bY

JOHN D. NICOLAIDES
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana

SS

A HISTORY OF ORDNANCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS

John D. Nicolaides" University o Notre Dame f

Abstract E a r l y ordnance flight dynamicists were concerned with the Particle Trajectory. Trajectory computation and drag reduction w e r e their primary interests, However inaccuracies in ordnance due to projectile wobbling motion and yaw of repose lead to the development of a linear theory for the angular motion of a missile. This theory was investigated and perfected; first, by yaw c a r d fir ings and, later, by the development of the Aeroballistic Range. The importance of the static moment, the dampirg moment, the magnus moment and the asymmetry moments w e r e e m o n s t r a t e d by e v e r improving experiments and by ever improving linear theory

modern exterior ballistician However many famous men, have followed in his steps; Newton, Torricelli, Robbins,Bernoulli.Euler .Tavlora---, D' Alembert , LaFange ,Lapla&, Legendre,Mach, Zahm,et aLG4' A'
I

The introduction of more sophisticated ordnance weapons revealed serious nonlinearities in the aerodynamic force and moment system which could not be ignored. Nonlinear Magnus moment lead t h e way, followed by a nonlinear roll moment and side moment which produced Catastrophic Yaw. Nonlinearities i n t h e dynamic damping moment also appeared.

The problem o original concern was the f determination of the trajectory of a missile,. its path thru t h e sky,with special emphasis on its impact point and on its accuracy.This is the classical problem of the Particle Trajectory, Fig. 1, which has occupied so much attention over the years and has greatly predominated exterior ballistics. An excellent history o both the analytical and the f a p e r i m e n t a l work carried out by the various principal investigators over the y e a r s on the partical trajectory problem i s g i g n in the last chapter of the book by McShane et al. No attempt will be made here to duplicate that account to which the reader is referred. In summary the primary research areas of the particle trajectory are gravity, aerodynam ic drag, and r athem at ical methods. The n modern high speed computer was originally developed to compute the particle trajectory. se~ss.s

..

Various nonlinear theories and analysis techniques have been proposed and utilized i n conjunction with new testing techniques in the range, in t h e wind tunnel, and in actual weapon flight tests. At this point in history, where v e r y sophisticated theories for the flight dynamics of ordnance exist and where excellent dynamic testing techniques are available, we find that serious flight dynamic stability problems and inaccuracies plague all ordnance ; projectiles, bombs ,rockets, magnus rotors,re-entry missiles,parachutes.. .et al..

DRAG
#

/
1

c
/

GRAVITY

\
\

\
\

\
\

..

t-* t
a
Figure 1. Particie Trajectory
The advent of t h e elongated rifled projectile lcad to missile wobbling motions which have been neglected by the particle dynamicists and only recentlv have been recognized to be of primary importance in t h e performance of projectiles. This wobbling motion produces large drag and, thus, it is not possible to compute a proper projectile trajectory unless this wobbling motion is fully cons idere d

It is esser.tia1 that the professional ordnance flight dynamicist redouble his efforts to imprcve the performance and accuracy of ordnance weapons.

Introduction
The origill of Exterior Ballistics, which is concerned with the flight performance of ordnance type missiles, may be traced to earliest rnan.Each of t h e ancient civilizations had their ballisticians who were often also t h e i r astronomers and their mathematicians, and sometimes even their philosophers; Aristotle, Philon, Uzziah ,Empedocles, Philipnos ,et al. ' 4

G a l i l e d i s generally regarded as the first *Professor of Aero-Space

1

The performance of fin stabilized missiles is also quite adversely affected by their wobbling motion. A s a result,our primary concern in t h i s present review will be with t h e history of the under standing of the wobbling motion o m i s s i l e s , b t h f projectiles and finned missiles.

Rigid Sody Motion Linear Flight Dynamics When fired.the elongated rifled projectile could actually de seen to wobble in flight, even at supersonic speeds. In order to eliminate this wobbling motion extensive test firings were carried out on the various proving grounds.Even when the wobbling motion was eliminated by trial and e r r o r , the projectiles were observed to fall considerably to the right of the expected impact point. When the same projectile was given an opposite spin (counterclockwise) it would fall to the left. Clearly a non-particle problem was evolved. The understanding of this problem of "drift"3ccupied some early investigators. McShane et a1 suggeat that the drift was first explained by Fowlc&gt al; however the e x c e l k ~ texts by Charbonnier and by t Lancaster , particularly the latter treat the phenomena in a correct and excellent manner. Larxaster p i n t s out that a spinning projectile in fbllowing the curved trajectory has a pitching velocity which produces a n aerodynamic damping moment.Such a moment acting on a clockwise spinning shell causes a right yaw or angle of sideslip.The horizontal lift resultiizg from this sideslip causes the observed d r i f t to the right. A magnus force also exists which tends to increase the range of the projectile. A greater contribution to range increase is the action of the static yaw moment which produces an angle of attack which i n t u r n produces a lift up in the vertical plane.
43

static overturning moment is to large for the small gyroscopic term and thus the projectile wobbles just like a top with to little spin.We can see this phenomena each weekend by watching a football when passed with too little spin.(%orts are also serious in football since they are easily intercepted).

In the case of a projectile with over spin, the gyroscopic term overwhelms the static moment and thus the projectile is rigid in space. It will not wobble,or change direction, or trail (i. e. follow the trajectory). A football punted with too much spin will keep its nose pointing towards the sky and actually bit tail first.Even today some operational p-ojectiles hit the ground tail first.
I

In brder to avoid these two f $ failures, the &t early exterior ballisticians Cranz, Greenhil1,et a1 used thq Stability Factor:
=
.I-

pa1 ;

' 1 rl, 4:

MdZ

cpf&u'Sd

(1)

If S is greater than 1,under spin is avoided. If S is less than 2.5, serious overspin may be avoided. !n order to obtain stable flight of a projectile it is necessary (but not sufficient) to have 6 near 1.6 (generally; 1.2 C < 2 . 0 ) . If the projectile and the top have a proper stability factor, the wobbling motion will be composed of two components,a nutational motion (a fast motion) and a precessional motion (a slow motion) as pointed out by the early flight dynam icists.

Due to recent excellent measurements of the wobbling motioqzc&actual projectiles i n flight by Hayden,Hazeltine, and Kline, we now know that projectiles generally wobble to a considerable ex tent throughout their entire flight .This wobbling motion can be serious at any point in the trajectory, however, the transonic flight regimes and subsonic flight regimes seem quite critical. A large wobbling motion creates large drag which causes the projectile to fall "short", t h u s , missing the target and often injuring our own close support troops. Shorts are a "no no", and must be elirninated.Thus , it is vita to fully understand the wobbling motion of missiles, be they projectiles, bombs,rockets, or re-entry missiles.
Originally, the wobbling motiori of t h e spin stabilized shell was compared with the motion of a simple "top" and three types of motion were identified (1) unstable flight (2) superstahle flight and (3) stable flight, T o little spin resulted i n o unstable flight, an too much spin produced superstable flight * and the right spin was alleged to produce stable flight. While t h e first two statements are true, the latter is not since even with the right spin the projectile can be dynamically unstable and f h u s wobble violently and fall short.

