NASA TN D-64

TECHNICAL NOTE

CALCULATION O F WIND COMPENSATION FOR LAUNCHING

OF UNGUIDED ROCKETS
By Robert L. James, Jr., a.nd Itonald J. Harris

Langley Research Center

Langley Field, Va.

APR 17 1961

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

__ . _ I
. - _ . I - - II . .-- -" -
WASHINGTON-- April 1961
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL NOTE D-645

CALCULATION OF W I N D COMPENSATION FOR LAUNCHING

OF UNGUIDED ROCKETS

By Robert L. James, Jr., and Ronald J. Harris

SUMMARY

A method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g wind compensation f o r unguided m i s s i l e s

i s derived which has a g r e a t e r degree of f l e x i b i l i t y t h a n t h e previously
proposed methods. Most of t h e e a r l i e r t h e o r i e s were based on a common
set of assumptions which are (1)v e h i c l e motions i n p i t c h and yaw are
independent, ( 2 ) l i n e a r aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s with r e s p e c t t o flow
incidence angle a r e used, (3) launch angles f o r wind compensation a r e
t h e d i s p e r s i o n angles computed by using t h e weighted wind, and ( 4 ) f a c -
t o r s used t o determine azimuth c o r r e c t i o n are computed f o r t h e standard
launch-e l e v a t ion angle .
Elimination of t h e f i r s t two l i m i t a t i o n s i s t h e r e s u l t of using a
three-dimensional t r a j e c t o r y simulation w i t h arbitrary wind and nonlinear
aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s with r e s p e c t t o flow incidence angle. The l a s t
two l i m i t a t i o n s were removed by t h e unique a n a l y t i c a l methods used i n
t h e present paper.

U t i l i z a t i o n of t h e wind-compensation technique i s demonstrated by

using t h e Shotput v e h i c l e as a model. P o s t f l i g h t simulations of f o u r
of t h e s e m i s s i l e s w i t h t h e use of measured winds show t h a t i f t h e winds
are known, very good accuracy can be obtained by using t h e proposed
method.

A wind-compensation system f o r t h e unguided Scout-SX-1 i s presented

i n t h e appendix. This system w a s developed by using t h e assumptions and
methods presented i n t h i s paper. The e r r o r s obtained a r e of about t h e
sane magnitude as those found f o r t h e Shotput system; y e t t h e missile
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and performance h i s t o r i e s a r e very d i f f e r e n t .
2

INTRODUCTION

The advent of high-altitude-performance missiles has made the con-

sideration of factors causing trajectory deviations o r dispersion a
necessity. One of the main contributors to the dispersion of an unguided
vehicle is wind, and the purpose of this paper is to present a method for
minimizing this effect on the trajectory.

During the past decade several theories have been proposed for cal-
culating wind compensation, and results of flights made with the use of
these methods have been good in some cases and very poor in others. Most
of the previous work was done by using a similar set of assumptions which
can cause large errors. These assumptions are:

1. Vehicle motions in pitch and yaw are independent.

2. Linear aerodynamic coefficients with respect to f l o w incidence

angle and small angular perturbations are used.

3 . Launch angles for wind compensation are the dispersion angles

computed with the use of the weighted wind.

4. Factors used to determine azimuth correction are computed for

the standard launch-elevation angle.

The first assumption is poor because the azimuth change is greatly

dependent on the elevation angle. The trajectory should be computed in
three dimensions so that proper coupling effects between pitch and yaw
can be simulated.

Assumption 2 can cause large errors since most vehicles are more
sensitive to the wind early in flight when the flow incidence angle can
be well into the nonlinear range.

Assumption 3 is a direct misconception of the wind problem and can

cause very large errors. The angular dispersion is computed by using
the weighted wind, and the compensation angles required are assumed to
be equal and opposite to these deviations. It is necessary to perform
an iteration to determine the proper launcher angles. This assumption
also causes additional errors in pitch since the effect of gravity varies
with the launch elevation angle.

The errors introduced by assumption 4 are related to assumption 1.

If the wind-compensation procedure calls for a change in the launch ele-
vation, then the yaw-compensation factors should also be changed. This
is due to the change in yaw sensitivity associated with the elevation
angle.
 3

Probably t h e most well-known wind-compensation procedure i s t h a t

described i n reference 1. I n t h i s paper the rocket i s assumed t o t u r n
instantaneously i n t o t h e wind so t h a t t h e vehicle a x i s i s always tangent
t o t h e t r a j e c t o r y . I n addition, t h e wind-weighting f a c t o r s are assumed
t o be i d e n t i c a l i n p i t c h and yaw.

I n reference 2 t h e theory of reference 1 i s improved, as f a r as

t h e v e h i c l e response i s concerned, w i t h t h e use of more complete m i s -
s i l e equations. These equations, however, a r e s t i l l l i m i t e d t o one
plane, and a l s o t h e same weighting f a c t o r s i n p i t c h and yaw are assumed.

Applications of t h e s e t h e o r i e s t o d i f f e r e n t missiles w i t h some

s l i g h t adjustment are described i n references 3 t o 6. I n some of t h e s e
a p p l i c a t i o n s , d i f f e r e n t weighting f a c t o r s i n p i t c h and yaw have been
assumed, b u t t h e assumptions l i s t e d previously are again made.

A mu.ch Fmproved wind-compensation scheme w a s developed f o r the

L i t t l e Joe booster and i s presented i n reference 7. This a n a l y s i s w a s
based on a six-degree-of-freedom t r a j e c t o r y simulation which i s described
i n reference 8. The v e h i c l e motion is, therefore, very accurate b u t t h i s
wind-compensation method has l i m i t a t i o n s and disadvantages which are n o t
necessary i f the proper procedure i s followed. For instance, the analy-
sis i s l i m i t e d t o very low a l t i t u d e s ; and although it i s t r u e t h a t a
l a r g e percent of t h e wind e f f e c t occurs a t t h e lower a l t i t u d e , t h i s i s
a n unnecessary l i m i t a t i o n which can be removed without making t h e pro-
cedure more d i f f i c u l t . The system f o r t h e Little Joe involves a l a r g e
number of c a r p e t p l o t s . The method e n t a i l s a n i t e r a t i o n i n obtaining
t h e launcher c o r r e c t i o n s which must be done a f t e r t h e wind i s measured.
This r e s u l t s i n a l a r g e amount of computation and graph reading during
t h e l a s t few minutes of t h e count down.

The wind-compensation procedure which i s included i n t h i s paper

w a s not developed as an improvement of t h e t e c h n i q u e . f o r t h e L i t t l e Joe.
I n f a c t , t h e two methods are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t although both were based
on the same t r a j e c t o r y simulation.

I n t h e wind-compensation procedure of t h e p r e s e n t paper, the a l t i -

t u d e l i m i t a t i o n i s not m a d e and the i t e r a t i o n i s involved i n t h e devel-
opment and not during t h e count down. Also, t h e scheme only c o n s i s t s
of conventional two-dimensional p l o t s which are simple and easy t o use.
The amount of t r a j e c t o r y simulations and labor necessary t o develop
t h e c o r r e c t i o n graphs i s considerably less.

