'A_
DISTRIBUTED BY:
AkA
_
% NAVAL
""
WEAPONS LABORATORY
DAHLGREN. VA. 22448
IN REPLY
111 IPER TO
JAN 2 3 973
"iK
Fr'n: To: kJ, j: Commander, Naval Weapons Laboratory Dahlgren, Virginia 22448 Distribution NWL Technical Report TR27915, "Body Alone Aerodynamics of Guided and Unguided Projectiles at Subsonic, Transonic and Mach Numbers" by Frank G. Moore, correction to
1..
S(
z+,(
2 v 2 ,+v U 2 +...
Y 1
Reproduced by
DISTRIBUTION

See Attached
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
BODY ALONE AERODYNAMICS OF GUIDED AND UNGUIDED PROJECTILES AT SUBSONIC, TRANSONIC AND SUPERSONIC MACH NUMBEPS
vy
Frank G. Moore
4$Surface
Warfare Department
fr
>
4
K
FORE.WORD
This work was performed in support of the guided projectile and 5"/54 ammunition improvement programs. In additon to the above programs, support for this work was provided by the Naval Ordnance Systems Command under ORDTASK 35A501/090I/UF 32323505. This repurt was reviewed by Mr4 D. A. Jones, III, Head of the Aeroballistics Group, Mr. L. M. Williams, III, Head of the Ballistics Diviion and Mr. W. R. Chadwick, Research Aerodynamicist. y: WRelease L. rthur Wa fare D partet Surface
U'a.
V
J Ct
'Al
;s


.,. ";
KI
Sb. GROUP
BODY ALONE AERODYNAMICS OF GUIDED AND UNGUIDED PROJECTILES AT SUBSONIC, ZRANSONIC AND SUPERSONIC MACH NUMBERS
".
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Typo of report arnd inclusive dates)
Frank G. Moore
: "REPORT DATE 7a. TOTAl NO. OF PAGES 7b, NO OF REFS
November 1972
8a. CONTRACT OR G3RANT NO
I
ga. ORIGINATOR'S REPOP NUMBER(S)
b. PROJECT 1'0.
'1.2796
9b. OTHER REPORT NO(S) (Any other numbers that may be assigned
this report)
C.
d. 10 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
* '
13
ABITRACT
.got"
'"
Several theoretical and empirical mer1.2., are combined into a single computer program to predict litt, drag, and center of pressure on bodies of revolutiorn at suosonic, transonic, and supersonic Mach numbers. The body geometries can be quite general in that pointed, spherically blunt, or truncated noses are allowed as well Pa'ticular emphasis is placed on methods which sad!.,ontinuities in nose shape. yield accuraci.aes of ninety percenL or better for most configurations but yet are computationally faat. Theoretical and experimental results are presented for several projectiles and a computer program listing is included as an appendix.
SDD4.'3
S....NO..
/N
,17 UCLASSIFIED
FR.(PAGE 010;P07 6S
0o
1)_
___
Securit, tVClaAIfIc.atI,,lI
CONTENTS
N
Page
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
FOREWORD
. .
ABSTRACT. INTRODUCTION .
. . .
... .
..
. .
.1
..
..
..
..
A.
B.
C.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
...
1..
13
......
16
.
. 17
.
19
A..
B.
21
~0CONCLUSIONS
.lk
.2
REFERENCES
.. .
. .
. .
27
APPENDIZE.S
A. GLOSSARY.
. . . .
.
A1
.
.
B.
c.
COMPUTER PROGRAM.
DiIs'RIBUTION
.
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
Ci
z
%
LIST OF FIGURES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Typical Body Geometry !oundaries of Perturbation and Newtonian Theory Transonic Wave Drag of Tangent Ogives Mean Base Pressure Curve Viscous Separation and RotatiDg Band Drag Constants to Determine (CN)n for M. < 1.2 Increase in CN to Afterbody at Subsonic and Transonic Mach Numbers Due
8 9 10 11 12
Decrease in CN
Due to Boattail
Center of Pressure of Afterbody Lift for M, < 1.2 ,Drag Proportionality Factor and Crossflow Dag Coefficient Methods Used to Compute Body Alone Aerodynamics
Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Blunted Cone; In/TB  0.35, M1 = 1.5, a = 80 Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Blunted Cone; rn/TB = 0.35, M, = 2.96, a = 8*
13
"14 Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Blunted Cone: MW 0 = 1.S, Oc = 100
15 16
17
Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Blunted Cone; .c = 100, rn/rB = 0 2 Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Blunted Cone; 10%, rn/rB = 0.4 .c
Compaxlson of Theory and Experiment for Tangent OgiveCylinder, k = 14 calibers Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Cones of Various Lpngths Comparison of Present fheo.'y with Experiment as a Function of Afterbody Length (2.83 Caliber Tangent Ogive Nose)
18
19
iv
t9j
4,
I
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) 20 21 22 23 24 2S Zero Lift Drag Cruve for 5"/38 RAP Projectile Comparison of Theory and Test Data for 5"/54 RAP Projectile Comparison of Theory and Test Data for Improved 5"/54 Projectile Comparison of Theory and Test Data for 175mm XM437 Projectile Comparison of Theory and Test Data for 155wm Projectile Aerodynamics of 5inch Guided ProJzcti.le Body
4i."
V k0
INTRODUCTION
In the past,
range tests to predict static forces "nd moments on projectiles. This is not only very expensive but also quite time consuming because of the man hours required in scheduling and performing a test of the above nature. At most test facilities, theii is also a backlog of work of about three to six months. It is believed that a large pcrtion of wind tunnel and ballistic
range tests could be eliminated (particularly for preliminary and 'ntermediate design) if an.accurato theoretical method were available to compute static forces ai moments throughout the Mach nunber
range. More impcrtant th,.;gh, is the practical use of such a method to the design engineer determining the configuration which is the most optimum fror, : liet, drag, and pitching moment standpoint for his given design go, is. Quite often, due to the lack of such a method or the furds for wind tunnel tosting, less than optimum aerodynamic configurations are used to accomplish a given task. A typical example is the external shape of the 5t1/38 projectile. According to the work of reference 1, the range of that projectile could have been increased by more than fifty percent with proper

design. It is the purpose then of the present work to develop a general 1rogram which can be applied to the body of the guided or unguided projectile to predict lift, drag, pitching moment, and centei ef
pressure over the Mach number range of current interest, 0 < M , ,  3. The methods used in the development of the program should be accurate enough to replace preliminary and intermediate wind tunnel
tests (accuracy of ninety percent or bettei formost configurations)
but yet should be computationally fast enough so it can be used as an efficient design tool. 'There are many methods available in any particular Mach number region to compute static forces and moments on various body shapes. These methods range in complexity from exact numerical to semiempirical and the body shapes vary from simple pointed cones to complex multistage launch vehicles. However, attempts at com.bining the various methods above into an accurate and computationally 2 developed fast computer program have been scarce. Saffell, et a1 a mathod for predicting static aerodynamic characteristic. for typical missile configurations with emphasis placed on large angles of attack. However, the drag was computed by hanidbook techpiques 3 and slender body theory was used for the lift and pitching moment. As a result, limited accuracy for body alone aerodynamics was o ained using this method.
A
Another method which computes forces and noments throughout 4 the Mach number range is the GE "Spinner" program designed specifically for projectiles. This program, which is based on empirical correlationF as a fihnction of nose length, boattail length, and overall length, gives very good accuracy for most standard shaped projectiles. However, its use as a design tool is somewhat limited in that the drag of a given length nose is the same no matter what ogive is present or if there are discontinuities present along the nose. The same statement applies to the boattail since a conical boattail of from So to 90 is Moreover, no assumed no matter what the boattail shape is. pressures can be computed by the GE program and no attempt has been made to include nonlinear angle of attack effects. It is apparent then, from the above discussion, that there is a definite need for an analytical method which can take into account nose bluntness and ogive shape, discontinuities along the body surface, as well as nonlinear angle of attack effects. The method presented herein for accomplishing this task relies heavily on analytical work and to a lesser degree on empirical data. As such it is believed to be the first such program with major emphasis on analytical as opposed to empirical procedures. The body shapes which the program can handle should be general enough so that most projectile and missile configurations could be handled in detail. This means that the nose may be pointed, truncated, or blunted with a spherical cap and that che nose may have two ogives present. For example, on a typical pojt.ctile the fuze has one contour and the ogive between the fuze :nd shoulder has a different contoiir with a discontinuity i.'' between. The afterbody should consist of a cylinder followed by a boattail or flare. A typical body shape along with the coordinate systems used is shown in Figure 1.
k
K
"0
A. Wave Drag
ANALYSIS
Wave drag results from the expansion and compression of the air
is it
in the form of shock waves which first occur around Mach number 0.7 to 0.9 depending on the body shape. The methodc used to calculate this form of drag differ significantly in transonic and supersonic flow and thus will be discussed individually below.
Supersonic Flow There are several methods available for calculating the supersonic pressure distribution but only two of these metbods hold promise of meeting our requirements on speed of computation and accuracy as set forth in the introduction. These methods are the second order perturbation theory of Van Dyke 5 , 6 and the second order shock expansion theory 7 modified for bluit bodies in reference 8. Since the major portion of t'he flight of most projectiles is in the lower supersonic speed regime the perturbation approach is chosen because it is more accurate than shock expansion theory at these Mach numbers. However, Van Dyke's theory can only be applied directly to bodies where the slope is less than the slope of the freestream Mach lines. Thus for bluntnosed configura,ions, the perturbation theory is combined with the modified Newtonian Theory (the means for combining the two will be discussed shortly). Before discussing the combined perturbation Newtonian approach
"The general first order perturbation problem is: 9 for the details of the derivation):
(see reference
rr + r/r
%e6/r
(M2 1)
qxx
p (O,r,0) =
x (O,r,e) = 0
(1)
r (x,R,O)
[os a + x (x,R,e)i
The first
(xrO)
(2)
where the ffrst term corresponds to the axial flow solution and the second tarm to the cross flow solution. The first order problem
hPrr + r/r 
xx 0
ip
(O,r)
x (o,r)
0 0
(3)
lr (x,R)
[' I.+
(x,R)] (x
" a2xx
o,r) =x
(o,r)
o(4) 0
1+
I
* IVan
Without going into the details, suffice it to say that the solutions of eqs. (3) and (4) are found numerically by placing a .. Z1tribution of sources and doublets respectively along the x..axis. Dyke then discovered a secotd order axial solution in terms Further, since disturbances in the of tb, r'irst order solution croz rloW plane do not affect the pressure as much as disturbances in the axial flow, Van Dyke reasoned that it would be quite legitimate physically to combine this second order 1 i~xal solution with the first order cross flow solution of Tsion to form a hybrid theory. Once the perturbation velocities ;x, Or (secondorder axial)!, and tx, and r (firstorder crossflow) are computed at each point along the
(5a)
(COS ) a
(Sb)
(sin a sin 0)
(1 + /r)
(Sc)
U2+V2
C (x,
.,).
I+
tj2
cco
1
(6)
CA
7 t
Cp (xo) rdr
do dx
(7)
irR2J
05
C r2
Cp (x,e) cos 6 r d6 dx
(8)
1 R3
%(X,6)
Cos
x r dO dx()
: !"It ) :,,eqs,
integration of should be pointed out that in the actual numerical out in segments (7), (8) and (9) the integration must be carried between each discontinuity due to the discontinuous of the body distribution. pressure But if the need go no further. one pointed, is nIf the nose the over other distribution cap then some pressure a spherical with the blunted is or truncated determine nose is must to be used is modified Newtonian Imethod The method used herein assuming a very large truncated portion. this theory is derived ntheoryse Although Mach number, reasoiable values for the pressure :oefficient can be obtained over a portion of the' nose even at low supersonic Mach
numbers.
Op
CPo sin2 6
where 6 is the angle between a tangent to the local body surface and the freestream direction and where the stagnaticon pressure
behind a normal shock is:
6
9. 
_y_
It Y 22
Y+
2yNE  (y 1)
1(2
,
:
on the truncated portion is only abovt nincty percent of the stagnation value given by eq. (12) so that for a truncated nose:
i
:
S(_1
_3
,'m!:'If
sin 
cos
l sin a
(14)
PY
Accowhere tan
'Cv
ref dr/dx. (11) and (14) one obtains for a spherical nose
S cap: r
.",:
':
Cp(x,e)
=Cp
Cohere CPo is
given by eq.
(12). 7
IN
The only question that remains now so far as the supersonic Mach number region is concerned is where does the modified Newtonian theory ena on the body and where does the perturbation theory begin. To determine this match point recall that the slope of the body surface must be less than the Mach angle I:o apply perturbation theory, that is
6 <_sin l i
._ )
(16)
Thus,
(I/R 0 ).
there is obtained for the coordinates of the point below which Newtonian tneory must be applied:
ru0
cos a + sin
(17)
xu
ru tan
+ rn (l
)

