.

INVESTIGATION O F THE STATIC STABILITY CHARACTERETICS

OF FIVE HWERSONC MISSILE CONFIGURATIONS AT

MACH NUMBERS FROM 2.29 TO 4.85

By Kenneth L. Turner and W. E. Appich, Jr,

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory
Langley Field, Va.

-(NASA Cii OR TA4X OR AD NUMBER)

(CATEGORY)

HI
June 30, 1958

NACA RM

L58Do4
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
INVESTIGATION OF THE STATIC STABILITY CHARACTEBISTICS
OF FIVE KYPEBSONIC MISSIW CONFIGURATIONS AT
MACH NIIMBmS FROM 2.29 TO

4.65

By Kenneth L. Turner and W. H. Appich, Jr.

SUMMARY
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been conducted i n t h e Langley Unitary Plan
wind tunnel t o determ ne t h e s t a t i c s t a b l i t y character s t i e s of f i v e
hypersonic m i s s i l e configurations. The models t e s t e d were a b a s i c body
with length-diameter r a t i o of 10 and an ogival nose with a fineness
r a t i o of 5 , the body with a 1
0
' f l a r e d afterbody ( s k i r t ) , and t h e body
with two s e t s of low-aspect-ratio cruciform f i n s . An a d d i t i o n a l model,
known as t h e hypersonic t e s t vehicle, w a s included t o simulate a
Langley P i l o t l e s s A i r c r a f t Research Division f r e e - f l i g h t t e s t vehicle.

Tests were performed a t Mach numbers of 2.29, 2.75, 3.22, 3.71,

and 4.65 and a t Reynolds numbers, based on t h e body length, from
approximately 2.5

10 t o

15

x 10

The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e e f f e c t of Mach number, within

t h e t e s t Mach number range, on t h e slope of t h e normal-force curve a t
low angles of a t t a c k f o r t h e configurations t e s t e d . A s k i r t of t h e type
t e s t e d i s e f f e c t i v e i n producing l i f t and pitching moment i n the t e s t
angle-of-attack range. The use of a s k i r t , however, leads t o a drag
penalty with a corresponding l o s s i n l i f t - d r a g r a t i o . With the center
of gravity a t 50 percent of t h e body length, t h e s k i r t e d and finned
models a r e d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e at the low angles of a t t a c k . A t t h e
higher t e s t Mach numbers and a t t h e higher angles of attack, the direct i o n a l s t a b i l i t y f o r the finned models becomes g r e a t e r than t h a t experienced a t angles of a t t a c k near 0'.
However, a t t h e high angles of
a t t a c k and low Mach numbers, t h e finned models tend toward i n s t a b i l i t y .

NACA RM

~58~04

INTRODUCTION
The design of hypersonic m i s s i l e s is, t o a l a r g e degree, d i c t a t e d
by considerations of aerodynamic heating. Configurations which have
surfaces t h a t present small angles t o t h e airstream (e.g., highly swept
l i f t i n g surfaces) have been shown t o have comparatively low heating r a t e s ,
and a r e t h e r e f o r e being considered f o r use as hypersonic a i r - t o - a i r and
ground-to-air m i s s i l e s . I n order t o obtain more information on such
configurations, t h e National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics has
r e c e n t l y undertaken an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o determine t h e aerodynamic chara c t e r i s t i c s of a family of m i s s i l e configurations. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i s t o be performed a t supersonic and hypersonic speeds, and i s t o cover
a l a r g e Reynolds number range.
The models t o be investigated include a b a s i c body with lengthdiameter r a t i o of 10 and an ogival nose with a fineness r a t i o of 5, t h e
body with a 1
0
' f l a r e d afterbody, and the body with two d i f f e r e n t s e t s
of low-aspect-ratio cruciform f i n s . An a d d i t i o n a l model, known as t h e
hypersonic t e s t vehicle, i s included t o simulate a Langley P i l o t l e s s
A i r c r a f t Research Division f r e e - f l i g h t t e s t vehicle. These models were
previously t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 4- by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunn e l a t a Mach number of 2.01 and the r e s u l t s a r e presented i n reference 1.
The present paper contains t h e r e s u l t s of t e s t s made i n t h e Langley
Unitary Plan wind tunnel t o determine drag and s t a t i c longitudinal and
l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s obtained a t Mach numbers of 2.29, 2.75,
3.22, 3.71, and 4.65 and a t Reynolds numbers, based on t h e body length,
from approximately 2.5 X lo6 t o 15 X lo6. Also included i n t h i s paper
a r e comparisons of t h e d a t a of t h i s report with data of reference 1.

