|
AeroDRAG & Flight
Simulation Cd Validation
Hart
Missile Validation BACK
The classical Hart Missile configuration
has been utilized to validate the drag prediction capability
of AeroDRAG & Flight Simulation. Cd verses Mach number results
for the Hart Missile was compared to actual free-flight tests
conducted by NACA. The reader is invited to perform this analysis
with any other simulation and match the results with AeroDRAG
& Flight Simulation.
Hart Missile Dimensions
| Body
Diameter [in] |
5.0 |
|
Number
of Fins |
4 |
| Ogive
Nose Length [in] |
17.5 |
Fin
Edge Shape |
Rounded |
| Body
Tube Length [in] |
37.56 |
Fin
Thickness [in] |
.091 |
| Finish
Quality |
Good |
Root
Chord [in] |
8.38 |
| Base
Shape |
Blunt |
Fin
Span [in] |
7.0 |
| No
Launch Lug |
NA |
Tip
Length [in] |
1.38 |
AeroDRAG Drag Results Screen. Hart
Missile Cd vs Mn Comparison.
AeroDRAG Cd Results
Results from AeroDRAG
& Flight Simulation has been compared to free-flight data.
The NACA report "FLIGHT INVESTIGATION AT MACH NUMBERS
FROM 0.8 TO 1.5 TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF NOSE BLUNTNESS ON
THE TOTAL DRAG OF TWO FIN-STABILIZED BODIES OF REVOLUTION"
by Roger G. Hart has been used to validate AeroDRAG in the transonic
flight regime.
The Hart Missile investigation showed that moderate nose bluntness
had no appreciable effect on the total-drag coefficient at Mach
numbers above 1.05. At lower Mach numbers the drag is somewhat
reduced for moderate nose bluntness. The following plot compares
the results generated by AeroDRAG & Flight Simulation and
the results from the NACA paper for pointed and slightly blunt
Ogive/Cylinder bodies with fins.
Hart Missile Data Superimposed on
AeroDRAG & Flight Simulation Results
AeroDRAG & Flight
Simulation Cd Validation
V-2
Rocket Validation BACK
Results from the book, Rocket
Propulsion Elements, Sixth Edition have been used to validate the drag prediction capability
of AeroDRAG & Flight Simulation. AeroDRAG Cd verses Mach number results
for the V-2 rocket are compared to the Cd verses Mach number plot in
Figure 5-3 of Rocket Propulsion Elements where the angle of attack
is 0.0 degrees. The Cd results from Mach 0.1 to Mach 6.0 are
compared in the AeroDRAG screen shot image below.
V-2 Rocket Dimensions
| Body
Diameter [in] |
65.0 |
|
Number
of Fins |
4 |
| Ogive
Nose Length [in] |
208.5 |
Fin
Edge Shape |
Streamlined |
| Body
Tube Length [in] |
327.9 |
Fin
Thickness [in] |
4.9 @ base |
| Finish
Quality |
Good |
Root
Chord [in] |
158.7 |
| Base
Shape |
Boat Tail |
Fin
Span [in] |
41.1 (average) |
|
Boat Tail Diameter [in] |
40.9 |
Fin Profile |
Tapered |
| No
Launch Lug |
NA |
Tip
Length [in] |
102.6 |
AeroDRAG Drag Results Screen. V-2 Cd vs Mn comparison.
REFERENCES
NACA RM L50I08a by Roger G. Hart, October 16, 1950
Rocket Propulsion Elements, Sixth Edition, By George P. Sutton
BACK To The Description Page
|
