9-1

LATTICE CONTROLS: A COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL, PLANAR FINS

G. M. Simpson
A. J. Sadler
High Speed and Weapon Aerodynamics Department,
DERA Bedford,
Clapham, MK41 6AE, UK.

1. SUMMARY stage. Schematic representations of two designs of lattice

control are shown in figure 1.
This analysis of the DERA lattice controls data has centred on
a comparison between the lattice controls and conventional, Although there is evidence’ that the lattice control concept has
planar controls which were the subject of previous research. been around for some time, their use as missile stability and
All types of control surface studied were mounted as tail control surfaces is a fairly recent innovation. Lattice controls
controls. The comparisons were justified on the basis of equal are employed on the AA-12 medium range air-to-air missile,
longitudinal stability imparted to the body at zero incidence. understood to be equivalent to the US AMRAAM. Grid fins
The vertical lattice controls of a cruciform set were found to are also used on various ballistic missiles of the former Soviet
impart a significant proportion of the static stability, but to Union and have even been used as emergency drag brakes on
contribute nothing to the control effectiveness. Other the Soyuz TM-22 spacecraft. Thus grid tins have found a
characteristics of lattice controls are small hinge moments with number of applications within the sphere of missile
low centre of pressure variation with Mach number and aerodynamics. It is the purpose of this paper to explore the
incidence, increased yaw stability at incidence, reduced effect aerodynamic characteristics of these devices in order to
of vortex interaction and, at lower supersonic speeds, lower understand how configurations may benefit from their use.
configuration drag at high angle of attack than equivalent Specifically, the research has been directed at discovering what
conventional configurations. However, the particular lattice advantages lattice controls may confer to tail controlled air-to-
control designs studied here were found to exhibit reduced air missile configurations. This has been achieved by
control effectiveness at high combined incidence and comparing the lattice controls with conventional, planar
deflection. controls.
2. LIST OF SYMBOLS During the experimental phase of this research two designs of
lattice control were mounted on an existing missile research
CD drag coefficient (coef.) model and tested in both the DERA (Defence Evaluation and
Cl rolling moment coef. (resolved axis, main balance) Research Agency) Sftxlft wind tunnel, at Mach numbers from
CIP tin rolling moment coef. 0.7 to 2.4, and the 3ftx4ft facility at Mach numbers from 2.5 to
Cm pitching moment coef. (resolved axis, main balance) 4.5. Conventional controls had been investigated previously at
Cm, pitching moment coef. slope w.r.t. incidence
DERA Bedford, using the same body, and the current
CmP fin hinge moment coef. investigation capitalized on the availability of the conventional
Cn yawing moment coef. (resolved axis, main balance) data, covering an identical range of Mach numbers.
CnB yawing moment coef. (body axis, main balance)
cx axial force coef. (resolved axis, main balance) 3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
CY side force coef. (resolved axis, main balance)
Control surfaces that have been investigated are shown
CYP fin side force coef.
schematically in figure 1. They consist of two lattice control
cz normal force coef. (resolved axis, main balance)
designs, Ll and L2, and two conventional controls with square
CzP tin normal force coef.
(C2) and delta (Cl) planforms. An alternative lattice control
D body diameter (3.7 inches)
(L3) was identical to L2 except for the increased thickness of
k, control effectiveness
the inboard webs.
M Mach number
a angle of attack (tangent definition) Two types of body were used. For the Mach number range 0.7
B angle of yaw (sine definition) to 2.4 (Reynolds number 2x lo6 ift) the controls were mounted
6 control deflection on a 11.5D cylindrical body with a slightly blunted 1.5D
rl elevator deflection tangent-ogive nose (denoted B 1C). For the Mach number
h roll orientation of model range 2.5 to 4.5 (Reynolds number 4x lo6 /fi) the controls were
0 incidence of model mounted on a 10D cylindrical body with a sharp 3D tangent-
A used as a prefix to indicate incremental data ogive nose (denoted BlA). In both cases the control hinge
i.e. (body+tins) - (body alone) lines were located 1.5D from the base of the body. A selection
of these configurations is shown in figure 2.
3. INTRODUCTION
Overall forces and moment were measured using a six
A lattice control, or grid tin, is an unconventional lifting and
component strain gauge balance, hereafter referred to as the
control surface that consists of an outer frame supporting an
main balance. Individual tin forces and moments were
inner grid of intersecting vanes of small chord. A typical
measured on two of the four fins using four component panel
lattice control design is characterized by a number of
balances.
geometrical parameters including span, height, chord, distance
between vanes, vane/frame thickness, and cross-sectional 4. BASIS OF COMPARISON
shape of the members. The effect of each of these parameters
on lattice control performance is not fully understood at this Both sets lattice controls were designed to impart identical
levels of longitudinal static stability to the baseline body at

