ICAS 2002 CONGRESS

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LAUNCH VEHICLES WITH STRAP-ON BOOSTERS

Arash Naghib-Lahouti1, Amir Nejat2, Taravat Khadivi3 1- Faculty Member 2,3-Senior Research Engineers Aerospace Research Institute, PO Box 15875-3885,Tehran, Iran Keywords: launch vehicles, aerodynamic, strap-on boosters, parametric analysis Abstract An engineering code has been developed for estimation of longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients of a multi-body launch vehicle with strap-on boosters, based on their geometric characteristics and flow conditions. The code, which incorporates data from empirical/analytical methods, CFD analysis, wind tunnel tests and similar engineering codes has been used for parametric analysis of the effects of angular position of strap-ons, the gap between the core and strap-ons, angle of attack, and Mach number on aerodynamic coefficients (CN and CA) of a generic geometry, defined by statistical investigation of actual launch vehicles. Results indicate suitable accuracy within the range of 0<<16 and M<5.0 for the purpose of preliminary aerodynamic design. 1 Introduction Launch vehicles are used for delivering payloads to a specified altitude at the proper orbital velocity. The usual values of orbital velocities are too high to be achieved with a single stage vehicle [1]. A considerable part of a launch vehicles propellant is consumed during the early stages of acceleration after lift-off, making it unnecessary to carry the partially depleted tanks, which can be ejected after depletion. On the other hand, various levels of thrust might be required in different phases of flight. Because of these problems, efforts have been made to develop propulsion systems with variable thrust. A multi stage system is a trivial solution [2,3]. Parallel staging, which appears in many launch vehicles developed since 1970s, is one of the most frequently used configurations. In this type of staging configuration, 2 to 9 solid or liquid propellant boosters join the first stage as strap-ons. They are usually ignited simultaneously together with the core engine(s) to provide the maximum thrust, and are separated from the core upon burn-out, to reduce the total weight of the climbing vehicle. Despite their positive contribution to the performance of the vehicle, they bring about some difficulties to the design process. The strap-on boosters usually have large volumes and affect the external geometry considerably. The complex flow field around the multiple bodies, and the interference effects among them causes problems in the vehicles aerodynamics. The vehicles experiences increased drag while the boosters are on, and safe separation of the boosters in an interference dominated flow field is also of great importance. These issues show the necessity of aerodynamic analysis with various levels of accuracy throughout the design process. The estimated aerodynamic characteristics are particularly useful for structural/thermal analysis, trajectory and stability calculations, and the design and sizing of separation mechanisms. The number of published articles in the field of multi body launch vehicle aerodynamics is unexpectedly low. A few selected studies are reviewed herein. Reference [3], describes the studies on launch vehicle aerodynamics at Vikram space
264.1

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

center of India. Flow around various geometries of launch vehicles are modeled using panel method, to study the effects of geometric parameters such as number of strap-ons, the ratio of strap-on radius to core stage radius, and the gap between the core and strap-ons on the vehicles aerodynamic characteristics. Reference [4] deals with numerical simulation of inviscid supersonic flow around the multi body configuration using overlapping grid technique. Eulers equations have been integrated in their conservative form, and time marching method has been used for capturing shock waves. Flow pattern around the launch vehicle and shock reflections in the gap have been studied at zero angle of attack. Reference [5] reports numerical solution of inviscid supersonic flows around a launch vehicle with 4 strap-on boosters. The overlapping grid technique has been used to simulate the flow at various angles of attack. Flow in the gap and the local subsonic flow in that region at a non-zero angle of attack have been addressed for the first time in this study. The effects of gap size and Mach number on the interference dominated flow field around the vehicle are investigated. A new method called NND has been employed for solving Eulers equations, and time marching has been used for capturing shock and expansion waves in the flow field. An example of experimental investigation of the effects of strap-on boosters on aerodynamic characteristics of a launch vehicle is presented in reference [6]. In that study, the effects of adding strap-ons of various sizes on CN, CA and CM in a range of supersonic Mach numbers have been evaluated. In most references, the geometric model represents an actual launch vehicle in the early stages of its development, and few variations of configuration and geometry are dealt with. Flight conditions and velocity regimes are also limited to those occurring in each vehicles actual or estimated flight profile.

2 Engineering codes for aerodynamic analysis and design of launch vehicles Analytical methods, empirical techniques, CFD and wind tunnel testing are commonly used for aerodynamic analysis of a launch vehicle depending on the level of accuracy needed in different phases. Each of these tools has their own specific advantages and disadvantages. In the conceptual design phase of a launch vehicle with strap-on boosters, a preliminary estimate of the vehicles aerodynamic coefficients is needed, while the external shape and dimensions of each proposed configuration is yet to be defined and fixed. Several cycles of overall aerodynamic analysis might be necessary before selecting a final configuration and fixing the external geometry through a compromise with other aspects of the design process such as payload capabilities, propulsion and structural considerations. Analytical methods are usually limited to simple geometries and simplified flow conditions. Therefore, they are difficult, if not impossible, to apply in such a problem. CFD codes require considerable computer resources and time for producing appropriate results, and are hardly economic for use as an intermediate tool in conceptual design cycles. Wind tunnel tests usually produce the most dependable results, but require a fixed external geometry, which can be far from being achieved in conceptual design. The costs associated with testing numerous proposed configurations are usually beyond limits of a conceptual design process [6,7]. As a result, an engineering code may be the only feasible tool for conceptual design. But it has to satisfy two important requirements. It must be able to handle the specific geometry and configuration of the vehicle, and its database, which normally integrates analytical and empirical techniques, must cover the intended flight conditions [8]. For example Missile Datcom, a well-known engineering code, covers a major part of the atmospheric flight regime of a launch vehicle, but is not able to handle a multi body configuration with strapon boosters.
264.2

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

To overcome this shortcoming, an engineering code named AEROLAUNCH is being developed by the authors. This code, which is similar to Missile Datcom in structure, is able to produce longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients (CN, CA, CM) for a launch vehicle with strap-on boosters in a range of flight conditions. Results of extensive CFD modeling and analysis of such geometries, and wind tunnel tests to verify the results, are incorporated in the code. With enrichment of the codes database through more CFD analysis and wind tunnel tests, its capabilities in terms of acceptable geometries and flight conditions are still being expanded. 3 Initial validation To evaluate performance and accuracy of the code introduced in section 2, wind tunnel test results for a rocket with strap-on boosters [9] are compared with the codes results. The test geometry is shown in figure 5. The experiments have been conducted with two types of strapons, named Large Booster and Small Booster. The codes results for CN in various Mach numbers and angles of attack have been compared with experimental results for both types of boosters. In most cases, the codes results display better agreement with experimental results when small boosters are on. This trend of agreement remains almost unchanged in all Mach numbers. The results for CN at M=2.36 with different configurations are shown in figure 6 for comparison. It can be seen that the computational and experimental results follow the same trend when angle of attack varies, and the values are also in a relatively good agreement. The maximum difference between computational and experimental results is around 14% in the body+booster configuration and around 20% in the wing+body+booster configuration. Since sufficient information is not provided in reference [9] about calculation of base drag, a meaningful comparison between the codes results and the experimental results for axial force is not possible. However, even when the

entire component of base drag is accounted for in the code, the results fall 25-50% short of experimental results. 4 Parametric analysis Considering the promising results of the initial validation of AEROLAUNCH, a generic launch vehicle with strap-on boosters has been defined, and a systematic investigation of the effects of geometric and flow parameters on its aerodynamic characteristics has been conducted. These parameters include number of strap-ons, radius ratio, gap size, angular position of strapons around the core, Mach number and angle of attack. All calculations are carried out at standard sea level conditions, and the cores cross-section area is used as reference area.

4.1 Definition of the generic geometry According to the information provided in reference [10], 29 families of launch vehicles exist. Taking different models in each family into account, we will have a total of 74 models of launch vehicles. 33 models (44% of the total) use strap-on boosters. In this section, it is intended to determine the dimensional data required for defining a generic geometry with strap-on boosters. The aim of defining this generic geometry is to investigate the effects of a number of parameters on its aerodynamic characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate other parameters affecting the characteristics as much as possible. The parameters selected for definition of the geometry are introduced in Figure 1, which displays the simplified geometry used for derivation of the parameters. A number of assumptions were made in order to simplify the geometry and the task of obtaining data for the parameters. These assumptions are presented graphically in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Considering the assumptions, data for all launch vehicles except four, which have essential differences in shape with the generic configuration, have been derived. For some items of data, numerical values were not
264.3