SYMBOLS
The c o e f f i c i e n t s of forces and moments a r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e body
axes system. A l l aerodynamic moments a r e taken about t h e center of
g r a v i t y which i s located a t t h e 50-percent length of the missile being
t e s t e d . Symbols used i n t h i s paper a r e a s follows:

cA

A, B

axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t ,

Axial f o r c e

base axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t ,

qs
Base a x i a l f o r c e
CIS

NACA RM

~58~04

INTRODUCTION
The design of hypersonic m i s s i l e s is, t o a l a r g e degree, d i c t a t e d
by considerations of aerodynamic heating. Configurations which have
surfaces t h a t present small angles t o t h e airstream (e.g., highly swept
l i f t i n g surfaces) have been shown t o have comparatively low heating r a t e s ,
and a r e t h e r e f o r e being considered f o r use as hypersonic a i r - t o - a i r and
ground-to-air m i s s i l e s . I n order t o obtain more information on such
configurations, t h e National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics has
r e c e n t l y undertaken an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o determine t h e aerodynamic chara c t e r i s t i c s of a family of m i s s i l e configurations. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i s t o be performed a t supersonic and hypersonic speeds, and i s t o cover
a l a r g e Reynolds number range.
The models t o be investigated include a b a s i c body with lengthdiameter r a t i o of 10 and an ogival nose with a fineness r a t i o of 5, t h e
body with a 1
0
' f l a r e d afterbody, and the body with two d i f f e r e n t s e t s
of low-aspect-ratio cruciform f i n s . An a d d i t i o n a l model, known as t h e
hypersonic t e s t vehicle, i s included t o simulate a Langley P i l o t l e s s
A i r c r a f t Research Division f r e e - f l i g h t t e s t vehicle. These models were
previously t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 4- by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunn e l a t a Mach number of 2.01 and the r e s u l t s a r e presented i n reference 1.
The present paper contains t h e r e s u l t s of t e s t s made i n t h e Langley
Unitary Plan wind tunnel t o determine drag and s t a t i c longitudinal and
l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s obtained a t Mach numbers of 2.29, 2.75,
3.22, 3.71, and 4.65 and a t Reynolds numbers, based on t h e body length,
from approximately 2.5 X lo6 t o 15 X lo6. Also included i n t h i s paper
a r e comparisons of t h e d a t a of t h i s report with data of reference 1.

SYMBOLS
The c o e f f i c i e n t s of forces and moments a r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e body
axes system. A l l aerodynamic moments a r e taken about t h e center of
g r a v i t y which i s located a t t h e 50-percent length of the missile being
t e s t e d . Symbols used i n t h i s paper a r e a s follows:

cA

A, B

axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t ,

Axial f o r c e

base axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t ,

qs
Base a x i a l f o r c e
CIS

NACA RM L58DO4

Cl

rolling-moment coefficient, Rolling moment

cm

pitching-moment coefficient, Pitching moment

acm
slope of pitching-moment curve, -

pitching-moment coefficient at zero normal force

ssz

9s 1

au

mO

Cn

yawing-moment coefficient,

Yawing moment

9s 2

slope of yawing-moment curve, acn

aP
cN
cNU

normal-force coefficient, Normal force

ss

slope of normal-force curve,.

side-force coefficient,

cyP

ac,
au

Side force
qs

3CY
slope of side-force curve, -

aP

missile length, in.

free-stream Mach number

free-strean dynamic pressure,

Reynolds number

maximum cross-sectional area of the cylindrical body, sq ft

XJ

lb/sq ft

coordinates of nose of missile (measured from point unless

otherwise noted), in.

angle of attack of missile center line, deg

L h

tunnel flow angle, deg

angle of sideslip of missile center line, deg

NACA RM L58mJ-1
APPARATUS AND METHODS

Tunnel
The tests were performed in the high Mach number test section of
the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel, which is a variable pressme,
continuous-flow type. The test section is 4 feet square and approximately 7 feet long. The nozzle leading to the test section is of the
asymmetric sliding-block type which permits a continuous variation of
Mach number from approximately 2.29 to 4.65.
Models
A drawing showing the five models tested is presented in figure 1
and table I gives the geometric characteristics of these models.

The missile configurations were

Model
Model
Model
Model
Model

I - body alone (length-diameter ratio of 10)

I1 - body with loo flared skirt
I11 - body with cruciform 5' delta fins
IV - body with cruciform 15' delta fins
V - hypersonic test vehicle

The first four models incorporate a cylindrical body with an ogive nose,
the point of which has a 0.3-inch radius of curvature. The fifth model
(which is somewhat longer) has the same cylindrical portion of the body
but it has a modified ;on K&&
nose, the point of which has a
0
' skirt.
0.05k-inch radius of curvature. This model also incorporates a 1
Henceforth, these models will be referred to as models I to V. The
models are of steel construction except for the nose portion of model V
and the flared skirts which were made of an aluminum alloy. A photograph
of model I11 as installed in the test section is presented as figure 2.
Forces and moments were measured by means of an internally mounted,
six-component, strain-gage balance.
Test Conditions and Procedure
The tests were performed at Mach numbers of 2.29, 2.75, 3.22, 3.71,
and 4.65. The dewpoint temperature was maintained below -30' F for all
Mach numbers except 4.65, at which Mach number it was allowed to rise
to -20' F. The stagnation temperature was maintained at approximately

NACA RM

L58DO4

140' F a t a l l t e s t Mach numbers except 4.63, a t which Mach number it was

held a t approximately 175O .F.
The following t a b l e presents the t e s t conditions of each model:

Model

I1

Nominal
angles of
attack,
deg

-2 t o

-2 t o

25

25

Nominal
angles of
sideslip,
deg

Mach
number

2.29
2.75
3.22
3.71
4.65

12.5 x io6
12.5
12.5
12.5

2.29
2-75

5.0 and 12.5 x 106

5.0 and 12.5
5.0 and 12.5
5.0 and 12.5
7.5 and 12.5
2.5, 5.0, and 12.5 X 106
2.5, 5.0,
12.5
2.5, 5.0, and 12.5
2.5, 5.0, and 12.5
5.0, 7-57 and 12.5
12.5 x i o6
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
15.0 x io6
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0

3.22

3-71.
4.65

I11

-2 t o 25
0 , 7, 14,

and 20

IY

-2 t o 25
0 , 7, 14,
and 20

-2 to

25

-3 t o 12

-3 t o 12

2.29
2.75
3.22

3-71
4.65
2.29
2.75
3.22

3-71
4.65
2.29
2.75
3.22
3-71
4.65

12.5

NACA RM

L58Do4

CORRECTIONS AND ACCURACY

The angles of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p have been corrected f o r deflect i o n of t h e balance and s t i n g under load.
I n order t o obtain reliable values of base a x i a l force, a base
block was f i t t e d securely t o t h e model sting with about 1/8-inch gap
between t h e block and t h e base of t h e model. The base block f o r each
model was c y l i n d r i c a l and of t h e same diameter as t h e base of t h e model
being investigated. (See f i g . 2.) Measurements were taken of t h e
pressure e x i s t i n g between the base block and t h e model base and these
pressure measurements were converted i n t o base a x i a l force. The axialf o r c e d a t a on the p l o t s of aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e ' n o t adjusted
f o r base a x i a l f o r c e . In order t o a d j u s t these data, t h e base a x i a l
force f o r a given model a t a given a t t i t u d e and Mach number must be
subtracted from t h e a x i a l f o r c e f o r t h e same model a t t h e sane a t t i t u d e
and Mach number. During t e s t s of model V, f a u l t y equipment c u r t a i l e d
base pressure measurements, and base-axial-force d a t a f o r t h i s model a r e
not presented.
The accuracy of t h e individual nieasured q u a n t i t i e s , based on c a l i b r a t i o n and r e p e a t a b i l i t y of data, i s estimated t o be within t h e f o l lowing l i m i t s :
-

Accuracy a t

R = 2.5 x
CN
CA

cm
c2
cn

a.
134
...
20.007
...
k0 .055
...
. . : k0.004
k0 .055
...
+O .134
...

cy
a, deg

P?

i o6

deg
M . .

..
0

20. LOO
kO.100

20.015

- ._

R = 5 X l O6

R = 12.5 x

o r 15 x 106

+o .067

20.029

fO .003

+o .002

+o .027

a.011

fO .002

XI. 001

+o .027

20.011

20.067

+o .029
+o .loo
+o .loo
+O .015

+o .loo
+o .loo
+O .015

i o6

NACA RM L58Do4

Calibration of the tunnel test section has not been completed.

Measured pressure gradients are sufficiently small, however, to assure
negligible corrections due to model buoyancy effects.
The data have not been corrected for flow angularity. These corrections at the corresponding Mach numbers are independent of model
angle of attack and are as follows:

&, deg

0.40
30

2.29
2-75
3.22

.10

3.71
4.65

30
95
-

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The results of the investigation are presented in the following

figures:
Figure

..... ......
...........

Typical schlieren photographs of model I1

Typical schlieren photographs of model I11
Variation of base axial-force coefficient with angle of
attack
Effect of base block on aerodynamic characteristics of
model 111
Aerodynamic characteristics of model I in pitch. j3 = Oo
Aerodynamic characteristics of model I1 in pitch. j3 = 0'
Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in pitch. j3 = 0'
Aerodynamic characteristics of model IV in pitch. j3 =
Aerodynamic characteristics of modelV in pitch. j3 = 0
Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip. a = 00
Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip.