Paper presented at the RTO AVT Symposium on “Missile Aerodynamics”, held in Sorrento,
Italy, 11-14 May 1998, and published in RTO MP-5.
9-2

Mach 3.5. Static stability was considered a sensible criterion Figure 5 plots incremental pitching moment calculated from
on which to base the comparison of control performance as the main balance data, and estimated from panel balance data,
effect of a cruciform set of tins on the complete configuration against incidence for BlALl at Mach 3.5. Clearly the vertical
is taken into account. Static stability is also an important tins (2&4) generate a significant proportion of the pitching
design parameter, especially for highly agile missiles. A plot moment. The gradient, at zero incidence, of the estimated
of pitching moment slope (Cm,) at zero incidence against incremental pitching moment curves indicate the level of
Mach number for the four types of control is shown in figure 3. stability due to the fins. Using this it has been shown’ that the
The moment reference point (MRP) for this plot was taken as level of longitudinal static stability due to the vertical fins is
the nose tip. Lattice controls Ll and L2 clearly provide very approximately 30% across the Mach number range.
similar levels of static stability at Mach 3.5 and across the high
Note also that the difference between the calculated and
Mach number range, fulfilling the design criterion.
estimated values of ACm gives an indication of the level of fin-
The square planform, planar control (C2) imparts similar levels body interference, which can be seen to be small at this Mach
of static stability to the baseline body across the high Mach number, but increasing with incidence. At transonic speeds it
number range as controls Ll and L2. The delta planform is considerable2.
control (Cl), which has half the planform area as C2, imparts
Lateral
considerably less stability. Thus, in the following analysis a
direct comparison can be made between the lattice controls, L 1 In the past, the maximum normal acceleration, or LATAX,
and L2/L3, and the square planform, planar fin (C2). achieved by missile configurations employing conventional
Comparisons with data for control Cl are only of a qualitative controls has been limited by the loss of controlled flight at high
nature. incidences. An increase in the LATAX capability, and hence
agility, could therefore be achieved if it were possible to attain
5. STATIC STABILITY
improved lateral (yaw) stability at high incidences.
Longitudinal
Yaw stability is here defined as,
Returning to figure 3, it can be seen that for Mach numbers
X?lB
above approximately 2 the change in longitudinal stability with
Mach number for the lattice controls is little different than for
where CnB is the yawing moment coefficient in body axis and
the conventional controls. However, the lattice control suffers
p is the angle of yaw. Figure 6 plots the variation of
a loss in stability at Mach 1.45 indicating that transonic effects
incremental yaw stability with incidence at Mach 3.5 for the
are considerably more severe than for the conventional
various controls under consideration. Across the incidence
controls. Calculations indicate that the individual lattice cells
range Ll and L2 provide a greater amount of yaw stability than
choke above approximately Mach 0.8 and this explains their
the conventional control C2. This extra stability is attributable
poor performance in the transonic regime.
to the side force generated by the two horizontal fins.
The data for Mach 0.7 also appears to indicate that at subsonic
All four fins lose yaw stability effectiveness in the region of
speeds lattice controls may have improved stability
16” incidence and, in each case, this is due to the interaction of
performance in comparison with the planar controls.
the leeside fin with the body vortices. The loss in yaw stability
An important difference between lattice controls and is significantly attenuated for the lattice controls. Later it is
conventional controls is the ability of the lattice controls to shown that other effects of the interaction with the body
generate significant transverse, or side, force. Consequently, at vortices are reduced for the lattice controls. The effect of this
low incidences in particular, the vertical fins of a cruciform set negative interaction is further reduced for the lattice control
contribute a significant proportion of the stability. It is configurations because the leeside fin contributes
possible to quantify this effect by calculating the incremental proportionally less to the overall yaw stability than the leeside
pitching moment slope due to each fin and comparing the fin in a conventional configuration. It is also interesting to
values with the overall stability. Other aspects of lattice side note that at (r = 0” L 1 imparts approximately 10% greater yaw
force are discussed later. stability than fin C2, and at o = 24” L 1 imparts approximately
24% more stability. This would suggest that at high incidences
The incremental pitching moment slope is the change in lattice controls could provide significantly more yaw stability
pitching moment due to the addition of a set of controls to a than conventional fins, although at present no high incidence
body, i.e. data exists in order to confirm this trend.
ACm = (Wbody+fins - (Cmhody
It is possible to estimate the contribution to this of each Figure 7 shows the effect, at Mach 3.5, of deflecting the
individual fin by multiplying the tin force (from panel balance horizontal (elevator) tins by q = 20” on the yaw stability. No
data and resolved normal to the missile axis) by the non- deflected tin data was available for C2 at this Mach number
dimensional moment arm of 11.5. and it is assumed that the results for C 1 are representative of
conventional fins. It can be seen that the effect on L 1 is small,
Figure 4 shows the individual fin force resolved normal to the the largest reduction in stability occurring at CJ= 24”.
body axis for configuration BlALl, and clearly shows the However, the conventional fin Cl suffers a large reduction in
lifting effectiveness of the controls at each orientation around stability across the incidence range.
the body. The horizontal fins produce the greatest force as they
have a larger effective lifting area, the offset between the two Figure 8 shows the effect of Mach number on lattice control
horizontal tins is probably due to small fin misalignment. The incremental yaw stability. At low incidences the lattice control
leeside fin is the least effective at high angles of attack but at would provide considerably more yaw stability effectiveness at
small incidences generates equal force to the windward fin. Mach 1.45 as expected; for (r = 0” the variation of yaw stability
The non-linear nature of the leeside fin side force would be with Mach number is identical to the trend shown in figure 3
difficult to model using a semi-empirical code. for longitudinal stability. However, at Mach 1.45 yaw stability
 9-3