IL is
0/
still
important to note here that if x xu Newtonian theory may be applied but if x < xu perturbation theory cannot be
.pplied.
The limiting angle of eq. (16) corresponding to the coordinates of eq. (17) is shown in Figure 2 as the upper curve. Note that very
aL the lower Mach numbers. However, as shown by lan Dyre 5 the loss in accuracy of perturbation theory increases rapidly as the angle 6
is increased. error is still Realistically, since at an angle of 250  30* the slight the maximum angle 6 for which perturbation
large cone half angles can be computed using the perturbation theory
Based on these
accuracy considerations, the Newtonian theory should be applied for 6 values outside the solid line boundary of Figure 2 and perturbation the.or" within the boundary, Now the match point, which for the present work will be defined as the point where the pressure coefficients of the Newtonian theory and the perturbation theory are equal, can be determined as the solution proceeds downstream. For body stations downstream of the match point, perturbation pressures are used in the force coefficient calculations of eqs. (7), (8) and (9) whereas for x values along the surface less than that at the match point Newtonian pressures must be used. Transonic Flow
If
the flow is transonic, the available theories for the wave drag calculations are again limited. Here the main limitations are in body shape because there does not appear to be a theoretical "method available whjich can handle the blunted nose or the discontinuities along the body surface. Wu and Aoyoma 1 3 , 1" have developed a method which handles tangentogivecylinderboattail configurations at zero angle of attack but no general nose geometries can be used as is the case in supersonic flow. Thus the approach of the present paper will be to calculate the wave drag for tangent ogive noses of various lengths throug;hout the cransonic Mach number range and to estimate the wave drag of the more complicated nose geometry based on these results. It is true tnat the accuracy here is not consistent with that of the supersonic work but it appears from the results (as will be discussed later) that this approach is justified, at least for noses with slight
blunting (rn/rb < 0.3).
For transonic flow the perturbaticn ,uation (1) has an additional term sc that for a = 0, eq. (1) is replaced by:
[1
M2 = (y+l)
Ne
Px
4 xx +
Or/r +
rr = 0
(18)
Eq. (18) is now nonlinear as opposed to the linear eq. (1) used in supersonic flow. Eq. 18) is again solved numerically"? for the velocity potential and the pressure and axial force coefficients calculated by eqs. (6) and (7) for the nose of the nosecylinderboattail configuration. Figure 3 gives the wave drag obtained by solving eq. 18) for tangent ogive noses of iarious langths throughout the transonic Mach number range. For a given Mach number and nose length, the axial force coefficient can be
9
obtained from this curve by interpolation. If the pressai2 coefficients along tve body surface are desired, however, the general program of Wu and Aoyoma 1 3 must be used. The pressure coefficient on the boattail at zero angle of
is given by:
,
C~()~
, "
ma,.2/3
Il
(yl
Ix C)/
y+)2 Tv1
I1W~
\x
(19)
where x, is
C2
=2'
(y+l) MNel ,
i(yi
+J*
2/3
+
[4/3
1/2
M,2
3 dR/dx\
2 /y+1 I2M.
3 dR/dxI
VY+I1
M,j2/3
\(y+l) d
In addition to the restriction of zero angle of attack, eq. (19) is to be applied for 1 < M < 1.2 (for 'I_ > 1.2, afterbody wave
"entire body). For M. < 1, e::periment shows that the shock first occurs on a boattail at M, z 0.95. Accordingly,wave drag will be
assumed to vary linearly from zero at M, 0.95 to its maximum value at M. 1.0 which is calculated using the above equation. 10
B.
The boundary layer will generally be turbulent over about ninety percent of the projectile body for large caliber projectiles. Since the laminar flow region is usually less than ten percent of the total surface area, it will be assumed the entire boundary layer is turbulent. Under this assumption the total or mean skinfriction coefficient, Cf., according to Van Driest 1 5 mast be obtained from:
A 0.242 (CfJ112 C
(Tw/,)'/?
(sin
''
C + sin
!C)=lgl C2 )
(1 + 2n
l)glo (Tw/T,)
(20)
where
C1
2A2
B +B4)
1/2
2
'
1/2
and
(Yl) 2 TT/TT
I + (yl)/2
4 1
N
11 _
T
n
w\ (21)
11
0.76.
Eq.
"boundary layer with zero pressure gradient and Prandtl number equal
In ordez to solve eq. Reynolds nuu ar is simply (20) for the mean skin friction coefficient
RN
and M..
The freestrean
RN,=
Vw k
(22)
To relate Tw/TO to the freestream Mach number, assume the wall is adiabatic. Defining a turbulent recovery factor RT by
T. 1
/T Tw
then
T,,
+ Rr
Y

(23)
Me
It has been shown that t~e recover)' factor varies as the cube root
of the Prandtl number (see reference 16) for turbulent flow so that:
"RT
r p 12
(24)
S
.

so if this were used then actual value of Pr 0.73 "Prandtl number one can be recovery factor which for becomes:
RT would also be unity. Hc;,ever, the so that the previous assumption of compensated for somewhat by the above Pr = 0.73 uould be 0.90. Thus eq. (23)
TW/T.
+0.
1 9 4l
2
(25)
;en for a given set of freestream conditions (NI, p., v., V,)
one
can combine eqs. (22) and (25) with (20) to solve for Cf . The equation must be solved numerically however, since Cf. cannot be solved for explicitly. A procedure adaptable to equations of this type is the well known NewtonRaphson method discusszd in reference
17.
Once the mean skin friction coefficient has been determined for
a given set of freestream conditions, the viscous axial force
coefficient is simply:
I'
CAf = Cf
Sw
Sr
(2b)
The wetted area S,., is the total surface area of the body which can be integrated numerically given a set of body coordinates.
,C.
Base Drag
Much theoretical work ha been performed to predict base pressure (references 18  22). There is still no 3W2isfactory theory available, however, and the standard practice has been , use empirical methods. This is the approach taken here. Figure  s a mean curve of experimental data from references 18. 19 ana 23 29. This data assumes a
> 'long cylindrical afterbody with fully deve.,oped turbulent boundary
13
)ayer ahead of the bAse. There could be deviations from this curve due to low body finenes. ratio, boattails, angle of attack, Reynolds number and surface temperAure. Each of these effects will be discussed below. The minimum lengch of most projectiles is about four calibers. According to references 23 and 29 the base pressure at low supersonic Mach numbers is essentially unaffected by changes in body length if the fineness ratio is greater than four. This is not
true at high supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers as shown by Love . But since the main interest is for M. < 3 the effect of
In addition to the above, Love shows that the nose shape has little effect on base pressure for high fineness ratio bodies. Thus, for bodies of fineness ratio of four or greater the effect of nose shape and total length on base pressure can be neglected. The base pressure is sign..ficantly altered by the presence of a boattail so that th 4 s change must be accounted for. Probably the most simple method co do this is an empirical equation given by Stoney 2 8 ,
CABA
CpBA
d A r
(27)
Eq. (27) can be used throughout the entire Mach dumber range where C is the base pressure giver An alter3 by the curve of Figure 4. nRn~ve to this procedure is to find the base pressure as a funct;ion of boattail angle and then the diameter of the base would be squared instead of cubed as in equation (27). That is
1
CABA
_CBA
d(2
(28)
14
where C. is the base pressure coefficient for a given boattail angle. tnis requires knowing C howerer which is not always available. Because of this, eq. (27) will be used,
It has been shown in many works 2 1 ,3
0
41
is essentially independent of Reynolds' numbers, RN, if the boundary layer ahead of the base is fully developed turbulent flow. A turbulent boundary layer usually occurs for RN of 500,000 to 750,000 depending on the roughness of the body surface. The minimum RN ahead of the base one would expect tu encounter on the present bodies would be about 1,000,000. Moreover, most projectiles have various intrusions and protrusiors such as on a fuve which tends to promote boundary layer separation. in view of these practical considerations, Reynolds numb,i effects on base pressure may safely be neglected. The same arguments as the ones above hola for surface temperature as well. Thus in addition to Reynolds number effects, surface temperature effects on base pressure need not be accounted for. The effect of angle of attack on base pressure is to lower the base pressure and hence to increase the base drag. For bodies without fins, the amount of this decrease is dependent mainly on freestream Mach numbor, Tf a is given in degrees then an empirical relation for thi changv in base pressure coefficient due to angle of attack is given by
Li.
PBAI]
(.012
.
0O36NIco)
o.
(29)
Eq. (29) was derived from a compilation of experimental data presented in Figures 7 through IS of reference 23. The base drag coefficient thus becomes, in light of eqs. (27) and (29):
CA BA
0 ,
IC
L
PBA
(.012
.0036%,,) a]dB
C
(30)
,$
>1
0i
i...
..
"...,
...
 "~ ' ..
,, 
'
t.r
D.
Figure 5A is a plot of forebody drag coefficient as a function of cone half angle from data taken from reference 31. Since the skin friction drag coefficient is about 0.02 for this case, it can be subtracted from the curve of Figure SA to yield the pressure drag coefficient. Note that the freestream Mach number is 0.4, low enough so that no appreciable compressibility effects occur. The question therefore arises as to the origin of this type of drag, since it is not compressibility or skin friction drag. It is in fact viscous separation drag. For very large cone half angles, ac, the flow over the cone, instead of remaining attached, separates due to the very strong adverse pressure gradient and reattaches downstream. This separation prevents the pressure from decreasing as much as it would in inviscid flow and produces a drag. Oddly enough, this phenomenon does not occur on ogives or or. spherical "surfaces, apparently due to body curvature effects on the boundary layer. As a result, one can derive an empirical expression for this viscous separation drag, where the important parameter is the angle * which the nose makes with the shoulder of the afterbody. Based on Figure 5A this relation is
CAvis
.012
(6*
(31)
=
0;
6* < i0
with
P*
Reference 1 gives tine measured effect of a rotating band on drag. The particular rotating band used in those wind tunnel tests had a mean height of about 0.024 calibers. An expression which functionalizes the above results ior drag increment due to a rotating band is given by:
CARB . (ACA)
(H)/.Ol
(32)
16
where H is the mean height of the band in calibers and ACA is the
increment in axial !Grce for an H of 0.01 caliber given in Figure 5B. Although the eq. "32) was derived for a particular band, it checks well with the results of Charters 3" for a different band geometry.
E. Inviscid Lifting Properties
At supersonic Mach numbers the inviscid lift, pitching moment, and center of pressure are calculated using Tsien's first order cross flow theory which was discussed earlier in conjunction with Van Dyke's second order axial solution. This method is adequate for small angles of attack where viscous effects are negligible. At subsonic and transonic Mach numbers the lifting properties are more difficult to obtain. For subsonic velocities the lift could be calcul2ted by perturbation theory33 but since projectiles rarely fly at Mach numbers less than 0.7, a formulati~n on this bas, was not justified. An alternative would be slender body t ry but the accuracy of this approach is inadequate. In light
of the above reasoning, a semiempirical method for no.mal force
A
characteristics was derived based on nose length, afterbody length, and boattail shape. This metnod was then extended thrcugh the transonic Mach number range since the stateo.theart in transonic "flow does not allow one to handle the gener.l body shapes or flow conditions. The total inviscid normal force acting on the body may be written
CN
(CN
a n
+ (CN
a a a
+ (CN)
(33)
(CNO)d= C1 tan 6* +
(Z4)
17
where C1 and C2 are given in Figure 6 as a function of Mach number. This relationship was determined empirically from the cone results of Owens 3 1 . It is approximately correct for kn > 1.5, cone bluntness up to 0.5, and N6 < 1.2. Note that the angle P* in eq. (341 is the same as that discussed previously in eq. (31). The normal force coefficients of the afterbody and boattail can be obtained from Figures 7 and 8 respectively. Figure 7 was derived analytically in the transonic Mach range from the method of Wu and Aoyoma 13 and in subsonic flow from the experimental data of Spring 34 and Gwin~s. In the work of Spring and Gwin above, the normal force of the nose plus afterbody was given but the nose comDonent can be subtracted off by the use of eq. (34). The boattail normal force coefficient was given by Washington 36 but he stated that there was not enough data available in subsonic and transonic flow. Hence the data of Washington was supplemented by the 175mm Army proectile3 7 and Improved 5"/54 Navy projectile 3 8 data to derive the general curve of Figure 8.
.
0.
Although slender body theury may not be adequate for predicting the normal force coefficient it appears to predict the center of pressure of the nose and boattail lift components quite adequately. According to slender body theory the center of pressure of the
nose is
(xcp)
n
Zn
(Vol)n
iTRr
(35)
(Xcp)
n +a
+ZB
(Vl iT R' r
18
a5
or
S~
(VOI)B
(Xcp) C"P: B=