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

provided in reference [10], and the values had to be determined by scaling the related drawings. 14 out of 33 models of launch vehicles with strap-on boosters have 4 boosters. 13 models have 2 boosters, 4 models have 6 boosters, 2 models have 9 boosters, and one has 3 boosters. (One model has two configurations: one with 2 and one with 4 boosters.) The dimensional values are rounded before being used for aerodynamic analysis, in order to simplify data handling. The final selected dimensions of the generic geometry are presented in table 1.
Table 1- Parameters defining the simplified geometry Parameter Parameter L 50.0 m LS 21.0 m LN 4.5 m LNS 3.35 m D 3.7 m DS 2.0 m R 0.657 m RS 0.5 m 17 S 14.5

reduce as the number of strap-ons is increased from 2 to 6. The angular position of strap-ons does not have any noticeable effect on CA. 4.3 Effects of the gap between strap-ons and the core In some launch vehicles, a gap exists between the core and strap-ons. The size of this gap affects aerodynamic interference between strapons and the core. Figures 14 and 15 show CN-Alpha curves for various gap sizes at M=0.6 for Phi0 and Phi1 cases. Figures 16 and 17 show the same results at M=3.0. The figures indicate that an increase in gap size does not affect CN in Phi0 case, but in Phi1 case an increase in gap size causes CN to increase in each angle of attack. Figures 18 and 19 show the effects of gap size on CA in Phi0 case. The figures indicate that the effect of gap size on CA is practically negligible. The results presented in this section are obtained by varying the gap size between 0 and 1m with 0.25m increments, for a 2 strap-on configuration in which each strap-on has a diameter of 2m. 4.4 Effects of strap-on radius To investigate the effect of the radius of strapons, RS (strap-on radius) is varied between 0.25m and 1m for a constant gap size of 0.5m. Figures 20-23 show variations of CN-Alpha at M=0.6 and M=3.0 when the radius is changed in both Phi0 and Phi1 cases. It can be noticed that an increase in the radius ratio causes CN to increase in constant angle of attack. This effect is more evident in Phi1 case. Variation of CAAlpha for different values of RS is displayed in figures 24 and 25. CA increases almost linearly as RS is increased, but remains almost constant when angle of attack is changed within a limited range. The same behaviour has also been reported in reference [9]. 4.5 Effects of the number of strap-ons Effects of the number of strap-ons have been studied by analysing configurations with 0, 2, 4
264.4

4.2 Effects of angular position of strap-on boosters Angular position of strap-on boosters affects aerodynamic coefficients of the vehicle in nonzero angles of attack. To investigate these effects, two cases have been analyzed. These cases, named Phi0 and Phi1, represent two different ways of positioning strap-ons around the core (Figure 7). Obviously, as the number of strap-ons is increased, the difference between Phi0 and Phi1 cases reduces. Figures 8 and 9 show variations of CN vs. angle of attack in subsonic (M=0.6) and supersonic (M=3.0) regimes for body alone and body with 2 strap-ons in Phi0 and Phi1 cases. It can be seen that in Phi1 case, where strap-ons are in yaw plane, CN is greater than that of Phi0 case. This can be explained by noting that in Phi0 case strap-ons are widely affected by the cores flow field in non-zero angles of attack. Their effective area for generation of normal force is therefore reduced. Figures 10-13 show the same effect in Phi0 and Phi1 cases for the 4 and 6 strap-on configurations in M=0.6 and M=3.0, respectively. The figures indicate that the difference between Phi0 and Phi1 cases tends to

