Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

A98-32471
AIAA-98-2793
TOOLS FOR RAPID ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT AND MISSILE AERODYNAMICS

William B. Blake* and James M. Simon**

Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson AFB OH

ABSTRACT tunnel testing. To be useful as an instructional tool,

Preliminary design computer codes developed and
distributed by Air Force Research Laboratory are
discussed. They provide estimates of the
aerodynamic and stability and control parameters for
air vehicles. Three (Digital Datcom, HASC95,
DYNAMIC) are applicable to aircraft, one (Missile
Datcom) is specialized to missiles. Examples of
code applications are shown.
INTRODUCTION
Computer software tools are playing an increasing
role in both undergraduate and graduate engineering
education. Many analysis tools exist in industry and
government for predicting the aerodynamics and
stability and control of aircraft and missiles. In the
design environment, the simplest codes are run first,
and as the design evolves, more sophisticated tools
are used, usually in conjunction with wind tunnel
tests. Many times, cost or complexity preclude wind
a code should be easy to learn and run quickly on a
PC.
Over the past 25 years, the Air Force Research
Laboratory's Air Vehicles Directorate and its
predecessor organizations (principally the Flight
Dynamics Laboratory) have been involved with the
development and distribution of prediction codes for
aircraft and missile aerodynamics and stability and
control. These codes can be categorized into
engineering, vortex lattice, surface paneling, and
computational fluid dynamics analyses. The Flight
Control Division has developed a family of
engineering and vortex lattice codes for use in the
preliminary design environment (Refs 1-4). The
codes currently distributed by the Division and their
capabilities/limitations are shown in Table 1. The
speed and accuracy of these codes make them ideal
for use in engineering education. Each of these
codes will be discussed in turn in the paper.

TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF CODE CAPABILITIES

Digital Datcom Missile Datcom HASC95 (VORLAX) DYNAMIC

Availability Unlimited US only US only US only
Language Fortran 77 Fortran 77,90 Fortran 77 Fortran 77,90
Analysis Build-up Build-up Vortex lattice Strip theory
Input style Namelist Namelist Free format Interactive
Set-up time '/2-2 hours '/2-2 hours 2-8 hours 4 hours
Run time, 20 cc's, SGI Indigo 0.5 sec 1 sec 30 sec Interactive
Code output
Force/moment coefficients Yes Yes Yes No
Static derivatives Yes Yes No No
Dynamic derivatives Yes Yes No Yes
Ground effect Yes No Yes No
Load distributions No M> 1.2 only Yes No
* Aerospace Engineer, Associate Fellow AIAA
** Aerospace Engineer

This paper is declared a work of the U.S. government and

is not subject to copyright protection in the Unites States.