iTR2
r
(36)
and their cet:ter of pressure locations, one can compute the pitching
moment about the nose as:
C Ma
(CNa2B B (Xcp)B
(37)
F.
Strictly speaking, the previous discussion on inviscid lifting If a > 0 then there is properties gave CN and CNI at a = 0 only.
Allen
and Perkins"
S2
.cSr
(ACN)vis
n cd
(38)
19
(ACM)vis=
1 Cdc(S2)(p)
a2
(39)
where n and cd
drag coefficient is here taken to be a function of Mach number only and the cross flow Reynolds number dependence is not accounted for. The center of pressure of the entire configuration should then be:
..
o.'
~Xcp
= =.
CM + (ACM) is CN + (ACN)vis
(40)
G.
0
Summary
20
45
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Numerical Solutions A computer program was written in Fortran IV for the CDC 6700 computer to solve the various equations discussed in the analysis section by numerical means. The various methods used for each individual equation are the same as those discussed in the references pertaining to the particular equation and will not be repeated here. However, mention should be made of the fact that the step size used in the hybrid theory of Van Dyke was considerably smaller than he sug, .sted, particularly for a blunt nosed body or behind a discontinu..ty. For example, for the most complicated body shapes as many as 200 points were placed along the body surface. Also slight oscillations in the second order solution were found behind a corner although Van Dyke does not mention these details, Quite often, it was necessary to evaluate an integral numerically or to compute the value of a function and its derivative at a given point. The integration was carried out using Simpson's rule; the interpolation and differentiation using a five point Lagrange scheme 1 . Both methods have truncation errors which are consistent with the accuracy of the governing set of flow field equations. The computational times depend on how complicat,'d the body shapes are and the particular Mach number of interest. The longest computational time for the most general body shape computed was less than half a minute for one Mach number. For most configurations the average time is about fifteen seconds per Mach number for Mw > 1.2 and about five seconds per Mach number for M, < 1.2. This assumes of cou.sse that a table lookup procedure is used 4n the transonic region where the curves of Figure 3 are input as data sets as opposed to solving the nonlinear partial differential equation (18) for each Mach number. If the aerodynamic coefficients of a given configuration are desired throughout the entire Mach number range, an average execution time of two minutes is required for most configurations (ten Mach numbers). A detailed discussion of che computer program is included as Appendix A. The various input and output parametels are defined and a listing of the program along with a sample output are also included for the reader's convenience. B. Comparison with Experiment
iA.
The only new method presented in the current work ir t,, combined perturbation  Ne.tonian theory for blunt bodies, t is thus of interest to r:eC ho;_ the pressure coefficients along the 21
surface compare with experimental data, Figures 12 and 13 present two typical comparisons at M = 1.5 and 2.96. The experimental data is taken from reference 8 which combined modified Newtonian theory with shock expansion theory to compute forces on blunted cones. The asymptotes of the pressure coefficient in each of the planes computed by the method of reference 8 are also indicated on the figures. As seen in the figures the present theory predicts the aerodynamics much better than shock expansion theory at M, = 1.5 and is about the same as the shock expansion approach at M. = 2.96. The reason for this is that the basic perturbation theory was derived assumping shock free flow with entropy changes slight; hence the theory should be most accurate in the lower supersonic speed regime. On the other hand, shock expansion theory was derived assuming a shock present and so one would expect this method to be better than perturbation theory as M. is increased. Apparently, the crossover point is around '41= 2.5 to 3.0 so that for the major portion of the supersonic speed range of interest in the present analysis, p~rturbation theory is more accurate. Another inr.eresting point in Figure 12 is the discontinuity in slope of the pressure coefficient curve which occurs at the match point. This is because in the expansion region on the spherical nose the perturbation pressure decreases much more rapidly than the Newtonian theory and as a result the overexpansion region, which occurs at low supersonic Mach numbers, is accounted for quite well. Note that the match point is different in each plane around the surface (x = 0.11 to 0.14). One of the questions which arises in the development of a general prediction method pertains to accuracy. To answer this question, force coefficients for several cases were computed embracing variations in nose bluntness, Mach number, angle of attack, nose length, and afteibody length. These cases are presented in Figures 14 through 19 along with experimental data. The first of these cases (Figure 14) gives the axial force coefficient, normal force coefficient derivative, and pitching moment coefficient derivative as a function of nose bluntness for a simple blunted cone configuration. Note that the axial force coefficient includes only the wave plus skin friction components because the base drag was subtracted out of the given set of experimental data. An important point here is that very good .ccuracy is obtained even for large bluntness ratios. For example, with bluntness rn/rB = 0.6, the force coefficients are in error by less than fifteen percent (this is assuming of course there is no error associated with the experimental data which is not exactly correct). This tends to verify that a combined perturbationNewtonian theory can be used successfully for blunt configurations even at low supersonic Mach numbers. 22
oj I,
ji
IL
The next two figures, Figures 15 and 16, compare the theoretical static aerodynamic coefficients with experiment as a function of Mach number for blunted cones with bluntness ratios of 0.2 and 0.406 respectively. Also included in Figure 15 is the slender body theory. As seen by the error comparisons at the lower part of Figure 15, accuracies of better than 90 percent can be obtained throughout the supersonic Mach number range for the force coefficients. Figure 16 gives the aerodynamic data throughout the Mach number range of interest. Avain the comparison is favorable even though the transonic wave drag was computed for a tangent ogive having a length equal to that of the blunted cone. The bluntness causes the transonic drag rise to start at a lower Mach number and to be less abrupt than for the pointed tangent ogive.
The third vairable of interest is angle of attack. Figure 17
'I ,q
4
presents the results for a tangent ogive cylinder of nose length six calibers and total length fourteen calibers. Two Mach numbers are considered,, = 1.5 and MO = 2.5. Again the results are quite good, except at very large angles of attack. Figure 18 compares the force coefficients of the present theory with experiment for a pointed cone of various lengths. Also shown for comparison with the Mo = 1.5 case is the slender body theory. Although perturbation theory is usually associated with nose slenderness ratios of two and greater, it may, nevertheless, be seen that fair accuracy is obtained for lengths as low as one. This corresponds to a cone half angle of about twentyfive degrees which is the limiting angle used in the combined perturbation  Newtonian theory as shown in Figure 2. For the M,, = 0.5 case eq. (31) is used to calculate the viscous separation drag which is added to the skin friction drag to get the total forebody drag coefficient. Using this simple formula, excellent agreement with experimental data is obtained. The final variable of interest, afterbody length, is examined in Figure 19. The nose of the body is a 2.83 caliber tangent For zero afterbody length, the theory agrees with experiment very well. However, as the afterbody length increases the theory underestimates the afterbody lift at the lower supersonic Mach numbers for short afterbody lengths and at the higher Mach numbers for long afterbody lengths. This loss in lift predicted by the ,inviscid theory was also found by Buford 4 0 and he attributed it to boundary layer displacement effects. Even so, the present theory is superior to slender body theory which gives zero lift clue to an afterbody. To summarize the previous five figures, one could say in general that accuracies of ninety percent or better can be obtained for force coefficients of most configurations. However, for extreme cases,
ogive. A
23
such as very large nose bluntness or angle of attack, the accuracy will be decreased and the amount of this decrease can be approximated from Figures 14 through 19. The next several figures compare theory with experiment for several spin stabilized projectiles. Figures 20, 21 and 22 are Navy projectiles: the 5"/38 RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile)4 1 , the 51t/54 projectile 42, and the improved 5"/54 projectile"3, which has a longer nose and boattail than the standard 5"/S4. Figures 23 and 24 ire Army shapes: the 175mm 3 7 and 155mm4 3 projectiles respectively. For the detailed drawings and other aerodynamics of these shapes the reader is referred to the references cited above. The theoretical zero lift drag curve of the 5"/58 RAP projectile along with three sets of experimental data' and an NWL empirically derived curve are shown in Figure 20. Note that the experimental data varies by about thirty percent for M,, < 1 and by ten percent for MN > 1. The theoretical curve tends to support the BRL data subsonically and the NOL and NWC dikta supersonically. The numbers in parenthesis are the factors by which the drag curves must be multiplied throughout the flight of the projectile to match actual range firings. The NWL empirical curve is the curve which is actually used in range predictions due to the failure of experimental data to predict an adequate drag curve. This empirical curve was derived from actual range firings. It should be,therefore, slightly high because of yaw induced effects. The important point here is that for this particular shell, the theory agrees better with actual range firings than any of the sets of experimental data. Figures 21 and 22 give the static aecodynamic coefficientb for the 5"/54 RAP and the improved 511/54 projectiles. The S"/54 RAP has a nose length of about 2.5 calibers and a boattail (if 0oS calibers whereas the improved round has a 2.75 calibec nose and a 1.0 caliber boattail. Also the 5"/5V RAP has a rotating band whereas the other shell does not. For both shells, excellent agreement with experimental data is obtained for the drag coeffi
V
.
Fair agreement is
obtained for normal force coefficient and hence pitching moment and center of pressare. The comparison for the lifting properties is Mach number dependent: in the low supersonic region the theory is consistently about ten percent low on normal force whereas at "high supersonic speeds it compares very well with experiment. The reason, as already mentioned, is the failure of the inviscid
"r24
For boattailed configurations, such as the 5"/54 RAP and the Improved 5"/54, it was found necessary to account approximately for the thick boundary layer on the boattail. This was done by viewing the unpublished shadow graphs obtained in conjunction with the work of reference 38. Apparently, a maximum boattail angle of six degrees can be allowed before boundary layer separation takes place. In addition, the boundary layer displacement thickness accounts for another Pbout 1/4  1/2 degree decrease in the effective boattail angle. ,'hese two results were used to determine effective boattail angles on all boattai]ed configurations. Without this approximate accounting of the boundary layer effect on the boattail shape, the lifting properties would have been in error by an additional ten percent for boattailcd configurations. The final two shells, the 175 and 155mm, are considered in Figures 23 and 24. Again, excellent drag predictions are made by the theory and good prediccions are made for normal force and center of pressure. IntuitiVely, one would expect the axial force to agree better with experimenz than the lift because a second order approach is used in supersonic flow fbr the axial forces whereas a first order crossflow theory is used for the normal forces, Figure 25 presents theo:retical results for the fiveinch guided projectile. The nose, is about sixty percent blunt with two different ogive sections. The overall length is 10.58 calibers with a 0.66 caliber boattail, 7.24 caliber afterbody and 2.68 caliber nose. Altheugh no experimental data is currencly available for this extreme case, it is expected that the theory is accurate to within ten percent on axial force and twenty percent on lifting properties.
25
CONCLUS IONS
1. A general method has been developed consisting of soveral theoretical _nd empirical procedures to calculate lift, drag, and pitching moment on bodies of revolution from Mach number zero to about three and for angles of attack to about twenty degrees.
2. Comparison of this method with experiment for several configurations indicates that accuracies of ninety percent or better can be obtained for force coefficients of most configurations. This is at a cost of about $30. for ten Mach numbers in the range "0< M% < 3.
If
3. A second order axial perturbation solution can be combined with modified Newtonian theory to adequately predict pressures on general shaped bodies of revolution. This is true for Mach numbers as low as 1.2 even though Newtonian theory was derived for high Mach number flow. 4. A first order inviscid crcssflow solution is not sufficient to predict afterbody or boattail lift at low supersonic Mach numbers. However, when account is made for the boundary layer, markedly improved results for boattail lift was obtained. 5. There is still no adequate theory available in transonic flow Thus
which is computationally fast and accuxate and can consider blunt
J:22
<
26
.: "A Study to Optimize the Aeroba'listic Design of Naval Projectiles", NWL TR2337, September 1969.
Saffell, B. F., Jr.; Howard, M. L.; Brooks, E. N., Jr.: "A Method for Predicting the Static Aerodynamic Characteristics of Typical Missile Configurations for Angles of Attack to 180 Degrees", NSRDC Report 3645, 1971. Douglass Aircraft Co., Inc.: USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, Revisions by Wright Patterson Air Force Base, July 1963, 2 vols. Whyte, R. H.: "'Spinner'  A Computer Program for Predicting the Aerodynamic Coefficients of Spin Stabilized Projectiles", General Electric Class 2 Reports, August 1969. Van Dyke, M. D.: "A Study of SecondOrder Supersor.ni Theory", NACA Report 1081, 1952. Flow
3.
4.
S. 6.
Van Dyke, M. D.: "i'r:tical Calculation of SecondOrder Supersonic Flow Past Nonlifting Bodies of Revolution", NACA TN2744, July 1952. Syvertson, C. A.; Dennis, D. H.: "A SecondOrder ShockExpansion Method Applicable to Bodies of Revolution Near Zero Lift", NACA Report 1328, 1957. Jackson, C. M., Jr.; Sawyer, IV. C.; Smith, R. S.: "A Method for Determining Surface Pressures on Blunt Bodies of Revolution at Small Angles of Attack in Supersonic Flow", NASA TN D4865,
November 1968.
7.
8. F
A
d9.
Van Dyke, M. D.: "First and SecondOrder Theory of Supersonic Flow Past Bodies of Revolution", JAS, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1951, pp. 161179. 10. Tsien, H. S.: "Supersonic Flow Over an Inclined Body of Revolutioal", JAS, Vol. 5, No. 12, October 1938, pp. 480483. ol. Truitt, R. I. : Hypersonic AeroC namics, 12.Company, New York, 1959. 12. ie Ronald Press
Tetervin, Neal: "Approximate Analysis of Effect or, Drag of Truncating the Conical Nose of a Body of Revolution in Supersonic Flow", NOL TR 62111, December 1962. 27
13. 2
Wu, J. M.; Aoyoma, K.: "Trarsonic FlowField Calculation Around Ogive Cylinders by NonlinearLinear Stretching Method", U. S. Army Missile Command Technical Report No. RDTR7012, April 1970. Also AIAA 8th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA. Paper, 70189, January i170. Wu, J. M.; Aoyoma, K.: "Pressure Distributions for Axisymmetric Bodies with Discontinuous Curvature in Transonic Flow", U. S. Army Missile Command Technical Report No. RDTR7025, November 1970. Vn Driest. E. R.: "Turbulent Boundary Layer in Compressible Fluids", JAS, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1951, pp. 145160, 216. Truitt, R. W.:
Press Company,
14.
Carnahan, B.; Luther, H. A.; Wilkes, J. 0.: Applied Numerical Methods, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1969. Love, E. S.: "Base Pressure at Supersonic Speeds on TwoDimensional Airfoils and on Bodies of Revolution with and without Turbulent Boundary Layers", NACA TN 3819, 1957. Chapman, D. R.: "An Analysis of Base Pressure at Supersonic Velocities and Comparison with Experiment", NACA TR 1051, 1951.
Cartright, E. M., Jr.; Schroeder,
'%.
19.
20.
H.:
"Investigation at
Mach Number 1.91 of Side and Base Pressure 1,istributions Over Conical Boattails Without and With Jet Flow Issuing From Base", NACA RM E51F26, 1951. 21. Kurzweg, 1I. It.: "Interrelationship Between Boundary Layer and Base Pressure", JAS, No. 11, 1951, pp. 743748. Crocco, L.; Lees, L.: "A Mixing Theory for the Interaction Between Dissipative Flows and NearlyIsentropic Streams", Report No. 187, Princeton University, Aero. Engr. Lab; 1952. Bureau of Naval Weapons: "Handbook of Supersonic Aerodynamics", NAVWEPS Report 1488, Vol. 3, 1961. Reller, J. 0., Jr.; Hamaker, F. M.: "An ExDerimental Investigation of the Base Pressure Characteristics of Nonlifting Bodies "of Revolution at Mach Numbers from 2.73 to 4.98", NACA TN 3393, 1955.
j
"
o
22.
I j
23. 24. .
I.
%2
25.
"Flight Measurements of Base Pressure on Bodies of Revolution with and without Simulated Rocket Chambers', NACA TN 3372, 1955. Fraenkel, L. E.: "A Note on the Estimation of the Base Pressure on Bodies of Revolution at Supersonic Speeds," Royal Aircraft Establishment TN No. AERO 2203, 1952. U. S. Army Missile Command: Engineering Design Handbook: Design of Aerodynamically Stabilized Free Rockets, AMCP 706280, 1968. Stoney, W. E., Jr.: "Collection of ZeroLif' Data on Bodies of Revolution from FreeFlight Investigations", NASA TR R100, 1961. Kurzweg, H. H.: "New Experimental Investigations on Base Pressure in the NOL Supersonic Wind Tunnels at Mach Numberb 1.2 to 4.24",
NOL Memo 10113, 1950.
Peck, R. F.:
26.
30. 31.
Krens, F. J.: "FullScale Transonic Wind Tunnel Test of the 8Inch Guided Projectile", NWL TR2535, 1971. Owens, R. V. : "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Spherically Blunted Cones at Mach Numbers from 0.5 to 5.0", NASA TN D3088, December 1965. Charters, A. C.: "Some Ballistic Contributions to Aerodynamics", 14th Annual Meeting of IAS, New York, January 1946. Karamcheti, K.: Princip" Wiley and Sons, Inc., Ne& ,f IdealFluid Aerodynamics, :k, 1966. John
Spring, D. J.: "The Effect of Nose Shape and Afterbody Length on the Normal Force and Neutral Point Location of Axisymmetric Bodies at Mach Numbers from 0.80 to 4.50", U. S. Army Missile Command Report No. RFTR6413, 1964 Gwin, H.; Spr'.ng, D. J.: "Stability Characteristics of a Family of Tange.nt OgiveCylinder Bodies at Mach Numbers from 0.2 to 1.5", U. S. Army Missile Command, Report No. RGTR611, 196.1. Washington, W. D.; Pettis, W., Jr.: "Boattail Effects on Static Stability at Small Angles of Attack", U. S. Army Missile Command Report No. RDTM685, 1968.
2
35.
36.
:.
29
37.
Whyte, R. H.,:
teristics of 175mm M437 Projectile at Supersonic Mach Numbers", U. S. Army Munitions Command Technical Memorandum 1646, September 1965.
38.
39. 40.
Chadwick, W. R.: Sylvester, J. F.: "Dynamic Stability of the "5Inch/38 Rocket Assisted Projectile", NWL Technical Memorandum No. K63/66. Donovan, W. F.; MacAllister, L. C.: "Transonic Range Tests of 5Inch/54 Rocket Asissted Projectile (Inert), BRL MR 2107, July 1971.
Karpov, B. G.; Schmidt, L. E.; Krial, K.; MacAllister, L. C.: "The Aerodynamic Properties of the 155mm Shell MlOl from Free Flight Range Tests of Full Scale and 1/12 Scale Models", BRL MR 1582, June 1964.
42.
43.
30
79
La
I
h.
1
a
C,
C qIbw
U
x
g
0.
Ck
_______L.
'c'
K.
C, 
31
0l)
w6
0
0 50SUPERSONIC
FLaTN(M
,I.2)
40
8= SIN'(,/M.)
NEWTONIAN ITHEORY
o
riw 30.
iiJOF
Z
Io
20+
PERTURBATION 'THEORY
Co
1.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
ul
z
U)
CD
som
"
IIn
33
Cr
1
C
CM/
clic
St~
34
0~
0.4,
CAq,
0 .02
0.0
40 0
0.
10
,
20 40 50 CONE HALF ANGLEGc (DEGREES)
.0101 11CA
.0%I.
' ;'
CA.(ACA )W()/O.I
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Z5
FIGURE 5.
VISCOUS
SEPARATION DRAG
3S
AND
ROTATING
BAND
3 C2/rod
N
(cN)'
c1 TANS+ C2
I
::,,
EXPERIMENT ( REF.311
,o0.25 ': 
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.251
,,
~FIGURE
VI
6
2
a 0
I I)
vi
Z 4
ir
0
g~
c;
*N) iv ~
~V 1 av
1 ci
J
37
1w
00
00
'I r
r
.c/
CL
LID
(n
(I)
Old
w
K~~~
c'I
1 fr&
38
_________________