continuously reduces with incidences up to o = 22”, and it is An alternative method for investigating control effectiveness
not clear whether this is recovered at higher incidences. would be to compare values of control effectiveness
normalized by the effectiveness at zero incidence and
Finally, the variation of incremental yaw stability with deflection, i.e. compare values of kJk,,(,,=oO,O=oO).However, this
orientation is shown in figure 9. Data for both the Ll and C2
would need data for a large number of tin deflections in order
controls orientated in the ‘f’ and ‘x’ positions are compared. to calculate accurately.
This plot shows that both types of control have similar
properties. 7. PANEL LOADS
6. CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS Normal force characteristics
Pitch control effectiveness is a measure of the ability of the Comparisons of lattice and conventional fin normal force, for
controls to produce change in the overall configuration an individual control at h = O”, are plotted in figures 13 to 15
pitching moment, and is conveniently defined as, where the comparisons are made for deflections (6) of O”, 10”
and 20” respectively. As expected from the control
effectiveness investigation C2 generates the largest normal
force of all the fins. At Mach 1.45 L3 and C I generate almost
For the evaluation of control effectiveness the MRP was taken the same normal force; for 6 = 0” L3 generates slightly more
to be 6.5D aft of the nose, i.e mid-body, so that the results of
normal force but for 6 = 20” this margin is lost, At this Mach
the analysis would be readily applicable to typical missile number the lattice cells are choked, reducing lifting
systems. effectiveness. At other Mach numbers the lattice controls
Main balance pitching moment data for each control are plotted produce significantly more normal force than Cl
against elevator deflection for Mach numbers of I .45, 1.8 and In figure 13f it can be seen that at Mach 3.5 and with no
3.5 in figures 10 to 12 respectively. Comparisons at three control deflection L 1 and L2 produce almost identical normal
incidences are included in each figure. As only five fin force across the incidence range shown. However, with higher
deflections were tested it is difficult to accurately calculate k, tin deflection Ll and L2 begin to display different
(the slope of the curves). However, the overall trend can be characteristics. This is particularly so at Mach 3.5, figure 15d,
judged. where above 5” incidence and with a fin deflection of 6 = 20”
In general, a combination of high incidence and large control Ll generates more normal force than L2.
deflection reduces the effectiveness of the lattice controls. In figures 15~ and 15d the normal force curves display
Figures 10 and 1 I, for example, indicate that, at Mach 1.45 and anomalous regions above approximately 10” incidence. A
1.8, the change in pitching moment between n = 10” and n = similar feature is displayed by all three tin types at similar
20” at an incidence of 20” is nearly zero for the lattice controls. incidences. It is not clear what this effect may be but it can be
This shows that the lattice controls have lost effectiveness. observed that the existence of the effect is not dependent on the
Neither Cl or C2 lose effectiveness in the incidence and tin geometry (but it is more noticeable on the lattice controls).
deflection range investigated. Also the effect appears not to occur at Mach 4.5.
At Mach 1.45 and Mach 1.8 fin C2 is the most effective of the To illustrate how normal force varies with roll position figure
controls. At Mach 1.45 L3 and C 1 are equally effective at 0” 16 plots normal force coefficient against roll angle in the range
incidence; interestingly, at this Mach number they both impart
O”<h<-180”. In this range of lambda the tin is in the leeside
similar levels of static stability. flowfield, dominated by the body vortices. It is immediately
As no deflected tin data is available at Mach 3.5 data for fin obvious that, in contrast to the conventional control. the lattice
C2, only L I, L2 and C 1 are plotted in figure 12. Both lattice control shows no sign of control reversal. In this roll range
designs have equal effectiveness at low incidence, but for both types of control interact with the body vortices that
positive fin deflections of cr = 20”, Ll appears to be more emanate from the nose of the missile. For the planar tins the
effective. It is clear that the lattice controls operate more interaction is adverse and the aerodynamic force on the control
efficiently at high Mach numbers as they remain effective over changes sign; the lattice controls, however, merely suffer a
the whole incidence range investigated. At Mach 3.5 the delta slight drop in normal force and no sign reversal occurs. This
control C 1 is less effective than the lattice controls at low property could be a significant advantage over the use of planar
incidences, however, at very high combined incidence and tins, reducing demands on the autopilot. Lattice controls
deflection C 1 becomes more effective. exhibit this property because, in general, the flow conditions
experienced by the control will vary significantly across its
It is important to understand the difference between the control span and height. This is illustrated in figure 17 where the
effectiveness of the lattice controls and the conventional outline of lattice Ll has been superimposed upon
control C2. For the conventional configuration orientated in experimentally obtained pitot pressure contours in the flowtield
the ‘+’ position, the horizontal tins contribute all of the around body BIA at Mach 3.5 and o = 14”. In the vortex
longitudinal stability and are responsible for all of the control dominated flowfield the local effective angle of attack will vary
effectiveness. For a lattice control configuration, the horizontal significantly over the lattice control, indeed it is possible for
tins contribute only 70% of the longitudinal stability and 100% some parts of the control to experience a negative angle of
of the control effectiveness. Thus, for a given longitudinal attack while other parts experience an effective positive angle
stability the lattice configuration will be less effective. It is of attack. The adverse effect of the body vortices is in this way
obviously possible to increase the control effectiveness of the reduced. At other incidences2 the vortices have minimal effect
lattice controls by using larger fins. Additionally, when a on either L 1 or L2.
missile is in a state of positive incidence and ftn deflection the
vertical fins will tend to reduce the pitching moment increment,
although the magnitude of this effect will vary considerably
with incidence.
9-4