756
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
DATCOM HANDBOOK
One of the most commonly referenced sources for
information in many current undergraduate and
graduate text books (Ref. 5,6,7,8,9) is the USAF
Stability and Control Datcom (Ref. 10). The Datcom
(short for Data Compendium) was originally
published in 1960 and was updated many times prior
to its final printing in 1978. It is now available from
Global Engineering (800) 854-7179 for approx-
imately $200. It is a collection of charts and
equations for predicting the aerodynamic coefficients
due to angle of attack and control deflection, and the
static and dynamic stability derivatives for an aircraft
configuration. Over 3200 pages long*, it is
composed of the following sections:
TABLE 2 - DATCOM HANDBOOK SECTION
Section
1 Guide to Datcom
2 Notation
3 Effects of External Stores
4 Characteristics at Angle of Attack
5 Characteristics in Sideslip
6 High Lift and Control Devices
7 Dynamic Derivatives
Mass and Inertia
VTOL-STOL aircraft
The Datcom uses the component build-up method
pioneered by Pitts, Nielsen and Kaatarri (Ref. 11).
Predictions for the lift (or drag or moment) of the
body alone, wing and tail are first made. These are
then summed including appropriate interference
factors for body vortices and upwash, wing carryover
and downwash, to give the aerodynamics of the
complete configuration. The expression for the lift
curve slope of the complete configuration is given
as:
C
La = CLa,B + CLa,w(KW(B) + KB(W)) +
^r-)——
da q^
Other derivatives are computed in a similar fashion.
The Datcom is restricted to wing-tail and canard-
wing configurations with a single vertical or "H" tail.
Three surface (canard-wing-tail) configurations, "V"
tails and canted twin tails cannot be treated.
* A very useful concise summary of the Datcom methods is
given in the Appendix of Blakelock's book (Ref. 9)
757
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
DIGITAL DATCOM
Calculation of even a single stability derivative by
hand for a complete configuration can be tedious. In
1974, the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory
contracted with McDonnell Douglas to create a
computerized version or "Digital Datcom", based
solely on the methods contained within the Datcom
handbook. The coding was performed using Fortran
66 (aka Fortran IV) for a CDC computer, and was
completed in 1979 (Ref. 1). The handbook was
being updated as the computer program was being
written, so the April 1976 version of the handbook is
what is represented in the completed code. As a
result, Sections 3, 8 and 9 from the handbook are not
included in the code.. A series of minor updates
have been made since 1979, primarily aimed at error
correction and compatibility with modem computer
systems. The only section of the code that is not
directly from the handbook is the airfoil section
analysis, which is taken from the work of Kinsey and
Bowers (Ref. 12).
Digital Datcom is run in a batch mode. The user
generates an input file which is read by the program
and one or more output files are generated based on
user selections. The input is in NAMELIST format,
with variables grouped by type (i.e. wing geometry,
flight conditions, etc). All of the NAMELIST input
processing has been coded internally in Digital
Datcom, so there is no requirement for the host
computer to support NAMELIST. Up to 20 Mach
numbers can be run in a single case, and up to 300
cases can be "stacked" allowing analysis of multiple
e.g. locations, control devices, etc in a single run. A
wide variety of control devices can be input, as
indicated in Table 3, although a rudder cannot be
analyzed:
TABLE 3 - ALLOWABLE CONTROL DEVICES
Symmetric controls Asymmetric controls
Plain flap Plain flap aileron
Single slotted flap Flap spoiler
Double slotted flap Plug spoiler
Split flap Spoiler-slot deflector
Leading edge flap Differential tail
Leading edge slat
Krueger flap
All moving tail
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

CASEID 0.03 SCALE XB-70 WING-BODY

PLOT
$FLTCON NMACH=1.,MACH(1)=0.8,STMACH=0.99,ALT=0.,
NALPHA=20.,ALPHA=-4.,-2.,-1.,0.,1.,2.,4. , 6. , 8. , 10. , 12 . ,
ALPHA(12)=12.,14.,16.,18.,20.,22.,24.,26.,28.,$
$OPTINS SREF=816.48,CBARR=28.26,BLREF=38.52, $
$BODY NX=7.,
X(l) =3.84, 9.32,14.80,26.1,30.58,36.35, 68.31,
R(l)=0. ,0.98,1.47,1.47,1.47,1.47,1.47,
ZU(1)=0.65,2.37,3.23,3.23,3.23,2.74,0.,
ZL(1)=0.65,0.,0.,0.,-2.08,-2.19,-2.19,$
SSYNTHS xw=26.i,zw=o.,ALIW=O.,xcc=48.64,zcG=o.,
XV=60.,YV=5.19,ZV=0.,PHIV=0., $
$WGPLNF CHRDR=43.74,CHRDTP=0.79,SSPN=18.9,SSPNE=17.43,
SAVSI=66.25,CHSTAT=0.0,DHDADI=0.,TWISTA=0.,TYPE=1.,$
NACA-W-S-3-30.0-2.1-40.0
$VTPLNF CHRDR=8.31,CHRDTP=2.49,SSPN=5.70,SSPNE=5.69,
SAVSI=45.,CHSTAT=0.25,TYPE=1.,$
NACA-V-S-3-30.0-3.2-40.0
DIM IN
SAVE
NEXT CASE
CASEID 0.03 SCALE XB-70 WING-BODY-CANARD
PLOT
$SYNTHS XW=14.80,ZW=2.26,ALIW=0.,XH=26.1,ZH=0.,ALIH=0.,$
$WGPLNF CHRDR=10.15,CHRDTP=2.9,SSPN=5.19,SSPNE=3.72,
SAVSI=38.,CHSTAT=0.25,DHDADI=0.,TWISTA=0.,TYPE=1.,$
NACA-W-S-3-30.0-2.7-40.0
$HTPLNF CHRDR=43.74,CHRDTP=0.79,SSPN=18.9,SSPNE=17.43,
SAVSI=66.25,CHSTAT=0.0,DHDADI=0.,TWISTA=0.,TYPE=1.,$
NACA-H-S-3-30.0-2.1-40.0
NEXT CASE
FIGURE 1 DIGITAL DATCOM INPUT FOR XB-70

as "wing" and the wing is input as a "horizontal tail".