V.
K'
S .
1I;
x
39
LL
0 LI,
I,
La..
CLL
IL.I
"' P
4',g
0.7
0.6
0.5
.0.
0
10
.
'
f" Cdc
2 .0
1.6 
0.81I
0.0
0.5
.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
..
IIS
M
W~
U)
(/0
010rc
>0w
wl
a:
0
LU
az
41 z a: z
z
cn
a:
c)~ CC.)
D
0L
<WLF
w
z
0 0
a:
U <
co
!E0 Z
> a
'II
i.to
I
C)
3:
0 0
LU
*
I.I
g, o
V V~+
::
1o07,
11
III.C,,'
o
a: 0
0.
CC
(0.
c; (LU
0J
42
I~0,
w~~~
LJ~CL
<2
Ii43
.500 &
PRESENT THEORY
EXPERIMENT(Ref.31)
CAW+CAf

.30
i.IC
 2,0 
_I__
4
CN.(a= 0)
CN.CM(a0o) 2
rI
S0 I
2 20 r,
.4 AB 8
.6
.8
ri
o.
0
20k
;c
rB
ont
PR~ESEMY" THEORY
. 6

.10.
i cN.,(a=Ol
20
oo
3.0
cma(a==o
L8
2?8
1B610 L
X 01
w
1.5
2.0
MACH
2.5
NUMBER
3.0
?.
10
So
oI_
Cre
0 1
o
FIGURE 15 00i*FARISON OFF TE~.m AjpD' E~mr FOR BLUNhT COAS;Go~ 100, A,. ~.2. m0
4S
0.2r0
C +CA
0
0.1

EXPERIMENT (REF.31)
THEOR"
2.01
CN
9
1.5
1.0
I1
522
06
2rI I
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
MANJMPFR M MAC
FIGURE 16. COM5PARISON OF THEORY AND EXPERIMENT FOR BLUNTED CONE; 1.00 rn/rA 0.4. tO
46
CN
ot
lE
 
o
o

1.01
M o
'Mo
406
.,C
,,
,
....
0.40
0.6
EXN.REE 39)
C
10n4
a ANGLE OF
12
16
20
ATTACK (DEGREE.S)
"j
lu14 C3ALIBERS
4
0.8
0M=.5d
'" Af
0
,
0.4 
I S0.0c,
S2.0
I