Figure 2. Epicyclic Motion In order to achieve dynamically stable flight it is essential that both of these motions damp to small size. If one or both do not damp, then the projectile will continue to wobble. Our primary concern, therefore, is to insure that both the
2

In t . kcase of a projectile with under spin, the

8

nutation arm and the precession arm damp: Dynamic Stability

In the case of the "top" where just the overturning moment due to gravity is acting, the nutational and precessional motions will neither grow or damp since,hNtp=O and thus the wobbling motion persists. In the case of the projectile,there are other aerodynamic forces and moments which act in addition to the static normal force and its overturning moment. It is the proper combination of these other aerodynamic forces and moments t h a t produces projectile flight dynamic stability.

projectile in flight really Has. A l s o , they were seeking a n experimental determination of the true aerodynamic force and moment system acting on a projectile in flight. Their aerodynamic system contained the drag, the normal force and the static moment. "By analogy wi& treatment of t h e motion of a n aeroplane", t e'y included the damping moment ("But t h e values we obtain are too rough to enable us to study the variations. .with any argument". ) Without reference to previous investigators, they introduce spin dependent aei sdynamics as the roll damping moment, the magnus force, and the magnus moment ("no certain evidence that they exist is given by our experiments")

They state that the magnus moment effect o n damping of the nutational and precessional motions "is a priori unlikely to he comparable with the damping moment". However they state that t h e The various investigators over the years have magnus effect" is uiuch larger than its expected had difficulties in identifying t h e important aerovalue and of the opposite sign". They further state dynamic forces and moments, and have had "an interesting feature of the (projectile) damping difficulties in determining their proper balance tor is that a velocity of about 900 f.s. ,the yaw (i.e. dynamically stable flight. W e are now able to complex angle of attack) has a distinct tendency to identify the important aerodynain ic forces and moments as the normal fvrce and its static moment, increase (instead of decreasing with time;this happends with all four types of shells. Whether the damping force and its damping moment*, and this is a real phenomenon or is caused by the imthe magnus force and its niagnus moment. Of these pact on the card> is not yet clear." only t h e damping moment, the magnus moment, the normal force and the static moment are vital to ' T h e main object of the jump card experiment, projwti le dynamic j i oil i i y ;swci fically d e s c r i k d in this paper,is to determine the two Dynamic Stability Condition periods of t h e initial angular oscillations of a shell, fired horizontally from a gun". They w e r e quite (4) and successful in their objective in obtainin& UP,
(5) W e are able to write t h i s important expression because of the excell$n$ mathematicalbyork of Fowler et a1~Kent~'"Nielsen Synge ,Kelley et aL"j and 6 1 However, an e a r l i e r understanding of projegiile flight dynarnngs wz5,eZidenced by Ma ewski ,Cranz','Lz Their report is a excellent one,even if they, Charbonnier ,Sparre, and LanchesterYJ .The latter and most reviewers,were lead to believe t h a t t h e has a n appendix on projectiles in h i s excellent text magnus moment might not be important. ** on aircraft which correctly treats "drift", and also clearly identifies the importance of the damping Tn carefully reviewing their paper, this remoment and the magnus moment to projectile viewer believes that Fowler et a1 actually ftiuli; dynamic stability. the riagnus moment i n their e x p e r i m e x s and that it was the s a m e size and importance as t h e damp57 Durinp World War I Fowler et a' fired 3 inch ing moment in &ternlining projectile dynamic f shell "through a series of cards over a distance o flight stability. 600 feet. From t h e diape of t h e holcs in t h e c a r d s the actual motion of t h e axis of the shell can be reWhile overseas during World W a r I Kent mer constructed. " "From the periods of t h e oscillations with ,R?yler alld was greatly impressed by h i s of the axis of the shell,we can deduce the (static) work. he longed to repeat it and improve it in the moment. In t h e same way the nature of t h e decay U.S. In 1920 Kent developed h i s toy "battery"with of t h e oscillations c m be used to determine the which he persisted in demonstratin& the fundameiitals of projectile flight dynamics to all who damping forces". They also set forth a theory for the angular motion of a projectile. would watch down through the y e a r s until h i s p s s -

ing. T h e i r work is important because they undertook to determine what the angular motion of a During World War I1 Kent was able to pursua&,

&i t Ik Synge, and Kelley et a1 to $?consider the mathema-

tical work of Fowler et al.Their papers added and excellence, arid encourthey closely follow Fowler et a1 and add no new information on the magnus moment or OAI projectile dynamic Ttg+bility. Both Sterne in pl3jectiles and Zaroodng In mortars early pointed out the primary importance of the magnus moment but with little response.
One of the major contributions of Kent was to obtain from his fkiend von Karman the services of his student, Charters. Following World W a r I1 it was Charters who made the major contribution to exterior ballistics by designing, developing, and perfecting the Aeroballistic Range which is able to obtain spark-photographs of the complete motion of a projectile in flight. The excellent flight data obtained by Charters allowed the f i r s t accurate determination of projectile performance and thus the fjrst accurate determination o,f the damping and magnus momF$Lf by Charters ,%alperin, Karpov ,Twetsky ,and Kopal, 'o'~'ab This fine work on projectiles clearly established t h e equal importance of both the damping momesi and the magnus moment i n determining the dynamic stability of projectiles. The first measurements of the magnus moment and the damping moment o n finned missiles is given in Ref. 7z . The Aeroballistic Range ,enabled Nicolaides to study the motion of finned missiles* in free flight. Special attention was given to the pure rolling motio#'%nd to pi5;ygw-roll coupling (ResoYBnce) in finned missiles.' A general Unified Theory was given which is applicable to both projectiles and finned missiles havin configurational, m a s s , and %,Ill inertial asymmetries. 1*x'r 3'*'
I

may have mass or inertial asymmetries and both projectiles and finned m i s s i l e s have "yaw of repose'' which produces drift. Qua& icyc lic Mot ion
145

T h i s linear theory has been the basis for aeroballistic flight performance for many y e a r s now, and it continues to provide the best first approach to any new ordnance missile design. Nonlinear Flight Dynamics

** , "-*

69 -77

By the mid-fifties it became clcar that new aeroballistic flight performance problems were raising their hairy heads. T h e Navy's Weapon A heralded t h e new age of "Nonlinear Ordnance Flight Dynamics". This subsonic fin stabilized rocket when fired to the port from a ship was quite stable; however,the same weapon when fired to the starbound became unstable and wobbled violently, often breaking up when it h i t the water. T h i f g x x u l i a r behavior was found by Jonc';Highberg,Hayes, Fredette and Mi1lerp"to be due to a magnus moment which was quite nonlinear with complex angle of attack and to be due to initial tip-off.