The program checks the relative sizes of the lifting
surfaces to determine whether a conventional or
canard configuration has been input. A graphic
representation of the input shown in Figure 1 is
presented in Figure 2. This was generated using a
program written at NASA Langley (Ref. 13).

FIGURE 2. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF

DIGITAL DATCOM XB-70 INPUT

A sample input for the XB-70 supersonic bomber is

shown in Figure 1. An unusual Digital Datcom
requirement is illustrated in this example. Digital
Datcom requires the forward lifting surface to be
designated as a wing (NAMELIST WGPLNF) and
Angle of Attack, deg
the aft lifting surface to be designated as a tail
(NAMELIST HTPLNF). Thus, to model a canard FIGURE 3. DIGITAL DATCOM XB-70 LIFT
configuration such as the XB-70, the canard is input PREDICTION, M=0.8.

758
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Digital Datcom predictions are compared to wind
tunnel data from Ref. 14 in Figures 3-5. The lift
comparison shown in Figure 3 is excellent. The drag
comparison shown in Figure 4 is acceptable for
stability and control purposes, but note that the drag
at zero lift is underpredicted by almost 50%. Datcom
usually gives an adequate prediction of induced drag,
but zero lift drag is very difficult to predict, and the
handbook methods are not considered adequate for
detailed performance calculations. One reason for
the difficulty in predicting drag is the simplified
body representation. Digital Datcom models a
fuselage as a body of revolution, which may be
cambered. Inlets, canopies, protuberances, and other
details cannot be modeled in Digital Datcom. The
pitching moment comparisons in Figure 5 are very
good. The destabilizing effect of adding the canard
to the wing-body combination is well predicted.
' 0 0.1 0.2
Drag Coefficient, CD
FIGURE 4. DIGITAL DATCOM XB-70 DRAG
PREDICTION, M=0.8.
Wing-Body-Canard
E
o tana,•eq
Angle of Attack, deg
FIGURE 5. DIGITAL DATCOM XB-70 MOMENT
PREDICTION, M=0.8.
759
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
MISSILE DATCQM
Attempts at applying the Datcom handbook methods
and Digital Datcom to missile configurations were
not successful (Ref. 15). As a result, a Tri-service
committee on Missile and Projectile Aerodynamics
identified a need for a Datcom like tool for missiles.
In 1982, the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory
contracted with McDonnell Douglas to develop this
tool. A computer program written in Fortran 77 for
VAX computers was developed. There have been
seven releases of the code, each resulting in
additional capability. The current release is the 5/97
Fortran 90 version (Refs. 2, 16). It is capable of
handling axisymmetric or elliptic bodies with up to
four sets of fins. Each set may have up to eight fins
within it, which may be positioned arbitrarily along
the body and deflected independently. Airbreathing
inlets, trailing edge flaps, and body protuberances
may also be included in the analysis.
A fundamental difference between Digital Datcom
and Missile Datcom is the approach taken for the
wing-body interference calculations. Missile
Datcom uses the "equivalent angle of attack" method
developed by Hemsch and Nielsen (Ref. 17) which
assumes that the factors which contribute to the
normal force on a fin (angle of attack, bank angle,
body upwash, deflection and vortex effects) can be
expressed as an incremental angle of attack and
linearly summed to give an equivalent total angle of
attack. The normal force curve for the isolated fin is
then interpolated at the equivalent angle of attack to
give the force on the fin in the actual flowfield. This
procedure gives:
CN=< -N,B N,F \a,eq
where:
a
eq ~ aeq S=Q +
fins
1
S=0 cosa
— tan A# <j> sin a sin (p cos (p + tan AaVOT.
The terms included in this analysis have been
expanded in Missile Datcom to give the effects of fin
dihedral (for folding fins) and steady rotation (for
dynamic derivatives).
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