............................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . .
...
...
..
go . . .
...

~=7.2O

3
4

6
7

.
.

.
.

..

...........................

8
10
11
12

13

Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip.

a = 1 4 . 6O

14

. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip.

~ = 2 0 .O9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerodynamic characteristics of model IV in sideslip

.... ..

15

16

8
Figure
Summary of longitudinal s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
f i v e m i s s i l e configurations
Summary of l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model I11
Summary of l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model IV

................
..
..

17
18
19

DISCUSSION OF FBSULTS
Effect of Base Block
I n order t o determine t h e e f f e c t of t h e base block-on t h e s t a b i l i t y
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s presented, model I11 was t e s t e d with and without t h e
base block. (See f i g . 6 . ) The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e addition of t h e
s h i f t , but t h e degree of s t a b i l i t y
base block produces a p o s i t i v e C

mo

i s not materially a l t e r e d .
t e s t r e s u l t s presented.

The base blocks were i n place for a l l other

Longitudinal S t a b i l i t y
The longitudinal s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e f i v e missiles
a r e presented i n summary form p l o t t e d against Mach number i n f i g u r e 17.
It may be seen t h a t the normal-force-curve slopes of a l l f i v e models a r e
invariant w i t h Mach number a t t h e low angles of a t t a c k . A t t h e high
angles of attack, however, t h e normal-force-curve slopes decrease with
an increase i n Mach number. It may be noted t h a t t h e increment of
normal-force-curve slope provided by t h e f i n s and s k i r t s i s e s s e n t i a l l y
invariant with Mach number and t h a t t h e decrease i n normal-force-curve
slope noted a t high angles i s due t o loss of l i f t on the body and not
on t h e f i n s o r s k i r t s .
O f the models t e s t e d a t t h e low angles of attack, t h e finned models
(models I11 and IV) have t h e g r e a t e s t normal-force-curve slope, and t h e
model without f i n s or s k i r t (model I ) has t h e l e a s t normal-force-curve
slope. Model I11 develops more l i f t than model IV, as would be expected,
from consideration of t h e geometry of the two models.
A comparison of model I1 and model IV shows t h a t the s k i r t f o r
model I1 i s approximately as long a s t h e f i n s of model IV, but t h e
leading-edge angle of t h e f i n s of model IV i s much l a r g e r . The data
i n d i c a t e t h a t model I1 develops s l i g h t l y l e s s l i f t and has more drag
than model N. Similar r e s u l t s i n reference 2 point out t h a t an increase
i n t h e leading-edge angle or length of a s k i r t w i l l increase the l i f t
developed by t h e s k i r t . The use of a s k i r t , however, leads t o a dragpenalty with a corresponding 10
ss i n l i f t - d r a g r a t i o .

NACA RM L58D04

Figure 1.7 a l s o shows t h a t some s t a b i l i z i n g device i s necessary

f o r model I a t t h e low angles of a t t a c k i n order t o obtain a longitudin a l l y s t a b l e m i s s i l e i n t h e t e s t Mach number range with t h e center of
g r a v i t y a t 50 percent of t h e body length. These data indicate t h a t a t
Mach numbers s l i g h t l y below t h e t e s t range, t h e s k i r t used on modelV
may not be l a r g e enough t o produce p o s i t i v e longitudinal s t a b i l i t y .
The lopgitudinal s t a b i l i t y of t h e s k i r t e d models increases somewhat
with increase i n Mach number a t t h e low and high angles of a t t a c k ,
whereas the longitudinal s t a b i l i t y of model N decreases with increase
i n Mach number.
Model I11 has t h e l a r g e s t s t a t i c margin of t h e models t e s t e d . A t
the low angles of attack, t h e longitudinal s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r
model I11 a r e r e l a t i v e l y constant with v a r i a t i o n i n Mach number i n t h e
t e s t Mach number range.

It may a l s o be seen i n f i g u r e 17 t h a t t h e data obtained a t t h e

t e s t Mach numbers agree very well with data shown i n reference 1
(Ref. 1 d a t a a r e indicated by symbols i n
a t a Mach number of 2.01.
f i g . 17.)
Directional s t a b i l i t y
Models I11 and IV, the finned models, were t h e only models t e s t e d
i n s i d e s l i p . Data presented i n f i g u r e s 12 t o 16 f o r the finned missiles,
show the m i s s i l e s , i n general, t o be d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e . These figures a l s o show a nonlinearity i n t h e yawing-moment curve a t low sides l i p angles. This nonlinearity increases with angle of a t t a c k and,
i n some instances, t h e missiles a r e d i r e c t i o n a l l y unstable f o r a small
s i d e s l i p range near 0'.
This i n s t a b i l i t y disappears, however, a t t h e
higher s i d e s l i p angles. These f i g u r e s a l s o show l i t t l e change i n
longitudinal s t a b i l i t y o r normal-force c o e f f i c i e n t throughout t h e angleo f - s i d e s l i p range. The yawing-moment and side-force derivatives presented i n f i g u r e s 18 and 19 f o r both finned m i s s i l e s a r e f o r slopes
between +2O of s i d e s l i p , and because of t h e aforementioned nonlinearity
i n t h e yawing-moment curves do not present t h e complete s t a b i l i t y p i c t u r e