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

and 6 strap-ons. As the number of strap-ons is increased, CN increases at each constant angle of attack. The increase in CN is greater in Phi1 case (Figures 26-29). As the number of strap-ons is increased, CA increases almost linearly in a manner similar the one described in section 4.4. The curves presented in figures 30 and 31 are for Phi0 case. The curves for Phi1 case display the same behaviour and are not presented. 4.6 Effects of angle of attack Except for those instances when the vehicle encounters wind gradients or performs transient manoeuvres, the angle of attack remains close to zero. In this study, a range of angles of attack from =0 to =10 is considered for investigation of the effects of flow direction on aerodynamic characteristics. In all of the curves presented in sections 4.2 through 4.5, the independent variable is angle of attack. As those curves indicate, the normal force coefficient CN increases almost linearly when angle of attack increases in subsonic speeds. But in supersonic region, non-linear effects are evident in CNAlpha curves. The curves also indicate that CA decreases slightly with an increase in angle of attack. This decrease can be explained considering variation of the direction of the free stream velocity vector. The major part of the change in the value of CA is because of the core, since variation of CA with angle of attack is almost negligible for strap-on boosters [9]. 4.7 Effects of Mach number A launch vehicle experiences all speed regimes, from subsonic to hypersonic, during its flight. But it faces different speed regimes in different configurations. For example, the vehicles that use strap-ons usually release them in supersonic speeds. Therefore, it is usually only the core that faces hypersonic speeds. The flight profile, which defines the vehicles altitude, speed and position and occurrence of events such as stage separation in terms of the elapsed time, is different for every launch vehicle. Samples of actual flight profiles are presented in references [7] and [10].

All of the results presented so far in this study were for two Mach numbers only: M=0.6 as a representative of subsonic regime and M=3.0 as a representative of supersonic regime. However, to further evaluate the effects of Mach number, limited calculations have been performed in other Mach numbers for vehicles with 0,2 and 6 strap-ons in Phi0 configuration, at selected angles of attack of 0, 4 and 8. The results for CN are plotted in figures 32-34 for a range of Mach numbers from 0.6 to 5.0. The sudden change of CN at transonic Mach numbers, especially at higher angles of attack can be clearly noticed. As Mach number is increased, CN increases to reach its maximum at high transonic speeds. Afterwards, CN decreases to reach a relative minimum at around M=4. CA behaves similarly as Mach number varies. In the transonic region, CA shows a rapid rise because formation of weak shock waves begins. Figures 35 and 36 show variation of CA with Mach number. 5 Conclusion In this study, the role of different approaches to aerodynamic analysis of launch vehicles in different design phases was briefly described. A generic geometry was selected through statistical investigation of existing launch vehicles with strap-on boosters. The generic geometry was modeled for analysis by an engineering code (AEROLAUNCH), to study the effects of such parameters as angular position of strap-ons around the core, radius and number of strap-ons, angle of attack and Mach number on the vehicles normal and axial force coefficients (CN and CA). Generally, the contribution of strap-ons to the vehicles normal force reduces as they get closer to the pitch plane, because their exposed surface is reduced at non-zero angles of attack. Alternatively, when strap-ons are close to the yaw plane, their exposed surface is larger and this causes an increase in CN. The gap between the core and the strapons does not affect CN and CA when strap-ons
264.5

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

are positioned according to the configuration named Phi0. The same behavior is observed at all angles of attack having been studied. When the strap-ons are placed in the yaw plane (Phi1 case), CN increases when the gap is increased, while CA remains practically unaffected. When the strap-ons radius is increased (relative to the core stage), CN and CA increase. Naturally, the interference effects between the core and the strap-ons are also strengthened. Increasing the number of strap-ons causes both CN and CA to increase proportionately in both Phi0 and Phi1 cases. Angular position of the added strap-ons affects the trend by which CN increases. As angle of attack increases, CN increases while CA decreases with a small slope. In subsonic speeds, CN and CA increase due to compressibility effects when Mach number is increased. In transonic speeds, a rapid increase of CA is observed, which is because of the drag rise due to formation of weak shock waves. CN also increases considerably in this range. As Mach number increases further in the supersonic range, CN and CA decrease with a relatively small slope. The promising results of the early validation of AEROLAUNCH, presented herein, encourage the authors to enrich the codes database and extend its capabilities to handle more complex geometries and flow condition by performing more CFD analysis and wind tunnel test on the selected geometries. References
[1] Malina, F.J. and M. Summerfield. The problem of escape from the earth by rocket. J. of Aeronautical Sciences, V.14, pp. 476-478, Aug. 1947. [2] Cornelisse, J.W. et al. Rocket propulsion and space flight dynamics. Pitman Pub., 1979. [3] Devasia, K.J. et al. Investigation of inviscid flow field interference effects in strap-on configurations using panel method. Proc. 13th Int. Symposium on Space Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, June 1982. [4] Singh, K.P. et al. Numerical simulation of inviscid supersonic flows over a launch vehicle with strap-on boosters. AIAA Paper, AIAA-87-0213-CP, 1987. [5] Zhang Lumin, Yu Zechu and Yan Yongjian. Numerical simulation of inviscid supersonic flow