CASEID NASA TM 4480 BODY-TAIL2

SOSE
DIM IN
$FLTCON NMACH=2.,MACH(1)=1.75,2.86,ALT=0.,0.,
NALPHA=20.,
ALPHA{1)=-4.,-2.,0.,2.,4.,6.,8.,10. , 12 . , 14. , 16. ,
ALPHA(12)=18.,20.,22.,24.,26.,28.,30.,32.,34.,$
$REFQ SREF=2.1825,LREF=1.667,LATREF=1.667,XCG=19.18,$
$AXIBOD TNOSE=CONE,LNOSE=1.93,DNOSE=1.667,BNOSE=0.41675,
LCENTR=35.74,DCENTR=1.667,$
$FINSET1 XLE=3.13,SSPAN=0.8335,1.079,2.701,CHORD=3.60,3.663,0.343,
SWEEP=0.,66.5,ZUPPER=.017, .017, .017,LMAXU=.060, .060, .6,
LFLATU=0.94,0.94,0.,STA=0.,0.,
NPANEL=4.,PHIF=0.,90.,180.,270.,$
$FINSET2 XLE=29.,29.,30.34,SSPAN=.8335,1.1635,2.500,CHORD=8.,8.,6.67,
NPANEL=4.,ZUPPER=.005,.005,.006,LMAXU=.040,.040,.048,
LFLATU=.96,.96,.952,PHIF=0.,90.,180.,270., $
BUILD
NEXT CASE
FIGURE 6. MISSILE DATCOM INPUT FOR COMPRESSED CARRIAGE SIDEWINDER (REF. 18)

Missile Datcom uses an input style identical to 80

Digital Datcom. A sample input for the compressed 60
carriage Sidewinder missile tested at NASA Langley Body-Canard
(Ref. 18) is shown in Figure 6. A drawing of the 40

vehicle from a simple Missile Datcom graphics 20

generator is shown in Figure 7.
0
O-20

-40

-60

-80 Symbols: Test data

FIGURE 7. NASA TM 4480 MISSILE GEOMETRY. Lines: Datcom prediction
-100
-5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Configuration build-up data comparisons are shown ALPHA
in Figures 8-9. The data comparisons are quite good FIGURE 9. MISSILE DATCOM PITCHING
both cases. MOMENT COMPARISON, M=2.86, FROM REF. 16.

30 HASC and HASC95

Symbols: Test data
Lines: Datcom prediction
25 One major limitation of the Datcom codes is that the
Body-Tail
configuration geometries they can handle is limited.
20
As code complexity increases, so does set-up time
15
and run time, as indicated in Table 1. In 1988,
Body-Canard-Tail
Wright Laboratory contracted with Lockheed
O
10 Aeronautical Systems Company to develop an
improved vortex lattice analysis capability which
included wing vortex burst effects and discrete body
Body-Canard vortex effects. The code was built on the widely
used VORLAX (Ref. 19) code, and named HASC
-5
for High Alpha Stability and Control (Ref. 20).
-5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ALPHA
In 1993, the NASA Langley Research center
FIGURES. MISSILE DATCOM NORMAL FORCE
sponsored a workshop (Ref. 21) to identify and
COMPARISON, M=2.86, FROM REF. 16.
articulate requirements for non-linear aerodynamic

760
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

prediction capabilities during conceptual/preliminary HASC95 - VORLAX

design. Prior agility studies conducted at NASA
Langley had indicated a shortfall in aerodynamic
prediction capability for tactical aircraft. NASA
followed this workshop with contracted efforts by
Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Fort
Worth (formerly General Dynamics) to assess the
capabilities of Digital Datcom, HASC, VORSTAB
(Ref. 22) and VORSTAB II (Ref. 23). Following
these studies, NASA contracted with Lockheed Fort
Worth to developed an improved HASC. The
resultant code, HASC95 (Ref. 3), replaced the
circular forebody analysis with a chined body
analysis, improved the code robustness, input and
output, and generated electronic documentation. The
analysis modules in HASC95 are discussed in the
following sections. A HASC95 input file for a
simple swept wing is shown in Figure 9.
VORLAX is a generalized vortex lattice code
developed by Lockheed in the mid-1970s under
NASA sponsorship (Ref. 19). It can be run at both
subsonic and supersonic conditions. The
configuration geometry is input as a series of
surfaces made up of one or more panels. The input
requires that the X, Y, Z coordinates, chord, and
incidence angle at each panel edge be input. Each
panel is further divided into subpanels by specifying
the number of chordwise and spanwise strips desired.
These strips can be spaced either linearly or by a
cosine law spacing. One of the attractive features of
VORLAX is that it can be used at both subsonic and
supersonic speeds.
HASC95 - VORLIF