None of t h e l i m i t a t i o n s f o r references 1 and 2 are assumed i n t h i s

a n a l y s i s . There are a f e w simplifying assumptions, causing n e g l i g i b l e
e r r o r i n t h e s o l u t i o n , which are described as they a r e applied.
4

SYMBOLS

In the present paper, distances are measured in U.S. feet

(1 U.S. foot = 0.3048006 meter).

cA,0 axial-force coefficient at zero flow incidence angle,

dimensionless

Cm pitching-moment coefficient, dimensionless

rate of change of pitching-moment coefficient with pitching

c% &m 1
velocity,
= cnr’ radian

C rate of change of pitching-moment coefficient with rate of

9
change of flow incidence angle, Z m 1

normal-force coefficient, dimensionless

yawing-moment coefficient, dimensionless

rate of change of yawing-moment coefficient with yawing

velocity, - ZIl
(3)’ 1
radian

D reference length, ft

IX rolling moment of inertia, slug-ft2

IY pitching moment of inertia (Iy = Iz), slug-ft2

=2 yawing moment of inertia, slug-ft2

MY pitching moment, ft-lb

rate of change of pitching moment with pitching velocity,

Mys aM t- lb- sec
Y =Mzr’ fradian
as
 5

yawing moment, f t - l b

rate of change of yawing moment with yawing v e l o c i t y , %

-
ar ’
f t - l b - sec
radian

pitching velocity, radianslsec

yawing v e l o c i t y , raiiians/sec

time a t which missile i s considered i n s e n s i t i v e t o wind

missile linear velocity relative t o earth, f t / s e c

t o t a l m i s s i l e l i n e a r v e l o c i t y r e l a t i v e t o wind, f t / s e c

h o r i z o n t a l wind v e l o c i t y r e l a t i v e t o e a r t h , f t / s e c

h o r i z o n t a l wind v e l o c i t y component from t h e e a s t , f t / s e c

h o r i z o n t a l wind v e l o c i t y component from t h e north, f t / s e c

e a r t h - f i x e d axes, dimensionless

components of m i s s i l e v e l o c i t y along XE-, YE-, and %-axis,

r e spe c t i v e ly, f t /see

center-of-gravity d i s t a n c e from nose, f t

center-of-pressure d i s t a n c e from nose, f t

f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n p i t c h , deg

launch e l e v a t i o n angle, deg

f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n yaw, deg

f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n yaw i n plane normal t o plane of t r a -

j e c t o r y and tangent t o t h e instantaneous f l i g h t path, deg

launch azimuth compensation f o r Wind, deg

6

'I flow incidence angle, r a d i a n s

4 rate of change of flow incidence angle with time, radians/sec

OW wind d i r e c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o true north, deg

h no-wind f i r i n g azimuth, deg

JlW
angle between Vw,h and p r o j e c t i o n of m i s s i l e c e n t e r l i n e
i n XEYE-plane, deg

SHOTPUT CONFIGURATION CHARACTERISTICS

The method f o r wind compensation presented i n t h e present paper i s

not l i m i t e d t o any s p e c i f i c missile. However, due t o t h e complex nature
of t h e problem, t h e procedure as o u t l i n e d i s applied t o a p a r t i c u l a r m i s -
s i l e ; namely, t h e Shotput vehicle. The Shotput i s a two-stage s o l i d -
propellant rocket v e h i c l e used t o t e s t t h e i n f l a t i o n techniques f o r t h e
100-foot-diameter balloon s a t e l l i t e . These m i s s i l e s a r e f i r e d from NASA
Wallops S t a t i o n .

The Shotput e x t e r n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are presented i n f i g u r e 1.

The configuration shown i s t h e one which e x i s t s a t launch and during
f i r s t - s t a g e burning ( i n t h i s section, only d a t a p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e v e h i c l e
during f i r s t - s t a g e burning a r e presented). The f i r s t - s t a g e propulsion
system c o n s i s t s of a Pollux rocket motor and two Recruit r o c k e t s which
are used t o increase t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n a t launch and burnout a t about
2 seconds. Aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y i s obtained by using f o u r 8' wedge f i n s
having an a r e a of 15 square f e e t p e r panel. The m i s s i l e i s 384.6 inches
long and has a maximum diameter of 33 inches.

The aerodynamic parameters f o r t h i s missile are presented i n f i g -

ure 2. Figure 2 ( a ) shows t h e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s as a f u n c t i o n of
Mach number f o r various values of 7. Included are Cmq, Cmi, C A , ~ ,
CN, and x It was assumed that t h e vehicle has r o l l symmetry although
CP'
the Recruit rocket motors produce an unsymmetric e f f e c t . The aerodynamic
c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e based on a reference area S of 1 sq f t and a r e f e r e n c e
length D of 1 f t .

P l o t s of t h e time varying parameters are presented i n f i g u r e 2(b)

f o r time from launch t o f i r s t - s t a g e burnout a t 32.5 seconds. Included
i n t h i s f i g u r e are weight, xcg; t h r u s t , IY, Ix, and My Again t h e
9'
assumption w a s made t h a t t h e v e h i c l e has r o l l symmetry.
 7

The nominal performance of t h e Shotput v e h i c l e i s shown i n f i g u r e 3

as p l o t s of a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y v a r i a t i o n s with range. These data were
computed i n t h e IBM 704 e l e c t r o n i c data processing machine using t h e
aerodynamic parameters presented above and the t r a j e c t o r y program dis-
cussed i n r e f e r e n c e 8. An ICAO standard atmosphere ( r e f . 9) and a launch
angle of 7 8 O were used i n t h e s e computations.

ANALYSIS

The wind-compensation procedure derived h e r e i n involves f o u r a s p e c t s .

They a r e an adequate t r a j e c t o r y simulation, s e l e c t i o n of wind p r o f i l e s ,
development of wind-compensation graphs, and a wind-weighting procedure.

Trajectory Simulation

The requirements f o r a t r a j e c t o r y program needed f o r a wind-

compensation procedure are (1)that t h e t r a j e c t o r y be t h r e e dimensional,
( 2 ) t h a t provision be made f o r a r b i t r a r y wind v e l o c i t y and azimuth and
(3) t h a t nonlinear aerodynamics w i t h respect t o flow incidence angle be
included. The f i r s t two requirements are obvious since, i n t h e consid-
e r a t i o n of s i d e winds, t h e t r a j e c t o r y is three dimensional and t h e wind
v e l o c i t y and azimuth a r e a r b i t r a r y . The t h i r d requirement i s imposed
because t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of surface winds during launch can c r e a t e angles
of a t t a c k l a r g e r than 90°, which g r e a t l y exceed t h e l i n e a r range of t h e
aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s .

A t r a j e c t o r y simulation incorporating t h e above requirements i s

presented i n reference 8. I n a d d i t i o n t o the above requirements, t h i s
simulation assumes a v e h i c l e w i t h s i x degrees of freedom and aerodynamic
symmetry i n r o l l and t h e m i s s i l e p o s i t i o n i n space i s computed r e l a t i v e
t o a f l a t nonrotating e a r t h . This t r a j e c t o r y simulation w a s programmed
on t h e IEN 704 e l e c t r o n i c d a t a processing machine and i s t h e b a s i s f o r
a l l t r a j e c t o r y computations made i n t h i s paper.

S e l e c t i o n of Wind P r o f i l e s

The winds a t some geographical locations have been measured and

recorded over periods of t h e longer than a y e a r . These measurements
i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e wind v e l o c i t y g e n e r a l l y increases with a l t i t u d e u n t i l
a peak i s reached a t t h e j e t stream and then decreases r a t h e r a b r u p t l y .
Recordings made a t P a t r i c k A i r Force Base, Cocoa, F l o r i d a a r e presented
i n reference 10. These annual recordings were used as a b a s i s f o r
s e l e c t i n g p r o f i l e s t o be used i n t h e wind a n a l y s i s .
8

The annual p r o f i l e i s shown i n f i g u r e 4. This curve r e p r e s e n t s

the wind v e l o c i t i e s which were measured over a y e a r l y period. The s c a l a r
winds i n d i c a t e d on t h e curve were not exceeded about 96 percent of t h e
t i m e . Also shown i n f i g u r e 4 a r e t h e l i n e a r wind p r o f i l e s which were
used i n the a n a l y s i s . The maximum wind p r o f i l e assumed t o be 40 f t / s e c
i s shown as a l i n e a r approximation t o t h e annual curve. The o t h e r pro-
f i l e s shown i n t h i s f i g u r e are f r a c t i o n a l m u l t i p l e s of t h e b a s i c curve.
It should be noted t h a t a p r o f i l e i s r e f e r r e d t o i n terms of t h e surface
wind v e l o c i t y of t h a t p r o f i l e . There were a t o t a l of f o u r wind p r o f i l e s
considered which represented surface winds of 10, 20, 30, and 40 f t / s e c .

