(c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

A994 6322

AIAA-99-0432
Techniques to Determine Fasthawk
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432

Missile Aerodynamics Including Inlet

Effects
K. Bowcutt, R. Burrows and J. Weir
The Boeing Company
Long Beach, CA

37fh AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting and Exhibit
January 1 l-14, 1999 / Reno, NV
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, Virginia 20191-4344
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

AIAA-99-0432

TEST TECHNIQUES TO DETERMINE FASTHAWK MISSILE AERODYNAMICS

INCLUDING INLET EFFECTS
Kevin Bowcutt, Sr. AIAA Member, Boeing Sr. Technical Fellow
Richard Burrows, Sr. Engineering Specialist
Jeffery Weir, Engineering Specialist
The Boeing Company
Long Beach, California

ABSTRACT e model nozzle exit

A unique wind tunnel test was devised to generate M pitching moment
aerodynamic data for the Fasthawk missile. Fasthawk N normal
0 freestream
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432

is a Mach four Navy cruise missile concept developed

by the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake that uses
a ramjet engine for airbreathing propulsion, and an
articulated “bent body” ramjet combustor for stability
and control. Having no control fins, Fasthawk has a
low drag aerodynamic shape that produces primarily
leading edge drag, friction drag, inlet spillage drag
(during subcritical inlet operation) and drag due to lift.
Many challenges exist for wind tunnel testing a low
drag configuration that is influenced strongly by inlet
aerodynamic effects. A model that employs a properly
scaled flowing inlet and choked nozzle exit was used to
address these challenges. Data gathered included lift,
drag, pitching moment, bent body control effectiveness
and limited surface pressures. Test methodology, data
reduction techniques and examples of test data
compared to pre-test predictions are presented.
NOMENCLATURE
A area
C aerodynamic force coefficient
D axial force
F stream thrust
balance force
Fbal
L normal force or length
?+I mass flow rate
P pressure
R specific gas constant for air
TI total temperature
center of pressure location
xv
a angle of attack
6 tail deflection angle
Y ratio of specific heats
Subscriots
A axial
Copyright 0 1999by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved
INTRODUCTION
Fasthawk is a wingless, finless, thrust vector
controlled axisymmetric missile concept that uses a
solid rocket motor for boost to an airbreathing takeover
condition, then a ramjet to accelerate to, and cruise at, a
speed of Mach four. It is designed to launch from a
Vertical Launch System (VLS) aboard Navy ships or
submarines and fly hundreds of miles in minutes. A
schematic of the Fasthawk configuration is presented in
Figure 1.
The Fasthawk concept was developed by the Naval
Air Warfare Center (NAWC) at China Lake, CA.
NAWC selected Boeing to work with them on the
initial phases of a Navy Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD) of Fasthawk. The former North
American Aircraft Division of Rockwell, now part of
The Boeing Company, had responsibility for
aerodynamics as part of the government/industry
Fasthawk team, and in this capacity designed, planned
and conducted a wind tunnel test program using Boeing
IR&D funds. More details on the Fasthawk missile
system and ATD test program are presented in
Reference 1.
Returning to Figure 1, it can be seen that the sole
contributors to zero-lift drag for Fasthawk are the cowl
leading edge plus cowl frustrum, skin friction, and inlet
spillage drag when the inlet is operating in an
undersped mode. For such a low drag configuration
that is strongly influenced by inlet flow effects (i.e.,
spillage), it is difficult to a) use an aerodynamic model
without an inlet (i.e., with a faired-over inlet) and
produce high fidelity results, or b) to separate out inlet
from aerodynamic forces in the case of using a model
with an inlet. Our solution to meeting both of these
challenges was to use a model with a geometrically
accurate inlet that operated identical to the actual
Easthawk inlet design, and to include all inlet spillage
forces and moments in the aerodynamic database,
making no attempt to separate them out. This approach