Tricyclic Motion"

Outstanding wind tunnel measurements of this nonlinear magnus moment were carried out by Nestingin et a1 at NOL. Actually, earlier wind tunnel tests by Zaroodny oqnqrportars had revealed nonlinear magnus moment but had passed unnoticed due to a search for spin instability. Also, Turetsky'" had analysed aeroballistic range data on cone cylinder projectiles which revealed nonlinear magnus moment and static moment.
The Weapon A experience followed by s i m i l a r problems in the Weapon B , Slim Jim ,,y.d 20MM projectiles, all lead to a Quazi-Linear method for evaluating t h e dynamic stability of missiles acting upon by nonlinear aerodynamic forces and moments. W h i l e t h e method was confined to single a r m motions (either pure nutation o r pure precession), numerical integrations of t h e e%act equations of motion on t h e NORC confirmed'this very simple and useful engineering method .''*4'oS

+ NT e i p f
Thus, we see that t h e wobbling motion of a projectile is Epicyclic (Eq. 2 ) and Lie motion of a finned missile is Tricyclic,Eq. (7). Actually the motion of both i s Quadricyclic since t h e projectiles

*The work on finned missiles i n t h e Aeroballistics Range came about because there were no supersonic wind tunnels available at the end of the w a r to study guided missile models at Mach numbers greater than 2.0 and, also, because of flight stability problems in special weapons. 69

+*

-i(M

W=M,(lZJ) Q + M ~ la()& ( + M f i i l 4 ) k + M p a ( ( z ( ) P (1
+

Ma( I'al)= cro+Mcr 2 M

WnrY

Mq < @I)= +Mq2 M, q

\a()= I L : ~ +;u2 ~ ?bt

4

la 12 i8 i 3

S l r G+

%ifa( ISl)=Mpao+ MP&

laI2

An excellent nonlinear method for v g l i n g otions w' 3 set forth by Leitm nn and by Murphy he Pattei was concerned with projectile data obtained i n the Aeroballistic Range on the A N configuration and is largely responsible or the present methods for handling nonlinearities in t h e static moment and the magnus moment. The mathematical development also included a nonlinear damping moment.
W,@d tunnel measurements on the AN projectile. revealed a nonlinear magnus moment and static moment which worsened as the length of the projectile was increased o r as the center of gravity was moved forward. Wind tunnel and Aeroballistic Range r e s e a r c h programs o n the A N projectile continue in most aeroballistic facilities throughout the world. In recent years it has been possible to obtain the angular motion of an actual full scale projectile over i t s entire flight on the proving grounds. Special telemetry designed and developed by Hayden in England is now being used by Haseltine and by Kline. These flight data reveal that a typical projectile wobbles over its entire flight. In some parts of t h e flight path the wobbling damps, i n other parts the wobbling grows. The yaw of repose is apparent At high angles of fire wobbling is critical.Transonic flight and subsonic flight are also serious. Various investigators are continuing to analyse this excellent flight data o n actual projectiles. Free flight wind tunncl tests on projectiles are being c a r r i e d out by various activities and three degree of angular freedom tests in a vertical wind tunnel are v..nderwavby the Army, Navy and A i r Force. IfJb,'Y
In summary, it now appears that the flight stability problems of projectiles are still with us and that they may be more critical now than e v e r before in history.
(
qs. rl+,ln

1 I 0

introduced into the equations of motion produced an amplified resonance called C a t a r o p h i c .Yaw:'wwfp Numerical integration of the differential equation of motion on the NORC confirmed the phenomena and the catastrophic yaw. IPr* '* Unique three degreen$f freedom wind tunnel tests on the Basic Finner and other finned missiles in both horizontal and vertical wind tunnels have also revealed the entire phenomena and permitted its detailed study. &qp+$s?;ved in Catastrophic Yaw has the flights of numerous hombs, soun mg rockets:'' mortars, and other fin stabilized ordnance, It is a very serious problem in todays ordnance. Special Ordnance During W o r l d War I1 small parachutes were used to spread s m a l l munitions over a wide area. The actual area coverage achieved w a s relatively small since the parachute is only a drag device and thus follows a highly retarded particle trajectory. In recent times in order to achieve better dispersion the magnas rotor was introduced, primarily by Flatau, The magnus rotor flies like a flipped calling c a r d ; it autorotates and it glides due to lift provided by the magnus force. In the old days some cannon balls picked up spin about a horizontal axis by rolling down the barrel during launching, When fired at high angles of elevation they sometimes actually fell behind the gun due to this effect. Golf balls have underspin and, also, exhibit a large magnus lift which gives them their range.
The magnus rotor, as a munition,produces lift to drag ratios ranging from 1/4 to 1 and, thus, provides greatly improved dispersion and area coverage. Research on the flight stability and performance of magnus rotors h a s been carried out by Flatau, Nicolaicks, Feredette, Stilley, Bronk, et al. rc6

''

"5%

Nonlinear flight dynamics problems i n finned stabilized missiles appeared i n bombs which w e r e unable to achieve design steady state rolling x *L velocity due to cant: These bombs locked-in kt the nutation rate and their resulting violent wobbling motions w e r e catastrophic. A study of the free rolling motion of a Basic Finner model in the wind tunnel revealed that a s the angle of attack increased the steady state rolling motion would stop.* It was found that a nonlinear induced roll moment due to angle of attack and roll orientation explained both the wind tunnel and the bomb drop roll phenornend'i'k was also found that a nonlinear side moment existed which was also due to angle of attack and roll orientatiod? T h i s side moment when

%sir

The recent development of the gliding parachute, particularly the Parafoil, with lift to drag ratios ranging from 4 to 6, promises a return of the non rigid systems as a method of munition area coverage and delivery. Performance Analysis
'The six degree of freedom motion of a missile may be computed from numerical integration of the differential equations of motion on a high speed computer , provided that the complete aerodynamic force and moment system is known. One of the first and finest computer programs for handling

B a s i n g : angle of attack beyond 400 usually resulted in a speed up in rolling velocity to very ! t large values. T h i s @ the rolling or spin instability originally sought by ZarmdnyOin explaining fli@ tailures i n mortars. The continuing short in m o r t a r s are now known to be d w to both magnus instability and catasrropnic yaw.

nonlinear magnus and also catastrophic yaw w a s developed by a h e n at NWL. '~'7