A m i s s i l e i s i n s e n s i t i v e t o wind above a c e r t a i n a l t i t u d e . For

the Shotput vehicle t h i s a l t i t u d e w a s determined t o be 42,000 f e e t as
i s shown i n a subsequent s e c t i o n of t h i s paper. Thus, t h e l i n e a r pro-
f i l e s of f i g u r e 4 are stopped a t t h i s a l t i t u d e . I f t h e s e n s i t i v i t y
range had extended above 42,000 f e e t , t h e assumed p r o f i l e s would be
extended also; and t h e i r slopes would be changed so t h a t t h e curve f o r
40 f t / s e c would c l o s e l y approximate t h e annual p r o f i l e .

The assumption t h a t t h e wind w i l l vary with a l t i t u d e on t h e day of

f i r i n g as one of t h e s e p r o f i l e s i s not made i n t h e a n a l y s i s . The devi-
a t i o n from t h e p r o f i l e s of t h e measured wind i s taken i n t o account by
weighting t h e wind which i s discussed i n a subsequent s e c t i o n .

Derivation of Wind-Compensation Graphs

I n t h i s s e c t i o n t h e development of a set of wind-compensation graphs

i s presented. The r e s u l t i s a graph of launch-elevation and launch-
azimuth angles as a f u n c t i o n of wind azimuth and v e l o c i t y . Throughout
the following a n a l y s i s , assumptions a r e made which a r e d i f f i c u l t t o prove
d i r e c t l y although t h e y seem c o r r e c t i n t u i t i v e l y . These assumptions are
only pointed out as they are passed and are subsequently checked as a
group by making sample computer runs with varying wind conditions.

It i s convenient t o d e f i n e here some of t h e terminology used i n t h e

analysis. Consider t h e following diagram:
 9

- 2,

J
XE
E a r t h f i x e d axes '

ZE

The f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n p i t c h i s given by

= sin' 1&
yP V

where V i s t h e m i s s i l e v e l o c i t y r e l a t i v e t o t h e ground and can be

expressed as

The f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n yaw can be expressed a s

10

Note that t h i s angle i s i n t h e plane of t h e missile v e l o c i t y v e c t o r and

i s not an e a r t h p r o j e c t i o n . The p r o j e c t i o n of t h e yaw f l i g h t - p a t h angle
i n t h e plane of t h e e a r t h i s given by

These yaw angles are r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r through t h e following equation:

s i n y ' = s i n y cos y (5)

Y Y P

The time at which t h e wind i s no longer e f f e c t i v e i s c a l l e d t e , and f o r

Shotput t h i s value i s 25 seconds. This corresponds t o an a l t i t u d e of
42,000 f e e t which'was pointed out above.

The nominal, no-wind launch e l e v a t i o n f o r Shotput i s 78O, and t h e

nominal values of t h e preceding f l i g h t - p a t h angles a t t e = 25 seconds
are

yy' = oo

yp = 67.3O

Wind conditions cause changes i n some o r a l l of t h e s e angles depending

on t h e wind d i r e c t i o n .

Head and t a i l w i n d s . - Consider f i r s t t h e e f f e c t s of head and t a i l

winds. Since t h e missile i s s t a b l e and t h r u s t i n g during t h e p o r t i o n of
the t r a j e c t o r y being analyzed, it weathercocks. A head wind p i t c h e s t h e
missile down and a t a i l wind p i t c h e s it up. T r a j e c t o r i e s were computed
with various head- and tail-wind p r o f i l e s and t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e com-
putations are shown i n f i g u r e 5 as a p l o t of t h e f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n
pitch, a t t e ( 2 5 s e c ) a g a i n s t wind v e l o c i t y a t t h e surface. The
YP,
conditions of t h e s e t r a j e c t o r y simulations a r e shown i n t a b l e I as runs 1
t o 9. The launch e l e v a t i o n w a s held constant a t 78' f o r a l l of t h e s e
trajectories.

T r a j e c t o r i e s were a l s o computed with no wind f o r various launch ele-

vation angles, and t h e change i n f l i g h t - p a t h angle w a s computed by using
the equation
r t

11

a7P = 7P,0 - (Tp)te

where i s t h e f l i g h t - p a t h angle a t launch. I n f i g u r e 6, is

7P, 0 A7P
p l o t t e d a g a i n s t launch e l e v a t i o n f o r t h e no-wind cases, and a l s o curves
are shown f o r head winds and t a i l winds. The no-wind t r a j e c t o r y s i m u -
l a t i o n s are shown i n t a b l e I as run 1 and runs 10 t o 12. Data f o r t h s
head winds and t a i l winds were a v a i l a b l e f o r a launch e l e v a t i o n of 78
as presented i n f i g u r e 5 (runs 2 t o 9 ) and f o r a wind of 40 f t / s e c with
varying launch e l e v a t i o n i n runs 13 t o 18. The family of curves shown
i n t h i s f i g u r e w a s obtained by i n t e r p o l a t i o n between t h e s e data p o i n t s .

It was stated previously t h a t t h e desired value of was 67.3O.

Therefore, f o r the i d e a l case, equation (6) can be written,

7P, 0
- AyP = 67.3' (7)

This expression can be solved g r a p h i c a l l y with the use of a 45' l i n e

( yP, 0
plotted against 7
P,O
) which i s also p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 6. A p a i r
of d i v i d e r s set a t 67.3' can be moved u n t i l t h e value set i s t h e d i f f e r -
. ence between t h e 45' l i n e and one of t h e curves. The l e n g t h corresponding
t o 67.3' i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6 i n t h e p o s i t i o n f o r determining 7
P,O
f o r a head wind of 20 ft/sec. It can be seen that the value of 7
P, 0
i s 82.8' f o r t h i s wind condition. The r e s u l t of t h i s g r a p h i c a l s o l u t i o n
i s t h e c w e shown i n f i g u r e 7. This f i g u r e g i v e s t h e launch e l e v a t i o n
needed f o r wind compensation i f t h e e x i s t i n g wind i s a head o r t a i l wind.
Hence, i f compensation f o r head and t a i l w i n d s were t h e only considera-
t i o n , f i g u r e 7 would s u f f i c e .

By making a comparison of f i g u r e s 5 and 7 it i s readily seen that

the t r i a l and e r r o r process described above i s very necessary. A head-
wind p r o f i l e of 40 f t / s e c gives a value of of >lo ( f i g . 5) which
(7dt,
i s 16.3' lower than t h e desired value o f 67.3'. Now, if t h i s charge i s
added t o t h e launch-elevation angle of 7 8 O it g i v e s 94.3' f o r t h e cor-
r e c t e d launch angle as compared t o 87.8O which i s shown i n f i g u r e 7.
T h i s i s an e r r o r of 6.50 i n t h e launch-elevation angle which, of course,
could not be t o l e r a t e d . Carrying out a similar comparison f o r a t a i l
wind of 40 f t / s e c i n d i c a t e s t h a t an e r r o r of 8.5' would be m a d e .

Side winds.- The next s t e p i n t h e a n a l y s i s i s t h e consideration of

side-wind components o r winds from any d i r e c t i o n . The angle qW i s
 t ?

defined as t h e angle between t h e launch azimuth and t h e h o r i z o n t a l com-

ponent of wind ( t h e h o r i z o n t a l wind component i s assumed t o be t h e t o t a l
wind v e c t o r ) as shown i n t h e following diagram:

/ Wind vector

1 Launch azimuth

The v e c t o r s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e diagram are a l l i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l plane.