.
4i
1.0..0
00
00
0o
0.5 ~1.5
0.01
5.0
,,
1...
J
C M,(t=O )
2.5
I'
__O_
,,__
_i_
_.1
0Lc
18I
FIGURE 18
"C.
M 2.75
THEORY
EXPERIMENT(Re.40)
C~ 090 Na17
~ " ' 2~~~~~.0 "'.. 2.0 .. ,
a
,
_ I I
T.0 
C3 =
/
.
CM(=O @JI
5.0
Iii
3.0
'"s
~I0
10
FIGUR 19 COMPARISON OF PRESENT THEORY WITH EXPERIMENT AS A FUNCTION OF AFTERBODY LG. (2.83 CALIBER TANGENT OGIVE NOSE).
"49
z.
101
zO
0
~WN
050
CDO
* 0L25
20
0~NJ
00%I
040O
C,5
>00
C'NOL
WwN
TUNNIEL
00.5
2.5
FIGUR9E 21
c51
404
404
S0.0D
, 4.0
oo
CN4c=01
0.0
5000
0w
RAFTE BP2 , BALLISTN AIMP WO D TUEL ANOL WIND TWNEL 0.ACH
I
8 ~
4,,.'
1.0
.)
0.0
0.5
2.5
FIGURE 22 COMPARISON OF Th"LMRY AND TEST DATA FOR IMPROVED 5?54 PROJECTILE.
10 4, jr2
0.4
0.04.0
00
0 FIGURE23
05
2.5
0.0
w <
0
54
c~2
0.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
20
2.5
FIGURE 24. COMVPARISON OF THEORY ANID TEST DATA FOR 155WM PROJECTILE
54
0.0
cDo
0.2
4.
2.0
0.01
:i
12'
.6
2 0
I i
10
8
7 131
0 o.
02 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 MACH NUMBER Moo 2.0 2.5
724
K,5
GLOSSARY
CA
"
"
"
fIS
"CAv
CAWq
Axial force coefficient contribution from expansion and shock waves Zero lift drag coefficient; CD
=
CDo Cd Sc
CA
CfO
SCM
dCM/dc
"C
p d
dB
=PPco)/I/2p.V.
Diameter (calibers)
Base diameter
H
' M SPr R
A1
RN
 
Reynolds number
CV2)i
RT
Sw
Sp
I w
u,v,w V Vol x,r,O
Wall temperature
Velocity components in cylindrical coordinate system Total velocity  V Volume of body Cylindrical coordinates with x along axis of symmetry and in calibers Rectangular coordinates with x along axis of symmetry and in calibers Center of pressure in calibers from nose unless otherwise specified
= U +V
2
+W 2
x,y,z
Ycp
xP, xu,ru
XDistance to centroid of planform area in calibers from nose Coordinates of point below which perturbation theory cannot
be applied
xI a
Distance measured relative to shoulder of boattail Angle of Attack Angle between tangent to body surface and axis of symmetry
y 6
Ratio of specific heats (y = 1.4) Angle between a tangent to the body surface and freestream direction
6*
Angle wHizh the nose makes with the shoulder of the body (degrees)
Velocity potential in cross flow direction
_n
Ratio of drag coefficient of a circular cylinder of finite length to that of a circular cylinder of infinite length Cylindrical coordinate measured with A2
0 in leeward plane
[
*
Oc !!
Density Total velc .y potential which is made up of axial and crossflow velozity potentials Velocity potential for axial flow
A3
computation.
description of the program including a listing of the program and a sample of the required input and resulting output. A. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
The program reads in the body geometry with x = 0 as shown in Figure 1. If the nose is truncated, a conical nose of angle given by Figure 2 is automatically placed on the truncated portion to get the perturbation solution started; but the pressure integration begins at x = 0, which is the location of the first point read in. If the nose has v spherical cap, then the program automatically ccmputes this and again the first point read into the computer is at x = 0. However, the pressure integration begins at x = rn. It is suggested tha the description of the body be read in to at least three decimal places if possible because the resulting solution will not be as accurate as it could be otherwise. For example, if the ogive has a formula it is suggested a desk calculator be used to compute the body coordinates as opposed to a slide rule. Once the coordinates of the body are read in (the various body geometry options are discussed below). the program then computes a ne set of body coordinates where the flow field solution will actually be founu. These points are unequally spaced along the body to conserve computational time but are also snaced closely enough so an accurate solution can be assured. Once the .ody has been found, the program checks to see whether the Mach number is subsonic (M < 0.8), transonic (0.8 < Mw < 1.2), or supersonic (K[ > 1.2) and then proceeds to numerically calculate the force coefficients for that particular Mach number. B. INPUT DATA CkRDS PARAMETERS READ FORMAT
ogeometry
CARD NUMBER
1
2 AT,, DIA, HB, IPRINT
M
AINF, RHOINF, AMUINF,
13
(4FIO.4,2F15.12, 15)
4 S
OP4
AM (I) I = 1,2,3,..., %t.1,MN N, NSHAPE, NI, N2, N3, NBLUNT NFL, NN!A, C2, C4, F, RR
L7)
"CARD NUMBER
6
FORMAT 2F15.10
I = 1,2,3,..., NI, N
SN+S5
C.
PARAMETER
M
Specifies number of cases to be run. If M > 1, then only one data card needs to be included for M but
cards 2 through (N+S) case are included for each additional
AL * DIA
HB
AINF
RHOINF
AMUINF
IPRINT
MN
Number of Mach numbers where solutions are computed (MN < 16) Mach number where solution is computed
AM(1) N
B2
PARAMETER NSHAPE
USE Parameter which describes body shape 1. Pointed Body NSHAPE = nose only 2; nose plus 3; nose with There may afterbody 4; nose plus 5; nose with afterbody
1;
afterbody discontinuity in it. or may not be an present. aftcrbody plus boattail discontinuity in it plus plus boattail
2.
3; nose w'ith or without discontinuity. There may or may not be an afterbody present. 5; same as above except afterbodv and boattail are present,
If NSHAPE
3 or 5,
in along each of the ogives even if the ogive is a straight line. NI N2 Number of points read in along first ogive
Number of points read in up through the second ogive (includeF 4irst ogive) N3 1; conical boattail 2; ogival boattail (at least 5 points must be given along boattail if N3 = 2)
=
N3
NBLUNT
NBLUNT
NFL
NFL
"Irkf,
NNIA
NNlA
Sh
('1
1; Blunted nose with no discontinuities present other than the intersection of the nose cap with the ogive (Nl :=1 and N2 > 5). 2; Bluntednose with a discontinuity in the ogive so there are two ogives present (Nl > 5 and N2 > 9).
B3
PARAMETER
C2,C4
USE
Parameters which specify mesh spacing. If nose is pointed,C2 = 0.9 and C2 = 20 are nominal values. For other nose shapes,C2 = .05 and C4 = 1.0 are nominal values.
SF
RR
X(I),R(I)
9:
D.
PROGRAMf LISTING
*0
B 4
11 a)
l' e 
4<
'
oI N cu %J.5
t
Ita
1 C.0
ZZ zU.,5)4 z In
a.
N) 0L I n
a 0 x 4
0 NI
Xdo
'
C)
ifs *i
C ' :z U I, Z
(A 5 A C/
w z a 0<"Wofl 0iif
0bN L x. re)
N 
Lu

,iO
N) CD
..
'D* z
LiZ
CILLC 4.
W LL . _j) *i
uZ
0.. w I) a C.)
i4 7"
..
.I
C n . 4.
M4
%N De' z (A SOu..
~<
LL * t
Ll~u x z
U.
en
.0
1.i. s
a:) Z 0.
n _j z
C x04 Z/. P.
OwLm
N 0l .. C) 4
L C) CU
a.
ii
(y . A
.
0 C 4"( C) 1. Z
>>
:C0 1JZ&
4 t
~. ~ .
*4 z
_ W
> .
J
* O
. (A i
ID LL
>f4
ZI *)
1)
7t*
T2 or.S
U
tC.
Z.w
l'4
.o
x
0DT* ML 4(4
E ON . 
t z. * 11) "1
N) 7' D z
f,.
UN.Lt
C]Ma)SOO .)
Lu
LZ
U mZ
7
zQ
ZZ
N 1) 2 e.
.
Xe7 0)
N C. 4 CD4 'w Y
LL>
co
.JT (
4
4
4~
u)
NN 0
.1 Ij
0 .4
N~~ 0
)
a.0.~ > W
~~
5. 5e
. CfWI O
. 10
4
0 I0
Lo
.4 1
NLY4 4 Z4 ZW 4 P O4zW W54 00CU `/I40a (U4Z4''5 Z (AaI0 Z (I( 4 j i. 0 .1 u' LL.0 <4n~O Q.) ow 0 wCZ./4.4r 0 N U )44 orU.L(AL40W . .W
4N X
Z
44 >0 I
*l
L)W0)4
x W W Z01 04
X 2
1> 1 M 4 N . )1a N
4WN M 'I4' 0
Q 44s..
...