The inverse approach of determining the aere dynamic force and moment system f o the motion rm of the missilg has long e n used in aeroballistics. Fowler et al used yaw cards to get the missile motion and used the rates o the Epicyclic Theory f to determine the static moment. From the damping of the arms a n effort was made to obtain the damping and the magnus moments. Charters Karpov and Turetsky developed elegant methods for "fitting" the Epicyclic Theory to aeroballistic range data gicg the method of differential corrections. Nicolaides employed the same methods in fitting \$e Tricyclic Theory to finned missile rage data. Murphy employed the same m e t h d s in analyzing projectile data containing nodinear magnus and static moments'? A potential problem with respect to the aeroballistic range is the relatively small number of cycles of motion and the small number of data points per cycle .This limitation can become serious when large nonlinearities a r e present.
In order to obtain more cycles of motion and m o r e data per cycle, wind tunnel dynamic testing; techniques have been developed. The Basic Finne~"' w a s H g d in early dynamic wind tunnel tests at NCL hnd, more recently, at Noue Darne.The large amount of motion data enables the fitting of many sine waves to the motion. T h u s , t k concept of sectional fitting w a s developed, where a sine wave is fit to the first couple of cycles,then a second sine wave is fit by dropping a few data points at the start and picking up a few data points at the end. In this way many cycles are f i t to all of t h e data. From each single cyclic f i t , a complete set of the aerodynamic forces and moments are determined. In initially reviewing the r e s u l t s of this sectional fitting technique it was noted that the aerodynamic stability coefficients were not constant Quite different values of the aerodynamic stability coefficients were obtained at t h e beginning of the motion as compared to those at the end. A s a matter of fact there was a systematic variation of the &fficients during the entire motion of the model. Thus, it was found that major nonlinearities were present. The methods developed for analyzing free motions and taking into account the various nonlinearities producing the motior. are contained in the WOBBLE program. ''*'*(
The nonlinearitie's mcovered in the a e r o dynamic coefficients w e r e so large as to explain the differences in the values of the coefficients for the Basic Finner as obtained in the various testing facilities around,g,e ,$9yntry by using a linear method of analysis: "m the origirra! Basic Finner program these nonlinearities w e r e unsuspected. Thus, only linear techniques were uti'iized and even there, the data per cycle and number of cycles obtained were small. Althgtgh the results in each case appeared to be good, M e n data from different facilities w e r e compared large disagree6

ments in the aerodynamic coefficients were ob= served. It is now realized that it is absol.aely essential to utilize tRe nonlinear methods o data f analysis in order to determine the true values for the aerodynamic coefficients.
'The Sasic Finner wind tunnel program includes combined pitching and yawing motion, and combined pitching, yawing and rolling motion.
frp.lrr

T h e Sandia Laboratories obtained an actual full scale free flight motion o a Tomahawk soundf ing rocket as it exited the earth's atmosphere and, also, as it re -entered the earth's atmosphere. * The data were obtained from a Whittaker-gyro platform which gave the two position coordinates, pitch and yaw, as well as the rolling velocity of the sounding rocket. The WOBBLE program which had been developed for the three degree of freedom wind tunnel case was then modified to handle this full scale sounding rocket angular motion. The motion of the sounding rocket was Quadricyclic in that it had both the nutation and precession a r m s and also the rolling trim arm and the yaw of repose. An additional problem in the case of the sounding rocket was that its velocity changed during flight, the air density changed during flight, and also the aerodynamic coefficients changed due to the change in Mach number and Reynolds number. The concept of sectional fitting developed previously for the case of the simple pitching motion in a wind tunnel was able to be applied with good results to the Tomahawk sounding rocket dataivonce suitable corrections were made for the effects of frequency change. The success i n t i e analysis of the Tomahawk sounding rocket led to the receipt and reduction of flight data from the Apache sounding
rocket. 146, I*

Actual d$ut6pn the free flight motion of reentry missiles was obtained. This data was in t e r m s of pitching and yawing rates rather than angular position coordinates. However, a method was developed for handling the rate data. As in the previous eee flight cases large non-linearities in the aerodynamic coefficients were observed."

Two particularly interesting motions from free flight missiles were obtained from the Weapons Research Establishment of Australia?wo bombs had been dropped, and the flight data on their motion determined. h once case, the bomb had cruciform fins and experienced Catastrophic Yaw In the second case, the bomb as stabilized by a split- skirt, and during its flight a large rolling velocity developed which led to magnus instability. Once again the WOBBLE technique was applied, with good success in revealing the non-linear nature of aerodynamic coefficients.'"

Free flight motion of f i n stabilized missiles were obtained in the Cal Tech wind tunnel and also in t h e Army BRL wind tunnel. These motions were measured and also successfuIiy reduced.

A very outstanding three-degree-of-freedom eir bearing support system for wind tunnel dynamic work was developed by Ward et a1 at ARO for studying the stability of re- entry missiles. Excellent data was obtained by this system which w a s reduced by the WOBBLE program. The program h a s also been applied to extensive additional data obtained in the wind tunnel at Notre Dame on the three degree of freedom motion of various missiles, such as the Low Drag Bomb, the 2.57" rocketyre-entry bodies, etc. Not only has the w b b l i n g motion been analyzed but also the nonlinear rolling motion at constant values of the angle of attack?"*

of freedom tests in the wind tunnels across the country

Current S t m s

When one reviews the excellent progress which h a s been ma& and appreciates the modern experimental and analytical methods which are now available, it is difficult to believe that any per brmance problems could exist in current ordnance missiles. Unfirtunately, the opposite situation actually exists. Many bombs wobble in flight and are inaccurate. We know o no subsonic or tranf sonic projectile which is dynamically stable. M o r t a r s continue to fall short. Rockets are plagued Ill u While the various applications of the WOBBLd with inaccuracy: some experience magnus instability and some experience catastrophic yaw method proved successfd across a wide spectrum Re-entry missiles have abnormal roll behavior and of missile motions, it should be emphasized that experience trajectory deviations in developing the technique a number of very special precautions were taken. First, and foreThe truth seems to be that as we l e a r n more most, waa the evaluation of each method developed about the flight characteristics o ordnance missiles, f by utilizing the high speed computer in generating the m o r e opportunities emerge for flight motion data. In other words, the non-linear performance improvement. differential equations were numerically integrated on the high speed computer to obtain generated data. T h i s data w a s then fitted by the particular =S,flJNon-Linear Motion , FIB3 . WOBBLE technique for the determination of the ability trf the technique to represent the motion and for the determination of the associated nonlinear aerodynamic coefficients. 'In t h i s way where WOBBLE determined nonlinear coefficients could be compared with the known nonlinear values of these coefficients as originally utilized in the differential equations of motion. T h u s , by utilizing computer generated data, the accuracy of the technique could be evaluated. T h e effects of changing air density , changing missile velocity and changing coefficients due to Mach number and Reyncllds number w e r e all studied.

Another promising method of analysing missile motion data is-to utilize the , $ f e r e n t i a 1 equations of mozon directly; Goodman, C%apman and Kirk, White, Kline, and Eikenberry et al.

.. .

The main advantage of working with the actual motion of the missile is that you must directly cope with the true situation and with the actual nonlinear static and dynamic forces and moments *** that are acting on the missile during its flight. Taking the normal approach and working with the differential equations where you put in what is believed to be existing may not truly represent reality. Very minor differences between the computed motion and the actual motion can in fact be d w to large nonlinearities. This characteristic was observed over and over again in working wit1 generated data from the computer

.*

In general, the value and importance of working directly with the actual motion of the missile has been validated over the years and has led to excellent full scale testing techniqws, as well as EO s e r i r p t rests in wmc tunnels mid three ciegree e

Re&rences
~

~-

1.

2.

3,
4.

5.
6. 7.

