i l , rPm o 9
- 200 -1

.2

0 Fixed
0 0 Free

-.2
Crn

-.4 4

-.6
B 3

P
-.8 * D'

2c 0

16
P
12

a,
deg

-4 d 6 8 10 12 14

(a) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

34
a
I

200

3- Q
E D
- 20
I
.,..

. 1

I
k B

.#

cm - . 1
i,

-. f .a
M 3
-. e .4 c*

-1.0 0

li Tail
0 Fixed
0 Free
1c ' d
)J

6
/
cN
4

0 d

-2
0 1 24 28

Figure 5.- Continued.

35
 Tail
0 ixed 6
0 ree

3 'D

2 4 6 10 12 14 16

(b) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

36
 ~

200

@ t a i l , rpm 0

- 200

.2

-. i

Cm -.L

-. 8

-.I 'A

-1.1 0

1
0 Fixed
0 Free

cN

20 24 28 32

F i g u r e 5.- Continued.

37
 20

- 201

.i

Cin -.2 5

, .

-. 4 4

-.6 3
-...... CO
-.8 ?
__ ..

24

20
I

16

...

4
.

0
--d
-4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 LO 12 14 16

(c) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

38
 200

*tail rpm 0

- 200

.2

Cm -.:

‘A

Tail
Fixed
1 Free

cN

r’
si
8 12 2
a. deg

(a) M = 2-86,

F i g u r e 5.- Continued,
39

I
 @tail
. .

Tail ....
0 Fixed
0 Free -

2 'D

2 4 t a 10 12 14 16

(d) Concluded.

F i g u r e 5.- Concluded.

40
 200

‘tail rpm

I
-200 !
i
.2
!I
i
0

!
-. 2

-. 4

-. 6 .i
Cm

-. 8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4 .8
+

. 4 CA

I( 0
Canard
0 On
t 0 Off

cN ‘ ~

j
-<
.L
-4 0 8 12 16 20 24

(a) M = 1.70.

F i g u r e 6.- E f f e c t of c a n a r d s on l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r -
a c t e r i s t i c s o f model w i t h f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l a t @c = Oo.
41

I
 200

@tail s rpm

- 200
0
iI
.2
I

-. 2
0
I
Canard
0 On
0 Off
- _4

cm - . 6

-. 8

-1.0 4

-1.2 3

- 1.4

20 I

!
16 0

12

I
8 I -
a.
d eg I I

4 1
i
I
0 1
I
I
i
-4

-E 6
2 4 6 8
Ct

(a) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

42
 200

Otail . rpm 0

-2oc

.2

-. 2
Cm

-. 4

-. 6

-. 8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

li

IC

Canard ,
8
I On
5 Off

CN

-7
-8 -4 0 4 8 20 24

(b) M = 2.16.

F i g u r e 6. - Continued.

43
 200 I '
I

:
%ail .rpm 0
E-l -E I
- 200

I
.2
I.
-.2
0
I
I :anard '

10 On
10 Off

-. 4

II ~

5
-. 6
Cm
II I

- _8 i 5

I I
~

-1.0
pl 4

-1.2 3

i
I I
I

-1.4 I 2 cD

20
Y I
I
I

! 1
I I
I

16
i
I
I
1
i
I
1
0

12
i I
i
I

e i
deg
a.

4
i I
0 I-
!
iI I
1
-4 i
1
I
i
I
1

-e 8 10 12 14 16

Concluded.

Continued.

44
 200

Qtailsrpm o

- 200
.2

0
I
I
-. 2 !
f
I
-.4 I
I
I
1
-.6
Cm
b
i
-. 8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

.I-

li C

1c

I
~

81 4
Canar

I: On
Off

4
i
~

I
I
!

Ir i
~

-.a -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

(C) M = 2.36-

F i g u r e 6.- Continued.

45
 . i!l

<
E

Canard
~

~ 0 On
I 0
, Off

I
I
I
1
i 5
I
I
I !
i
4

I
3
I
I
I
cD

j
I 1
~

4 I

I
3

I
iI
1
i

I
~

0 6 8 IO 12 14 16

Concluded.

F i g u r e 6.- Continued.

46
 Canard1
0 On
0 Off

(d) M = 2.86.

Figure 6.- Continued.

47
 1
I.
4 j
I
I
-1 -
I
!
!I - 11 -
! I
i 1 ,
I
I I I
i
I

4 Canard
On
I

0 Off
c

h,
I
!
!
..

\ 1

3
Y
+

J 1 I

II
1
cD

$5 I
I
I

1:
i
i I
I
~

I
i
I

i
I
i I
I
I

j
j i. I
I
I
1

4 6 8 6
CL

(d) Concluded.

F i g u r e 6.- Concluded.

48
 [ .. .

I 1 i
- Tail
0 Fixed
!
. .. 0 Free
i

II

i
j
I
i
j
I
I
I i .2
II
-c I
I. - 0
i

i .. 2
iI
~

I
.I_.
T !
-rr, i
I

a. d e g

M = 1.70.

Figure 7.- E f f e c t of f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l on l a t e r a l aerodynamic character-

istics of model w i t h zero c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n . a t aC
= Oo.