over multiple bodies. AIAA Paper, AIAA-90-3099CP, 1990. [6] Mendenhall, M.R. et al. Aerodynamic design and analysis of a reusable launch vehicle. Proc. ICAS 2000 Conference, Harrogate, UK, Aug. 2000. [7] Mendenhall, M.R. et al. Integrated aerodynamic design and analysis of launch vehicles. AIAA Paper, AIAA-2001-0263, 2001. [8] Moore, F.G. et al. Evaluation and improvements to the Aeroprediction code based on recent test data. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, V.37, No.6, Nov.Dec. 2000. [9] Leroy-Spearman M. and R.H. Fournier. Effects of strap-on boosters on the aerodynamic characteristics of a simulated launch vehicle at Mach numbers from 1.50 to 2.86. NASA Technical Memorandum X-2491, Feb. 1972. [10] Isakowitz, S.J. The international reference guide to space launch systems. 3rd Ed., AIAA, USA, 1999.

264.6

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

Figure 1- Simplified generic geometry

Figure 5- The vehicle with strap-on boosters (ref. [9])

20

15

CN

Figure 2- Equivalent nose cone

10 -0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0 0 10 20

-0.8

Figure 3- Equivalent payload fairing Figure 6- Comparison of results with those provided in ref. [9]

Figure 4- Equivalent core body

Figure 7- Different ways of positioning strap-ons around the core

CM 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

25

C N body alone-AEROLAUNCH C M body alone-AEROLAUNCH C N body and wings-AEROLAUNCH C M body and wings-AEROLAUNCH C N wing on small booster-AEROLAUNCH C M wing on small booster-AEROLAUNCH C N body alone [Ref.4] C M body alone [Ref.4] C N body and wings [Ref.4] C M body and wings [Ref.4] C N body on small booster [Ref.4] C M body on small booster [Ref.4]

264.7

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

2.5
2 S/O Phi0 2 S/O Phi1 0 S/O

1.5

4 S/O Phi0 4 S/O Phi1 0 S/O Phi0

1.5

CN

CN
1 0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10

0.5

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 8- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 2 strap-ons (M=0.6)

Figure 11- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 4 strapons (M=3.0)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

2 S/O Phi0 2 S/O Phi1 0 S/O Phi0

6 S/O Phi0 6 S/O Phi1 0 S/O

1.5

1.5

CN

CN
1 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0

0.5

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 9- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 2 strap-ons (M=3.0)

Figure 12- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 6 strapons (M=0.6)

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Effect of Strap-on Position on CN-Alpha

2 4 S/O Phi0 4 S/O Phi1 0 S/O 1.5

2.5

6 S/O Phi0 6 S/O Phi1 0 S/O Phi0

CN

0.5

10

CN

1.5

0.5

Alpha

10

Figure 10- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 4 strapons (M=0.6)

Alpha

Figure 13- Effect of strap-on position on CN for 6 strapons (M=3.0) 264.8

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0,CN-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=1,CN-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

2.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1

CN

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

CN
0 2 4 6 8 10

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 14- Effect of gap size on CN (Phi0, M=0.6)

Figure 17- Effect of gap size on CN (Phi1, M=3.0)

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=1,CN-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0,CA-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

0.26 G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1 0.2575 0.255 0.2525

1.5

G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1

CN

CA
1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

0.25

0.2475 0.245 0.2425 0.24

0.5

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 15- Effect of gap size on CN (Phi1, M=0.6)

Figure 18- Effect of gap size on CA (Phi0, M=0.6)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0,CN-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0,CA-Alpha,2 S/O: Gap Effects

0.55 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1 G=0 G=0.25 G=0.5 G=0.75 G=1

0.54

CN

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.52 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.53

Alpha

CA

0.7

Alpha

Figure 16- Effect of gap size on CN (Phi0, M=3.0)