14 0 D.U. LL .00 en .. U
In..)a.0 o
eW 1, *n
n (
a,
Z :3 00
Ii 11 .N o t
W04W 11 .1
Sn
i 4,
.ni
.Ci
L&
:I4z
zz
5555 z
z %
J0 L .1
iNut In
U .
J0 w 4
i..S 4't.
t
<4 *c (p t
TN
42
1, i y 0'
4 vS
'
bi.J1 6.
w.0c~000nI.1 S.fCt
en Qi
C. 0
C U* CDIQ )mUlI
B5
'C>
II!
0.
CD
Cu
''NJ CLu
Cuu
1 0
LI
zV
r.
z
10
)IC*z
10
'0
oiL
CL)
*;
tD U%
CD D
IL)c
C.)
L) VL Or
**L
0
CD t
<4+ o 1 11 t
I
*iW*
~~~ wC~JU
3 >
wlx
/c 11 X
Z
4 n
ZO .4D,
aI< 
wu oo
N,4
4
j w.
A o
zqoc)WI
L) U*L4
C.)%C'Ju ZN C.
x2
WZtLjo
.X C 1
o
1
1020 j
zzj
MMZIO Z**, t 11
<C
++11 c .. V
INW 00"Z
'.
4 .
L. LA....
7.~W
.1
22
O.0 .5o
LfS <
&X<Z
LZ
. 4 a,~ .0 44 (\ U
0.Dt CD
,i
I *
~ .~
I
.~ c
CL Q'
>4*LiO
f~.LZ*.L
W
5
W
UNf r
C

J
0) CD~bC~A or>0 2
ccU
0*ic2..L1ZClcI
~Z4I Il4.c
L)
~
0 c
~ ~ ~
)'*
.d.L~*n*
I4.44,4c4 I t)> tAu.n 0
C~..V r ci*1
OIli
00
*>>22 *.41cc~cc412
0000 .0OZfl~lI
A~I~.,~Z UNUL 4
0)
iii
Ut
00...tt)'4L
CD 11
ID
W0.
0r
C)0I
C1
.3.
"
uZ
*4 V)
) U4
1, ;0
L) A
0 1
ta. x
S0 w
t.4W
!L Cl)
.4.
ILL
 W L)
a0 .~
4.
~
uo
LW 
L)
IL
4
M *
L)4
Z
X
I
X '*
. In *
~.
4
IL
Y. 0
0)
0'a LL
1 4I

LAI
i : W40. '
x1 tI.r
t.
MILOM .
&10J 0~ ..
4
01
A'
~~B7
4
c
CD
'0
.4
CA
a
4 _0 C
'4al 0U
4 C'
z

4
C,
1l 
1
T4
r4
4
fr
S
>
CD
M L)I* Y xOL'
C
*0. 4Nmt . 1
0O
C.) 
/
0 
0.
NN . N. Z1azC 0,
'.4
0
v t4 0.0
It
.4 C1, .
> 4. 1. 1
~
(n
LIJ 
LI 40
.D UC)Z 0.
D 7.
Id MC
L tt*..
'
fl'
1 1
w 2YK
+4
'<5A
72 C.
 z00
1)
2nxTX * Doo
a
~

0 0 0 1a4.4 r x . .1 *r C
H ,"
(Y m '
YU
co>4.4f~ (
.. a
.24.)C
01 L)
0 L00ZIu NltML
)C
NtL. CD
U\
11L
Lli 0.
0..
CD
1=0
.44 Ol C5
I.Z, M
z . o 4 1 :
"
0 N
x 
>
.
'
j)
U LE
ZN
or
a I,.
0 >0 II x1
JL .:
oY
0o
Z
"7PI.Auu2j
L
nI
)0
I. wC
)\r(
'
>
,a
,.c
1
>
j
;C
N. 0
4V :aN
o4 "
ZN
UNc
NA
UN)
CDAC l
.2
L4B10
0.
Cu
%L
Cu r.,L i ,
~CYl
0 0 4C,141 '' tt
C)
z2
c~L" I
L1 CY 11 100
C\J
IL
1 t 1 1 v 1
'K It
(4
W  1
110
;
!
% 
.
i
.
Jw
C)1
11
V
11~~~~. L.
W Z
+ M11N "jt
j _ j4
j 1 tI 
1C
LL
1C
SC
0U
LU
Ou
L1
V+
jL
UD M . V
u
in
m*
1.
**
t(%
0N (~
~
CL
~0
0
0.
CD
<
C, EA
.44
"I~
4.
r.
el
P
""
0, .4.4e
~i
v, 4 CO 0:
0 LAJ
7, U U~. !r 1 U I
u91
; W W
j
co rc x
(A 6
r :X
\
1.&
* m
XWQL w . 0 x
of X64ui
(A&U SP~~
LP ()
'I U 
14 It 0
ul
.
LA
l
El
. a4
I
z~
CN v
4N
aA UN
Aj . UN I D1
z~
I 4 >*
a
N X
U) t N
6.1
'J
rA
M
I ...
4' * M 0 LL
Ca4
>Dca W4 Cl 0*
WC o
CI
I 1.
(11 q'.
XN
~ ~~'~4r4
w (
+ Nia N z 0%''
*
'.:
7') ct
V)
0a P
*m~lm 0'I C 0o 14 A0 (1) V)I4 Yo '. lzL1t7< "1, 244 * 0 N'N4V a n
0L). 0
aVIx
'2 ZL
L 0
L
DlLa0. D2 0 1* . D~a~ (AtIn (A 11N*It IT C/)4a4.Nm 11l' .. N.' LD <'< 'O a a4 .44 0'I MV I1 / t trTx (A4 .. CAC 0 ' it X a~. ,7 * D~~ 0 0 M <~ .+ < 1I*4C) C0 =n: I 20i LWNi 1L,1 )= )I )Z ) =) IL LU ) al0.oI) < l+4+Ioo' u* .* t,tL0 TI(Ao0ooV)( 11 .4 4. 44  L iLll * f * 4)'tt g 0 s C 4 6 0 0  L l
~ I ~~~ m <
)(
s 

*Y titi %.
N1 I0"3 I. D a w 
LJ1lflC
'o
~ ~ ~
n4~~~~~l
~~

r y y y .o. 0 0
. 0 A
VNL . *
~ * 1.~ C
CIII
l' . J
~ ~ 0
222r 1t.C )= U v0 n 0 0 A a
y f 0
02 2Z2
t
CA )l/~J~..
4=40~I
I7t/CA
0.
0.
((
LkIr .00' l
..
r>f
cr D 4
O
N
CD 31'
~
I 
(),
a, 3
l'w0m C)
c,
4C I
I4 CN Zo
0
7'iC a4
C( ,
0 ZZ
4D
m I.
C. MQU,
C) v)) I W.
cr *~
04~ <
1.
Li.
*L'.
4a7
1) n
*i
X 
4y 0'
to
44j II Ul
L)0
Ul
(1!
X4
it
4N
Po
SiN
LXM0(
(A YU
(31
\"~
Nw/.,/
'4
UN
*0r > C
CD
)
*0
C.) => En
0
U U
C'O
C:
0d
0M
JC I.
"J
'
MU 0
*)

a
'I+S 4 (z ' M
S..CJ
C U, 0. .) 0
&nC)
. * wi W
I. _jr W) 4 
9*I
"ry 0
")
* 4 W'
71T11 W)<4 C 4 _j w
Z1. ).
~ *
*.
U
17, < 11411< It
S..11,hC2 N40
0mN* n M
,'
ZC=.)U
CC,
LA
N6
4
CC
NXN
C,
px
.x
I x LA
'
.1
X 1
,)(X,
14X
II
N~~
NCN
*1 L..NNf9.,In.N XXX) 0W
xi
o
A* Ia aa
N.4 Ia
M
 IV0,I,
i

W;L 1* 1'
n9 L ( N 'Nr*
C, 0
0L C
Yu
LL*
<
**NI? tr. CD 0
~ lBa7 a
IfCI
ki
0
Ll
'.1 m
+4
Ic
C>l
cD I+
I* If
IW.
L0
LLX
+ of ifI, 4N
L.
.cZt
u,
g u
I
~
I
LI
c5
V'
4(CJ.
'CL
u'
13z
rs
N w OL.
'I
0m
a) t. Q:
0o1
4
In7
:I.
(A (1)
'A
4.
012
oL Cfl
a)
C)
1..~~~~~' o1
*i
72
04 II 2oi z t c. V) <.. ()N L, 4.11
1
02 I.A
j0:
t m X' re'
2
0 ",V
4 ly347
.
1.11 1 w 4 I
LDz
1..4
L)Ct
.7
C3 0
n4 L" .4 0e
I.14' W. . l'02 4z 0 .1 <24 V) :)L (1.2 ") N 4a.I, 111W .7 I.' d in0 Z n 4I
0 LL 4.l
.4
U,
N C)~ Zw
LL
J4 D l'tA
C0
0C. 2.
U)Z0u
'.
I 04.
) u
"4
t42
w/ 0' > D
V4 "m.
>I TA I.
4L.L 04X
4lA
6
041C V/4 Md w
'
(14IL
U> 4t41'.Lt.( 0N
0o
.4
4 r 0
Ct
1.N
On10 4(NA. . 'NC .C .1 0
'*
7u
z 0 .
4 < .
u41 m 047 1, J < "fC L.,C lJ< D 4.441L 0 Jt X(A0.4  1 4 " " .
z.2J.JlI1 L 4 J. ZW 0XL) 1
0 C. 0
mIC'Lo 
CIL 30 U) a 444 zI(ALOwC P . 2 tv 0 0) 1.40= 0)> , w.C<. 0. I.  IL (/1 a7 C)740 7 11)'L11 IT (42 II) 4. ,1 N U, 0
yuluz0
c
414 2'C. *I VlC'I L) 1..
4..~
a.4
~
04 1 I
24J x.S 1 0 u
0 41 C) c >4N . X
r . 0 1 0 .0
N1
a.OZ:OM
40
"0
u
w.Lw.L.
j)7
1)
4 W.0 L4C(4 .1
.
4.4 ) I
V 0 100(4,
L 00 00
1NV. (
1UL,84N2 0001) CO
,1 UDL
,jZ(..d )0I
f,7
rTIx 1
IC
CA C~~
it4
(n
t.
C' af
<. a
(L
4.+
4I aD.
in'.I
4
IL
44
0D(\ LL 0 a.jO 11 U. 1 1 3c
LIN uUj 
o
1:: '
1 U)_
14IA
~
l I;
, aa L
(Y
rent,
tya, ; c n m
cD f,
454=ULIUIY
oo
00.I
1Cff)>CYWY(Y
XX
L (
32
"U
414
l.
4)
CD+
0 .a
rv
a,
ol

~
2
(' 14
IT
C"
4Of c
I.
a,
~ * 'T44 ~~i 41
Na
w 1) a W. I.4
z
is
* y i Is I t
0~~
(*0
~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ '
x I.1
+ e5 1 r Zr aZ
'Z' it
C*'.L I z. of )ZZ
+4 r
v
.f 4CY'>(l v
nn<
11 .L +,  CO y. ** 4X "(4( .'
+.
Z ( x *7
5,
*4+444
0. 0p ZL~~ +4
O"
4 CT',.
+f
cy.
4
+
2 rI4
'.'
'
('44
44'
*j
(U 4+ N
'S
~+
C5
I Z '
Q
3Y
; co+K
% 
t+ff
5+x:
I..
o1mtN) N + N) Il+C 
N1 01
P, +~. 0+ 4
. Q' I,_ W+ L
L.)w' U0 tr\ n
Z'4 0)
0of)
CZ U4'o
xW i t + , xft
zC ZI NY 2 X 1'' 1

\1 .0 OU
*
aC
)a
1<00w1
Lf\Xr
Zi
11
l It <0
0 < a
X) I L
t 1,i!,V4+ 0 .
zWrDW
11 W * 'i i( V) .i 41 4L X W /VNIOMX
4 j+ + ' i. WO
+ i x
C0 1
W
v ZL
+ w
'r ZP
UL
N (r
.'a ..
t~3
*
*
O
4~ r)
o
I4 0 O4I~0.
*'
L N In S Z N~.
'*+
444 .J . N0
~~~~~~~~~ Z
aX I'  C'
. . 
OL I
N. aL. .
"M
W I
A( + I
a'L4LQ'I'1VI~%(t i I * I I I I I I I
w
'I
>
+ 4 0
Id
B22 .
Al.A
1'4 Ix
4 1
'3T
1C,,
X
+ Cu+o t
D 4
1 yEI
TC
EL.
CL
+.
+z.
i !
+. + I5 U.~
+ ,I z I 4 v
( z
. 01_
xC
a+C z5.
L1. 0 l
I.t7' w :1 tlM m
1;
111
,L
1
C; Z t0
I 00
,"
r 4
ZuZZ

4l+r L
IL,+
Cu NN
~~I
4Cu.4
.t.a c + '0 
N C
M N
+n
l
. N m
.7 (\I B23L
a)% N .4
XIWD NN . +
CD A
0.
1
CD
a.
T Of.
I
I
1.~ x
z
44 U%
*,
z ++ I
j
x
U.
4
I
W M,>
.4 Cz
*e
M
. 11
. *I!
in
a1
Ifa
2.1O.L)l IM
1 a3 N 11 Z
W LA a
NJ M
 0
1 +Z Z 1 Na " a 0. 0O LD
o
l L).
N e
.
'
n..
be
Ww Oia)
! + 2 z Z ;L Z
OV
hIaeZa r.,e'
< OL x c. enen
II
~
.
le mOI ILz( x
ene
.e LA .4 Or W4 11 N 0 ! t
ne OD
C')t 0 , w4
 Ii CI e X 10
J a o
0 1
n c.e
m 1 0A Nl
II.4r
t.6C
I
+ LA H0
LLw CI~o tf
0 \*Lf 0M NL
ot NN
WI% 0'
.01
C)UP+
je
P. ;Z +4
N +
I 1 vI')F
. Z'
rc
'.1
114
'4
*4
'4
'4
CD
'4
I
0.
LA..
co
X Z
00 In 0