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
.
Turbo Pump /
Figure 1. Fasthawk
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
was made possible by using an aerodynamic diffuser
downstream of the inlet throat, and a calibrated, choked
nozzle at the model exit. The choked nozzle exit
location coincides with the ramjet nozzle exit of the
operational design, and was used to derive internal
model forces that could be subtracted from measured
balance forces. This approach eliminates the need for
pitot rakes at the internal flow exit to deduce stream
thrust, a procedure which has been found by experience
to be very inaccurate due to flow distortion and
boundary layer effects. The technique used in this test
permits more direct evaluation of exit stream thrust by
diffusing the flow to low subsonic speeds, which
reduces flow distortion, then choking the flow in a
calibrated sonic nozzle. This permits stream thrust to
be deduced from model plenum pressure (upstream of
the nozzle throat), an experimentally derived nozzle
calibration curve, and the Mach one condition at the
nozzle exit. More details on test approach and
aerodynamic force accounting are presented in later
sections.
Also presented in later sections are wind tunnel
model and test facility details, and examples of test
results compared to pre-test predictions. Pre-test
predictions were derived using a combination of Euler
CFD and the Missile DATCOM engineering level
aerodynamic analysis code. Results presented include
normal and axial forces, pitching moment and bent-
body control effectiveness.
TEST APPROACH
A wind tunnel test program was planned and
implemented to develop an aerodynamic force and
moment/stability and control database for Fasthawk
missile eight-degree-of-freedom flight simulation and
flight control development. The test program was
conducted from November 1996 through June 1997 in
three phases: two wind tunnel test entries and a nozzle
calibration phase.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
\ Ramjet
Engine
Missile Features
The first wind tunnel test was conducted in the
MicroCraft 7-ft. Trisonic Wind Tunnel (TWT). This
test program was identified as TWT 644, during which
a total of 66 blows (115 runs) were achieved in 59 test
hours, including nine hours for model installation.
Specific TWT test objectives were to: 1) Evaluate the
aerodynamic stability and control of the Fasthawk
Missile over an angle-of-attack range of -15” to +15”,
and at Mach numbers from 0.6 to 2.5 in the missile
boost configuration (i.e., with an inlet cover and tail
booster attached to the model); 2) Evaluate antenna
impacts to directional stability at all roll angles from 0
to 315”; 3) Obtain the effects of aft body deflection (0,
5”, 10’) on longitudinal and lateral directional stability
and control; and, 4) To check the operation of the
model in the flow-through ramjet mode at Mach 2.5.
For maximum test efficiency in the TIVT the
model was pitched at S”/sec, except for selected pitch-
pause runs to evaluate the response time of pressure
data. Model roll angle was varied from 0 to 180” with
the model in the upright position. With the model
inverted, additional negative angles of attack were
obtained.
Three different model installations were required at
TWT due to the nature of the bent body (ramjet
combustor) deflection and the requirement that the
forward fuselage remain in alignment with the
freestream. For the initial undeflected booster-on
configuration the sting was mounted directly into the
roll pod. For the 10” deflected nozzle booster-on and
ramjet configurations the sting was mounted into a 10”
offset yaw adapter which was then mounted into the
roll pod. With the 5” nozzle booster-on configuration,
the preceding setup had a 5” yaw plate installed
between the roll pod and the pitch sector head.
The second wind tunnel test was conducted in the
National Technical Systems (NTS) 4-ft. Supersonic
Wind Tunnel. During this test program, identified as
MJO 8968R, a total of 68 data blows (144 runs) were
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

AIAA-99-0432

conducted in 60 test hours, including 21 hours for
model installation. Specific NTS test objectives were
to: 1) Evaluate the aerodynamic stability and control of
the Fasthawk Missile over an angle of attack range of -
15” to +15”, at Mach numbers from 1.6 to 2.5 for the
booster-on configuration and from 2.5 to 4.0 for the
ramjet configuration (Mach 1.6 to 2.5 data was
collected to compare with TWT data); 2) Evaluate
antenna impacts to directional stability at model roll
angles from 0” to +90”; and, 3) Obtain the effects of aft
body deflection (O’, 5”, 10’) on longitudinal and lateral
directional stability and control.
At NTS the model was also pitched at S”/sec,
except for selected pitch-pause runs used to evaluate the
response time of pressure data. Model roll angle was
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
deflection configuration, the NTS sting had an
adjustable knuckle that allowed the sector to be offset
vertically as required. With the 5” nozzle ramjet and
booster-on configurations the sting mounted directly
into the roll pod with minor adjustments to the pitch
strut mechanism.
To illustrate the capabilities of both the TWT and
NTS wind tunnels, and the degree to which full-scale
flight Reynolds numbers were matched in testing,
Figure 2 has been included. In Figure 2, plots of
Reynolds number versus Mach number are shown for
the test model in each of the two tunnels compared to
Fasthawk full-scale flight values.
Nozzle calibration comprised the third phase of the
test program. Calibration of the Fasthawk model choke

varied from 0 to +90” with the model in the upright
position using the facility roll pod.
Three different model installations were also
required at NTS due to the nature of the aft body
deflection and the requirement that the forward fuselage
remain in alignment with the freestream. For the
undeflected and 10” nozzle ramjet configurations the
sting was mounted directly into the roll pod. However,
to achieve the desired pitch range for the 10” tail
nozzle was accomplished in eight runs at the
MicroCraft TWT Flow Calibration Facility (TWT
Calibration S-88). The primary objective of the
calibration was to determine the discharge coefficient
of the model annular choke nozzle. Other parameters
computed included: facility sonic meter mass flow,
average model nozzle throat pressure and model nozzle
pressure ratio. Model nozzle plenum total pressure was
derived from choke conditions.