Philon of Byzantium, g&howL C utrc , O 3 cen. ,B C. . Tartaglia,Nuava Scienzia,Text, 1537. Samba&,,hllbtics , German Text, 1561. Galileo, G X w u e s Concerning Two N w e Sciences. Text. 1436. 1# . alis Rincipia Mathematica
~~

_ - - -

Gre&hil/,G. ,Notes on Djfnamics. uplace, P S. , Mechanique Celesti. . 10. Astier Colonel\.De I'influence de la rotation __-_ terrestii ~ u lid ecarts du tir.Revue f d'artillerie, t.V, 1874. 11. Brettes (Commandant De).Theorie stenerale du mouvement relatij des axes de figure et de rotation initiale des moiectiles de lbrtillerie & in- l k , Paris, 1867,Correard. 1 Chapel (Commandant). Note sur les projectiles 2 discoides dans la tranduction de la Balistique de Siacci, par Lament (voir Siacci). , Sur m e propriete cks projectiles 13. s Douvant servir de base a I' etablissement d'une m e nouvelle. Revue d'artillerie , XX ,1882. t 14 Charbonnier (Commandtarat). Traite de Balistique Exterieure, Paris, 1904, Beranger, in-8O. 15 * Sur un theoreme de Balistique. Memorial de IfArtillerie de la Marine,t. XXII,1894. ' Le champ acoust'ique. Atmales de 16. chimie et de physique, 1966. ,Sur le8 methodes de la Balistique B e u r e . Revue d'artillerie,t,XLV, 1905. 18 ' Historiclue de la Balistique Exterieure a la Commission de Gavre. Revue maritime, 1906. . . Exterieure Rat ionnelle 1. 9 *%m mE l :q ? principal), Paris, 1907, O.Doin,E.S., in-lBO. 20. ,Traite de Ballistique Exterieure ,Text,
8. 9.
-

.
.

26. Mayewski (General).Traite de Balistique Exterieure,Paris, 187~,Cawhier=ViUars, in-@ 27. M ~ & l o n e l ) . de@ aroiectiles ob1o m s clam l'airt Revue d'artillerie,t.XII, 1878,et t. XIII, 1879. 28. Poisson. Memoires sur lemnouvements des projectiles dans l'air. J. de 1'Ecole polytechnique, 1839. Ronca (Capitaine de fregate) et Bassani Rofesseur A . ). Balistica esterna, 1901, Livorno. Giusti, in-80. (Capitaine de fregate).Manuale di 3. 0 ' Balistica Esterna, in-8O ,1901, Livorno ,Giusti %, 31 Sparre (Comte M. I ) Movement des proiectiles oblongs dans le tir de plein fouet,Paris, 1875, Gauthier Jillars. in-120. ' Sur le mouvement des projectiles 32 oblongs amour de leur centre de gravite. Memorial de 1'Artillerie de la Marine,t. XXII, 1894, 33. ,Sur le mouvement des projectiles oblongs authour de leur centre de gravite et sur les conditions de stabilite de ces projectiles. Memorial de 1'Artillerie de la Marine,t.XXIV, 1896. 3 -9 4 Au sujet de la deviation des corps dans la chute libre. C. R. Ac Sc. 2 ianvier 1905. --35. Saint-Robert (&lo& De).- Memsires scientifiquesi.1, BaIisti&e, Turin, Vincent b n a , 1872,in-$0. 36. Siacci (Colonel). Balistique Exterieure (traduction Lament),Paris, 1892,Berger Levrault ,in-80. 37 Vallier (Lieutenant colonel),Balistique experimentale, Paris, 1894,Berger -Levrault ,in- 12*. 38. ,Balistique Extgrieinre,*tit in-80, Paris,S. D Encyclopedic Leaute. . 39 *Sur les conditions de stabilite des projectiles oblongs. Revue d'artillerie, t. X L , 1892. 40. Magnus,G. ,Poggendorf's Ann. d. Physik Chernie 88.1853. 41. Kirchhoff, Ueber die Bewegung eines Rotationskomers s The Flussiakeit . 42. Bryan and W h . min .einerLondik&nal 1859,

. I

---

- I

12. 91

21. Cram (.Professor Docteur. Carl. ).Compendium der theoretischen Ausseren Ballistik, Leipzig, 1896,Teubner ,in-8*. 22 ' Bsllistik. E ncvclopoedie der mathema tischen Wissenschaften mit Einschluss ibrer Anwendmen,Leipzig, 1903,Teubner,Tn-8O. 23. Didion (General).Traite de Balistique Paris 1860 (2 edition),Dumaine. in-12. 24. Helie et Hugoniot. Traite de Balistique experinrea#lle,Paris,'1884.Oauthier-Vil~s,in-120.

Stability of Aerial Gliders, Proceedings1 of the Royal Society, Vol. LXXIII, 1904. 43. Lanchester, F.W. Aerodonetics, 1906. 44. Bryan,G.H., Stability in Aviation, 1911. 1907),Tech. Rep.
46. SOreau,M.R. ,Les composantes de la paussee
47

sur les voilures d'aeroplanes (L'Aerophile), Aug 15,1910. Prandtl ,L o,E inige f u r die Flqgechnik wichtige Beziehungen aus der Mechanik (Ztsch. fur Fiugtechaik und Motorluftschiffahrt ,Jan 31, Feb 26,Mar 26,Apr 16,1910.

25

ARC !kretarv.Summarv of Parers Relating to the StabiliG of Airships and=Airplanes,&. ARC R and M No. 18,1909. 49. EWrstow, L. , Jones,B,M., and Thompson,B. A . , ion in10 t-ne %Mr'liry or an Aeropiane,
48.

50. Bairstow,L. , Applied Aerodynamics, 1920. f 51 Jones,B, M a bynamics o the Aeroplane, Aerodynamics Theory, Vol. V. 52. G1auert.H.. .A Non-Dimensional Form of the Stability Equations of an Aeroplane ,Br ARC R and M 1093, 1927, neering Aerodynamics , 53

BuOrd BTN 30,1956.

94.

. 54 . Perkins. C.D. . and Hane, R.E.. A i r ~ l a n e ~ e ~ ~ ~ m i $ability &i contrr,-jZiiiWiley anie . . .

75

March 1953. . E n i ,andfor Roll hT.F.- , On a R Griffin, Fluid s m k h and

and Sons Inc. , 1949. J. 55 Duncan, -W. , Control and Stability of Aircraft Cambridge Press, 1952 56. Dynamics of the Airframe,Vol. I1,BuAer Rp. AE-61-4,1953. 57 Fowler,R.H. , Gaaop,E.G. , Lock,C.N.H. , and Richmond, H. W , The Aerodynamics of a S innin Shell. PhiLTrans. Roy. Soc. ,London,

. 76.
77

58.