Trajectory simulations were made f o r various values of $w and

wind p r o f i l e s assuming a launch-elevation angle of 78'. The conditions
of t h e s e computations a r e shown i n t a b l e I as runs 1 t o 9 and runs 19
t o 30. Also shown i n t h e t a b l e a r e values f o r y and yyl which a r e
P
l i s t e d a t t,. These values were computed by using equations (1)and ( 3 )
and were p l o t t e d a g a i n s t JIw f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t wind v e l o c i t i e s as i n
f i g u r e 8. The curves were p l o t t e d f o r p o s i t i v e values of qw; however,
the d a t a can be used f o r e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative values of qW with
the s i g n s of ( Y ~ ' ) ~ , being opposite from those of qw.

The next f i g u r e constructed w a s made up of d a t a presented i n f i g -

ures 5 and 7. Figure 5 g i v e s f o r various head- and tail-wind
(Tp )te
v e l o c i t i e s , and f i g u r e 7 gives t h e launch e l e v a t i o n needed t o compensate
f o r t h e s e winds as a f u n c t i o n of wind v e l o c i t y . By making a c r o s s p l o t
of t h e d a t a i n t h e s e f i g u r e s , it i s p o s s i b l e t o c o n s t r u c t a curve of
p l o t t e d a g a i n s t t h e c o r r e c t launch e l e v a t i o n . This r e s u l t i s
(7p )te
shown i n f i g u r e 9. Thus, f o r any value of obtained from a
1 4

t r a j e c t o r y i n which t h e launch e l e v a t i o n was 7 8 O , it i s p o s s i b l e t o

o b t a i n from t h i s f i g u r e t h e launch elevation which i s required t o make
e q u a l t o 67.3O o r t h e nominal, no-wind value. For example, sup-
('PIte
pose a t r a j e c t o r y were computed by using a launch-elevation angle of 7 8 O
and some head- o r tail-wind p r o f i l e . If the under t h e s e condi-

t i o n s came out t o be &lo,then the launch elevation needed t o f l y t h e

no-wind t r a j e c t o r y can be read from f i g u r e 9 as 71.3'.

It isaassumed t h a t t h e curve of figure 9 i s v a l i d f o r wind condi-

t i o n s o t h e r than head and t a i l winds. I n other words, i f a value of
Mte i s obtained with a launch angle of 78' f o r any wind v e l o c i t y o r

d i r e c t i o n , t h e launch e l e v a t i o n necessary t o compensate f o r t h e e r r o r

i n p i t c h can be read from t h e f i g u r e . By making t h i s assumption, it i s
p o s s i b l e t o determine t h e c o r r e c t launch elevation f o r each value of
i n f i g u r e 8. Values of are read i n f i g u r e 8 and then
( yp) te ( 7p>te
t h e c o r r e c t launch angle i s determined from f i g u r e 9.. The r e s u l t s are
shown i n f i g u r e 10. I n t h i s f i g u r e i s p l o t t e d t h e c o r r e c t launch e l e -
v a t i o n as a function of \c;r f o r various v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e s . This curve
gives t h e wind compensation i n t h e launch e l e v a t i o n f o r any wind azimuth
and various v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e s . Note t h a t t h i s f i g u r e a p p l i e s f o r posi-
t i v e o r negative values of qW.

The problem remaining i s t h e determination of the azimuth compensa-

t i o n graph. By rearranging equation ( 5 ) t h e following expression i s
obtained f o r t h e yaw angle i n t h e plane of the e a r t h :

It can r e a d i l y be seen t h a t as increases, t h e value of becomes

7P yY
7 '.
l a r g e r than t h e value of The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t 7 is the
Y Y
yaw angle i n t h e plane of t h e missile and y i s t h e p r o j e c t i o n of t h i s
Y
angle i n t h e e a r t h plane. Hence, as t h e p i t c h angle increases, t h e pro-
j e c t i o n becomes l a r g e r f o r a given value of I . For t h i s reason, t h e
yY
d i s p e r s i o n problem becomes very c r i t i c a l when unguided r o c k e t s a r e
launched a t s t e e p launch angles.
14

It i s assumed t h a t t h e d a t a f o r i n f i g u r e 8 can be used

f o r any launch e l e v a t i o n i n the neighborhood of 78' ( t h i s assumption

along with o t h e r s w i l l be proven v a l i d i n a subsequent s e c t i o n ) .

After wind compensation, t h e p i t c h angle w i l l be 67.3' at

7P
25 seconds. By using t h e values of
(7Y te '> from f i g u r e 8 and 7P = 67.3O
i n equation (8), it i s p o s s i b l e t o determine values of f o r each wind
yY
d i r e c t i o n and v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e . These values were computed and a r e shown
i n f i g u r e 11.

Consider t h e following diagram showing t h e geometry of t h e wind

problem i n t h e h o r i z o n t a l plane:

t True n o r t h

It can be seen i n t h e diagram t h a t

where 8, i s t h e wind d i r e c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t r u e north, 7y,0 i s the

azimuth compensation f o r wind, and A i s t h e d e s i r e d azimuth a t te.
 By transposing and s u b s t i t u t i n g 9 0' f o r A ( s i n c e east w a s t h e d e s i r e d
d i r e c t i o n of f i r e f o r Shotput), t h e following equation i s obtained:

qw - yy,o = goo - e,

T h i s equation i s solved by using a graphical s o l u t i o n similar t o t h a t

used previously i n solving equation ( 7 ) . The values of i n fig-
yy) te (
ure 11 are-measured r e l a t i v e t o the launch azimuth of t h e missile; t h e r e -
must be equal i n magnitude and opposite i n sign t o 7
fore, (yY)te Y,O

i f t h e v e h i c l e i s on course a t t,. (See the preceding diagram..) A

45O l i n e i s a l s o shown i n f i g u r e 11 p l o t of qw a g a i n s t qW) so t h e
(
values of qW - yy,o Or *w - (-YJte can be obtained f o r various

values of goo -
8, which are assumed. The following table includes
some sample c a l c u l a t i o n s using t h i s procedure. The arrow shown i n f i g -
ure 11 corresponds t o t h e f i r s t calculation i n t h i s table.

After t h e value of i s determined, it i s p o s s i b l e t o determine

Jrw
I t h e launch-elevation angle from f i g u r e 10. Values of launch e l e v a t i o n
are a l s o given i n the above t a b l e .

If t h i s procedure i s c a r r i e d out f o r each v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e and

wind-direction angle 8, from '0 t o 360°, it i s p o s s i b l e t o construct
t h e f i n a l wind-compensation graph as shown i n figure 12. This graph
I
g i v e s t h e launch azimuth and e l e v a t i o n angles needed t o compensate f o r
any wind d i r e c t i o n and f o r t h e various v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e s . It should
be noted t h a t t h e d e s i r e d azimuth i s 90' and that t h e curves would be
s h i f t e d right o r l e f t f o r other values.

These curves only apply t o wind-velocitx p r o f i l e s l i k e those assumed

previously and wind d i r e c t i o n s which are i n v a r i a n t with a l t i t u d e . There-
f o r e , t h e curves are not very u s e f u l alone s i n c e wind d a t a a t f i r i n g time
16

w i l l generally show d i r e c t i o n changes with a l t i t u d e and t h e v e l o c i t y

w i l l probably not d u p l i c a t e t h e assumed g r a d i e n t .

I n order t o a l l e v i a t e t h i s l i m i t a t i o n , a wind-weighting procedure

i s used which e f f e c t i v e l y determines t h e v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e and wind d i r e c -
t i o n which most nearly agree with t h e a c t u a l wind conditions. This pro-
cedure i s discussed i n t h e next s e c t i o n .

Wind-Weighting Procedure

Previously i n t h i s paper it w a s pointed out t h a t assumed wind pro-

f i l e s were used i n t h e a n a l y s i s . Before wind-compensation angles can
be obtained by using f i g u r e 12, it i s necessary t o determine t h e l i n e a r
p r o f i l e t h a t most nearly approximates t h e a c t u a l wind conditions a t
launch time. I n o t h e r words, some weighting procedure must be used
which relates a c t u a l wind d a t a t o one of t h e assumed p r o f i l e s .