VORLIF is a semi-empirical module used to

SIMPLE WING calculate leading edge vortex characteristics. These
*LAX LAY HAG RUN NPAN NSURF
0 1 0.0 1.0 2 2 include vortex lift and drag, transition of the vortex
*REY NMACH MACH core from laminar to turbulent flow, and vortex burst.
0.1000E+06 1 0.2 VORLIF uses the geometry input and VORLAX
*NALPHA ALPHAS
6 0.01.02.03.04.0 5.0
output (including leading edge thrust and stripwise
*NBETA BETA forces/moments) as inputs to a 2-D semi-empirical
1 0.0 method for calculating the vortex lift and drag for
*PITCHQ ROLLQ YAWQ VINF each streamwise section. The VORLIF module goes
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0
*SREF CBAR XBAR ZBAR WSPAN through three cycles for each vortex generating
375.0 14.0 9.5 0.0 30.0 surface. The first cycle is used to obtain starting
vortex positions assuming that the externally induced
LEFT WING
*SRTYP NPAN SYMFLG ENETAR FTL ALZL XGAP
velocity in the core is the same as the freestream
510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 velocity. Cycles 2 and 3 refine the vortex position
* PANEL 1 OF LEFT WING calculations, determine forces and moments induced
*XI Yl Zl CORDl AINC1
15 .0 -15.0 0. 0 5.0 0.0
by the vortex flow, and use empirically derived
*X2 Y2 Z2 CORD2 AINC2 criteria for to determine transition and vortex burst
0. 00 0.0 0. 0 20.0 0.0 locations.
*SPNDIV CHRDIV SPC ARFYL NAP VTXFLG
10 10 1.0 0 0 0
HASC95 - VTXCHN
RIGHT WING
*SRTYP NPAN SYMFLG ENETAR FTL ALZL XGAP VTXCHN (Ref. 24) is an engineering prediction
510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
* PANEL 1 OF RIGHT WING
code used to calculate the aerodynamic loads on a
*X1 Yl Zl CORDl AINC1 body including effects of forebody vortex shedding.
0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 Both axisymmetric and chined bodies can be
*X2 Y2 Z2 CORD2 AINC2 analyzed. VTXCHN uses 3-D sources/sinks and 2-D
15.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 0.0
*SPNDIV CHRDIV SPC ARFYL NAP VTXFLG doublets to analyze the body shape in a conformal
10 10 1.0 0 0 0 transformation plane. The lee-side vortex wake is
modeled by discrete vortices in crossflow planes in
the transformed plane. For chined bodies, the
FIGURE 9. SAMPLE HASC95 INPUT FILE separation is assumed to occur at the sharp edge of
the chine. The Stratford criteria is used to estimate

761
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

the separation location on smooth bodies. VTXCHN

calculations are done in a stepwise fashion along the
length of the body.

HASC95 - APPLICATION

The HASC95 report (Ref. 3) contains extensive data

correlations for many configurations. Instead of
reproducing these, a recent example of an Air Force
Research Laboratory application of the code will be
presented. During the mid 1980's, the USAF
undertook a research program to demonstrate
technologies for potential inclusion into the ATF
(now F-22). The F-15 SMTD (STOL and Maneuver
Technology Demonstrator) program modified an F-
15B by adding a sets of canards and replacing the
existing nozzles with 2-D thrust vectoring/reversing
nozzles. After this program was completed, the 2-D
nozzles were replaced with axisymmetric vectoring
nozzles. This program is the F-15 ACTIVE
(Advanced Control Technology for Integrated
Vehicles). Recent interest in vertical tailless fighters
resulted in a study to modify this aircraft by
removing the canards and vertical tails and adding
dihedral to the horizontal tails. A HASC95 analysis
of the ACTIVE configuration with the proposed
modifications was made to study this proposal. A
graphical representation of the F-15 ACTIVE
generated by HASC95 is shown in Figure 10. Figure
11 shows one potential modification with the tails
mounted at a 34 deg. Dihedral angle. The challenge
with the modified configuration is to provide
adequate directional stability and control.
FIGURE 11. HASC95 REPRESENTATION OF
MODIFIED F-15 ACTIVE.
To assess the adequacy of HASC95 for this study,
data comparisons were made with configuration
build-up data taken during wind tunnel tests of the
SMTD configuration (Ref. 25). Predictions were
then made for various stability and control
parameters for the modified aircraft with horizontal
tail dihedral as the free variable. The directional
stability predictions/comparisons resulting from this
process are shown in Figure 12. Excellent agreement
with test data was found. Negative dihedral angles
were found to be slightly more favorable, although
positive directional stability was not attained with the
maximum dihedral angle analyzed. Predicted
yawing moment due to differential tail deflection was
found to exceed that due to rudder deflection in
many cases.