New Methods in Exterior Ballistics, 1926. 59. Jackson, D., The Method of Numerical Intenration i n Exterior Ballistics 1919 60. God;iiard, R. H. , A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. 1919. 61. Oberth,H., Die Rakets zu Planeten R a m e n , 1923. 62. Kent.. R. - H. A!I Elementarv Treatment of the Motion o a 'spinning Projectile ~ b o u t s e n t e r f a of Gravity, BRL Rpt. No, 55,1937 and revision with Mc.Shane,E. J., BRL Rpt.No.459,1944. 63 Hayes, Eiements of Ordnance, 1945. 64. Kent, R.H., Notes on a Spinning Shell, BRL R p t . , 1954. 65. Nielson, K. L., and Synge, J. L. , On the Motion of a Spinning Shell, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. TV N o 3, Oct ,1946. . 66. K&y J. L , and McShane ,E J r , On the Motion of a Projectile with Small or Sloiffly Changing Yaw. - BRL Rpt. No.446,1944. 67. Mc&ane,E.j., Kelly, J, L., and Reno, F. Exterior Ballistics, Denver Press, 1953. 68. Bok, R. E., and Nicolaides, J, D. ,A Method of Determining Some Aerodynamic Coefficients from Supersonic Free- Flight Tests of a Rolling Missile, Journal of t h e Aeronautical Sciences,Vol. 17,No. 10,0ct., 1950,and BRL Rpt. No. 711,1949. f 69. Nicolaides, J, D. , Firing Range Method o Obraining Aerodynamic Data, Appendix C. Dragonfly Summary Report (MX-802)General Electric Company, 1948. ,.On t - FLi@t Motion of kFres 7. 0 M i s s i l e s Having Slight. Confijqwational Asvmmetries.BRL RDt.No.858,1953,and IAs

id+--Moulton, F. B.,

78.

79

olling speed up Due to Angle o Attack o Crucitkmn Conf f figurations, BuOrd , EI" 16,1955. ,On the Rolling Motion of Missiles, -BTN 33,1957. On the Flight of Ballistic Missiles, proceedlugs o the Fis-Stabilized Ammunition f Committee, Picatimy, 1956; Rocee&ngsof the Seventh Tripartite Conference, 1956;BuCh-d BTN 21 ,1956. Chimers A. Ci i .The L n a i e- I i e r z d 3quntions o motions udrifimthe ic Stability o f Aircraft, Spinning Rojectiles, and SymmetriC a l Missiles, NACA TN 3350,1955. Parrish,G B. ,Stability and Control (HydroBallistics Design Handbook), NAVORD m , 3
I
~

__

80.

Planar Motion of a ConfigtrationaUy Asymmetric ~ o d w i t h v a r y 4 Speed, BuOrd y TBN 31,1956. ,An Examination of the Motion Through 81. a Rigid Body with Mass Asymmetry, BuOrd BTN 32,t356. f 82 Phillips, W Ha, Effect o Steady Rollin; on

. Longitudinal. and Directional Stability, N A U

. .

.I___

71.

, CorrespoilBence between the Aerodynamic and Ballistic Nomenclature # BuOrd, Ballistic Technical Note (JDN 1/54), 1954. ,and MacAllister ,L. C. , A Review 72. o Aeroballistic Range Research on Winwd f and/ur Finned Missiles. U. S. Navy Symposivm on Aeroballistics 1954 and BuOrd-BTN 5,1955. ?3,
-

T N 1627,1948. 83, Maple,C.G. and Synge,J.L. Aerodynamic f Symmetry of Projectiles , Quarterly o Applied Mathematics, Vol. VI, No. 4, Jan. 1949. 84 Loag, J. E. , The Effects of Mass Asymmetry on the Motion of Missiles, NOL NAVORD 4433,1957. , Parrish.G.B. and Nico1aides.T.D. , 85 MassAaymmetry, R&edings of the Aero-dynamics Range Symposium, BRL 1005,1957, 86. Schneller,E. , On the Wobbling Motion of an Arrow Stable Bodv in Free Flinht. Translation by N.S.Medoedeff, Goodyear Aircraft Corporation. 87. Highberg, I. E , NOTs Technical Note 5056-94, 19 July 1951. 88. Haseltine,W,R., NOTS 751,NAI'QRD Rpt. 2057,lO Sep 1953. 89. Jones,A.L., N E Rpt. No. 570,May 1950. 90. Miller, A. , and Fredette ,R. 0. , BuOrd Navord 3149 91. ZaPoodny,S. J., BRL No. 6687 1948. amic Measurements on the 92 81MM &elln & ? NBS Wind Tunnel, BRL R D 882.1953. ~ Failure of the Instability of 93. SDin o ;le Firs= f S-oiral' znk Motions of 81 MM M66 94

. .

.-

95 Hea&,R,H., Logan,J.G., Spivalr,H. , and Squire-,W , Aerodynamic Characteristics of a

. f 1 s Dryden, Hugh L , Aerodynamics o Aircraft 1. Rombs. Confidential Report to the Ordnance _- - >edictions r w t h e n t of the Arm;, Feb.28,1927. 96. 116. National Bureau of Standards Report on Damping Characteristics of Bombs,1954. J. . 117. Thomas, L ,The Theory of Spinning Shell , ,and D. W e r n e r , A Formulation o f 97. BRL Rpt. 839, Nov. 1952. 118. Roecker,Eugene T., The Aerodynamic Prorties of the 105mm HE Shell,Ml, In Subz _n~ i_ c _and Transonic Flinht, BRL Memorandl _ _ Report No. 929, Sept. 1955. 88 119. Roschke, E. J. , The Drag and Stability Proberties of the HemisDherical Base Shell. 99. 75MM,T50E2, BRL Memorandum Rpt. 927; Sep.1955. 120. fbyer,Eugene D., Free Flight Range Tests of a 10-Caliber Cone Cylinder, BRL MernoraF:ium Report No.1258, April.1960. 100. b i b a n , Gorge, Nonlinear Equations o f the Motion o a Slightly f 121. Galbraith,A.S., Motion of a Spin-Stabilized Missile Solved by a Perturbation Method, NAVOR D Report 3364, Deformed_ Projectile, BRL Report No. 896 _ January 1954. NOTs 940 Awust 9 , 1954. 122. MacAllister,L.C., and Roschke,E. J. , T h e 101 Kryloff,N. , ind N. Bogoliuboff, Introduction to Drag Properties of Several Winged and Nin-Linear Mechanics, tr by momon Finned Cone Cylinder Models, BRL Rpt. No. Lefschets, Princeton University Press, 1943. 849, October 1954. 102.MmrphytC.H., and Nicolaides, J.D.,A Drag RoDerties and Gun LaunchGeneralized Ballistic Force System, BRL Rpt. 123. ing Long Airow kkojectiles, BRL Memorandum 933.1955. Report No.604 April 1952. 103. -, The Me-zwenent of Non-Linear -----124. , The Aerodynamic Properties of Forces and Moments by ~ f e m of Free Flight s a SimDle Non Rollinz Finned Cone-Cvlinder s t s . Raliistic Research Laboratories --- Proving Ground, Md. , BRL Report Configuration Between Mach Numbers 1 0 and Abeordeen 2.5. RRL Report No. 934, May 1955. 974, February 1956. 1 40 *, Prediction of the Motion of Missiles 125. Hase1tine.W.R. .Existence Theorems or Nonlinear' Ballis;ics, J. %c. Indust. Appl Math Acted 01; by Non-Linear Forces and Moments. Vol. IT, No. 3, Sept. 1963. BRL Report Sc. 995, Oct.1956. 105 , The Ek%ct of Strongly Noirlinear 126. , Averaged Equations for the Slow Oscillatory Motion of a Spinning Shell. Static Moment on the Combined Pitching and Yawing Motion qf a Symmetric Missile. BRL N O T s T P 4355, June 1967. 127. Van Aken, Ray W. , and Kelly, Howard R. , Report No. 1114, Aug. 1960. , Free Flight Motion of Symmetric The Magnus Force on Spinning Cylinders , 106. Missiles. BRL No. 1216, July 1963. Na&d Report 5583, W C T S 1784,27 June 1957. 107.Turetsky; R.A. , Cone Cylinder Model 128. Caster, H P. ,Hydrodynamic Trajectory E12M3, BRL Memo 435, July 1946. Computations and Analyses for Horizontally Reduction o Spark Range Data, f 14. 01 Launched Rounds of t h e Basic Finner Missile. m i 9 4 8 . NPG Report No. 1668,s A u g 1959. , Dynamic Stability of Spinner 129 DeMeritte,Fred J . , The Correlation of Range 109. Rocket Model Fired in the Free Flight Aeroand - Wind-Tunnel Dvnamic Stabilitv Measured amic Ran e BRL Memo 526, 1950. rnents(U) , Navord Rpt. 6765, 7 Dec. 1959. 1 1 0 . m 0-Score Years in Ordnance, 130. Mantle,P. J. ,Tricyclic and Epicyclic Analyses BRL Talk, A p r i l 1956. as Applied to Aeroballistics Range Data. 111.Kent,R.H., and Sirnm,L.E., Ordnance Carde Technical Memorandum AB-64, Aug Develouments to Increase Accuraw o f 1960. RL 989, July 1956. 131. Durkin,lohn M., and 0'Neill.Edwin B.. A Phenomena and Method & Determining the Aerodynami? bf Ran& in Mortar Fire, BRL T N 1178, Properties of Symmetric Bodies in Free March 1958. Flight. NavalShip Research and Developrne nt 113.Shantz,Irving and Robert T. Groves, namic Cm. ,Report 2872, March 1969. and Static Stability Measurements of 132. Chadwick,W. R. ,Flight Dynamics of a Bomb Finner at Supersonic Speeds, NAVQR D Report with Cruciform Tail. J. SpacecraftJol. 4, 4516U.S.Nava1 Ordnance Laboratory,White No. 6. Oak,Md. , January,1960. 133. Loeb,Alfred A . , and Kline,Roy W. ,An 114. DeMeritte, Fred J. , The Correlation of Range Evaluation of a Quadricyclic Motion Data and W n Tunnel Dynamic Stability Measureid Reduction - Program. Seventh Meeting of *iknrS,b.3. Nsvs! IVlrdnm3 LI1EOTmxy, Tripmire Paw! 0- 7 ,.May 1968. WhiteOak,Md.Navord Rp.6765,Dec. 1959.
-

_ .
~

a n

. I

. -

. r

short

kc

10

134. Loeb, Alfred A., Discussion Paper on Fin Stabilized Munitions. Seventh Meeting of Tripartite Panel 0-7, May 1968. 135. FaXkowski,E .W ,Transonic Aerodynamic W Aerodvnamic Characteristics of a Full-scale MI17 Bomb with T h r e e Fin Configurations October 1968 Picatinny Tech, Rpt 3785. 136, Whyte ,R H , AeGodynamic Characteristics of the M374 81MM Mortar Projectile Picatinny Tech. Rpt. 3634, October 1968. . 137. Goodale, P L. ,A Theoretical Study of the Flight Dynamics and Ballistic Consistency of a Research Bomb Having Cruciform Fins and Low Static Stability. Dept. of Supply, Australian Defence Scientific Service Tech.Rpt. HSA 117, June 1966. 138. Vaughn, Harold R , A Detailed Develonment --___ of the Tricyclic Tfieory. SC-RR-67-2633, Sandia Rpt Dec 1967 139. M o o r e , prank G A Studv to ODtimize the . _ _ - -- - Aeroballistic Design of c a v a l hojectibs NWL Tech. Rpt.TR 2337,Sept. 1969. 140. Curry,Warren H. and Reed; James F., Measurement of Magnus Effects on a Sounding Rocket Model in a Supersonic Wind Tunnel. AIAA Paper No. 66-754 Sept. 1966. 141. Kryvoruka, J.K., Effects of Inadequate Mathematical Models on Dynamic Data nal sis, Sandia Rpt. SCL-DR-69-84, 9 . 142. Whyte,R H. , 'Spinner' A ComDuter Program f o r h e d i c t i n g the Aerodynamc Coefficients of Spin Stabilized Proiectiles General Electric Rp. Class 2 69APB3,Aug. 1969. 143. Levy,Lionel LJr. and Tobak,Murray, Nonlinear Aerodynamics of Bodies oi Revolution in Free Flight. AIAA Paper No. 70-205, January 19-21,1970. 144. Kuhn,G&y D. ,$angler,SeIden B . , and Nielsen, Jack H., Th-eoretical Study of Vortex Shedding From Bodies of Revolution Under going Coning Motion. NASA CR-1448, October 1969. 1.. The 145. Frederick, H. R. and Dore. F. * - Dynamic Motion of a Missile Descending Through the Atmosphere, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 22,628-632(1955). 146. Allen ,H Julian, Motion of a Ballistic Missile Annularlv Misalimed With the __ __ Flight Path-Upon E n t e r i n g the A t m o s s e r e and Its Effect Upon Aerodynamic Heating, Aerodynamic Loads, and Miss Distance. NACA TN 4048,1957. 147. Allen, H. J. and-Eggers, A. J. , A Study of the Motion and Aerodvnamic Heating of Missile Entering the Earth's Atmosphere At High Supersonic Speeds. NACA T N 4047 (October

150. 151.

..

..

L_

152.
153. 154..
155.

. . .

156.

157.

158.

159.