It may be seen i n f i g u r e s 18 and 19 t h a t a t t h e lower angles of

attack, 0' and 7.0' f o r model I11 and 0' f o r model N, t h e d i r e c t i o n a l
s t a b i l i t y of the finned m i s s i l e s decreases with increase i n Mach number;
however, a t t h e higher angles of a t t a c k (14.5' and 2O.9O) t h e direct i o n a l s t a b i l i t y increases with increase i n Mach number. It i s a l s o
i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a t the higher t e s t Mach numbers and a t an
angle of a t t a c k of 20.9' t h e d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y f o r model I11 (and
t o a limited extent, model N )becomes g r e a t e r than t h a t experienced
a t angles of a t t a c k near 0'.
It i s believed t h a t t h e reason f o r t h i s

10

NACA RM L58D04

phenomenon i s t h a t a t the high angles of a t t a c k t h e r e i s an increase i n

dynamic pressure on t h e lower f i n which increases the effectiveness of
t h e lower f i n a t a g r e a t e r r a t e than t h a t a t which t h e upper f i n i s
l o s i n g effectiveness.
and
I
c"la
2.01 have been

The pitching-moment-curve and normal-force-curve slopes

' C

of these hypersonic m i s s i l e s a t a Mach number of

NCL)

obtained from reference 1 and a r e p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e s 18 and 19. Since

t h e models a r e a l l symmetrical, it i s permissible t o compare C
and

ma

a t zero angle of
C
a t zero angle of s i d e s l i p with
Na
CnP and cyP
a t t a c k . These slopes, shown i n symbol form i n f i g u r e s 18 and 19, show
excellent agreement with t h e d a t a reported on herein.
The data on the b a s i c p l o t s indicate t h a t the dihedral e f f e c t i s
e s s e n t i a l l y zero f o r the finned models through t h e t e s t Mach number
and angle-of-attack range.
Figures

18 and 19 i n d i c a t e negative values of

a t a l l angles

of a t t a c k . A comparison of these two figures shows t h a t model I11 has

This would be expected on t h e
t h e l a r g e r negative values of
cyP
basis of t h e difference i n model geometry.

A l l models other than I11 and N a r e symmetrical models and would

t h e r e f o r e have i d e n t i c a l longitudinal and l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y characteri s t i c s around 0' angle of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p .

Reynolds Number Effect

The s t a b i l i t y data f o r models I1 and I11 a t Reynolds numbers of
2.3 x 106, 5.0 X 106, 7.5 X 106, and 12.5 X 106 a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 8,
9, 12, and 14. It i s e a s i l y seen t h a t the p i t c h and s i d e s l i p curves
have t h e same r e l a t i v e shape, regardless of Reynolds number i n t h e t e s t
Reynolds number range. There i s a general intermixing of data points,
however, f o r t h e t h r e e t e s t Reynolds numbers, dependent on a t t i t u d e and
Mach number. It i s believed, moreover, t h a t t h e d a t a taken a t a
Reynolds number of 12.3 X 106 accurately define t h e s t a b i l i t y curves,
since t h e balance loads a t t h i s higher Reynolds number a r e i n t h e range
t o obtain accurate data. The i n a b i l i t y of t h e data taken a t t h e lower
Reynolds numbers t o check those taken a t t h e higher Reynolds number
i s believed t o be e n t i r e l y due t o balance accuracy. (See section
e n t i t l e d "Corrections and Accuracy. " )

NACA RM

L58DO4

11
CONC WSIONS

The r e s u l t s of an investigation of f i v e hypersonic m i s s i l e configurat i o n s a t Mach numbers of 2.29, 2.75, 3.22, 3.71, and 4.65 and a t Reynolds
numbers, based on t h e body length, from approximately 2.5 X 106 t o

15

106 i n d i c a t e the following conclusions:

1. With t h e center of g r a v i t y a t 50 percent of t h e body length,

the s k i r t e d and finned models a r e d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e a t t h e low angles
of a t t a c k . A t t h e higher t e s t Mach numbers and a t t h e higher angles of
a t t a c k , t h e d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y f o r t h e finned models becomes g r e a t e r
than t h a t experienced a t angles of a t t a c k near Oo. However, a t t h e
high angles of a t t a c k and low Mach numbers, t h e finned models tend
toward i n s t a b i l i t y .
2. A s k i r t of t h e type t e s t e d i s e f f e c t i v e i n producing l i f t and
pitching moment i n t h e t e s t angle-of-attack range. The use of a s k i r t ,
however, leads t o a drag penalty with a corresponding loss i n l i f t - d r a g
ratio.