49
 12 16 20 24 28
a. d e g

(b) M = 2-16.

F i g u r e 7.- Continued.

50
 20( ___

'I
1 --

tr
L
-
I
-t-
- -

C" 0

-1

CY '
. i
.
a 12 16 20 24
a , deg

(e) M = 2.36.

Figure 7.- Continued.

51
 I

..
iI
!
~

j
-4 t--
I
I

_-

I
c - I .2
I

-t-
I
- .2

i-

I
I .- i
I
i. . -
!

3 4 --c
I
.. *. M
I
i
. ..

(d) M = 2.86.

Figure 7.- Concluded.

52

- .-.I
 @ t a i l . rpm

-
20

20
E/;
Tail
Fixed
!- I
Free
i
I
iI

C" (

-1
'I
i
I

i
1
i
I
i-
i
I

+ I

I
<.
I

I
I

I. .. .
.2

.i' 1.
6
0

i -. 2

i
I!
i
2 . I'
I
..

!
0 .. .. 3 0
I

-2 .1.
0 4 2
a. d e g

(a) M = 1 . 7 0 .

Figure 8.- E f f e c t of f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l on l a t e r a l aerodynamic character-

i s t i c s of model w i t h zero c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n a t Oc = 26.6O.

53
 200

@ t a i l , rpm 0

- 200,

C"

-1

-2

-? 8 32

(b) M = 2.16.

Figure 8 , - Continued.

54
 20(

*tail . rpm [

- 20(
I ..

+
I
--

.. ..
I
I
--c -

- I
.I-
1

1-
C - -

c"
-1 -L
-2
-p
,..-
-I-
I
I

I
.. .L-
.2
3iL
-
1
i
-r I
I OC1
-*
~

.- I
I-. 2

-
I...

I
I
I
I
I
I --

I
-4 4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg

(c) M = 2.36.

Figure 8.- Continued.

55
 200
t
* t a i l , rpm

-
a

20c I
Tai
0 Fixei
0 Free

c"
-1

-2 j- I
-- t-

-I
1- - .2
I
j ...
I
L+
d
0

I .2

!.:.*:
j '
I

II
2
"I '-

0- !
0
t '.. -

i
-2 .A . I . _- I
-4 0 24 28 32

M = 2.86.

Figure 8. - Concluded.

56

- -. - .. .. ..
, ,,
 20
I
*tail I rpm

- 20 &
0
I 1-
Fixed
Tail
3

0 Free

i
I i I
-1

c" c KLn n I
1
!
1
-1

1
I
I
!
I
I 1

+
I
. . 1 . + I .2
I I
i 1

E c I
c !--
0
I !
!
i -. 2

i
.I
I
I
I

I
I
iI
I
I

' QP-
I
v- I
i
I I
I I
I!
- t
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
a. d e g

(a) M = 1.70,

Figure 9.- E f f e c t of f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l on l a t e r a l aerodynamic character-

istics of model w i t h zero c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n a t @c= 45O.

57
 ...
200,

@tail , rpm o

- 200

c" 0

-1

.2

-. 2

0
Ii
-2 -4 0 8 12 16 20 24 28

(b) M = 2.16,

Figure 9.- Continued.

58
 20

*tail , rpm

- 20

Tail
0 Fixed
0 Free -

c" B F€ G

i
I
€2 rc
c

-
t-
I--
.2

-. 2

' D Q
1! ?- + 3

4
i
8
i 12 20 24 28 32
a, d e g

(c) M = 2.36.

Figure 9.- Continued.

59
 ~
.I^..
1.
. 4- . ...

.
i
_.._~I
i
-1
I
I iI
I

I
i
Lr i
t

.. I
I
!
I
i . L
-1 I

!
1

~1

+
I I

I
I

.. II I

+
I
- .,
I
- 1 ..... _L

(a) M = 2.86,

F i g u r e 9.- C o n c l u d e d .

60
 I I
4 dI
4 7E
I
I
I I
0
0
On
Off I I
I 1
I I I
I I

II III
I

I
T

Ik k
1
I
I
I
I
IL I
P1 $T
.2

1
0

I I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
-. 2

I I I I
I I
IL' L
-2
-8 -4
I rrI Y'

0
I
I 4
I I
.I,
I E1 12 16 L" !4 28

(a) M = 1.70.

Figure 10.- E f f e c t of canards on l a t e r a l aerodynamic character-

istics of model w i t h a f r e e - r o l l i n g t a i l a t ' $c = Oo.
61
 .2

0 cz

.2

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0. deg

(b) M = 2.16.

F i g u r e 10.- Continued.

62
f

@tail , rpm
200

0
m
ULdi
- 200
4rl
Canard

Cn 0

-1

.2

O Cz

.. 2

CY 0

-2
4 a 12 16 20 24 2a

(c) M = 2.36,

F i g u r e 10.- Continued.

63
 -a -4 0 4 a 12 16 20 24 28
a, deg

(a) M = 2.86.
F i g u r e 10.- Concluded,

64
 40

20

@tail , rpm

-20

-40

C" 1

.2

0 Cl

-. 2

Tail droll .de!