4N 0
NI o"(
nax..
0u
IA
B25
141
C'a
0.
10
r:N
S. i
ON r4
4Tlumml fmO 
;P
;C
:1
4U%4MONmT
n0
a.
i>m
I('
..
4ONO
W D 4
W0
11
G0 N
U o
.
N; 0 0.
i l 
D'4
a,
a
C MTC
Cj14
m n< N?
eiIN 4A CD 0.4 0 ( iL N %U t
0 N . .0 N . CD'4'4.4,I.. "44.4..4'.4..4c
40
0% ' Ii4
CD
4
WCV
N=mmm
,T0
10
>
oL
~ ~ zx 7i
En
z 
I.
CJINQ m
. .
cN
Q
m
GQ04(%tLJ o Nr 0 N m m T W
CP"1)W o N
HN  4
IDt mW
aIo' NO
M0
"
N W N0
o xn000
Z z. 4
C3
Sa
N M
'6
p.1
IAD
ao
bINI
 IZ
~~~~~~CD .. W N ~N
 N X. a 24 j
z ! U t Co
(n fe) 2C  L2 W
(1
ft

~
\
I" Lf, m m~ 0 Tc N1 =)C 1O t D0%D0WA NNr ' 1 NU 0 a4 a''W N )N ' m f) vi......... '4 c , Pc N4 3V .~4 IACp0fN M o tN o M m MA4 N N N0 N4 t .a''u 0 NMa. 4o aNIM f (P N 4 lm WO. MN 4 M 0 ,4 4tP ,4N N 44
wNL\Ma
~ ~
l
N )
4
4m W0m ...... C ) .
1q4141
M QA
Ix
NN(p .C N)IjD
CZ1
I ...l)1 .1 a'a'N4
44.
'
.4
4
(jC f . l
aN
M
LA M'0
.? qc c
.1>
'OIA Ln O4
CDCD v4N
U% M U% .1 o
CD IZCN
L)11
z 11 I 11 oo
01N
..
=
CN. .N zx A
Vf ()
.0'L004=IJUN4 M4MSLA4N'sMWU ,V
If)'N0
1 N ,N
'.4
4. M NU u,' W
'r)
1 0'N
21 U N..
,Nm1
4mmA
DG 00

00
IANNW taw"
.4 N 4 cm V0 tn 4
M4444'a4II~
N
OIONNa40NNb
W.
'
I%.% S.S.S..'ss~s's,.I.N O O 2 r Z
Cl) v4 vI
CiC'
a)).W'I N
14
fl) No U% a, k1 vI r co
Nl
uT (
O O z ' F2
O Z Z
Oou(. ~ J ~
2
.. 0 ) U 2 aI
..
N M
~' ~'
C)
t)
',
C)I
IA
~4 N ~
.
a C h
o A I
~L
B2

W
= IC
jqN
C2 c
W. .
z
1,
2wC*
0Iw *
4 x
C)*
EL
ll
W II )
4N
4i *
N nS .
)
N NnI 0 *> I. 1:
*
5,t)
(AW.
>
't
1 4V)* ( ILii
4
CD
CL\ 0ILL. (1
1.1 to4
*o
t L * L)N
* N....4d* 1z + Ns . CJ &'Y W W
0
+
4 H
o4
4.J
ci
H 0~~~~9 0
I
0 U. xJU
0
"
C344
C)r W
LAO x44n l'
Ie  =*
(A
W
= 1J InCOi
x
0W
14 .Nw
CD
01
(/)
1a
*
LNCja tj
> 0 In 4 "!
I 2w 'Cc Nj.
>
Q0 (n4 ILI
44 Z*+" *4.\
.1
01
. 
* W*
0*
N +0 N>~ L
0 a ItV)
u+
4.4NNwc,
4Q 0
WL .
(Si
20*
* 1,4
*V U)JO
0 4 C3 4z1
,
I
N I
.+
<
1 O4LI .
C .s 4'X 1t2
11 +. W).
'4
IV4
CSJ01
> 44 >c
+
44,44. x.. 1 0
= H
.
,
Ul z
4.In 0
C. f1
.14 0

> 4 1* m
4. e
 O. it..N zNa 0. %, a Nr 
S .0 ..
V.
~ ~~ ~x ~
Vy 0
LA. (IL C2 0
I0
02
~ ~ ~ ~ r . 444 4).4
'
W*
l'
m
*>0 .4 *.
w.. 44.
. 0~*
4.s.XS.O .S*f*Nnn144's.. ar
u'u 4
4L.44444
4 4 1 I
~0.4
4 J
' 4 *'1N
4L
)n..i4
I444.4....4
4~
f0
4.J.f Q'
. 24 4'C'>
*+1.D,44 *
0
*
LA,.u
4N
1II.~0.4
CD01
44N 0 444
(0CD
C3
~ co.4 M
.
4u0.1
0I~4I.44
.
.0
1 CD,
L u 4 ~.142
03U n4.4
.4440000H.44044
004440IB27.4.C
oL
CD ,4
ON CD 4
IZ
NN
1C 0
(P 4'
i
0
C%(Y ON4 W 
11
a
a0
ON
iC
.I
 0 I
T
I
"a,
)4
X
I
S
N.0
3..
'
' CO 11 4; Mf
I 3.e ' o.
V
4
a XL
<
4YXD0
'(1 l' 3
co
4f
41 II'
cg m x.
I.

I.c .
C.
)j
4.I (I. W~
l''3 1,X4)+
IX v4*
LJW 71
C/1
 IC 4
I :
n. U 4U
II CO 4( :
LU W 
X *
1L I U J LU 1 , 
1 4
I1.,
11Il ..O'..4(
1,
L.
tl
)
"
I,
24
%\I V(3
U.0
Go
In4.
II,*~~I
*143.. 0
o .
CD
''1
4s1
0) 
~
C.44)..U)284
Ino0
Lf'
..
I...
.
01..
C~j,4
tto
co
M..
WCJcl
LL
In
I..
L
E.
G%
C%
0 mI. x t.l
1XNa .1 4q + Xu X X zmm*
li .4 .4
"
** * x IC
,.4 xW
<Cj
I
* C XM
X
NXc
0 044
(if C.
<
cc : DC); 1 *
 ' M4 In to. .T 4 4( 4 ' .4
T W v4 mmz+ tJ D Cu X *LZ
C* jM 1 Z
*, *
7r DDD+
r+
4 En 11 .4
I
41 1IM 0U.
0'
11
=r) 04 4
4
.1LLWA
* IJ '
0'l"
ni)n
0'
V4
V4*
IN'14
'b4
B29*
**

'CD
iLi
I
> .0
C
IL N
x
. *
NN oD H~~
U. U. x
iH
C
4k
+( U.
O. *n + U. N IN~ U. .%, Nan 14 (
* 0H <
WN
'.
cr~I 4
NU
*
CA IL
( (I .
Cu N
+4c
ozZ C3
I. z t
0
t ` I.I
0%HU
O
a,
!,* 1
1XWMG
i.
Z ai XD
XI.
ce~~~~
+X 14 4
<xe4.
w
7t X 4 U. x I +
X
Z
 '0t
. .1( ~sV
1.
H 0  Ill
N
*X J0
Wl'
LM
1' n
C.) C
wi
.<t ;,
4 Uj
1 0 Cu
ICUD .4 3 X H
Li.t0M' .v
N U'i'
qlmX'I
.4 * Cu
x ew iNM N ZT 1
.
NN
ca M U1 oY 0*Wt *> +L z :W 7 . 0. U. 1,HO
fy
O1
*I 4 4H
%4 u X 1
1. L)
HE
En1111
*~f ZI  N , 'A 0N
00 0.NIW >%M*
11
*
LD
>>
ZW 
1
N
04.z H *H (
1cmu
Ny
.
=Q 1 11"X
t1.
D+t
It1o
t
Z
MID
111,<t14
E *L
1I
1 + *O.4
.II
+*
tMX
1 1 onA
CA *~C
aD 0' cu
0Y 1
a\ , 0 0' Cu
*U
.u
4)2
+ UN NIL*
B30
~ ~
iI.SZH
0
m4
H 11% cu)
Z0
+ 1 to. 4 't.
X
cz
%D4WI I
'
ILI
I0.
4
It
'1o
CCA
> .4
C 1
ii~c 3.
D IW. I
oo
a,~C. 1.y (m
 j.
+ci( 0 64
I0
A,
ulII l'
0, X
In I CPV
T.x0x IP
0II~U InI
I
0* IP
z
0
4
Q
4
Q
II 4N
HON
$44 (P
14 101
0 ox (;% x
"fla%
N
*
(I tH
I C%  IC
1 In
l' 4 0 4I I0:
1X0 ) Nv
I'
) L
4
1
4n00
4
CDIt
q'.~ l'.+'JflL
1. HM1 02
<L
a)
In
I+oi
+
n0+C
o
.4
Ir
U.
1)
k +,
.4"
X 4.1,
+U)"
s.
X
+~W H.+
WIIe.
I
L;
'Lo
aO
au j
C
.4 + Co+
I M
+ + C CDc
04N t1
II 1 0% CON C
C4
B31
&
l, 0z
U.C
U.
00
I.
3N
LI...m
N~ I IA In a% m 1
)4 D l
c
'
N; 'q '
9
a
P
Q
uM
C
N
P 0
D.
Z' N4 H
4 N4 
* ) 0
1
N Lt
( (P111x
F t ,:H
)( 4 ,
2. I 1 0.11It
0 NN
. l j
"*
X
+1 ;; 4 4
X
U. * 4 UP
x 1 X< I1.
11
3"t
1..
j"
41 a' () I a X4 I. .
I c w 1 W' O44.4
* In
~
Z4 4
FM4xml4 IC
+' I + C'I'
)
a)..4 tI X'L

MAWCW' u.'..
0:< It 1 : xm
CCU Da'
1111C I
Iu.
*
J.
H.4
W
11411*%V
_JD
2).4 4I 10
, <. 11
M".u.M~n a'
1I . X
X< .
*10
* ),14 * X
0
~ :a
q0 (1 ).
1 1, 0' :2
1%(.1( :
W4lNn rd
14U. U.
4*M
0 "
1 4J
1IN.' Hs.4 *
*4W~ Z D
AI
1.HD N Cc .
U,
C.)4*J
..
..
4. N
+ UJ 
~ ~
C3~
2
)'"
44
.
* .4I
.4i. *i.4
'
~
I
~
X
CC,
'
~
to1
H .
0'
C.)~~I
.N) u\
)mr4 UN I . *WZ i
XID4 11
C'' W*
0<
CDN
4
..
i4
ZWWH CD
c**
i~v4.4NM 20
'
ZO
"'B32'441)
I'N
WvCII
I0
f0.Z
r
0
1

W 40 /
.
'
N.
*1
4 I.
4
* *
o II
I
o oIJ r) C. I
0
* IW
.4
M *
*
.
0 W (fl C 4 4. N 4 * N
* *
44
r) * *

44 4
W'.4
0
I
*
I.. Ii.
s
,
I
'.4
NIL) N
.

s S.
.4
* *
.4 N *
'.
.D O C?;
* > ,.4
I:
S.. .i
* C.
4 U)
5.
*
I... Z* .4 IL
is)
*C)
0
1.4 .
*I
.4

N 0 4 *. IZ IX
..
N
0I. . .4 
0
. , '.4
0
C * 4
*
4. W *4 C'
N o*

.4
C. > 0 .
44
Z*. 0 I4
4 .1 N
*
C.
.4
cr N
I
0
0
In 0
sO x
* 44 Id
4 I
N Li.
* N
*t...
ILi) I
+4..
c.a
L0OL0C.00HLL(O0II
10'
.4 .4
I
44I.'.4W**.s0N...
0,I
O)..4II
0'
D33
. N
H O0UOiC0Iu.O4 ,4NLI.
U4.4NL..WW0mWW0C.b.fl0IL0C
54)
. Wi'.4
IA
.4
'.4
.4
.4
.4
0'
0'
11. .4
IA N
54)
IA 54)
0 a
0.
.4
a.
CD
'44 0 I.
'
w .+ 4+ A
i L
CD 02
; C4
I H'
1.4
"
rn i. +
0 V4 ;;q oo
n I
0 N
M1 x3
<
Ar V
1
C:
D r
I0
M A ).4;z=
+
+
_xn
j01 *
4z 
j
L)
N U. CD
4

1I4 4 *t  C. (.
* + 1
0 I. 0 tx
r..
S
4 I4
'1
t ) In Lx+
o~~~~~1
~
* :D V)( X1  OW
f4
N LA IL. i
* C J
0 o.
Cf1H
+  I<
N 4%1
1.4 X(A *0IY 11 ci 1 U n0 . , slu 0. . "14 C4X 1N'4 T.,. >.0I 0' ILI* .2 0.4 .O *~~ * CSL

It1
W1fDl .400:001
11
0 w wH0mmmM
H
".WI
0r W 0 DCZP
U. kyCL . N
4L<0L
I.A* 0v
1.4
*H
.s
O** *
(
j
W'4
D N~'4.~N NiU". 
\ I)..
fIJJ4~I
C.4 *, *D *o
LA
'''I* to
CDH~.4W
3W m W\, 
W 0
C3 * ..
a,~
~J=*~W='J00 0
W5
0~fl~f0S B34.ZZ
AlA
.4
I
V
wV
CL
*o
USI'.
I', S I 4 .
t'
I't N
I '
o..,
I,,
LL
I I
qIN  uL
VI
I Z
!C
l'0 l z _jIfL
>
I .,j' It' X
XX
' I
00
U.%
C3
UC
B3
C2
NCL
~0
.4 3
V.
a.
+c
V0 0
0A
I.,
U.
mu
II II",*?
.
VC
z
LnQ H
)1
:z
01A
00 <
B3
Nw
.4.
a
CL
z U.
ci
cz
clfl
~0 w z'
(A
z
c
x > 0 
a)
Z
U.
>
*
N~02C 2 H>
IL
.4 Z
..
Z. 0
.4 'Z
Iii or s101v
Y
f.
11 C,
o o.2 2
CLc
z'z rw
ZH
:( .
co 4
'
0(A 0I lX
x1.
C/)
C3 . IH
>
>c
C **
,
_j
3.
o 0
t2
* 0.
or
(4% IU zl H
x.
Co 0t",2 L) 11 0O
I z..t'
H
Z> ys 0' a
0'z
.. 14
'z
Q N31 (na
w MI<. c2
viL
I.
>

ft4
0
W.W* . 0 0 . c* 0.
C.)N4 ei 4 ( e
..
4
w
Z t
tyLj2WO
C44ZXZ C'.1Z
.mr
2
M
XH4
c Lx4
t
0 C.)
t44
vvQj *
CO
OO Z1W
_; t
d~
L
1 1
(.
a' <WN 1
I
 h
IOLX CL
CZX =a)O
Z%.'.
rm=wx."Z1IC 414. 1_ 11 inx xV.7 7 Cx l 4o 1 1 tord C O ft(aH.JnID.iL.lxc)4 zr 47. u.CL Z0000)C. >uQ.O.X%
CUZO.)
# V* 4N HS.a
qIXc CO 1t . $4 it 11 11
,.
a70 )
0I0 4
's4Lt's m OI'
a.
'4 X. 11 It wo aL
 a.Q
M W X OO..
"
O~~A 0~
r.**JafLJ. l L.4Nf44W'.Q..4~L. 44
4W
.4 C\fl
.
0''
'
v4 *
44
t
~
,I* ?.
*Z.4
*C.
or(l t UN .)z2
(/0
'a4
HJ
** 0
a'CzP'
.H
.'~~:.
.4
~ z.49
ot
*% *u*. .
C
'
ooa oz oo a
~aaa
**ua
I~4C
408
FUNN
CD
If
0.
C2
It% 0. *
U)
IA
14
'M . x
0. 1. L,
w
4 00
IV
j
E
LI
Z x
1
X4 b
1
(jx
.4(
N 0 11 11wI
U.
1w41=
Q ywI II y* x 1 it> IIN 9 o w
Xi X I*N*rl 0m0 3x 2
V4 A* e ZIx o1 IH 0 1 4 M I4
x
tL
51
7 1 "o
* I
>
)II
.* 'jZ 314
In
.V
(A W( 1112. J 1(
C.W0 jj a
L% ( W ot. t1
14
fUl "
Z  XI .NI+f
I ZIW +3 4 *
0~'
Kt
If
`V
4" xM x
+
x
Tm1111i.0.k
o
. 4 I CL . 14o l00C0Mi
'1
4 11X
0 11
tC.
0ZL
.4
h
Cr
M 4 .H11I L1 1 4
H0wC 0*L'
C =C
QZI
I 
I 0 t
1 
'4b4
114 11
"I
N U'
1
Dor
lOL
O
CD
(Nz
0a 43N O .
h * N
*.
~Cfl
CDc~
V,
>
X44X .
a,
In4
mwv
4 ''
C3
N'.
<.10
h
IN,
0%
ca
B04
CD 0OD
.I,
In . N4O U
.::t
NI
c0
Inl 4
14
C,
a'
0.% H
0 C3
I.If% . 4   %M S.C
. ..
. M
.s .* .C .
Nv M 11
4U
%..CD
NN.1c C3
*NNTO .$A2V)C
1;17*
'OD .n
.4
IL
O m N
.1
z.0
..
'lC
. .. .4~44a' .LA
u f
O
U.CDCL~. . 4 0 ;I=Z> 4 CI> '".I LZi .4
ftoo Go4
%0 .Cf 1 4.4..
*i
.
.)c
Ln%
,A In
0J
to
J.J.J0V*
04N 000 .* .z .. 00
0000
'A111 *~~
0i
N'~ 1NN 0
.4N
c*c 000
r4
O
N
000~
40 C; I. *. 0.
nr %C W U.
0N1;0~
O UO
U
CDU I
o
<4
c~~~o
~
.4
~
c
*041
m c'
I4
O W ,44QWL'Vo
i CD~~~~~~ 1C
'
~
If%
4
n1 l ~ f) ~ ~ ~ ........
C1
Z0"(ZdC
r )(
4NQN3
1
iC
c
n<<4
0;
N.xl 0j4 Q
0a
I N%
0
* 144t
14
0
11 x" No
l'
N
0 441
o o
i
;i1
,C
g
f
D(
'
<
0C
00
1$3 4
4
C)(1
C)
xi LL
0 x
a.
a
% .
. .4 ON*
t)
U.0
c
>4 w .4 Wl x111C.)11 0c
*n
CD
p.
LU3
'.4
*B42 .
.4
I
0. N
it
II
ii 'I~
w
I
N. I.
a
0.
Ii;
:U
CD4
(.) C
ft. Z Q)
U~ 0
00
*0
1N
ZCL=a
*N CD
)Ig~B43
A
'4
0.
1'
en, .4' N z I
S.t>
izO 0 1 >4; . C e 0
LL N.
IU
NH N Z)0.
m
0CM
oa
c N0' .
a~~
US0 >
.4 
+
.00. 0oa
U.
a
N cu
(au l
M.a w.? E4 I.L >0 ,\
.0CLl
'0 $ > H 0 c toC 0 a: . N INM4 C4 ;' 0mU ' ; 4L
0 .()
I.C
a>M
WC
>C.)
* C. H l 1
' C&
0 LIj
A0
L I M"u
Lo 0 . 11 1. 1
(\I. Nt~
0, 0 U\4H
0>l '00 C W Z 0 ... 41+ w11 c
IV N % 
wjwo w
.' W, fI ) L
I~.a 1 .4
4.
>a Q.'~q
M
TU
C~x
m 0 ,x=2
Ni *
101 1Z
#.M0
10 (D
j_
j1I ji
1 l
)A
m'
+N..
Nm1'm r m.
P~~~
Y O CL D.
NP
14 >. ...
O.I40
iz.
~
+
4
.
0.i
Nr
.Si
aU\O0 >
'+
NCD4 4N4.
W.sV~zLf4 .O00~
.
B44)
IL4L.)
tW
>11
(II
UN
II
0

Di zz
LL 1.0 t
:3coz m07V 1t
:> x(
mn
0.
84'
z
so 0
~
Zo (
.
is
I.
At 6C O M x *
ZZ
)WIC 
MC3a 00M
.M * x
2 0m
0
L.1 k
c
to
in
x
Y
~~
Z~
lo
I0L .II(1"U z W
n
9
En >>. 0* m . C N 
C1fl Z~W
l
"In
N
.
oo
.
M.
M
T8*o Lu'o M 0 ;
Ix
mzl 00 V) H Li
in ce
Z 0.
+84
N.,
14
.co
o 81.*
+I.C1o14
D
N1
ll or 0 on
I2
DN
j<t M. CM
I
22f 2
a *
.4m.10X 
~~IZ2 ~
*WL

0~
20.B45
00.
,z
C:
cli
C2
IL z
. M
ID
I
IL
I IT' ;rIl02
'O I O

<c~
CLA
MtOwa
L)
JW
u(
1
'Ma
" ,4wIS
x 4
II
4+
.IZJ ON
Z.

un
T2..4 n
HI~ I n *H0I4,Cu
i 2
X;0
0 0
I4
CD
UN
CD
U%
LA
B46
AI
Iw
No
""
0
z .1
oMr
C M
2 0.
. Nl
. .4 %o i z
DL 4 o
0.V *4 .4
%ouI0z o
S . :
2: toZ X
U.
 0 %r : E
D 0
C 0Q
N4
fl*)0
CN! 4
M.
22a U.4 ..
in
on Uw4ZN.s Z
t ImD4
I
.
In
X
0 0 LL 0cISN.Ns 0T
! cyN 
IV
&'.,: 0 1: ;
CO >o~1
iD 0.t
'%V
 CD In ~
It 
00
0r w
0
~ IfS
0 **Clo *
* >++ J %D* M 4 _*
" >I
Ot C
LL X,(\M
Z>
.OO 'N
0
40 >> .i
0tl O wxxx
) 0 0.
.
..
~x
N0
.. 1~ 4
0
.s 11 v4 +s reI. 1'
Q *D
L 4+w
zx
xw
0 .. t4. *0 .. x4 01 C
W>m4~.S.0
101 *C ) 5mA n%00
Ns.
oO
41 1150
4 (A*
in'>
1aNL 00 1"C
WI 124.
in z
(A L) I.
40Z
0i4~.H2
0
C)0 "0C
.1) C3 0 a
o 0
0
co
~
CL
ly'~
H**HCOf5X0 4..N OO
40
)L
0(
Q0C) 0
C3
0 1
\C;i
L01
SSS~
H~4.W
*.5 ~514.H..*
4
Os. 4
04i *2
4I).'*
~
*> 4.N In4 * *..4'S01
t)0 0t
0 N
S0.
~4
4I)SN0 )0
...
*'I .0tA5
W
'(~~'~~L
0%
Us
~~~
cV
OtiZ
CD zcuw~ .4tS~
g2NW 4Z 0in'4.
Sl
*47
UNI~
4'0~4~b 4~..NN
II~
t~
us''''.
.00
II
CD to
It Of0
10 IA ' .
U. I U% IIf, .4
nI
In.
0q
o4
%.
C3
*
to) H4'0(icl j
>>T 0 I
.
N l
rc
u
ly
~ +.;Il0t
~
4)
W0 *l
m=
00z00
0
1x
0 >
*(
< ww
iZ
z; M 00
L)* A
Z*
k'S*
T4 110 C 0 U ID WN I.
A v 0l~ I 0L > Z
%O. WLl1 WW  IIo*III '4" WI Z 0 C'S=ZZ Lf 1` HD N4<=. t.4 11 s3. j. j. O dl If)0  4LL,4 O.g 11.)14
.41)FjN 10
411i *M (
m0 a *. >L
0 1.) 00
IY
o'*
OI* *
O'
''D~~
CDZ
.14*
~* ..
cnux
m*
I4 0 C2C .4 go I CD D w %C
144
'10
IL
0.
0.
C#
14
4
0i0
+t
LM
L
4 U'
0
CA4
ao IA
to^q,
wtf
x N N :
e* ej
1* 0
IIw 
1cek
.'
V0N N V
t4
60 w
:A. ,94 " w N0.
1 1
'Nc
*XC CJX X(
..
0 *3
44* f*
[w
WOO *
t(N
+ *
4
0 U
alI
0# 0 v 0co I. 2 rN z z (A
.. ..
Wkqw#3W
w 9C L
00
N M)V H
( 0
A
Nl J00N
J H
A 113
0. 1,4^NN +~
P QW
44ZV34 *(
B494
00
C2 co 0
CD
%0
CI A
0
U. =Z
C )<
CDIZ Cu
D a C
x in4
7 x
IL
cu
.1 t!
NciL
Z 1
N l'
+4 + 1