Side force characteristics The variation of incremental axial force coefficient (ACx) with
Mach number at zero incidence is shown in figure 23. The data
The unique ability of the lattice controls to generate side force
shown includes the total axial force on all four fins. At both
has received little attention in the literature. It has been shown
subsonic and supersonic speeds the lattice controls exhibit
in figure 5 how this increases the stability of the configuration,
much greater drag than the conventional controls. At Mach
but contributes little to the control effectiveness. Here the
4.5, for example, L2 has an axial force 3 times greater than C2.
variation of fin side force with roll position is investigated.
In the supersonic regime lattice axial force coefficient is almost
Side force data, from the starboard panel at h = O”, is plotted constant with Mach number in contrast with the significant
against roll angle in figure 18. Data for tin deflections of 6 = drop off for the conventional controls. The fact that L I
O”, 10’ and 20” are shown. Side force data for the planar exhibits greater drag than L2 even though they have similar
controls are not shown as it is of course negligible. Three lifting capability confirms that it is possible to tailor drag by
features are obvious from figure 18: a side force is generated at varying the lattice geometry without reducing control
h = O”; side force does not vary with fin deflection except in effectiveness. The difference in drag is due to the extra wave
the region -180°<h<-100”; and most significantly there is a drag generated by the larger cross-sectional area of Ll The
large drop in the side force in the region of k = -90”. variation of axial force with incidence is moderate for the
lattice controls and for most math numbers is not significantly
The finite side force generated at I= 0” is due to the variation different from the conventional controls’.
of upwash along the span of the lattice control. The distinctive
drop in side force in the region of h = -90” is due to the Plots of incremental drag force, rather than axial force, indicate
downwash from the two body vortices giving the lattice control an interesting feature of lattice controls. Incremental drag force
a net negative incidence. is plotted against incidence for the L3 and C2 controls at Mach
I.8 in figure 24. Above 12” incidence the lattice configuration
Hinge moment characteristics drag is less than that of the planar control, This feature also
The variation of hinge moment with incidence for the L3 occurs at other Mach numbers, although the incidence at which
control across the Mach number range is shown in figure 19. this happens increases with Mach number2. This effect is
The origin of the offset at cr = 0’ is not clear, but is partly due to the lower normal force generated by the lattice
approximately constant for all Mach numbers, and the overall controls, and also that the difference in axial force between the
magnitude of the moments are very small indeed. As Mach two types of control is lower for lower Mach numbers.
number increases the slope of the curves decrease and it is clear 9. CONCLUSIONS
from the small gradient of the curve for Mach 2.4 that the XCP
has moved almost to the hingeline. This is consistent with The aerodynamic characteristics of the lattice controls have
predictions form linear aerodynamic, where for a flat plate the been compared with those of conventional, planar controls and
XCP is located at 25% chord at subsonic speeds and at 50% the relative advantages and disadvantages judged. The basis of
chord at supersonic speeds. The XCP would be located a little comparison between the configurations was chosen to be equal
less than 50% chord due to loss of lift on the rear portion of longitudinal static stability.
each element of the lattice caused by shock interference. Lattice controls offer the following advantages; improved yaw
Because of the small chord of the lattice controls the absolute
stability at incidences up to 24” (due to the ability of the lattice
magnitude of the shift in centre of pressure is small.
controls to generate side force), small hinge moments with
Figure 20 compares the hinge moments of the lattice and minimal variation of centre of pressure with Mach number and
conventional fins at Mach 0.7. It is clear that the lattice control incidence, and the attenuated effect of body vortex
has the lowest hinge moment, and, in comparison with the interference, improving roll control and autopilot demands.
planar tins, has minimal variation across the incidence range. The available data also indicate that lattice controls may offer
However, a comparison of the hinge moments at Mach 2.4, improved yaw stability at high incidence, which may increase
shown in figure 21, indicate that at high supersonic speeds the the LATAX capability through increased controllability at
small delta control has minimal hinge moment. This is because these incidences.
the choice of hingeline was chosen to coincide with the XCP at
Lattice controls suffer the following disadvantages; large axial
high Mach numbers. Thus, although it is possible to design
force, which can be as high as 3 or 4 times that of a
conventional fins with low hinge moments, it is only possible
conventional tin, poorer control effectiveness for a given static
to do so at particular Mach numbers; consequently the XCP
stability than a conventional square planform fin, and a
variation with Mach number is an important parameter.
decrease in lattice control effectiveness in the transonic region
The variation of centre of pressure location with Mach number (due to the individual cells choking). However, lattice axial
for various incidences is shown in figure 22. It is clear that the force can be tailored by correct shaping of the frame and web
lattice controls display the smallest variation of XCP with cross-sections, and by careful design of the lattice geometry.
Mach number and incidence. In the transonic region lattice control axial force may not be
significantly higher than that of conventional tins.
8. DRAG CHARACTERISTICS
At some Mach numbers lattice control drag, rather than axial
The high drag of lattice type controls has been the principal force, was found to be less than conventional fin drag at high
concern over their use. The individual fin axial force can be as incidences. This would be advantageous for an agile missile
much as 3 or 4 times higher than a planar fin with comparable which may maintain high incidence, or high control deflection,
lifting ability3. However, Miller and Washington4 have shown for large parts of the flight duration.
that by suitable adjustment of web thickness and frame cross-
section shape the drag can be tailored considerably with When the lattice controls are orientated in a cruciform ‘f’
minimal impact on other aerodynamic properties. arrangement, the vertical fins contribute approximately 30% of
the static longitudinal stability. Consequently, if the lattice
controls are designed to impart a given longitudinal static
 9-5

stability, as assumed in this paper, then the overall size of the 10. REFERENCES
lattice fins can be reduced to account for the extra contribution
1. Belotserkovskiy, S. M., et al, “Wings with internal
of the vertical fins. However, the control effectiveness would
framework”, Machine Translation, FTD-ID(RS)-
be reduced because of the smaller size of the tins and because
1289-86, Foreign Technology Division, February
the vertical tins do not contribute to the control effectiveness.
1987.
This explains the poorer control effectiveness performance of
the lattice controls in relation to the conventional, square 2. Simpson, G.M., Unpublished DERA Material.
planform control. The control effectiveness can be increased
by increasing the size of the controls, but only if the extra 3. Washington, W. D., Miller, M. S.. “Grid fins - a new
stability, and drag, is not problematic. concept for missile stability and control”, AIAA 93-
0035, January 1993.
The high incidence behaviour of the lattice control designs
considered here was not as good as originally expected. 4. Miller, M. S., Washington, W. D.. “An experimental
However, the fact that the two lattice designs tested displayed investigation of grid fin drag reduction techniques”,
slightly different characteristics at high incidence shows that, to AIAA 94-1914-CP.
a certain extent, the normal force characteristics of lattice 0 British Crown Copyright 1998 iDERA
controls can be tailored by correct geometric design. However,
the relationship between the geometrical factors and normal Published with the permission of the Controller of Her
force generation is not fully understood at this stage. Britannic Majesty’s Stationery Office