1 .OOE+06 I I
J I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
a-- 7-ft TWT Max Pt
-A--4-ft NTS Min Pt
x4-ft NTS Max Pt --

-Flight Trajectory

u, l.OOE+07 -!-’

1 .o 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Mach Number

Figure 2. Windtunnel vs. Flight Reynolds Numbers

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
The model installation in the flow calibration
facility included a smooth elliptical bellmouth that
mated cleanly with the inlet cowl lip. Reference (2)
contains a detailed description of the hardware and
instrumentation used during the calibration. Air supply
conditions delivered to the bellmouth ranged from 25 to
120 psia total pressure at flow rates ranging from 1.2 to
6 lbm per second. These ranges covered all of the
actual test conditions and, at low pressures, provided a
clear indication of when the model nozzle was
unchoked and choked. Initially, model leakage was a
problem due to the number of potential leak paths
between the model internal duct and the outside shell.
Several attempts were made to minimize the leakage,
but at high pressure levels this proved futile. As a
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
result, after three runs, the calibration was aborted, then
repeated after the NTS test with the model flowpath
properly sealed. Curve fits of data from the final two
blows yielded a nozzle discharge coefficient of 0.978,
very close to the estimated 0.98 value.
TEST ARTICLE DESCRIPTION
General
The test article was a 0.19-scale model of the
NAWC Fasthawk Missile designed and fabricated by
Tri Models, Inc. of Huntington Beach, CA. With the
simulated rocket booster attached, the wind tunnel
model measured four feet in length and four inches in
diameter. The model was designed to be fully metric
on a six-component balance, with both boost (solid
rocket booster) and airbreathing (ramjet) configurations
simulated.
I 1.5” MK XXII BALANCE
Figure 3. Internal Arrangement
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
For the ramjet mode, the model utilized a flowing
inlet and choked exit nozzle to permit evaluation of exit
momentum terms for data reduction purposes. The
choked nozzle was designed with the metric model
throat forming an annulus around the non-metric sting.
The nozzle exit area was sized to both create choked
exit flow for all wind tunnel operating conditions and
prevent the inlet terminal shock train from moving
forward of the inlet throat. A Boeing quasi- one-
dimensional duct flow code was used to determine the
required exit area.
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the model in a cut-
away view revealing the internal flowpath packaging
around the force balance and pressure instrumentation.
A photograph of the model configured in the ramjet
mode with an open inlet and undeflected aft body can
be seen in Figure 4. For boost mode operation, a
simulated cover was installed over the inlet and
centerbody spike, thus preventing airflow through the
model flowpath. Figure 5 is a photograph of the model
configured in the boost mode with a 10” bent body
deflection.
During the model conceptual design phase,
limitations on test article size and mounting
arrangements were significant. A large scale was
required to accurately simulate the cowl lip radius and
internal inlet to the inlet throat. With a large scale,
instrumentation packaging and routing is also more
straightforward. However, in order to reduce starting
loads and preclude bow shock reflection effects on the
model aerodynamics, it was necessary to compromise
and restrict model length to the scale chosen.
of Test Model on Sting Mount
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
Test article mounting designs posed similar design
challenges. A strut arrangement was ideal for ease of
setting bent body angles manually or remotely, but
would have caused excessive wake interference on the
bent body aerodynamics. A strut would also have
interfered with flow uniformity internal to the model.
Therefore, a sting arrangement was chosen. With the
sting design, however, pitch and roll positioning of the
model posed further challenges. Each bent body nozzle
deflection required a different tunnel hardware setup.
Special offset yaw adapters and adjustable sting
knuckles were required to keep the model forebody in
alignment with the tunnel vertical centerline plane
while still being able to roll the model about the
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
forebody axis. The sting arrangement laterally offset
the model forebody from the tunnel centerline in TWT
and caused vertical displacement shifts in the NTS
facility. In all cases, support hardware was designed
and operated to keep the model as close to tunnel
centerline as possible.
In order to handle the starting loads in the blow-
down tunnel environment, most of the model
components were fabricated of high strength 13-8 or
17-4 PH stainless steel. The balance adapter was made
from Vascomax, the highest strength steel available.
Non-critical load components were made from 6061-T6
aluminum.
The completed model was mounted via a sleeve to
the 1.50-inch diameter Able-brand six-component
internal force balance of each facility. An adapter
connected the balance to one of three different split
plugs (0, 5” and IO’) which matched the angle of the
bent body setting. The split plug was then attached to a
facility sting and roll pod.
Model changes for this test program required
significant time due to the complexity of the
instrumentation routing and the tunnel hardware
required. Each nozzle angle change required that the
model be separated from the balance adapter and sting,
that the split nozzle plug be changed, and that the
model be reassembled. Minimal clearances for
instrumentation made this a very difficult and time-
consuming operation.
Model Instrumentation
A total of 60 model pressures were measured using
two rt45 psid ESP pressure transducer modules located
in the forward centerbody instrumentation cavity of the
model. References (3) and (4) contain detailed
descriptions and locations for all model
instrumentation. The model incorporated a flow-
through inlet with four separate flow paths
instrumented with a total of 14 surface static pressures
each. These taps provided diagnostic information
5
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
regarding inlet operation and flow uniformity through
the model interior.
Four balance cavity pressures were located on the
inboard side of the model centerbody at the base of the
balance. An additional balance cavity pressure was
located at the forward end of the internal balance to
assesspressure uniformity through the balance.
Four sting-mounted static pressures were installed
to monitor the plenum pressures upstream of the choked
exit nozzle. In addition, two three-probe total pressure
rakes were installed at this same station to determine
the total pressure gradient across the flow path. Two
total temperature probes were also located at this model
station to assist in evaluating exit momentum. Once
inlet operability was confirmed during the TWT test at
Mach 2.5, the total pressure rakes were removed for the
NTS test entry and nozzle flow calibration.
The ramjet nozzle contained four exit static