I)
aDl
W.
I. ck AA 0IU >
1) 00.jw 14 ( ).
i a
0 Vl VZ w 22
0Ua
0 HICL w 00 4 0~ 0 ra 2
z 1* IfE 11Z11 11 11 1 N o' 4* w~ "x
nV
z~ CD
DC C oc
U t u L : 1 '
oi
ti
1.4
M i
MOI
4X O
OH')
..
X' I
mm
Ivw 4.*1
IFI
X ZJ*t''
Z D
jf
WC
V4zJ~
cu
C3
iU%
U%'
~o*Z*WZ
WO
'
~'
C3(
__
__
__
__ ___
__
__ __
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
___V
>1)1
CD
A.
m+
0~
W~m ca
jwt
41
zw.
w 4
+
0X
; z
x
NVo z
l 0"ZBSi
~The samnple ca.se below is the iPnput data cards for the improved proj ecti~ie 3 8 . The Formats and paramueter locations and de"initions have been discussed previously.
5t1/54
jr
3
tA
rk
F. SAMPLE OUTPUT The resulting output for the above input data case is shown below. The reference conditions are printed first followed by the input body coordinates. The last output quantity is a table listn theindividual axial force cont'ribution and a table listing Vhe force coefficients.
B52
ANL
OF
A.X,
5O
LFRNEDAEEt
.1F
~MM
BO)DY'COZI~k
rX
ABSOLUTE VISCI9SITY
2.3100
.. 246
S. 200
lfl Q
.1023
.22 :232
4.nno
.$0
C;.57.0698
342.0731
0.0000 Y.0000
44HN.co
CL
C4
NAL
CHAL
XCPID
2.444~.O1 ;256
.22
1q
Sbp
025 .422
.0#4
a59, 9110 #0107
.030
.004 .0OS
2.35 f.8S
1.44 1.357166 .9
.41
.30 .81
.109
.00 1 .3 6
22Z
16z
00 kg)M R YT
(F54
'WAp
V~
w~ k
i~ 4aoclt f;
WA Ig.r'd S'
0~~~~~t
.b)m.t
pij
nnfl
&
I>
4~1)
V"
P
I:!
F: ~
Z '
4W0t
44'
 ,