The a b i l i t y t o compensate f o r winds depends g r e a t l y on t h e accuracy

of t h e wind d a t a which a r e used. A discussion of t h e various wind meas-
uring techniques and t h e i r inherent e r r o r s i s beyond t h e scope of t h i s
report, but it should be emphasized t h a t accurate wind d a t a are necessary
before good r e s u l t s can be obtained with a wind-compensation procedure.

A s t a b l e m i s s i l e i s most s e n s i t i v e t o winds e a r l y i n f l i g h t when

i t s v e l o c i t y i s low and t h e a l t i t u d e i s low. The s e n s i t i v i t y decreases
rapidly with increasing a l t i t u d e ; hence, it follows t h a t more weight
must be given t o t h e low-altitude wind d a t a . A l a r g e percentage of t h e
s e n s i t i v i t y occurs i n t h e f i r s t 1,000 feet of a l t i t u d e i n most cases.

Obviously, t h e r e i s some p o i n t along t h e t r a j e c t o r y of a v e h i c l e

a f t e r which t h e wind no longer has any noticeable e f f e c t on t h e f l i g h t
path. The f l i g h t time te when t h e missile reaches t h i s p o i n t i s taken
as t h e end p o i n t f o r t h e consideration of wind e f f e c t s ; a corresponding
a l t i t u d e determines t h e cutoff a l t i t u d e f o r t h e wind p r o f i l e s .

A s t a b l e m i s s i l e tends t o yaw, o r weathercock, i n t o t h e wind. The

vehicle does not t u r n completely i n t o t h e wind but t r i m s a t some angle
of yaw determined by t h e r e s p e c t i v e v e l o c i t i e s of t h e missile and wind.
I f t h e missile i s t h r u s t i n g , t h e t h r u s t v e c t o r i s a l s o yawed through t h e
same angle and f l i g h t - p a t h d e v i a t i o n s become evident. I f t h e weather-
cocked m i s s i l e i s not t h r u s t i n g , however, t h e only e f f e c t of wind on
the f l i g h t path i s d r i f t and, i n most cases, t h e m i s s i l e v e l o c i t y i s
high and d r i f t can be neglected.

Burnout time, thus, appears t o be a s u i t a b l e endpoint f o r t h e wind

consideration. It should be noted that t h e vehicle may become v i r t u a l l y
i n s e n s i t i v e t o wind a t some t i m e before burnout. Nothing i s l o s t , how-
ever, i f the chosen endpoint i s beyond t h e s e n s i t i v e range. Each m i s s i l e
must be t r e a t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y t o determine the s e n s i t i v e region of t h e
t r a j e c t o r y t o be considered. Configurations vary so much t h a t there i s
no r u l e which can be used i n a l l cases.

There are s e v e r a l schemes f o r determining s e n s i t i v i t y . The method

used here c o n s i s t s of programming a sharp-edged h o r i z o n t a l gust t o h i t
t h e vehicle a t various a l t i t u d e s along i t s nominal no-wind t r a j e c t o r y .
A constant s i d e wind of 50 f t / s e c , which was allowed t o remain e f f e c t i v e
u n t i l burnout, w a s used f o r a l l cases considered. I n o t h e r words, t h e
vehicle is' f l y i n g t h e nominal t r a j e c t o r y until t h e gust a l t i t u d e i s
reached and t h e n remains under t h e e f f e c t o f t h e wind until burnout.
The a l t i t u d e s chosen f o r t h e wind t o become e f f e c t i v e were a r b i t r a r y ,
b u t most were a t t h e lower a l t i t u d e s where the s e n s i t i v i t y i s g r e a t e r .

The wind causes t h e m i s s i l e t o yaw through an angle yY which i s

evident a t te. By knowing t h e value of y at t e and by assuming
Y
t h a t t h e p i t c h angle a t t h i s p o i n t w i l l be the nominal value a f t e r wind
compensation, it i s possible t o use equation (8) t o determine t h e values

A comparison of the r e s u l t i n g for different altitudes i s

a measure of wind s e n s i t i v i t y . A t y p i c a l plot showing t h e change of

with gust a l t i t u d e i s given f o r the Shotput i n f i g u r e l 3 ( a ) .
k Y t ) te
Note t h a t t h e a l t i t u d e s are t h e a l t i t u d e s a t which t h e v e h i c l e e n t e r s
t h e gust.

From t h e f i g u r e , it i s seen t h a t t h e r e i s no noticeable change i n

p a s t an a l t i t u d e of 42,000 f e e t . This i s t h e end of t h e sen-
( % )te
t

s i t i v e range and the wind p r o f i l e s f o r Shotput were c u t a t t h i s p o i n t .

The corresponding time of f l i g h t w a s 25 seconds which determined t e .
The d a t a of f i g u r e l3(a) can be put i n a more u s e f u l form by dividing
each value of by t h e maximum value occurring, as shown i n f i g -
(Yyl)te
ure 13(b). The maximum value w i l l u s u a l l y occur a t zero a l t i t u d e , but
t h i s i s not a n e c e s s i t y . This curve i s a representation of r e l a t i v e
s e n s i t i v i t y s i n c e it i s a comparison of values as a function

of a l t i t u d e . A change i n the r a t i o of 0.01 repre-

s e n t s a 1-percent change i n s e n s i t i v i t y , and t h e corresponding a l t i t u d e

bracket i s t h e l a y e r over which t h e change occurs.
 18
8

The a l t i t u d e f o r each 0.07 change w a s read and l i s t e d i n t a b l e 11.

These a l t i t u d e s d e f i n e t h e boundaries of wind l a y e r s which have a weight
f a c t o r of 0.05 assigned t o them. Thus, a t o t a l of 20 l a y e r s w a s obtained
but more or less may be used depending on t h e v e h i c l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
t h e shape of t h e s e n s i t i v i t y curve. Note t h a t 55 percent of s e n s i t i v i t y
OCCUTS i n t h e f i r s t 1,000 f e e t .

The boundaries defining t h e wind l a y e r s w e r e drawn on a p l o t of t h e

wind p r o f i l e s as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 14. For any reasonable a l t i t u d e
scale, the small l a y e r s below 1,000 feet would be i n d i s t i n c t ; t h e r e f o r e ,
a logarithmic s c a l e w a s used which tends t o make t h e l a y e r s e q u a l l y
important. A disadvantage i n using t h e logarithmic s c a l e i s t h e impos-
s i b i l i t y of having an exact zero a l t i t u d e , but t h i s u s u a l l y c r e a t e s no
problem since t h e vehicle c e n t e r of g r a v i t y i s not a t zero a l t i t u d e a t
take-off. (The Shotput c e n t e r of g r a v i t y w a s about 25 f e e t off t h e
ground while s t i l l on t h e launcher.)

As an example of t h e wind-weighting procedure, consider t h e wind

d a t a p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 14. These d a t a were measured before t h e f i r i n g
of a Shotput v e h i c l e on October 28, 1959 a t NASA Wallops S t a t i o n using
aerovanes and radar-tracked chaff balloons. Table I1 includes t h e wind
v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n readings for each l a y e r . For example, i n l a y e r 20
t h e wind v e l o c i t y read was 30 f t / s e c which w a s i n t e r p o l a t e d from t h e
assumed constant gradient p r o f i l e s . The wind azimuth i s read d i r e c t l y
s i n c e no p r o f i l e s e x i s t f o r t h e wind azimuth.

A f t e r t h e v e l o c i t y and azimuth values a r e t a b u l a t e d f o r each l a y e r ,

t h e e a s t and n o r t h components a r e determined by using t h e following
expressions :

The components are added a l g e b r a i c a l l y and t h e weighted wind v e l o c i t y

and azimuth a r e obtained from t h e s e summations as shown i n t a b l e 11. Note

(Vw,h)* and E(
that t h e weighted north and east components are determined by dividing
vw,h)E by 20. The value 20 must be used s i n c e each
l a y e r has a weight of 0.05 as explained previously. The weighted wind
v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r wind was computed t o be
16.4 f t / s e c and 305O, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Hence, t h e a c t u a l wind i s represented
by a constant gradient with a s u r f a c e v e l o c i t y of 16.4 f t / s e c and a d i r e c -
t i o n of 305O.
 I
a

Using t h e s e values i n f i g u r e 12 gives 74.7' f o r t h e launch eleva-

t i o n and 9 9 O f o r t h e launch azimuth. A discussion of t h e r e s u l t s with
t h e use of t h e s e a n g l e s i s presented i n the next s e c t i o n .

DISCUSSION

Check of Analysis and Assumptions

The previously described wind a n a l y s i s w a s checked by using two

d i f f e r e n t schemes which w i l l be discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . I n t h e f i r s t
of these, t r a j e c t o r i e s were computed by using t h e assumed p r o f i l e s while
holding t h e wind d i r e c t i o n constant i n each simulation and by using t h e
derived launch c o r r e c t i o n s discussed previously and presented i n f i g -
ure 12. By t h i s procedure it w a s possible t o check t h e b a s i c assumptions\
of t h e wind analysis up t o t h e point of the wind-weighting procedure.
The second scheme consisted of computing t r a j e c t o r i e s with wind data
having varying v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n , part of which were measured a t
NASA Wallops S t a t i o n on t h e days of Shotput f i r i n g s and the remainder of
which were a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d . This procedure checks t h e b a s i c assump-
t i o n s a g a i n b u t , i n a d d i t i o n , it checks t h e wind-weighting procedure.

The r e s u l t s f o r t h e f i r s t scheme of checking are shown i n f i g -

ure l 5 ( a ) . Various wind p r o f i l e s and wind d i r e c t i o n s were considered
which a r e l i s t e d i n t h e f i g u r e . P i t c h and yaw compensation angles were
read from f i g u r e 12 for each of t h e s e conditions and were used i n t h e
t r a j e c t o r y analysis. It can be seen from the f i g u r e t h a t t h e compensa-
t i o n values a r e i n e x c e l l e n t agreement w i t h t h e t o t a l change produced
by t h e wind i n each case. It w a s concluded from t h i s study t h a t t h e
assumptions made i n developing t h e wind-compensation graphs a r e v a l i d .

The r e s u l t s f o r varying wind v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n a r e shown i n

f i g u r e 1 5 ( b ) . Actual wind d a t a measured on t h e day of f i r i n g of f o u r
Shotput v e h i c l e s were used i n this study i n a d d i t i o n t o one a r b i t r a r i l y
s e l e c t e d wind p r o f i l e . Winds measured on October 28, 1959, a r e pre-
s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 14, and t h e remaining wind data a r e presented i n f i g -
u r e 16. These winds were weighted using the procedure described under
t h e previous s e c t i o n of t h i s r e p o r t and t h e compensation angles were
read from f i g u r e L2 using t h e weighted values. These weighted values
a r e a l s o l i s t e d i n f i g u r e l 5 ( b ) with t h e date t h e wind was measured.
Here again, t h e compensation values agree very w e l l with t h e t o t a l
change produced by t h e wind. "he average e r r o r i n p i t c h was 0.3' and
t h e average e r r o r i n y a w was 1 .
3'
. It was concluded from t h e s e r e s u l t s
t h a t t h e weighting procedure i s s u f f i c i e n t l y a c c u r a t e .

An e r r o r a n a l y s i s similar t o t h e one discussed previously was c a r -

r i e d out f o r t h e wind-compensation system f o r t h e unguided Scout-SX-1
 I I

20

missile. This system w a s developed by using t h e assumptions and methods

described i n t h i s paper and i s presented i n t h e appendix. The e r r o r s
obtained were of about t h e same magnitude as those found f o r t h e Shotput
system y e t t h e m i s s i l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and performance h i s t o r i e s a r e very
different.

Significance of Limitations Imposed on

Previous Wind-Compensation Methods

Several o t h e r wind-compensation methods were described i n t h e

Introduction of t h i s paper w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s imposed on them. I n
t h e following paragraphs, an attempt w i l l be made t o show t h e e f f e c t s
of t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s f o r t h e type of v e h i c l e and launch conditions con-
s i d e r e d h e r e i n . The assumptions made i n r e f e r e n c e s 1 and 2 were given
as :

1. Vehicle motions i n p i t c h and yaw a r e independent.

2. Linear aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s with r e s p e c t t o t h e flow i n c i -

dence angle and small angular p e r t u r b a t i o n s a r e used.

3 . Launch angles f o r wind compensation are t h e d i s p e r s i o n angles

computed using t h e weighted wind.

4. F a c t o r s used t o determine azimuth c o r r e c t i o n are computed f o r

t h e standard launch-elevation angle.

The e r r o r caused by t h e f i r s t assumption can r e a d i l y be seen i n

the wind-compensation graph of f i g u r e 12. A pure side-wind p r o f i l e
(& = Oo, 180°, o r 3600) w i t h a v e l o c i t y of 40 f t / s e c r e q u i r e s a yP, Q
f o r wind compensation of 74.5O which i s 3.5O beiow t h e nominal launch
angle of 7 8 O . I n t h e previous methods, no p i t c h c o r r e c t i o n i s made f o r
p u r e s i d e winds so t h i s would be a 3 . 5 O e r r o r i n e l e v a t i o n under t h e s e
conditions.

The second assumption i s poor because t h e flow incidence angle 7

i s very l a r g e during the e a r l y p o r t i o n of f l i g h t . If t h e Shotput vehi-
cle were subjected t o a 40 f t / s e c wind a t launch, it would t r a v e l about
63 f e e t t o an a l t i t u d e of 90 f e e t before q decreased t o a value of loo.
As can be seen i n f i g u r e 14, t h e r e a r e almost f o u r wind l a y e r s i n t h i s
a l t i t u d e region which comprise 20 percent of t h e t o t a l wind e f f e c t .
Since t h i s i s a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e t o t a l e f f e c t , it i s concluded t h a t
nonlinear aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s should be used.
 I
1

21

The e f f e c t of t h e t h i r d assumption can be seen by r e f e r r i n g t o

f i g u r e 11. Suppose t h e r e were a pure side-wind p r o f i l e of 40 f t / s e c
(qw = 90") a c t i n g on t h e m i s s i l e . It can be seen i n t h e f i g u r e t h a t
t h e v e h i c l e would yaw ?lo under t h e s e conditions. Now, i f t h e f u l l ?lo
were used as the launch-azimuth correction, the new value of qw would
be 90° + 51° or 1 41'. The m i s s i l e would then yaw only 33' and t h e a z i -
muth e r r o r would be 1 8' which i s very l a r g e . The same argument can be
applied t o t h e p i t c h case as w a s shown previously i n t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d
"Derivation of Wind-Compensation Graphs."

E r r o r s introduced by assumption 4 can be shown by considering equa-

tion (8) which w a s s t a t e d a s

Now, l e t y ' be a reasonable value of 5 O and l e t y be TO0 and 80°.

Y P
Then, corresponding t o t h e s e values would be 14.8O and 3O.2O, respec-
yY
t i v e l y . Thus, a d i f f e r e n c e by f a c t o r of approximately 2 i s obtained f o r
t h e two launch angles. Obviously, using t h e same wind c o r r e c t i o n f o r each
launch angle can produce i n t o l e r a b l e e r r o r s .

The main l i m i t a t i o n imposed on t h e wind-compensation method of r e f -

erence 7 f o r t h e L i t t l e Joe i s t h e maximum a l t i t u d e . The author p o i n t s
out t h e e r r o r s t h a t could be obtained w i t h the L i t t l e Joe v e h i c l e f o r
various wind conditions under t h i s assumption. For t h e Shotput, it i s
i n t e r e s t i n g t o note i n f i g u r e 14 that 60 percent of t h e wind weighting
remains a t an a l t i t u d e above 455 feet which i s about t h e a l t i t u d e t h a t
t h e L l t t l e Joe analysis was discontinued. It i s concluded that t h e l i m i t a -
t i o n of r e f e r e n c e 7 can not g e n e r a l l y be made without causing e r r o r .

CONCLUDING FilWUKS

A method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g wind compensation f o r unguided m i s s i l e s

has been derived which has a g r e a t e r degree of f l e x i b i l i t y than previ-
ously proposed methods. Most of t h e e a r l i e r t h e o r i e s were based on a
common set of assumptions which are: (1) vehicle motions i n p i t c h and
yaw a r e independent, ( 2 ) l i n e a r aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s with r e s p e c t
t o flow incidence angle and small perturbations a r e used, (3) launch
angles f o r wind compensation a r e t h e dispersion angles computed using
t h e weighted wind, ( 4 ) f a c t o r s used t o determine azimuth c o r r e c t i o n are
computed f o r t h e standard launch-elevation angle.
22

Elimination of the first two limitations resulted from using a

three-dimensional trajectory simulation with arbitrary wind and non-
linear aerodynamic coefficients with respect to flow incidence angle.
The last two limitations are removed by the unique analytical methods
which are presented.

Use of the wind-compensation technique was demonstrated by using

the Shotput vehicle as a model. Postflight simulations of f o u r of these
missiles with the use of measured winds showed that, if the winds were
known, very good accuracy could be obtained using the proposed method.

A wind-compensation system for the unguided Scout-SX-1 is presented

in the appendix. This system was developed by using the assumptions and
methods presented in this paper. The errors obtained are of about the
same magnitude as those found for the Shotput system; yet the missile
configurations and performance histories are very different.

A more detailed preflight trajectory analysis is required for the

use of this technique than is necessary with the use of conventional
methods. However, in order to obtain the desired missile performance
with minimum wind dispersion, a wind-compensation scheme having the
capabilities of the one presented must be used.

Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Langley Field, Va., October 17, 1960.
 APPENDIX

WIND COMPENSATION FOR TH2 SCOUT-SX-1

The Scout-SX-1 vehicle w a s t h e f i r s t t e s t of t h e Scout s e r i e s .

This missile w a s f i r e d without guidance; thus it w a s necessary t o use
a wind-compensation procedure. The procedure described i n t h i s paper
w a s s e l e c t e d and t h e compensation graphs and r e s u l t s a r e presented.

The Scout-SX-1 e x t e r n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are presented i n f i g u r e 17.

This i s t h e configuration that e x i s t s a t launch and during f i r s t - s t a g e
burning. The f i r s t - s t a g e propulsion system i s an A l g o l solid-propellant
rocket motor. The missile i s 760.1 inches long and has a maximum diam-
e t e r of 40 inches. Four 8' wedge f i n s having an a r e a of 4.5 square f e e t
p e r panel provide aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y .

The aerodynamic parameters f o r t h i s missile a r e presented i n f i g -

ure 18. Figure 18(a) shows t h e aerodynamic c o e f f i c i e n t s as functions
of Mach number, errii t h e time varying parameters are shown i n f i g u r e 1 8 ( b ) .
These are t h e same terms as previously presented f o r t h e Shotput vehicle
except t h a t w a s small arid assumed t o be zero f o r t h i s m i s s i l e . R o l l
Cmi
symmetry was again assumed and t h e reference area S and length D a r e
1 square f o o t and 1 f o o t , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The nominal performance of t h e Scout-SB-1 vehicle i s shown i n f i g -

ure 19 as p l o t s of a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y v a r i a t i o n s with range. The
launch angle w a s 81O and t h e ICAO standard atmosphere ( r e f . 9 ) w a s
assumed. It can be seen by comparing f i g u r e s 3 and 19 t h a t t h e launch
a c c e l e r a t i o n i s much smaller f o r Scout-SX-1 than f o r Shotput. The Shotput
launch a c c e l e r a t i o n was ll.9g; whereas f o r Scout-SX-1 t h i s value w a s 2.7g.
The combination of lower a c c e l e r a t i o n a t take-off and t h e s t e e p e r launch
e l e v a t i o n (81O f o r Scout, 7 8 O f o r Shotput) are f a c t o r s which make t h e
Scout vehicle more s e n s i t i v e t o wind than the Shotput.

A s e n s i t i v i t y curve yas computed using t h e method previously

described. The p l o t of i s presented i n f i g u r e 2 0 .

This curve i s very similar t o t h e one presented f o r Shotput i n f i g u r e 13,

which i s reasonable since t h i s curve only shows t h e r e l a t i v e s e n s i t i v i t y
f o r different altitudes.

The wind-compensation graph f o r t h e Scout-SX-1 i s shown as f i g u r e 21.

When compared with t h e Shotput curve of f i g u r e 12, it can be seen t h a t t h e
p i t c h c o r r e c t i o n s are very similar f o r t h e same wind v e l o c i t y and d i r e c -
t i o n . (Note t h a t Scout curve has a maximum wind v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e of
 24

30 f t / s e c . ) The azimuth c o r r e c t i o n s are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , however. The

maximum c o r r e c t i o n for Scout w i t h a 30 f t / s e c p r o f i l e i s about 48' but
t h i s value f o r Shotput i s 38'. Since t h e s e n s i t i v i t y i n p i t c h i s almost
the same for t h e two vehicles, t h e lower a c c e l e r a t i o n of t h e Scout must
be somewhat compensated f o r by i t s smaller r a t i o of aerodynamic moment
t o p i t c h i n e r t i a . The increased yaw s e n s i t i v i t y must then be mostly due
t o t h e higher launch angle of t h e Scout.

Wind b t a measured on t h e day of f i r i n g f o r t h e Scout-SX-1 are pre-

sented i n f i g u r e 16. These data were weighted which gave 26.9 f t / s e c and
310° f o r t h e weighted wind v e l o c i t y and d i r e c t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The
compensation angles were obtained from f i g u r e 2 1 using t h e s e values.

I For t h e p o s t f l i g h t simulation, it was found that t h e y

P
change
obtained i n simulation was 4.6' as compared with t h e 4.8' a c t u a l l y
used and t h a t t h e yy change obtained i n simulation was 17.2' com-
pared with t h e 17.8' a c t u a l l y used. The data show a 0.2' e r r o r i n
p i t c h and a 0 . 6 ~e r r o r i n yaw as com a r e d with t h e average e r r o r s
obtained f o r Shotput of 0.3' and 1.3 8.
1 L

25

REFERENCES

1. L e w i s , J. V.:, The Effect of Wind and Rotation of t h e Earth on

Unguided Rockets. Rep. NO. 685, B a l l i s t i c Res. Labs., Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Mar. 1949.

2. Daw, Harold A.: A Wind Weighting Theory f o r Sounding Rockets Deriv-

able From t h e Rocket Equations of Motion. Contract NgONR-9530 1,
Phys. Sci. Lab., New Mexico College of Agric. and Mechanic Arts,
Nov. 5, 1958.

3. Rachele, Henry (revised by W i l l i a m H. Hatch):

The Effect of Wind
and Tower T i l t on Unguided Rockets. Rev. Prog. Rep. N r 6, Missile
Geophys. Div., U.S. Army White Sands Signal Agency, Feb. 1958.

4. Webb, W i l l i s L., Jenkins, Kenneth R., and Clark, George Q. : F l i g h t

Testing of t h e Arcas. Tech. Memo. 623, Missile Geophys. Div.,
U.S. Army White Sands Signal Agency, May 1959.

5. Zaroodny, Serge J., Mylin, Donald C .,

and McIntosh, Fred H. : Spin
of an Honest-John-Type Rocket -
Experimental Data and Their Impli-
cations f o r the Design. Rep. No. 1090, B a l l i s t i c Res. Labs.,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Dec. 1959.

6. Anon.: Dispersion Analysis Journeyman Sounding Rocket. Rep.

No. 8411-1, Aerolab Dev. Co., Inc. (Pasadena), Sept. 16, 1959.

7. Rose, James T., and Rose, Rodney G.: ARapid Method of Estimating
Launcher Setting t o Correct f o r the Effects of Wind on the T r a -
jectory of an Unguided Fin-Stabilized Rocket Vehicle. NASA
!I’M X-492, 1961.

8. James, Robert I,., Jr. (With Appendix B by Norman L. C r a b i l l ) :

A
Three-Dimensional Trajectory Simulation Using Six Degrees of Free-
dom With Arbitrary Wind. NASA TN D-641, 1961.

9. Anon.: Standard Atmosphere - Tables and Data f o r Altitudes t o

65,800 Feet. NACA Rep. 1235, 1955. (Supersedes NACA TN 3182.)

10. Anon.: Wind Distributions as a Function of Altitude f o r P a t r i c k

Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida. Rep. No. ~ ~ - m - 1 2 - 5 8 ,Dev. Opera-
t i o n s Div., Army B a l l i s t i c Missile Agency (Redstone Arsenal, A l a . ),
Aw* 5 9 1958.
26

TAI3I.E I
e
COMPUTER RUNS USED IN SHOTPUT WIND ANALYSIS

Run Launch Wind velocity

number elevation, profile, ft/sec
deg

1 78 0 0 67.3 0
2 78 0 10 63.2 0
3 78 0 20 59 .O 0
4 78 0' 30 54.8 0
5 78 0 40 50.9 0

6 78 180 10 71.8 0
7 78 180 20 76.4 0
8 78 180 30 82.2 0
9 78 180 40 85.4 0
10 58 0 0 33.4 0

11 68 0 0 50.1 0
12 88 0 0 86.2 0
13 58 0 40 22.5 0
14 68 0 40 36.0 0
15 88 0 40 68.0 0

16 58 180 40 47.0 0
17 68 180 40 66.5 0
18 88 180 40 105.2 0
19 78 45 10 63.7 -3.1
20 78 45 20 60.2 -6.0
21 78 45 30 56.7 -8.8
22 78 45 40 54.3 -11.4
23 78 90 10 66.2 -5 .o
24 78 90 x) 64.7 -8.6
25 78 90 30 63.7 -13.4
26 78 90 40 62.7 -17.6
27 78 135 10 69.5 -3.3
28 78 135 20 72.1 -6.5
29 78 135 3O - 74.2 -10.0
30 78 135 40 75.7 -13.4
27
 I i

28

Q
8
rr)

O'l€

! I

+
O*€€ c

In
rr)'
I1

ti
a
t J

Cmt;

‘A,O

X
CP’
ft

Mach number

(a) Variation of ,C , Cm., CA,O~ CN, and

9 7
x w i t h Mach number.
CP

Figure 2.- Shotput aerodynamic parameters.

 1

30

12

10

c
3
'
& 6
L

%
+ 4
d

g 2
0

c, 22
c
& 21
&"
20

140

120
m
5
E: 100
a
c,
. 80
m
2 60
E
40
20

n I

o 5 io 15 20 25 30 3 5 J5
T i m e , sec

(b) Variation of w e i g h t , xcg, t h r u s t , Iy, Ix,

and My with time.
9

Figure 2.- Concluded.

t I

3 . - Nominal Shotput performance during f i r s t - s t a g e burning.

32

80

64

16

0
0 80 120 160 200

Wind. v e l o c i t y , f t / s e c .

Figure 4.- Velocity profiles used in wind analysis.

t

33

40 30 20 io o 10 20 30 40
P r o f i l e surface v e l o c i t y , f t / s e c

Figure 5.- E f f e c t of head and t a i l winds on p i t c h f l i g h t - p a t h angle a t

t, f o r t h e Shotput vehicle. yp,o = 78 .
 I t

34

Figure 6.- Change i n f l i g h t - p a t h angle i n p i t c h due t o launch e l e v a t i o n

f o r head and t a i l winds. Shotput vehicle.
 35

60

50
40 20 0 20 40
P r o f i l e surface v e l o c i t y , f t / s e c
Figure 7.- Launch elevation for compensation of various head and tail
winds. Shotput vehicle.
I t

h
u
37
 0 a

38

0 0 0 oo
m a3 r- a
 39

-100 /
0
'0

c
f
I
-80 ,
5

Figure 11.- Yaw angle i n the e a r t h plane due t o winds from various
d i r e c t i o n s . Shotput vehicle.
 I

0
rn
Q

0
2

0
rn
N

0
0
c\

0
m

0
N
\o

0
73

o w
N
N O
V

3
e
0 -
0 0
N ”
C

0 :
m
d
e
e 0
,

L
e
o v
Q V
d E
b

3
N
0

0
0
rl

W
0

0
\o

f
0

N
0

0
. I

41

44

40

36

32

26
c,
k

3
24
L,
d
c,
d
a
c, 20
$
0

16

12

Figure 13.- Shotput vehicle sensitivity variation with altitude.

 I .

40

36

32

28

*
", 24
0)
'0
5
c,
d
f: 20
4

16

12

Variation of 7yl/( ~ y ' ) with a l t i t u d e .

max

Figure 13. - Concluded.

 43

100000

20
19
18
10000
17
16

+, 12
.
Fc
0
1000 11 $
10
a
s 9'3
c, 8
rl
c,
2 ;I!!t
5-
100
4
3
2
1

--
10
o 25 50 75 loo 125 150 175 200 225 250
wind VOIOCitgJ v w J h , ft/sec
L I
-
- t I
~ _ _- I
-~ +
o 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction, 6 w~ deg

Figure 14.- Wind-weighting graph and wind data measured October 28,
1939, at NASA Wallops Station.
 D .

44

. 10

00
yp
uU 5 10
change o b t a i n e d from t r a j e c t o r y s i m u l a t i o n , d e g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

yg change o b t a i n e d f r o m t r a j e c t o r y s i m u l a t i o n , deg

(a) Correlation between wind-compensation angles used and change

obtained for assumed profiles.

Figure 15.- Wind analysis check.

 45

-0

Yp change obtained from trajectory simulation, deg

I I I I I I I I I

Weighted Weighted
Velocity d i r e c t i o n ,
ft/sec deg

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Y change obtained from trajectory simulation, deg
Y
( b ) Correlation between wind-compensation angles used and change
I obtained for measured winds.
Figure 15. - Concluded.
 46

0
a
M

0
cu
M

0
CU
cu

0
0
cu

0
u
3
rl

0
73

0
0
cu

c,
0 G-l
u3
rl
4c
>
0
A
.
2 42
4
0
0

0
I
I)

0
;t

LP
0 In 0 In 0
f M In cu cu
 47

7
-
f- a
a
F
2
0
v) I
-1
0
(3
-1 Q)
rl

I
2
- k

t
c- 0
0
a¶
m

2
8
a
t7;

fi 5
M)
d
Frc
48

Mach number

(a) Variation of ems, cA,~, CN, and xcp with Mach number.

Figure 18.- Aerodynamic parameters for Scout-SX-1.

 49

30

25

20

15

cu.Q
k
I
bo
?
,-I
m
a
x
H

o io 20 30 40 50 o io 20 30 40 50
Time, s e c Time, s e c

(b) Variation of weight, xcg, thrust, Iy, Ix, and Mycl with time.

Figure 18. - Concluded.

 70 x lo3
Time, sec
I

744.5
I
/
60-

I'
50 ,/40

c,
cc 40

30
/
7, 30

20 Velocity

/
/ ,
'
/

i2i
10 ;(20

41
Q)
3 0
Of- f510

Figure
Figure
52