pressures located 0.060 inches forward of the nozzle
base. The nozzle base contained a total of 12 base
pressures and the booster base had eight base pressures.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST FACILITIES
Micro Craft 7 bv 7-ft Trisonic Wind Tunnel
The Trisonic Wind Tunnel (TWT) is an
intermittent blowdown facility capable of operation at
Mach numbers from 0.1 to 3.5. Air is stored at a
pressure of lo-atmospheres in eight spheres. An eight
foot diameter valve controls the flow of air from the
spheres to a settling chamber, and then through a
rectangular nozzle. The floor and ceiling of the nozzle
can be formed, by means of hydraulic jacks, to contours
that produce supersonic flow. Transonic and subsonic
Mach numbers are obtained by adjusting a variable
downstream diffuser.
Two test sections, each seven feet wide by seven
feet high, are permanently installed in a tandem
arrangement. The downstream test section walls are
perforated to permit testing at Mach numbers close to
1.0 and to relieve blockage at subsonic Mach numbers.
The upstream, solid wall test section, used at Mach
numbers greater than 1.3, is equipped with a Schlieren
system.
The basic model support system is a circular sector
sting support, mounted on a movable carriage located
beneath the tunnel floor. The sector is used to rotate the
model about a center of rotation fixed in space with
respect to the carriage. Either a continuous-sweep or a
pitch-pause mode of operation may be used to position
the model.
A hydraulically powered roll pod is mounted on
the sector sting support. This roll pod has a roll range
of 270” (+90” to -180”) with a variable roll rate of up to
90” per second. The roll pod is remotely controlled
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
using an auto-sequencing integrated programmable
controller (IPC). This IPC can be programmed to
control either a series of roll-sweeps at constant pitch
angles or pitch-sweeps at constant roll angles.
The electrical output of all measurement sensors
are collected and processed on the TWT high-speed
digital data acquisition system. Analog signals are
amplified and filtered, as required, then sampled at a
rate of 10,000 samples per second. Processed data are
tabulated and plotted as required.
NTS 4-ft Supersonic Wind Tunnel
The National Technical Systems Supersonic Wind
Tunnel (NTS) is operated by the controlled discharge of
compressed air supplied from eight storage tanks
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
charged by a centrifugal compressor driven by a 7,000
horsepower synchronous motor. The air is stored at a
maximum pressure of 550 psi. Tank storage capacity
available for wind tunnel use is 50,000 cubic feet.
The four-foot by four-foot supersonic test section is
60 inches long, and is located downstream of the
flexible nozzle. It has two, 20-inch diameter windows
in each sidewall for Schlieren and visual observation.
Roll pod actuators are available for both an in-line
and offset setup. The offset roll pod provides for angle
of attack up to 35” with rotation about the longitudinal
centerline of the test item; roll angles of up to 350” are
available.
A transonic cart can be installed for subsonic and
transonic testing. The transonic cart has a test section
length of 13.5 feet, with 22 percent (normal hole)
porosity walls, floor and ceiling.
A model support (sting) is usually attached to the
pitch-pod face located on a large vertically translating
strut located in the upstream end of the variable
diffuser. The support strut is electro-hydraulically
operated by a servo system and, in combination with
Control
Figure 6. Test Model Details Relevant
6
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
straight or bent stings, sting adapters and a roll pod,
provides considerable versatility for varying model
attitude.
The pitch range for straight stings can be varied
from +12O. The model control system in the data
acquisition pitch-pause mode allows up to 24 preset
pitch/roll angles. The dwell time at each angle can be
controlled to allow for instrument pressure stabilization
as necessary. The mode1 is normally swept
continuously through a programmed angle range, with
data being recorded at controlled intervals.
A high-speed data acquisition system for steady
state or dynamic measurements is incorporated as part
of the NTS 4 x 4-foot wind tunnel. Analog signals are
amplified and filtered, as required, then sampled at a
rate of 10,000 samples per second. Processed data are
tabulated and plotted as required.
FORCE ACCOUNTING & DATA REDUCTION
To produce the desired test results, careful
attention had to be paid to model design details and
force accounting. For descriptive purposes, a
simplified inboard schematic of the Fasthawk wind
tunnel model and balance plus support sting attachment
is shown in Figure 6. Important physical features of the
mode1 illustrated in Figure 6 include: 1) a
geometrically accurate cowl leading edge and outer
cowl, 2) a geometrically accurate inlet spike, internal
inlet to the inlet throat and inlet diffuser, 3) an
additional flow diffuser from the inlet diffuser to the
nozzle plenum, 4) a sonic nozzle at the mode1 exit
plane, and 5) a balance secured to the model centerbody
and attached to a mounting sting positioned on the
model axis of symmetry, concentric with the cowl.
These features result in annular flow through the model.
A geometrically accurate inlet spike and internal
inlet were important features to ensure that the inlet
would ouerate identical to the actual full-scale
z
L X
to Force Accounting
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American
hardware, i.e., started or unstarted as conditions
dictated. Other model features that contributed to
authentic inlet operation included application of sand
grit to the inlet spike nose to guarantee turbulent
boundary layer flow entering the inlet, and cross-
sectional area relief in the inlet diffuser section
downstream of the inlet throat to account for flow
blockage and boundary layer buildup on four struts
attaching the cowl to the centerbody in that section.
For additional structural strength, four splitter plates
were employed downstream of the struts attaching the
cowl to the centerbody along most of the length of the
second diffuser.
Proper force accounting required that all forces
acting external and internal to the model be subtracted
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
form those measured by the balance, except the desired
external cowl forces and inlet spillage forces. To
illustrate how this was achieved, forces acting on the
model have been separated into three categories: 1)
external cowl, including the model base, 2) internal
cowl plus inlet spike and centerbody, and 3) inside the
balance cavity. These are the & forces measured by
the balance. Note that internal forces acting on the
balance sting are not measured by the balance, but do
influence the model exit stream thrust. These sting
forces represent small errors in the reduced data and
will be discussed and quantified later.
Returning to Figure 6, the Fasthawk model is
shown at a positive angle of attack with a positive tail
deflection. For this configuration, external cowl axial
and normal forces, respectively, are represented
mathematically as
Dext = Dcmv~- @base -PO) Abase COSd
and
Lext = &VI + @base -PO) Abase sin6
where Dcowland Lcowlare the axial and normal pressure
plus friction forces acting on the external cowl,
respectively, pbmeis the average mode1 base pressure, p.
is freestream static pressure, Abaseis the model base
area, and 6is the tail deflection angle,
Similarly, using the integral form of the flow
momentum equation on a control volume that extends
from the freestream to the model sonic nozzle exit,
along the inner cowl and wrapping around the model
centerbody (as shown in Figure 6), the internal cowl
and centerbody axial and normal forces can be derived
from the axial and normal components of the
momentum integrals. These axial and normal integral
components are, respectively,
- Fo COSO2 + Fe COSS- DviB + Dh + DshG= 0 (3)
-F,sina-F,sind-L,iN+Li,,,+L,k=O (4)
where the stream thrust, F, is an artifact of the integral
momentum equation and is equal to
American Institute
Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
F =M+(p-po)A
=pV’A+(p-p,)A (5)
with A being the streamtube area perpendicular to the
flow velocity, the subscript o denoting the freestream
and the subscript e denoting the model nozzle exit. In
equations (3) and (4), DSp,nand L,iil are the inlet axial
and normal spillage forces, respectively, Di,,, and L;,,, are
the internal cowl plus centerbody axial and normal
forces, respectively, Dsling is the axial force acting on
the internal portion of the balance sting, and L,,, is the
normal force acting on the internal portion of the sting.
Rearranging equations (3) and (4) results in final
expressions for the internal cowl plus centerbody axial
and normal forces, respectively, as
D,“, = - (Fe COSS - Fo COSOC) + D,yiII + Dsling (6)
Lint = (F, sin6 + F, sina) + LspiIl - LSling (7)
The final force acting on the balance is the balance
cavity force, which has only an axial component
represented by
Dcm = - (pm -PO) &v 03)
where pray is the cavity pressure, and A,,, is the cavity
“base” area, i.e., the net cavity area projected in the
model axial direction.
Adding the three components of force that act on
the model balance, then rearranging terms to leave only
those desired in the database (i.e., external cowl and
inlet spillage forces), results in final expressions for
reduced axial and normal forces, respectively, as
+ Dqill = FbulA + (F, COS 6 - F, COS a)+ (9)
(1)
~z? - ~o)&se ~0s 6 + (pm - ~,)&a, + D,,,ng
,&l+Lspilr = F&,, -(Fe sinG+F, sina)- (10)
(2)
(Pbuse - ~~~~~~~ sins + La,
In equations (9) and (lo), FbnU and FbalN are the
axial and normal forces measured by the balance,
respectively, and &me and pcm are measured with static
pressure taps. F, is derived from freestream quantities
and F, from the nozzle exit choke condition, which is
represented mathematically by
Fe =~~yRT,/[l+(y-1)/21+(~~-~~)A@ (11)
where riz is the mass flow rate captured by the inlet, y
is the ratio of specific heats for air (1.4), R is the
specific gas constant for air, TI is the wind tunnel flow
total temperature, pe is the measured nozzle exit static
pressure, and A, is the nozzle exit area. The captured
mass flow rate, lit , in equation (11) is also used for
evaluating F,, and is derived from the measured nozzle
plenum pressure and a nozzle flow-rate calibration
7
of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
curve generated experimentally as described in the Test
Approach section.
The non-metric sting axial and normal force terms,
Ds,ingand LsIingrespectively, were analyzed to determine
their magnitude relative to the desired quantities on the
left-hand side of equations (9) and (10). Ds,ing is
primarily friction drag and was determined by analysis
to be less than or equal to one percent of the desired
force terms of equation (9). Lrting would be primarily
generated by subsonic cross flow on the bent sting
when the tail is deflected, and was determined by
elementary fluid dynamic principles to be negligible.
The D,,ing and Ls,ingterms in equations (9) and (10) were
therefore neglected in data reduction.
An additional side force term, similar to the normal
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
force term in equation (IO), is generated when the
model is rolled in the wind tunnel and pitched in angle
of attack. In testing, the mode1 was always pitched in
the vertical plane of the tunnel, and axial, normal and
side forces were measured in balance axes that rotated
with the model. The side force equation will not be
derived here due to space limitations. Note that a roll
angle will also introduce an additional trigonometric
factor in the freestream momentum (i.e., stream thrust)
term of the normal force equation. Aerodynamic
moments produced by external cowl and spillage forces
were derived in a manner similar to the force terms
described above, after first generating cross products
between the force vectors and position vectors that
define the point of application of forces relative to the
moment reference point. Examples of measured forces
and moments compared to pre-test predictions will be
presented next.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
As previously mentioned, the primary objectives of
the test program were to evaluate the aerodynamics of
the Fasthawk missile in its rocket-boosted and ramjet-
powered flight modes. The majority of the results
presented herein address the airbreathing ramjet flight
mode.
Data Reduction
Detailed equations used to correct measured
balance data to a form required for missile performance
and flight control analysis were derived previously in
the Force Accounting & Data Reduction section. In
addition to these corrections, viscous drag corrections
were also applied to the axial force data to correct for
Reynolds number differences between the sub-scale test
and full-scale flight. Interpolations and/or
extrapolations to database angles of attack were
performed, when required. Control effectiveness
increments due to the bent body deflection were created
from the tested settings of 5” and lo”, and interpolated
to database settings. Finally, observed biases in the
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
data were removed, when present, to complete the data
reduction.
Presented Data
During testing, the missile was rolled from zero to
180 degrees in 22.5 degree increments and pitched in
the vertical plane of the tunnel to obtain both in-plane
and out-of-plane forces and moments (i.e., both
longitudinal and lateral-directional data). The results
presented here have been limited to zero roll angle,
hence longitudinal data only. The pre-test predictions
for the ramjet mode consist of a combination of Euler
CFD results generated by NAWC using the ZEUS’
code, and estimates for cowl leading edge and skin
friction drag based on analytical methods. Boost mode
predictions were generated by Boeing using Missile
DATCOM6 and an analytical method for inlet cover
bluntness effects. All of the data presented herein have
the scales removed to maintain Boeing proprietary
rights. Also, only data at the extremes in ramjet Mach
number, Maths 2.5 and 4.0, will be presented due to
space limitations.
Axial Force
A primary result from the test was missile drag
during ramjet operation. Figures 7 and 8 present the
missile axial force coefficient as both a function of