0 Fixed 0
0 Free 0
0 Fixed -0.5
A Free -0.5

CY

24 28 32

(a) M = 1.70.
F i g u r e 11.- R o l l - c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model w i t h f i x e d and f r e e - r o l l i n g
t a i l a t $c = Oo. Two c a n a r d s d e f l e c t e d .

65
 400

200

otail I rPm o

-200

-400

CY

(b) M = 2.16.

F i g u r e 11.- Continued.

66
 40
i
20 I
I --

A
i
@tail I rpm
-- rp-

-20

-40

C" I
I

-1

Tail broil , d e g
0 Fixed 0

2
0 Free
d;![
0
-0. 5
-0. 5

CY ( c

-,
-4 0 4

(c) M = 2.36.

Figure 11.- Continued.

67
 Tail ,deg
0 Fixed 0
0 Free 0
0 Fixed -0.5
A Free -0.5

12
a. deg

(a) M = 2.86.

F i g u r e 11 .- Concluded*
68
 400

200

@tail . rpm o

-200

-400

C" 0

-I

.2

0 Cl

-. 2
Tail
0 Fixed

2
0 Free
Fixed
Free

CY 0

-2
0 32

(a) M = 1.70.

Figure 12.- Roll-control characteristics of model with fixed and free-rolling

tail at $c = 45O. Two canards deflected.
69

I
L

(b) M = 2.16.

Figure 12.- Continued.

70
 v

I
I '
.'
1
I.
I
-
i.
. ..

!
-i-
I.
--r

+
.... .

-i-

Tail tiroll . d e <

0 Fixed 0
2 LIx,;d
0 Free 0
-0. 5
-0.5

0 4

M = 2.36.

Figure 12.- Continued.

71
 .2

0 Cl

.2

28 32

(d) M = 2.86.

F i g u r e 1 2. - Concluded.

72
 .4

.2

-. 2
a

Free 0
-.4
Fixed 5
Free 5
-.6

24 28 32

(a) M = 1 .70.

Figure 13.- Yaw-control characteristics of model with fixed and free-rolling

tail at @c = Oo. Vertical canards deflected,

73

I
 -8 -4
a. d e g

(b) M = 2.16.

F i g u r e 13.- Continued.

74
J

401

201

I
mtail . rpm

-201

-401

-601

C"

4 8 20 24 28

(c) M = 2.36.

Figure 13.- Continued.

75
 I'l

Tail
0 Fixed
0 Free
0 Fixed
A Free

20 24 28 32

(a) M = 2.86.

F i g u r e 13.- Concluded.

76
 ~~

1. Report No.
NASA TP-1316
. ..
4. Title and Subtitle
.

WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION AT SUPERSONIC SPEEDS OF A

CANARD-CONTROLLED MISSILE WITH FIXED AND FREE-ROLLING
.

1 ~
2TGoiernmeni Accession No.
-

...
.-

- ..._
I ..
-3?-ecipient*r catalog NO.

5. Report Date
September 1978
.

6. Performing Organization Code

TAIL FINS
.~ ~-. . .._. . -- . .

7 . Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

A. B. Blair, Jr. L-12297
.. - - .- - -_ 10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665

. _. __ ~ 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Paper
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ~ . -

X 20546
Washington, J 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

__-
I1 - _ _
-- ._ .
5. Supplementary Notes

. - __ ..-_.
. ~~ ~.- ~~ . ..- .______ ~

6. Abstract
A wind-tunnel investigation was made at free-stream Mach numbers from 1.70 to 2.86
to determine the effects of fixed and free-rolling tail-fin afterbodies on the
static longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic characteristics of a cruciform canard-
controlled missile model. The effect of small canard roll- and yaw-control
deflections was also investigated. The results indicate that the fixed and free-
rolling tail configurations have about the same lift-curve slope and longitudinal
stability level at low angles of attack. For the free-rolling tail configuration,
the canards provide conventional roll control with no roll-control reversal at low
angles of attack. The free-rolling tail configuration reduced induced roll due to
model roll angle and canard yaw control.

.- - - .- - .- - - - - -_ - _- __-_
7. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s1) 18. Distribution Statement
Cruciform missile Unclassified - Unlimited
Canard control
Free-rolling tail
I Subject Category 02
~ ~~~~ ~. . .- - -. - . .. - - .- - -
9. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified Unclassified $6.00. ___

.-.-
~
~ _ . -. -
..
. _ -
* For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161
NASA-Langley, 1978
National Aeronautics and THIRD-CLASS B U L K R A T E Postage and Fees Paid
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Space Administration
NASA451
Washington, D.C. USMAIL
20546
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300

I
8 1 IU,A, 090878 S00903DS
DEPT OF THE A I R F O R C E i
I
A F WEAPONS LABORATORY
ATTN: TECHNICAL L I B R A R Y [SOL)
K I R T L B N D AFB N M 87177

NASA poSTMASTER: If Undeliverable (Section 1 5 8

Postal Manual) Do Not Return

\
\