3. The model with t h e 5 O f i n s has t h e l a r g e s t s t a t i c margin and

normal-force-curve slope of the models t e s t e d .

4. There i s l i t t l e e f f e c t of Mach number on t h e slope of t h e

normal-force curve a t low angles of a t t a c k .
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory,
National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics,
Langley Field, Va., March 19, 1958.

1. Robinson, Ross B.:

Wind-Tunnel Investigation a t a Mach Number of
2.01 of t h e Aerodynamic C h m a c t e r i s t i c s i n Combined Angles of Attack
and S i d e s l i p of Several Hypersonic Missile Configurations With
,
Various Canard Controls. NACA RM ~ 5 8 ~ 2 11958.
2. Lavender, Robert E.:
Normal Force, Pitching Moment, and Center of
Pressure of Eighty Cone-Cylinder-Fruskum Bodies of Revolution at
Mach Number 1.50. Rep. 6R3N3, Ord. Missile Labs., Redstone Arsenal
(Huntsville, Ala.), Apr. 5, 1956.

NACA FU L58DO4

12

TABLF: I.- MODEL GEOME?ITIC CHARACTEKCSTICS

- - - -Iodel 4ode ? Model Iode 1 %ode1

I1 I11
rv v
I

---lody :
Length, i n .
Diameter, i n .
Cross-sectional area, sq i n .
Fineness r a t i o of nose
Length-diameter r a t i o
Moment-center location, percent length

..........
.........
.
....
.....
.........

ikirt :
Length, i n .
Base diameter, i n .
Base mea, sq i n .
Leading-edge angle, deg

.......
....
....
..

'ins :
Area exposed, 2 f i n s , sq i n .
Root chord, i n .
Tip chord, i n .
Span exposed, i n .
Span t o t a l , i n .
Taper r a t i o
Aspect r a t i o , exposed
Span diameter r a t i o
Leading-edge angle, deg

..
..
..
..
.

30. oc 30.00
3 . 0 ~ 3 . 0 ~ 3.00
7-07 7.0; 7-07
5.0C 5 . 0 ~ 5.00

io. OC

35 * 11
3.00 3.00
7-07 7.07
5.00 5.00
-0. oc LO. oc 10.00 LO. 00 11.70
j0. OC jO.O(

50.00

50.00

50.00 50 00

6.0:
5.1:

4.67
4.64
16.91

20.6t
LO.O(

10.00

34.36

9.55

........
19.12 5.97
........
0
0
......
3.20 3 . 2 ~
.......
6.2~ 6.2~
0
..........
0
0.26e 1.07
.....
......
2.07 2.07
. . . . - - 5 15 -

NACA RM Lj8Do4

13

Tangency points

- d
.
3
0r a d .

6.63

models I , 11, I11

and IV noses

p=fF
25.25 rad;
5 13

loo

.30
6.00
7.00

8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00

Model I1

.300
.963
1.073
1.176
1.262
1.335
1.394
1.441
1.474
1.493
1.500

6.20

A.
.094 rad.

Model I11
-1.60

. .
Model IV

-----.AIw

k o o r d i n a t e s for1

1.698
1.947
X-

3.693
3.945
1

Model V

4.938
5.076
6.444
7.944
9.444
10.994
12.453
13.944
15.444

.768
.918
1.059
1.188
1.296
1.389
1.461

Figure 1.- Missile configurations t e s t e d . (All dimensions i n inches

unless otherwise s t a t e d . )

14

NACA RM L58DO4

-2.4O

= Oo

= 20.9O

2.0

6.2O

( a ) M = 2.29.
Figure 3 . - Typical s c h l i e r e n photographs of model 11.

L-58-180
B

= Oo.

NACA RM L58DO4

16

Oo

= -2.40

= 2.0

6.2O

(b)

M = 2.75.

Figure 3 . - Continued.

20.9O

I,-38-181

NACA RM

L58DO4

-2.50

Oo

2.00

6.1

(c) M = 3.22.
Figure 3.- Continued.

= 20.7O

L-58-182

18

NACA RM L38DO4

-2.4"

= 2.1"

6.1"

(d)

= 0"

M = 5-71.

Figure 3 . - Continued.