angle of attack at zero deflection and a function of bent
body deflection at zero angle of attack for Maths 2.5
and 4.0, respectively. On each figure, the axial force
coefficient scales are the same to allow direct
comparison of the differences between test and
predictions as a function of Mach number.
Several interesting trends can be seen in Figures 7
and 8. First, the test data indicate an increase in axial
force coefficient as the angle of attack increases beyond
a certain value, with the highest level evident at the
Mach 2.5 test condition. As the Mach number
increases, the angle of attack at which the axial force
coefficient rises is observed to increase, and the level
and rate of change of the coefficient is noted to
diminish. It should be noted that the test data are
displayed at database angles of attack. The increase in
axial force coefficient observed from the raw test data
(which was taken continuously with small angle of
attack increments) exhibits a much more abrupt
increase. These increases in axial force with angle of
attack are indicative of inlet unstarting, which was
substantiated by an observed reduction in captured
mass flow. In fact, the inlet appeared to remain started
up to nearly 10” angle of attack at the lowest off-design
Mach number (Mach 2.5, Figure 7) and exhibited very
mild unstart behavior at Mach 4 and 15” angle of attack
(Figure 8). Correspondingly, the predictions, which
include estimates for cowl leading edge and skin
a
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
friction but not spill drag, remain fairly flat with angle
of attack.
The observed differences between predictions and
test data at Mach numbers below the Mach 4 design
condition can largely be attributed to the spill drag
associated with the operation of the inlet at off-design
conditions, which is in the test data but not in the
predictions. Assuming that the observed differences are
primarily due to the spill drag, as the Mach number
increases, the spill drag should diminish. Since the
inlet is designed to operate at Mach 4, as the freestream
Mach number increases toward the design Mach
number, the spillage drag should approach zero, as is
evident from the test data trends. As further
verification that differences between data and
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
predictions at Mach 2.5 were due primarily to spillage
drag, a spillage drag term was post-processed from the
ZEUS CFD results and added to the Mach 2.5 zero
angle of attack prediction, as shown as an additional
point in Figure 7. With this addition of predicted
spillage drag, the data is only 12 percent higher than
predictions. At Mach 4, the data is actually 12 percent
lower than predictions at zero angle of attack. The fact
that the overall resulting axial force coefficient levels
are within 12 percent of predictions is a fairly good
validation of the test method.
The bent body deflection effects on the axial force
coefficients at zero angle of attack are also included in
Figures 7 and 8. Most notable in these figures are the
nearly constant differences between test data and
predictions with deflection angle. This is further
substantiation that differences are primarily attributable
to the spill drag term not included in the predictions.
Stabilitv And Control
Figures 9 and 10 present similar comparisons
between test data and predictions for normal force
coefficients. As shown, the agreement versus angle of
attack is fairly good, with slightly better agreement at
Mach 4. Overall, the difference between data and
predictions was no greater than 20 percent at Mach 2.5,
and no greater than seven percent at Mach 4.
Comparisons of normal force coefficient trends with
bent body deflection angle at zero angle of attack reveal
generally larger differences between data and
predictions that increase with increasing tail deflection
angle. Here the maximum differences range from 18
percent at Mach 2.5 to 39 percent at Mach 4.
Corresponding pitching moment comparisons are
included in Figures 11 and 12. In all cases, the moment
reference center is located at 54 percent of the body
length aft of the nose. The agreement between data and
predictions for pitching moment with angle of attack is
fair. Maximum differences range from 30 percent at
Mach 2.5 to 50 percent at Mach 4, but may be largely
9
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
due to spillage effects that are neglected in the
predictions. In contrast, comparisons between data and
predictions for bent body deflection effects on pitching
moment (at zero angle of attack) are generally very
good, with discrepancies no greater than five percent.
Figures 9 through 12 are indicative of the basic
stability and control characteristics of the missile. As
previously noted, overall normal force comparisons
with angle of attack were fairly good, while
corresponding pitching moment comparisons revealed
greater discrepancies. These differences, when
combined, contribute to missile stability differences. In
contrast, normal force comparisons with bent body
deflection were noted to be fair, while corresponding
pitching moments exhibited very good agreement.
These differences affect control aspects of the missile.
Differences in stability and control, however, are
more readily revealed when comparisons are made of
center of pressure locations, as displayed in Figures 13
and 14. Consistent with previous comparisons, the
center of pressure locations (in terms of percent body
length) are displayed as both a function of angle of
attack (at zero tail deflection) and as a function of tail
angle (at zero angle of attack). The noted differences in
pitching moment characteristics with angle of attack
result in centers of pressure that are generally farther aft
at low to medium angles of attack than predicted, which
results in increased static stability. From a control
aspect, the noted increase in normal force with bent
body deflection relative to predictions is offset by the
center of pressure locations being consistently farther
forward on the bent body, resulting in similar control
authority between data and predictions. As an
interesting note, at the Mach 4 design condition, test
results indicate a center of pressure location slightly
forward of the hinge line (at X/L of 0.78) at low
deflection angles.
Zero Lift Axial Force Across the Mach Range
A final comparison between test results and
predictions has been included in Figure 15, which is a
comparison of zero-lift axial force coefficients across
the Mach number range from 0.2 to 4.0, including both
boost and ramjet configurations. In the boost
configuration the model had an inlet cover in place and
the bent body had the additional length associated with
the tandem rocket booster. Boost drag is important
because it affects the ramjet takeover Mach number
and/or booster size. Cruise drag is important for range
considerations. The comparisons shown in Figure 15
demonstrate that agreement between boost-mode axial
force test data and predictions is quite good. The
ramjet-mode comparison is again noted to deviate more
significantly at off-design Mach numbers (i.e., below
Mach 4) due primarily to spillage drag not being
included in the predictions.
and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