Figure 1; The controls tested (D=3.7”).

BlA << 0 IlJD

3.OD 10D

, BlC 0 IlaD
BlALlR

3
11.5D 1 SD

Bl ALZR

<
11.5D 1SD

BlAClR

11.5D 1.5D

Bl ACSR

I,+
11SD 1.5D

Figure 2; Various configurations tested (D=3.7”).

 9-6

/-Fin 1
-+-Fin3
,Fi”Z’
-2

-3 1

Figure 3; Longitudinal static stability at zero incidence. Figure 4; Panel force normal to body centreline for
(‘+’ configuration.) BlALl R M=3.5.

L-1
0, /
0 5 10 15 2” IS
sigma
1

Figure 5; Incremental pitching moment BIALIR M=3.5. Figure 6; Incremental yaw stability M=3.5.

~ OL0 5 10 ” 23 25/
sigma
._______-
Figure 7; Incremental yaw stability M=3.5, comparison Figure 8; Incremental yaw stability M=3.5, variation with
with fin deflected. Mach number.

“5
T I

10 sigma IS M u

Figure 9; Incremental yaw stability M=3.5, the effect of

orientation.
 IOa., cr=O’ Ila., cr=O”
,ui 10-Cm

lob., o=lO’ Ilb., o=lO

Figure 10; Control effectiveness (Cm-q Figure 11; Control effectiveness (Cm-q
curves). M=l.45. curves). M=l.8.

12a., O=O” 13a., M=0.7

12b., a=lO” 13b., M=l.4!

12c., (r=20” 13c., M=l.8

Figure 12; Control effectiveness (Cm-q Figure 13., Fin normal force, S=O”.
curves). M=3.5.
9-8

12 czp:o1
T

I. I
13d., M=2.4 13e., M=2.5
r- ’ +P:ol 1

L 0.21
13f., M=3.5 13g., M=4.5
Figure 13; ., Fin normal force, F=O”.
(Concluded)

2 CrP:Ol
T

I
14a., M=l.45 14b., M=l.8

I
14c., M=2.5 14d., M=3.5
CzP:01
Figure 14; Fin normal force, 6=10”. T

14e., M=4.5
 9-9

15a., M=l.45 15b., M=l .t3

I I
lk., M=2.5 15d., M=3.5

Figure 15; Fin normal force, F=20”.

15e., M=4.5

Figure 16; Variation of normal force with roll. Figure 17; Pitot pressure contours:
(M=3.5 0=16”) BIA M=3.5 (r=14” at 11.5D aft of nose.

1 r

Figure 18; Variation of side force with roll. Figure 19; Lattice control hinge moment variation with
(M=3.5 0=16”) Mach number.
 Figure 20; Hinge moment comparison, M=0.7. Figure 21; Hinge moment comparison, M=2.4.

0’
0 I
-0.2 -

Figure 22; Fin XCP variation with Mach number. Figure 23; Incremental axial force (o=O”).
(Calibres form hinge line.)

L Figure 24; Incremental drag force vs. incidence at

M=l.8.