20.7"

L-58-183

NACA RM L58D04

20

NACA RM

a=-2.4O

= 20.6O

Oo

2.0

12.4O

(a) M = 2.29.

Figure

4.-

L58D04

Typical schlieren photographs of model 111.

L-38-18?

= 0'.

NACA EM L58DO4

21

-2.4O

= Oo

2.O0

= 12.3O

(b) M = 2.75.
Figure 4.- Continued.

20.50

1-58-186

NACA RM

22

-2.40

2.0

12.2O

(e)

Oo

3.71.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

20.2O

L-58-187

L58D04

NACA RM

L58DO4

AB

Figure 5.- Variation of base axial-force c o e f f i c i e n t with angle of

attack. f3 = 0'.

23

24

NACA RM

~58~04

Cm

.6

.4

.2 c
0

'.2

(a) M =

Figure

4.63; fl =

Oo.

6.- Effect of base block on aerodynamic c h a s a c t e r i s t i c s of

model 111. R = 7.5 x 106.

NACA RM L58D04

Cn

'Y

deg

(b)

M = 4.65;

CL

= Oo.

Figure 6. - Concluded.

NACA RM

Figure

7.- Aerodynamic

characteristics of model I in pitch.

R = 12.5 x 106-

L58D04

= Oo;

NACA RM L58D04

12

16

20

24

28

a , deg

Figure 8.- Aerodyna@.c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model I1 i n p i t c h .

f3 = Oo.

NACA 34

L58DO4

(a) M = 2.29.

Figure 9.- Aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model 111 in p i t c h .

f3 = 0.

NACA RM L58m4

a, deg

(b)

2.73.

Figure 9.- Continued.

NACA RM L58D04

( c ) M = 3.22.

Figure 9.- Continued.

(d) M =

3.71.

Figure 9.- Continued.

NACA RM

(e)

M = 4.63.

Figure 9.- Concluded.

~581x14

NACA RM L58Do4

-.4
-.8

Figure 10.- Aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of m o d e l IV i n p i t c h .

R = 12.5 x 106.

= 00;

NACA RM

L58D04

.4

Cm

CN

Figure 11.- Aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of modelV i n p i t c h .

R = 13 x lo6.

= Oo;

NACA RM L58Do4

.8
.4
Cn

'

-3

-2

4
$ 9

IO

12

.4

14

deg

(a) M = 2.29.
Figure 12.- Aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model 111 i n s i d e s l i p .
a = oo.

NACA RM

-4

-2

8,

deg

(a) Concluded.
Figure 12.- Continued.

IO

12

14

L58Do4

NACA RM

L58D04

.8
.4
Cn

0
.4

CY

(b)

M = 2.75.

Figure 12.- Continued.

NACA RM L78DO4

(b) Concluded.
Figure 12.- Continued.

NACA RM L38DO4

.4
(

.4

-4

-2

(c)

M = 3.22.

Figure 12.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

NACA RM

( c ) Concluded.
Figure 12. - Continued.

L38D04

NACA RM L58D04

.8
.4
Cn

- .4

(a) M

3.71.

Figure 12.- Continued.

NACA RM

(d) Concluded.
Figure 12.- Continued

L38D04

NACA RM

L58D04

43

.8

CY

-4

-2

4
8 9

deg

(e) M =

4.63.

Figure 12.- Continued.

IO

12

14

NACA RM

-4

-2

B,

de4

( e ) Concluded.

Figure 12.- Concluded.

IO

12

14

L58D04

NACA RM L58D04

.8

.4
cn

.o
.4

(a) M = 2.29.
Figure 13.- Aerodynamic chmacteristics of model I11 in sideslip.
a = 7.20; R = 12.5 x 106.

NACA .RM

-4

-2

4
8 9

deg

( a ) Concluded.
Figure 13.- Continued.

IO

I2

L58Do4

14

NACA RM

-4

L58DO4

-2

B,
(b)

deg

M =

2.75.

Figure 13.- Continued.

IO

12

14

NACA RM L58DO4

-4

-2

4
6
B , deg

(b) Concluded.
Figure 13.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

NACA RM

-4

L58DO4

-2

4
$ 9

deg

( c ) M = 3.22.

Figure 13.- Continued.

10

12

14

NACA RM L58DO4

A
2

-4

-2

( c) Concluded.
Figure 13. - Continued.

NACA RM ~ 3 8 ~ 0 4

.8

-4

-2

4
8 9

6
deg

(d) M = 3.71.
Figure 13.- Continued.

IO

12

.4

14

NACA RM L58Do4

(d) Concluded.
Figure 13.- Continued.

NACA RM

~38~04

- -4

-4

-2

B,

deg
-.

(e) M =

4.65.

Figure 13. - Continued.