Circles: test data

Canard removed " Triangles: HASC95

Canard and vertical tail removed (prediction only)

en
m
§ -0.001

Vertical tail removed

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Horizontal Tail Dihedral Angle, deg

FIGURE 10. HASC95 REPRESENTATION OF F-15 FIGURE 12. DIRECTIONAL STABILITY

ACTIVE. COMPARISON OF MODIFIED F-15 ACTIVE.

762
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
DYNAMIC
The program DYNAMIC (Ref.4) is a mechanization
of the strip theory method of calculating the dynamic
stability derivatives. The program will calculate Cmq,
dp, Cnp, Cir, and Cm. DYNAMIC calculates the
contribution of wings, canards, horizontal tails,
vertical tails, and the fuselage on the dynamic
derivatives. The program runs in an interactive
mode with the user prompted to input either
numerical values or names of files containing the
needed input data. The input data required consists
of both geometry and aerodynamic data obtained
from other sources. The wing, horizontal tail, and
canards all use the same method and the input data is
similar for each of these surfaces. The aerodynamic
data required for these surfaces includes both
normalized load distributions and values of CN and
CA at each angle of attack for the wing and canard.
The horizontal tail is handled differently. Two
values of CN are input for the horizontal tail. One is
with the tail in the presence of the wing's downwash
and the other is for an isolated tail.
A load distribution, normalized to a CL=1.0 is
required for all lifting surfaces. The lift distribution
can be obtained from a variety of sources including
vortex lattice codes like HASC95 and panel codes.
The aerodynamic data required for the fuselage
included CN versus angle of attack and Cyp. The
program can calculate these values using slender
body theory if they are not available from other
sources. The vertical tail aerodynamic data required
for input is it's contribution to Cyp. DYNAMIC can
calculate this value using a simple method, but if
higher fidelity data is available it should be used.
The lifting surface is divided into a series of strips
and the following equations are used to calculate the
dynamic derivatives.
C[p - -^FLD [2Qy sin a + KCp]a cos a]
c
np = 4FLD [^CA sin « + CAa cos a]
C[r = 4F/,£> [2Qv cos a - KCfja sin a]
Cnr = -4FLD[2CA sina - CAa cosa]
F
LD = cAy)/
763
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A similar set of relations is used to calculate the
fuselage contribution to the dynamic derivatives.
Further details can be found in Reference 4. A
comparison of DYNAMIC predicted roll derivatives
with data used in a F-16 simulation (Ref. 26) is
shown in Figure 14.
- - - - DYNAMIC
NACA-TP-1538
0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle of Attack, deg
FIGURE 14. DYNAMIC ROLL DERIVATIVE
COMPARISONS
CONCLUSION
A variety of computer codes for estimating the
aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft and missile
have been developed for the USAF over the past
twenty-five years. Four of these codes are still
maintained and distributed by the Flight Control
Division of the Air Force Research Laboratory's Air
Vehicle Directorate. Three of these (Digital Datcom,
HASC95, DYNAMIC) are oriented towards aircraft
configurations while the fourth (Missile Datcom) is
for missiles. The codes are relatively simple to use
and do not require a great degree of expertise or
aeronautical engineering experience. As a result,
they are applicable to the undergraduate and
graduate education environment.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, I.E., and Vukelich, S.R., "The
USAF Stability and Control Digital Datcom," ADDFL-
TR-79-3032, April 1979.
2. Blake, W.B., "Missile Datcom User's Manual:
1997 Fortran 90 Revision," AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1998-
3009, February 1998.
 Copyright© 1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