AIAA-99-0432

MACH=2.5, DELTA=0 MACH=2.5, ALPHA=0

CA CA

rediction with spillage drag

0 4 a 12 16 0 3 6 9
ANGLE OF AlTACK - DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTION ANAGLE - DEGREES
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432

Figure 7. Data vs. Prediction Axial Force Comparisons at Mach 2.5

MACH=4.0, DELTA=0 MACH=4.0, ALPHA=0

CA CA

4 a 12 16 0 2 4 6 a 10 12
ANGLE OF AlTACK - DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTlON ANGLE - DEGREES

Figure 8. Data vs. Prediction Axial Force Comparisons at Mach 4.0

ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTION ANGLE - DEGREES

Figure 9. Data vs. Prediction Normal Force Comparisons at Mach 2.5

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
.

AIAA-99-0432

ANGLE OF ATTACK-DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTION ANGLE -DEGREES

Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432

Figure 10. Data vs. Prediction Normal Force Comparisons at Mach 4.0

MACH=2.5, ALPHA=0

ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEGREES

Figure 11. Data vs. Prediction Moment Force Comparisons at Mach 2.5

+GA!3st
MACH=4.0, DELTA=0 MACH=4.0, ALPHA=0
El+CMppred
TAIL DEFLECTION ANGLE - DEGREES

CM CM

0 4 6 12 16
ALPHA-DEGREES

Figure 12. Data vs. Prediction Moment Force Comparisons at Mach 4.0

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

AIAA-99-0432

MACH=2.5, DELTA=0 MACH=2.5, ALPHA=0

0.6 1

0.5 * .
0.8
0.4
KdL 0.6
(Bent
Body 0.4
0.2 Only)

0.1 0.2

0 0
0 2 4 6 6 10 12
ANGLE OF AlTACK - DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTION ANGLE - DEGREES
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432

Figure 13. Data vs. Prediction Center of Pressure Comparisons at Mach 2.5

MACXk4.0, DE1 TA=0 MACH=4.0, ALPHA=0

1

0.8 -

x&L 0.6 -
(Bent
Body 0.4
Only)

0.2

0 ,
0 4 8 12 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ANGLE OF AlTACK - DEGREES TAIL DEFLECTION ANGLE - DEGREES

Figure 14. Data vs. Prediction Center of Pressure Comparisons at Mach 4.0

ALPHA=O, DELTA=0

F without spillage drag

0 1 2 3 4 5
MACH NUMBER

Figure 15. Data vs. Prediction Zero-Lift Drag Comparisons for Boost and Ramjet Modes
Across Entire Mach Range

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (c)l999 American Institute
CONCLUSIONS
A unique approach for wind tunnel testing a
wingless, finless, ramjet-powered missile with thrust
vector control has been devised, planned and executed
successfully. The approach is unique in that it
employed an operational inlet in order to capture the
impacts of inlet flow on aerodynamics - an important
feature for a low drag shape such as Fasthawk that is
influenced heavily by inlet flow effects. It is also
unique in the application of a choked exit nozzle to
permit accurate evaluation of internal forces that must
be subtracted from balance measurements. The nozzle
exit flow also provided a degree of nozzle plume
simulation that, as in flight with an operating ramjet,
Downloaded by Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1999-432
may produce aerodynamic interactions on the missile
aft body.
As evidenced by good comparisons to analytical
predictions, the test technique appears to work well, and
should be considered for testing of any
supersonic/hypersonic concepts employing airbreathing
engines (e.g., ramjets and scramjets) that interact
strongly with vehicle aerodynamics. The technique
permits generation of high fidelity longitudinal and
lateral/directional aerodynamic data that is required for
system performance evaluation and flight control
development. Though IR&D funds were depleted and
the Fasthawk ATD canceled before a thorough data
uncertainty analysis could be performed, it is believed
that data uncertainties are consistent with levels
routinely achieved in the test facilities used. One
exception might be flow distortion impacts on the
evaluation of nozzle exit stream thrust, if any
significant level exists, which was not investigated.
On a practical note, the test model itself was
complicated and difficult to work with due to numerous
and stringent requirements placed on the design;
configuration changes during the test where therefore
time-consuming. Model size was probably at the lower
limit of what is practical to accommodate a flowpath,
an articulated aft body or other variable flow-path
geometry, and required instrumentation. However,
many lessons were learned in this test program that can
benefit subsequent tests of a similar nature, and
alleviate some of the complications encountered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank both the Micro
Craft and National Technical Systems (NTS) wind
tunnel facility staffs for their excellent technical work
performed in support of this test program. Terrance
Hughes (Micro Craft Engineering Specialist) was the
lead test engineer selected by Boeing to be jointly
responsible for the planning and conduct of the test
program.
13
American Institute of Aeronautics
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
AIAA-99-0432
We are also grateful for valuable technical advice
and data review by Gary Wilhelm (MicroCraft Sr. Eng.
Specialist), Robert Mennell (MicroCraft 7-ft TWT
Facility Manager), Mike Frisoli, (NTS Project Eng.), Pat
LeBlanc (NTS Data Acquisition Eng.) and Lloyd
Carlson (NTS 4-ft Facility Manager).
John Moore (China Lake - NAWC) provided
Boeing with invaluable data and advice for the
conceptual design of the model inlet geometry. Further
appreciation is extended to Ned Smith (China Lake -
NAWC) and Fred Hessman (Boeing - Duluth, GA), for
their expert technical advice and on-site test monitoring
during this project.
REFERENCES
1. Sparling, Lt. Steven C.; Lyda, Steve; and Riffel,
Tim, “Fasthawk Advanced Technology
Demonstration,“ Surface Warfare,
September/October 1997 issue, pp. 17-21.
2. Hughes, M. Terrance, “Pretest Information for
Flow Calibrations of the Boeing North American
0.19-Scale Fasthawk Missile in the Micro Craft
Trisonic Flow Room”, Micro Craft Report number
MC97007, dated 5 August 1997.
3. Hughes, M. Terrance, “Results of Testing a
Boeing North American 0.1 g-Scale Fasthawk
Missile Model in the Micro Craft 7 by 7 Foot Trisonic
Wind Tunnel (TWT 644).“, Micro Craft Report
number MC98002, dated January 14,1998.
3. Hughes, M. Terrance, “Results of Testing a
Boeing North American 0.1 g-Scale Fasthawk
Missile Model in the NTS 4-ft High Speed Wind
Tunnel”, Micro Craft Report Number MC98003,
dated January 28,1998.
4. Wardlaw, A.B.; Priolo, F.J., ,,Applying the Zeus
Code“, NSWC TR 86-508,31 December 1986.
5. Vukelich, Steven R., et al, Missile DATCOM,
Volume I - Final Report, AFWAL-TR-86-3091,
McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Company,
December 1988.
and Astronautics