Figure 19- Effect of gap size on CA (Phi0, M=3.0)

264.9

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0, Gap=0.5, CN-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0, Gap=0.5, CN-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

2.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0

CN

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

CN
0 2 4 6 8 10

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

Alpha

Alpha

Figure 20- Effect of strap-on radius on CN (Phi0, M=0.6)

Figure 23- Effect of strap-on radius on CN (Phi1, M=3.0)

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0, Gap=0.5, CN-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=1, Gap=0.5, CA-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0

0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0

CN

CA
0 2 4 6 8 10

1 0.8

0.25 0.24

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.23 0.22 0.21

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 21- Effect of strap-on radius on CN (Phi1, M=0.6)

Figure 24- Effect of strap-on radius on CA (Phi0, M=0.6)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0, Gap=0.5, CN-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=1, Gap=0.5, CA-Alpha, Rs/Rc Effects

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0

0.56 R=0.25 R=0.5 R=0.75 R=1.0

0.55

CN

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.51 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.52 0.53

Alpha

CA

0.7

0.54

Alpha

Figure 22- Effect of strap-on radius on CN (Phi0, M=3.0)

Figure 25- Effect of strap-on radius on CA (Phi0, M=3.0)

264.10

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0 CN-Alpha No of S/O

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=1 CN-Alpha No of S/O

2 1.75 1.5 1.25 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/O S/O 2.5 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/O S/O

CN

0.75 0.5

CN
0 2 4 6 8 10

1.5

0.5 0.25 0 0

Alpha

Alpha

10

Figure 26- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CN (Phi0, M=0.6)

Figure 29- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CN (Phi1, M=3.0)

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=1 CN-Alpha No of S/O

(XY) 31 Jan 2001 Phi=0 CA-Alpha-No of S/O

0.33 2 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/O S/O 0.32 0.31 0.3 0.29 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/0 S/O

1.5

CN

0.5 0.24 0.23 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Alpha

CA

0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25

Alpha

Figure 27- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CN (Phi1, M=0.6)

Figure 30- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CA (Phi0, M=0.6)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0 CN-Alpha No of S/O

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 M=3,Phi=0 CA-Alpha-No of S/O

0.59 2.5 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/O S/O 0.58 0.57 0.56 0 2 4 6 S/O S/O S/0 S/O

CN

0.5 0.52 0.51 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Alpha

CA

1.5

0.55 0.54 0.53

Alpha

Figure 28- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CN (Phi0, M=3.0)

Figure 31- Effect of the number of strap-ons on CA (Phi0, M=3.0)

264.11

ARASH NAGHIB-LAHOUTI, AMIR NEJAT, TARAVAT KHADIVI

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 EFFECTS OF MACH NO. ON CN - PHI=0

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 EFFECTS OF MACH NO. ON CN - PHI=0

0.5

1.3 1.2 1.1

0.4

1 0.9

0.3

0.8

CN

0.2 0 S/O ALPHA=0 0 S/O ALPHA=4 0 S/O ALPHA=8

CN

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 6 S/O ALPHA=0 6 S/O ALPHA=4 6 S/O ALPHA=8

0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5

0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5

MACH

MACH

Figure 32- Effect of Mach number on CN (Body alone)

Figure 34- Effect of Mach number on CN (6 Strap-ons, Phi0)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 EFFECTS OF MACH NO. ON CN - PHI=0

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 EFFECTS OF MACH NO. ON CA - PHI=0

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

0.4

CN

0.2

0.1

2 S/O ALPHA=0 2 S/O ALPHA=4 2 S/O ALPHA=8

CA

0.3

0.4 0 S/O ALPHA=0 0 S/O ALPHA=4 0 S/O ALPHA=8

0.3

0 1 2

MACH

0.2

MACH

Figure 33- Effect of Mach number on CN (2 Strap-ons, Phi0)

Figure 35- Effect of Mach number on CA (Body Alone)

(XY) 03 Feb 2001 EFFECTS OF MACH NO. ON CA - PHI=0

0.6

CA

0.5

0.4

6 S/O ALPHA=0 6 S/O ALPHA=4 6 S/O ALPHA=8

0.3 1 2 3 4 5

MACH

Figure 36- Effect of Mach number on CA (6 Strap-ons, Phi0)

264.12