3. Albright, A.E., Dixon, C.J., and Hegedus,
M.C., "Modification and Validation of Conceptual
Design Aerodynamic Prediction Method HASC95 with
VTXCHN," NASA CR 4712, March 1996.
4. Thomas, R.W., "Analysis of Stability and
Control Design Methods," AFWAL-TR-84-3084, May
1984.
16. Blake, W.B., "Missile Datcom: 1997 Status
and Future Plans," AIAA Paper 97-2280-CP, June
1997.
17. Hemsch, M.J., and Nielsen, J.N., "Equivalent
Angle of Attack Concept for Estimating Nonlinear
Aerodynamics of Missile Fins," Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets. July-August 1983, pp. 356-362.

5. Lan, C.E., and Roskam, J., "Airplane 18. Blair, A.B., Jr, and Forrest, D.K., "Supersonic
Aerodynamics and Performance," Roskam Aviation and Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Canard Control
Engineering, 1980. Missile Configuration with Tail Variations," NASA TM
4480, September 1993.
6. Roskam, J, "Airplane Design," Roskam
Aviation and Engineering, 1991. 19. Miranda, L.R., Elliot, R.D., and Baker, W.M.,
"A Generalized Vortex Lattice Method for Subsonic
7. Nelson, R.C., "Flight Stability and Automatic and Supersonic Flow Applications," NASA CR-2865,
Control," McGraw-Hill, 1989. December 1977.

8. Nicolai, L.M., "Fundamentals of Aircraft 20. Adler, C.O., and Dixon, C.J., "High Angle of
Design," METS Inc., 1984. Attack Stability and Control - Prediction Methods and
Code," WL-TR-92-3050, October 1992.
9. Blakelock, J.H., "Automatic Control of
Aircraft and Missiles," John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1991. 21. Logan, M.J., "Proceedings of the Non-Linear
Aero Prediction Requirements Workshop," NASA CP
10. Hoak, D.E., et al, "The USAF Stability and 10138, March 1994.
Control Datcom," AFWAL-TR-81-3048, October 1960
(revised 1978). 22. Tseng, J.B., and Lan, C.E., "Calculation of
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airplane Config-
11. Pitts, W.C., Nielsen, J.N., and Kaattari, G.E., urations at High Angles of Attack," NASA CR 4182,
"Lift and Center of Pressure of Wing-Body-Tail October 1988.
Combinations at Subsonic, Transonic, and
Supersonic Speeds," NACA Report 1307, 1959. 23. Lan, C.E., Emdad, H., Chin, S., Sundaram, P.,
and Mehrotra, S.C., "Calculation of High Angle-of-
12. Kinsey, D.W., and Bowers, D.L., "A Attack Aerodynamics of Fighter Configurations,"
Computerized Procedure to Obtain the Coordinates and AIAA-89-2188-CP,July 1989.
Section Characteristics of NACA Designated Airfoils,"
AFFDL-TR-71-87, November 1971. 24. Mendenhall, M.R., and Lesieutre, D.J.,
"Prediction of Subsonic Vortex Shedding from
13. Roy, M-L., and Sliwa, S.M., "A Computer Forebodies with Chines," NASA CR-4323, September
Program for Obtaining Airplane Configuration Plots 1990.
from Digital Datcom Input Data," NASA TM-84639,
March 1983. 25. Murri, D.G., Grafton, S.B., and Hoffler, K.D.,
"Wind-Tunnel Investigation and Free-Flight Evaluation
14. Morrison, V.D., "Subsonic and Supersonic of a Model of the F-15 STOL and Maneuver
wind Tunnel Tests of the 0.03 Scale Sting-Mounted Technology Demonstrator, NASA TP-3003, August
Ducted Force Model No V of the North American (Los 1990.
Angeles) B-70 Airplane," Southern California
Cooperative Wind Tunnel Report 759, February 1960. 26. Nguyen, L.T., et al, "Simulator Study of
Stall/Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane
15. Vukelich, S.R., "Development Feasibility of With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability," NASA TP-
Missile Datcom," AFWAL-TR-81-3130, October 1981. 1538, December 1979.

764
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics