Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T17:14:13.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Static and dynamic characteristics of supersonic cruise missile with damaged wing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2024

C.F. Zhuo Open the ORCID record for C.F. Zhuo [Opens in a new window] ,
Z.R. He Open the ORCID record for Z.R. He [Opens in a new window] ,
X.B. Ren  and
Y.K. Wang
C.F. Zhuo*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Special Engine Technology, Ministry of Education, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
Z.R. He
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Special Engine Technology, Ministry of Education, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
X.B. Ren
Affiliation:
Shanxi North Xing’an Chemical Industry Co, Ltd, Taiyuan, China
Y.K. Wang
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Special Engine Technology, Ministry of Education, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
*
Corresponding author: C.F. Zhuo; Email: njust203zcf@126.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurately evaluating the aerodynamic performance of the missile with damaged structures is very important for the subsequent flight control strategy. At present, few researchers have studied the aerodynamic characteristics of damaged supersonic cruise missiles. Based on CFD (computational fluid dynamics) solutions and the dynamic derivative identification method, the differences in static and dynamic characteristics between the damaged and undamaged models are compared. The results indicate that when the extent of damage increases, the change rate of drag coefficient at larger AoA (angle-of-attack) is greater than that at the smaller AoA. On the contrary, the change rate of lift coefficient at larger AoA is smaller than that at smaller AoA. Meanwhile, the absolute value of the static pitch moment decreases, but the absolute value of the roll moment increases. Damage causes a change in the absolute values of the pitch and roll dynamic derivatives, and the dynamic derivatives do not vary monotonically with the increase of AoA. The turning point occurs at about $\alpha$ = 5°. The areas of the hysteresis loops of the pitch-roll coupling moment increase, which makes the dynamic coupling characteristic between the pitch and roll directions increase. Finally, the maximum allowable damage extent of the missile wing that can achieve static trim is obtained and validated by controlling the deflection of the four rudders.

Keywords

supersonic cruise missilewing damageaerodynamic characteristicscombined dynamic derivativedamage limit

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 128 , Issue 1329 , November 2024 , pp. 2634 - 2655
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Trisolini, M., Lewis, H.G. and Colombo, C. Spacecraft design optimization for demise and survivability, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 77, pp 638–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Yang, X.K. and Yang, L.Y. Virtual-command-based model reference adaptive control for abrupt structurally damaged aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 78, (1), pp 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, X.B., Qi, Z.H., Ji, Y.W. and Lin, H.S. The strategy of collision avoidance between missile and space debris based on genetic algorithm, 2016 International Conference on Information System and Artificial Intelligence (ISAI), 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., Lee, Y. and Tahk, M. New structure for an aerodynamic fin control system for tail fin-controlled STT Missiles. J. Aerospace Eng., 2011, 24, (4), pp 505–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y.J., Cao, Z.Q., Zuo, Y.J., Huo, L.B., Qiu, J.P. and Zuo, D.Q. Numerical and experimental investigation of fitting tolerance effects on damage and failure of CFRP/Ti double-lap single-bolt joints, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 78, (1), pp 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arif, I., Ansari, T. and Javed, A. Aircraft stability characteristics in a single horizontal tail failure and evaluation of countermeasures for safe landing, J. Appl. Fluid Mech., 2021, 14, (3), pp 847–859.Google Scholar
Elkarim, Y. and Elrahman, M. A review on methods used for estimation of aerodynamic of damaged aircraft, Int. J. Res. Aeronaut. Mech. Eng., 2015, 3, pp 7–21.Google Scholar
Harris, J. and Slegers, N. Performance of a fire-and-forget anti-tank missile with a damaged wing, Math. Comput. Model., 2009, 50, (1-2), pp 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, A.J. and Render, P. The influence of internal structure on the aerodynamic characteristics of battle-damaged wings, 14th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djellal, S. and Ouibrahim, A. Aerodynamic performances of battle-damaged and repaired wings of an aircraft model, J. Aircraft, 2008, 45, (6), pp 2009–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y., Yang, L.Y. and Shen, G.Z. Aerodynamic characteristics analysis and capability assessment of structural damaged aircraft with advanced configuration, 2011 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etemadi, F., Etemadi, M., Mani, M. and Pooladsanj, S. Experimental and numerical analysis of aerodynamic effects of repair patches on damaged airfoils, J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 2017, 31, (2), pp 651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zkaya, Z. and Kayran, A. Nonlinear static aeroelastic behavior of composite missile fin with interlaminar and intralaminar damage, 2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2018.Google Scholar
Yang, Z.Y., Samad-Suhaeb, M. and Render, P. Computational study of a battle damaged finite aspect ratio wing, 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankar, P. Characterization of aircraft trim points using continuation methods and bifurcation analysis, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC) Conference, 2013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgersma, M.R. and Morton, B.G. Nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom aircraft trim, J. Guid. Control and Dynam., 2000, 23, (2), pp 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, G. Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhail, A.G. Fin damage and mass offset for kinetic energy projectile spin/pitch lock-in, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 1998, 35, (3), pp 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mi, B.G. Simulation on the dynamic stability derivatives of battle-structure-damaged aircrafts, Def. Technol., 2021, 17, (3), pp 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanham, D. Design and qualification report for the javelin launch tube ruggedization program Navel surface warfare center, NSWCCR/RDTR-07/27, Crane, IN, 2007.Google Scholar
Struchkov, A.V., Kozelkov, A.S., Volkov, K.N., Kurkin, A.A., Zhuckov, R.N. and Sarazov, A.V. Numerical simulation of aerodynamic problems based on adaptive mesh refinement method, Acta Astronaut., 2020, 172, pp 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumnu, A. and Güzelbey, I.H. CFD simulations and external shape optimization of missile with wing and tailfin configuration to improve aerodynamic performance, J. Appl. Fluid Mech., 2021, 14, (6), pp 1795–1807.Google Scholar
Elisov, N.A., Ishkov, S.A. and Shakhov, V.G. Numerical analysis of air dissociation influence on spaceplane aerodynamic characteristics, Acta Astronaut., 2018, 148, pp 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, L.Z., Wang, M.H. and Gao, Z.H. Numerical investigation of unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of a pitching missile, Chin. J. Appl. Mech., 2009, 15, (2), pp 129–136.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, Rech. Aerospatiale, 1994, 1, pp 5–21.Google Scholar
Meng, Y.S., Yan, L., Huang, W. and Tong, X.Y. Numerical investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of a missile, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2020, 887, (1), p 012001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Render, P.M., Samaad-Suhaeb, M., Yang, Z.Y. and Mani, M. Aerodynamics of battle-damaged finite-aspect-ratio wings, J. Aircraft, 2009, 46, (3), pp 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinbum, H. and Seungsoo, L. Numerical study on lateral jet interaction in supersonic crossflows, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 80, pp 315–328.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. and Ghoreyshi, M. Forced motions design for aerodynamic identification and modeling of a generic missile configuration, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 77, pp 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z.L., Lv, B.Y. and Cao, Y.H. Heavy rain effects on aircraft lateral/directional stability and control determined from numerical simulation data, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 80, pp 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oktay, E. and Akay, H. CFD predictions of dynamic derivatives for missiles, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhagwandin, V.A. and Sahu, J. Numerical prediction of pitch damping stability derivatives for finned projectiles, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 2014, 51, (5), pp 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mi, B.G. Computational investigation of simulation on the dynamic derivatives of flight vehicle, Acta Aerodyn. Sinica, 2014, 32, (6), pp 834–838.Google Scholar
Dupuis, A.D. and Hathaway, W. Aeroballistic range tests of the basic finner reference projectile at supersonic velocities, Defence Research Establishment Valcartier (QUEBEC), 1997.Google Scholar
Dupuis, A.D. Aeroballistic range and wind tunnel tests of the basic finner reference projectile from subsonic to high supersonic velocities, Defense Research and Development Canada Valcartier Canada TM, 2002.Google Scholar
Green, L., Spence, A. and Murphy, P. Computational methods for dynamic stability and control derivatives, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuess, B.F. Impact dispersion due to mass and aerodynamic asymmetries, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 1967, 4, (10), pp 1402–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, J.P. (1971). Effect of lift with roll rate variation on re-entry vehicle impact, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 1971, 8, (5), pp 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar