Volume 20, Issue 4 (April 2020)                   Modares Mechanical Engineering 2020, 20(4): 963-971 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

1- Aerodynamics Department, Aerospace Engineering Faculty, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- Aerodynamics Department, Aerospace Engineering Faculty, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran , hparhiz@mut.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2315 Views)
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare the aerodynamic coefficients obtained from the wind tunnel, numerical solution (Fluent) and engineering software (MD) for a cruise missile. The results are obtained in zero deflection of the control surfaces. For this purpose, the analysis has been carried out on the aerodynamic coefficients of the three Mach numbers: 0.6, 0.75, and 0.85, and various angles of attacks. The results of the numerical solution for calculating the coefficients of the lift, drag, normal and axial forces are respectively with a mean difference of 8.6, 1.7, 8.3 and 8.4 percent, respectively, in comparison with the wind tunnel. The results of the MD software for drag and axial forces are acceptable with an average error of 11% and 20%, respectively. Also, the existence of errors in the MD software, such as taking into account the effects of the air inlet opening only in the axial direction, shows that this method is unreliable in the present study. The results show that there is a great similarity between the behavior of the aerodynamic coefficients changes relative to the angle of attack in all three experimental and numerical methods and the MD software. Also, the pitching moment coefficient variation according to the angle of attack indicates that the trim angle varies from +6 to + 7 degrees.
Full-Text [PDF 609 kb]   (1553 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
Received: 2019/04/29 | Accepted: 2019/09/29 | Published: 2020/04/17

1. DeVorkin DH, Neufeld MJ. Space artifact or Nazi weapon? Displaying the Smithsonian's V-2 missile, 1976-2011. Endeavour. 2011;35(4):187-195. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.endeavour.2011.08.003]
2. Tarabi A, Gasemloo S, Mani M. Experimental and numerical study of a variable-span-sweep morphing wing on the aerodynamic characteristics of a UAV. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2015;15(3):125-136. [Persian] [Link]
3. Ghajar A, Seyyed Shams Taleghani SA, Soltani MR, Masdari M. Experimental investigation of ground effects on aerodynamics characteristics of a delta wing airplane model. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2017;17(9):281-289. [Persian] [Link]
4. Dehghan Menshadi M, Eilbeigi M, Bazaz Zadeh M, Vaziry MA. Experimental investigation on aerodynamic coefficients of a flying wing aircraft with different leading edge sweep angle. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2016;16(5):303-311. [Persian] [Link]
5. Che J, Tang S. Research on integrated optimization design of hypersonic cruise vehicle. Aerospace Science and Technology. 2008;12(7):567-572. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ast.2008.01.008]
6. Zhang GQ, Yu SCM, Schlüter J. Aerodynamic characteristics of a wrap-around fin rocket. Aircraft Engineering Aerospace Technology. 2016;88(1):82-96. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/AEAT-03-2014-0030]
7. Menezes V, Saravanan S, Jagadeesh G, Reddy KPJ. Experimental investigations of hypersonic flow over highly blunted cones with aerospikes. AIAA Journal. 2003;41(10):1955-1966. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/2.1885]
8. Yuan Q, Wang Y, Qi Z. Strakes effects on asymmetric flow over a blunt-nosed slender body at a high angle of attack. Journal of Fluids Engineering. 2019;141(6):061103. [Link] [DOI:10.1115/1.4041815]
9. Vafaei Sefat A, Seyf MS, Tavakoli M. Hydrodynamic optimization hull form of high speed planning craft with variable deadrise angle by using genetic algorithm. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2012;12(4):80-90. [Persian] [Link]
10. ArabGolarche A, Moghiman M, Javadi Malabad SM. Investigation of effective parameters on darrieus wind turbine efficiency with aerodynamics models. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2015;15(5):295-301. [Persian] [Link]
11. Aelaei M, Ommi F, Karimian aliabadi S. Accuracy evaluation of semi-empirical and numerical methods in estimation of aerodynamic coefficients for air-launch-to-orbit delta wing. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2017;17(9):237-244. [Persian] [Link]
12. Riddle DB, Hartfield RJ, Burkhalter JE, Jenkins RM. Genetic-algorithm optimization of liquid-propellant missile systems. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 2009;46(1):151-159. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/1.30891]
13. Min BY, Lee JW, Byun YH. Numerical investigation of the shock interaction effect on the lateral jet controlled missile. Aerospace Science and Technology. 2006;10(5):385-393. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ast.2005.11.013]
14. Ada C, Kural A. Design and comparison of autopilots of an air-to-surface antitank missile and its terminal guidance study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. 2014;228(2):193-205. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0954410012470057]
15. DeSpirito J, Edge HL, Weinacht P, Sahu J, Dinavahi SPG. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of a missile with grid fins. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 2001;38(5):711-718. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/2.3756]
16. Koren A, Idan M, Golan OM. Integrated sliding mode guidance and control for missile with on-off actuators. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 2008;31(1):204-214. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/1.31328]
17. Lee BS, Choi JH, Kwon OJ. Numerical simulation of free-flight rockets air-launched from a helicopter. Journal of Aircraft. 2011;48(5):1766-1775. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/1.C031365]
18. Balasubramanian R, Shah V, Arora K, Krishnamurthy R, Chakraborty D. Numerical investigations of lateral characteristics of an air-to-air missile. Journal of Aircraft. 2013;50(1):88-95. [Link] [DOI:10.2514/1.C031761]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.