On the rotational motion o a f -entering the Atmosphere J. Aerospace 43-449 (1959). E X Dynamic LOx@xudinal Equations b r the Re-E o Ballistic &-a.Aero Space Sciezs,Vol. 26 o f Fdb, 1959. , On the Damped Oscillations Equation with Variable Coeffi 'cients ,Quart. Appl. Math. ,VOX. 16,No. l,pp.90-93,April, 1958. ~ u n c m.J.T K ~ ,~ , Contro~ &ability of and Aircraft. Cambridge University Press, LonQn, 1952. Pettus, 3. J. ,Persistent Reentry Vehicle Roll Resonance. A M Paper No. 67-49,Zrd Aerospace Sciences Meeting (Jan.24=26,1966). Locke,E. and Plotkin,K. , Shock-Tube Performance of a Lanmuir probe Suitable for Ballistic Range Applications AIAA Jour v01.5,*.7, July 1967, Price , A. , Sources Mechanisms and D. Jr Control of Roll Resonance Phenomena for Sounding Rockets AIAA Journ.of Spacecraft and Rockets. Vo1,4,No, 11,Nov. 1967. Glover,L., Effects on Roll Rate of Mass and Aerodynamic AsymmetAes for Ballistic AIAA Journ.of Spacecraft % %$%2 0, % !$ 1N2 ., . Mar. 1965. Murphy, Charles H., Angular Motion of a Re-Entering Symmetric Missile. AIAA Jour. Vol. 3,N0.7, July 1965. Vaughn,Harold R. , Boundary Conditions for Persistent Roll Resonance on Re-Eziir~----Vehicles. AIAA Jour.Vol.6,No,6 June 1968.

r ,To B.,

cc

160.
161. Tobak,Murray and Allen, H. Ju!ian,Dynamic Stability of Vehicles Traversing Ascending or h e e n d i n g Paths Through the Atmosphere, NACA T N 4275, July 1958.

I -

1957). . 148. Brown, D R. ,Jr. Rigid Body Analysis of ReEntry Flight Performance of Long Range Ballistic Missiles . N E Rm. No. 1604. 20 J= 1958. 149. Leon. H. I. Amle of Attack ConvernenGe of c1v a ~ g i n i t r ~ Sissiie ~ ~ c e n r i i ~ g I v g, Atmosphere J. Aerospace Sci. 25,480 -484r1958)

162. Sommer , Simon C. and Tobak,Murray,sudy of the Oscillatorv Motion o Manned Vehicres f Entering the E&'S A ~ I I I O S ~ ~ ~ E . NASA Memo 3-2-5949. A p r i l 1959. 163. Barbera, Frank,A n Analytical T e c h n i q e For Studying the A4mma10usRoll Behavior o f Ballistic A-FmtrvVehicles. AIAA PaPer - -- -- -- - P -_ m d ,January 1969. 164. Hdapp,A.E., Jr. and CXuk,E.L. , The Effect of koducts of Inertia on the R o l l Behavior of Ballistic Re-Entry Vehiclea AIAA 8th Aerospace Sci. M e i g Jan.1970. etn, 165. Whit1ock.Qlarles H. Bendura,Richard J. and Heming, Allen Bi , Dynamic Stability Characteristics of brp;e-Size 120" B1unted Conical Spaccdraft in a Simulated Mart ian Environment. AIAA Paper No. 69-104, Tan. 1969. 166. Burgess, Foster F. ,Prmedims o Conferenf on Dynamics and Aerodyr,arr,ics o Bomblets. f Bglfn A i r Force TeLhnicaI Report AFATL-I I
:

11

168.

19 6.

10 7.
171

.
Hydrodynamics and Ballistics, U S Preprint No. 262,1957. Nicolaides,John D., Two-Non-Linear *oblems in the Flight Dvnamics of Modern Ballistic M i d & , IAS Report No. 59- 17, 1959. A Substitute for Catastrophic Missile Flight Failures, American Association for the Advancement of Science, December, 1958. On Missile Flight Dynamics, NASA, 1963. Rh0des.C.W. and Shannon.1.H.W.. Results

12 7

13 7.
174.

185. Nicolaides,J.D. ,Eikenberry,R.S. ,Ingram, r Aerodynamic Characteristics o Re-entry Conf figurations w t Aerodynamic and Mass ih Asymmetries. AIAA papr No. 69-867. Innram C W and Clare. Thomas 186. A. , Dynamic Wind Tunnel Testing Techniques for Analysing the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Missiles. ,Ingram,C.W. Roman,J.H. ,Some 187. New Concepts for Underwater Ordnance Presented at Naval Ordnance Hydroballistics Advisory Committee, U: S. Naval Station, Long Beach,Calif. 11-12 Aug. 1969. 188 Ingram,C.W. ,Butler,C.B. ,Martin,J.M. , Visquez R. , A Three Degree of Freedom Wind Tunnel Testing Procedure. Presented at Conference on Dynamics and Aerodyriamics of Bomblets, Eglin Air Force Base ,Fla. ,
. Y

. . .-.

~-

Oct. 1967.

190.

175.

176. 177.

191.

cruciform Fins, Department of S u k l y , Australian Defense Scientific Service, Weapoas Research Establishment, HSA, 20, 1965. . 178. Nicolaides,J.D ,Eikenberry ,R. S. ,Ingram , C.W. .Clare,T.A., On the Dvnamics of the Basic Finner- in Variaus Degkes of Freedom. AIAA paper No. 68-890 apd Eglin A i r Force Technical Rpt. AFATL-TR-68-82, July 1968. 179. Nicolaides,J.D. ,Eikenberry, Robert S., Ingram,Charles W , T h e Determination of

192.

193.

194.

Clare.T.A., A Techniaue for Evaluating the Stability of Missiles in Free Flieht Presented at Conference on Unguided L Rocket .Ballistics Meteorology, U. S. ArAy Missile Range,New Mexico;Nov. 1967. ,On Obtaining the Nonlinear Aerodvnamic Stabilitv Coefficients from FreeAngular Motion of a Rigid Body. Aero-Space Engr Dept ,Univ of Notre Dame,Ph D. T h e s i s , June 1969. ,An Approximate Solution of the Nonlinear Differential Equation for the Complex Angle of Attack o a Symmetrical f Missile. Eglin A F B Tech. Rpt. AFATL-TR w - 7 r J u n e 1968 Eikenberry,Robert S., Analysis of the Angular Motions of Missiles. Sandia Laboratory Contractor Report (being published) Clare,Thomas A., On The Non-Linear Aspects of Roll Lock-In, Resonance Instability, and CatastroDhic Yaw f o r Cruciform - Finned

180.

Freedom. Ph. D. DissertationJune 1970. and Eikenberry, Robert S. ,Dynamic 195. N n s . Tohn D. Free Flight Dvnamics . Text, Univk;sity of Notre Dame, d1970. Wind T n e Testing Techniques,AIAA Paper unl NO. 66-752,1966. 181. A Review of Some Recent Progress Appendix A in Undersumding Catastrophic Yaw,N. A. T. 0. AGARD Specialist's meeting, Mulhouse, Letter Symbols for Aeronautical Sciences, Prance, Sept,, 1966. Appendix 1 , 1959. 1 182. , and Stumpf1,Stephen C., On Roll Lock-In In Unguided Rockets, Conference o n Unguided Rocket Ballistics ,White Sands Missile Range, E l Paso. Texas, Auaust 1966. 183. Investigation of the Nonlinear Flight Dynamics o OrdnancmWeapons. AIAA paper No. 69-135. f

-' -

184.

,Ingram,C.W.,Martin,J.M.,

W369-199,Vol.3, paper 31).