10

12

I4

NACA RM

54

-4

-2

8,

deg

( e ) Concluded.

Figure 13.- Concluded.

IO

12

14

L58DO4

NACA RM

L58DO4

.8

.4
'Cn

CY

-4

-2

8,

IO

I2

14

deg

(a) M = 2.29.
Figure

14.- Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip.

CG = 1
4.6'.

NACA RM L58Do4

(a) Concluded.

Figure 14.- Continued.

.8

.4
Cn

- .4

-4

-2

8,

deg

(b) M = 2.75.
Figure 1-4. - Continued.

IO

I2

14

NACA RM ~ 3 8 ~ 0 4

( b ) Concluded.

Figure 14.- Continued.

NACA RM ~38~04

-.4

CY

-4

-2

(c)

Figure

M = 3.22.

14.- Continued.

IO

12

i4

NACA RM L58Do4

( c ) Concluded.
Figure 14.- Continued.

NACA FN

L58DO4

.8
.4
Cn

- .4

-4

-2

B,

deg

(d) M = 3.71.
Figure

14.- Continued.

IO

12

14

NACA RM

-4

-2

8,

deg

( d) Concluded.
Figure

14.-

Continued.

IO

12

14

L58DO4

NACA RM L38D04

.8

.4
Cn

- .4

-4

-2

8,
(e)

Figure

deg

M = 4.65.

14.- Continued.

IO

12

14

64

NACA RM

-4

-2

4
8 9

deg

(e) Concluded.
Figure

14.-

Concluded.

to

I2

~78~04

14

NACA RM L58D04

.8

.4
Cn

.4

Figure 15.- Aerodynamic characteristics of model I11 in sideslip.

a = 20.90; R = 12.5 x 106.

66

NACA RM L58D04

(a) Concluded.

Figure 15. Continued.

NACA RM L38DO4

.8

.4
Cn

0
.4

CY

-4

-2

B,
(b)

deg

M = 2.75.

Figure 15.- Continued.

10

12

14

NACA RM

-4

-2

6
B , deg

( b) Concluded.
Figure 15.- Continued.

10

12

14

L58D04

.8
.4
Cn

.4

-4

-2

6
P 9

(c)

deg

M=

3.22.

Figure 15.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

NACA RM

-4

-2

B,

6
deg

(c) Concluded.
Figure 15.- Continued.

IO

I2

~581x14

14

.8
.4
Cn

.4

CY

-4

-2

B,
(d)

deg

M =

3.71.

Figure 15. - Continued.

IO

12

14

NACA RM ~ 3 8 ~ 0 4

72

(d) Concluded.

Figure 15.- Continued.

NACA RM

L58DO4

73

.8

.4

Cn
0

.4

-4

-2

4
6
B , deg
(e)

4.65.

Figure 15.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

NACA RM L58DO4

74

-4

-2

4
B 1

deg

(e) Concluded.
Figure 15.- Concluded.

IO

12

14

NACA

75

FM L58DO4

'2

.4
0%

.4

'Y

-4

-2

IO

I2

14

(a) M = 2.29.

Figure 16.- Aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model IV in s i d e s l i p .

R = 12.3 x lo6.

MACA RM L58DO4

(a) Concluded.
Figure

16.- Continued.

"

77

NACA RM L58DOk

>

.4

o Cn
- .4

CY

4
8 9

deg

(b) M = 2.75.
Figure 16.- Continued.

78

-4

-2

8,

deg

(b) Concluded.

Figure 16.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

79

.4

o Cn
.4

-4

-2

4
8 9

deg

( c ) M = 3.22.
Figure

16. - Continued.

IO

12

14

80

NACA RM ~ 3 8 ~ 4

-2

8,
(e)

deg

Concluded.

Figure 16.- Continued.

IO

12

14

NACA RM ~ 3 8 ~ 0 4

81

.4

.4

-4

-2

8 , dell
(d) M = 3.71.
Figure 16.- Continued.

IO

12

14

-l

82

-4

-2

B,

den

(a) Concluded.
Figure 16.- Continued.

IO

I2

14

.4

- .4

CY

-4

-2

8,
(e)

Figure

6
deg

4.65.

16.- Continued.

IO

12

I4

(e) Concluded.
Figure 16.- Concluded.

85

.o
.o

C
ma

-.o

- .o
- .o

.8

M
(a)
Figure

u=

oO.

17.- Longitudinal s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e f i v e m i s s i l e
configurations

86

M
(b)
Figure

CY, =

16O to

20'.

17. - Concluded.

>

9"

NACA RM L58DO4

87

"B

M
Figure 18.- L a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model 111.

88

NACA RM

L58DO4

M
Figure 19.- L a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of model IV.

NACA

- Langley Field,

Va.