Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci.

Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 210–218, 2014

Investigations on Missile Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics

for Design Optimization

By Nhu-Van NGUYEN, Maxim TYAN, Jae-Woo L EE and Yung-Hwan BYUN

Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea

(Received February 4th, 2013)

The integrated missile design optimization process is proposed by implementing the aerodynamics database (Aero
DB) and tactical missile design (TMD) spreadsheet to obtain a quick and relatively accurate optimal air intercept missile
configuration at the conceptual design stage. The Aero DB is constructed to replace an existing aerodynamics analysis
module in the TMD spreadsheet and to provide stability and control coefficients as constraints for improving missile
range performance based on the body-wing-tail configuration baseline. Sensitivity analysis is performed on an entire
missile geometry and flight condition variables to eliminate the small effects of design variables on missile range and
constraints under a PHX ModerCenterÒ 10.1 integration environment. The optimal missile configuration shows
27.8% improvement in total range compared with a body-wing-tail configuration baseline while all constraints are
satisfied. The proposed integration of the missile design program using Aero DB demonstrates more accurate and reliable
results which are validated by high-fidelity analysis ANSYS Fluent 13Ò on the optimal missile configuration compared
with TMD aerodynamics analysis results. The maximum difference between ANSYS Fluent and Missile DATCOM is
11.76% at 10 degrees of AoA compared with 37.97% for TMD aerodynamics analysis and ANSYS Fluent difference.

Key Words: Aerodynamics Database, Air Intercept Missile (AIM) Aerodynamics, Missile DATCOM 97,
Missile Design Optimization

Nomenclature h: launch altitude

tdome : dome thickness

: side slip angle tmotor : motor thickness
: roll angle ðt=cÞW : wing max. thickness ratio
a : aileron deflection angle ðt=cÞtail : tail max. thickness ratio
e : elevator deflection angle SW : wing area
r : rudder deflection angle WL : launch weight
W : wing taper ratio Wboost : boost weight
tail : tail taper ratio Wcruise : cruise weight
AoA: angle of attack XCG : longitudinal center of gravity
ARW : wing aspect ratio XW : wing longitudinal location
ARtail : tail aspect ratio Xtail : tail longitudinal location
CA : axial force coefficient AIM: air intercept missile
CL : lift coefficient AAM: air-to-air missile
CN : normal force coefficient SQP: sequential quadratic programming
Cm : pitching moment coefficient SM: static margin
CDo : zero-lift drag coefficient TMD: tactical missile design
Cl
: static lateral derivative
Cn
: static directional derivative 1. Introduction
Cm : static pitching derivative
Dbody : missile body diameter The U.S. Air Force Missile DATCOM Ver. 97 software1)
Dhemi : nose bluntness is used widely in stability and aerodynamic analyses for
Isp : specific impulse wing-bodies and tails.2) Basically, Missile DATCOM is an
L=D: lift to drag ratio engineering level computer code that predicts the aerody-
Lmissile : missile length namic forces, moments, and stability derivatives of axisym-
LN : nose length metric and non-axisymmetric missile configurations for a
M: mach number wide range of attack angles and Mach numbers. The capa-
Mi : initial Mach number bilities of missile DATCOM are comprehensive in comput-
Mter : terminal Mach number ing a wide range of flight conditions from subsonic to hyper-
sonic speeds, and control surface deflections from
35 to 35
Ó 2014 The Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization
degrees.1) Moreover, Missile DATCOM is also used for pre-
dicting and evaluating missile aerodynamic characteristics
at high angles of attack up to 90 degrees.3,4) In addition,
Missile DATCOM is considered to be an aerodynamic
module for various missile conceptual design applications
such as the preliminary design of liquid-propellant missile
system with single and multi-objective optimization5,6) and
for supersonic missile preliminary design7) in which it
provides faster and more competitive results compared to
the other aerodynamic code-Aerodsn.6) Nowadays, missile
aerodynamic databases are used as a very important module
for missile simulation and autopilot.8) Besides that, aerody-
namic databases are widely applicable for missiles, aircraft
conceptual design and simulation,8,9) and wind-induced
pressure time series on the envelope of various low build-
ings.10) There are many tools to construct the aerodynamic
databases which are wind-tunnel test,9) and to use high-
fidelity analysis for some critical lateral jet missile condi-
tions.11) However, to construct aerodynamic database used
for missiles, aircraft simulation and autopilot require large
computational cases and time to interpolate accurately dur-
ing different flight conditions. Hence, the computation cost
and accuracy of problem must be compromised before pro-
ceeding to construct the database for applications. There-
fore, the aerodynamic database (Aero DB) program is devel-
oped for arbitrary missile by implementing the missile
DATCOM 97 as a core analysis. The pre- and post-processes
are programed by MATLABÒ to arrange inputs and outputs
into the right format for the flight simulation and missile
conceptual design optimization.
In this study, the validation of body-wing-tail configura-
tion is performed on Missile DATCOM comparing with
an experimental data. The short and medium range missile
medium range configuration are selected to generate Aero
DB and to investigate missile aerodynamic characteristics.
The missile conceptual design optimization process imple-
menting Aero DB program is proposed and demonstrated
by maximizing a total range of a baseline missile body-
wing-tail configuration. The validation of optimal missile
configuration is performed using the high-fidelity analysis
ANSYS Fluent to demonstrate the effectiveness of the pro-
posed missile design optimization process.
2. Missile Aero DB Program Development
An accurate aerodynamics database for an arbitrary mis-
sile is extremely important and necessary for missile guided
simulation, trajectory and design. Therefore, the missile
Aero DB program is developed and presented. The Aero
DB construction process is shown in Fig. 1. The Aero DB
program is composed of pre-process, execution and check-
ing, and post-process. The Aero DB program is written
using MATLABÒ . Missile DATCOM is implemented as a
main analysis tool in the Aero DB program. In addition,
the investigations on aerodynamic characteristics of the
arbitrary missile are presented.
211
Fig. 1. Aero DB construction process for an arbitrary missile.
Fig. 2. Body-wing-tail missile configuration for missile DATCOM
validation.12)
2.1. Aero DB program pre-process
The pre-process is coded to read arbitrary missile config-
uration and flight condition and save automatically into the
missile DATCOM input format. The Mach number, angle of
attack and sideslip angle calculation range are specified in
this stage to create Aero DB in the next step.
2.2. Execution and checking process
Missile DATCOM 97 is the aerodynamic analysis code in
the Aero DB program. The validation of Missile DATCOM
97 and the checking process are presented to ensure that the
accurate aerodynamics data and the correct output format
are provided for the next application.
2.2.1. Validations of Missile DATCOM 97
The efforts are performed to reproduce the validation
of Missile DATCOM 97 using a body-wing-tail configura-
tion as shown in Fig. 2 with the experimental data and
AeroPrediction 98 (AP98).12–14) The AeroPrediction 98
(AP98) or current version AP0915) released in 2009 is a
semi-empirical code enhanced by an improved boundary-
layer displacement model and refinement of several existing
methods.15) The normal force and pitching moment coeffi-
cients of body-wing-tail configuration analysis results show
good agreement with the experimental data and AP98, and
the maximum error between the predicted data and experi-
ment data is approximately 5.2%.13,14) The normal force
coefficient for body-wing-tail configuration validation is
presented in Fig. 3(a) in which a similar trend of Missile
DATCOM result is observed while comparing with the
experiment data and AP98. The pitching moment coefficient
comparison shows a right trend and good agreement with
experiment data at less than 30 degrees of AoA in Fig. 3(b).
212 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

40 0
Experiment
DATCOM 97 -10
30 AP98
-20
CN

Cm
20
-30
Experiment
10 -40 DATCOM 97
AP98
0 -50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
AoA (deg.) AoA (deg.)
(a) CN at M =1.5 and φ =45° (b) Cm at M =1.5 and φ =45 °

Fig. 3. Validation results for body-wing-tail configuration baseline.

It shows a bigger gap while AoA is larger than 30 degrees Table 1. Calculation range of the medium range configuration.
compared with AP98. However, it is acceptable for con- M 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.0 3.0
structing Aero DB and a missile conceptual design stage.
AoA (deg)
40.0 17 values 40.0
Therefore, Missile DATCOM 97 is selected to construct

(deg)
40.0
20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0
Aero DB to implement for missile simulation and design op-
r (deg)
16.5 0.0 16.5
timization.
e (deg)
16.5 0.0 16.5
2.2.2. Checking process
The checking process is performed before reading and
writing the output file correctly into aero databases, and
Table 2. Calculation range of the short range configuration.
RW DB is programmed in MATLAB. The RW DB consists
of checking output format to detect the correct format form M 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.0 3.0
and reading into Aero DB. If the RW DB detects a different AoA (deg)
40.0 17 values 40.0
output format, users must go back to adjust inputs for
(deg)
40.0
20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0
Missile DATCOM. r (deg)
15.0 0.0 15.0
2.3. Aero DB program post-process e (deg)
15.0 0.0 15.0
The post-process is executed using the RW DB to write a (deg)
15.0 0.0 15.0
the missile outputs into the right format for flight simulation
and design optimization. The 17 available aerodynamic co-
efficients including the static and dynamics coefficients are
presented in Aero DB. Aerodynamic coefficients character-
istics are investigated.

3. Medium and Short Range Configuration Aero DB Fig. 4. Medium range missile configuration.14)

Constructions
The air-to-air missile is broadly classified into two
groups. The first group is designed to engage opposing
aircraft at ranges of less than 30 km and are known as a
short-range or within visual range missiles. Most short range
missiles use infrared guidance called heat-seeking missiles.
The second group are beyond visual range missiles includ-
ing medium and long range missiles which tend to depend
on radar guidance. Therefore, the short range medium range
configuration and medium range short range configura-
tion14) are selected to test the Aero DB program and to
investigate aerodynamics characteristics. The calculation
ranges for the medium and short range configuration Aero
DB construction are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
The control surfaces of medium range configuration consist
of rudder and elevator. The short range configuration is
composed of rudder, elevator and aileron surfaces.
3.1. Medium range configuration
The detailed configuration of the medium range type con-
figuration14) and flight conditions in Table 1 and Fig. 4 are
modeled into the Missile DATCOM in order to generate
the medium range configuration aerodynamic database. A
turbulent boundary layer and full base drag conditions are
assumed. Due to the requirements of flight simulation of
the medium range configuration aerodynamics data, this
study intends to build an aero-database of the medium range
configuration with detailed configuration of medium range
configuration for several critical flight conditions and for
different bank angles. Additionally, the fin deflections
are conducted with a range from
16:5 to 16.5 degrees
and a Reynolds number of 2  106 per foot.
In Fig. 5, three aerodynamic coefficients (the normal-
force, pitching-moment and axial-force coefficients) are
shown at an elevator deflection of 0 with various Mach num-
bers ranging from 0.7 to 3.0. The rest of the aerodynamic
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 213

2.5 M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
2 M=2.0
M=3.0 Fig. 6. Short range missile configuration.14)
CA

1.5

The discontinuity around 30 degrees, which appears from

1 high subsonic up to Mach number of 1.1 shown in Fig. 5(a),
does not reflect the real missile aerodynamics correctly. The
Missile DATCOM utilizes two distinct methods. The modi-
0.5
-40 -20 0 20 40 fied Allen and Perkins’ method is implemented for AoA
AoA below 30 degree, and the Jorgensen’s slender body theory
(a) CA at various Mach numbers is used for AoA above 30 degree.16,17) Hence, Missile
100
DATCOM results presenting the discontinuity around 30
M=0.7
degrees is due to the switchover in two method calculations.
M=0.9
M=1.1 However, the axial force coefficient predicted by Missile
50 M=2.0 DATCOM still captures the tendency of missile aerody-
M=3.0
namic characteristics. When Mach number increases up to
CN

0 2.0 and 3.0, the main drag components are the wave drag
that has a reducing tendency based on potential theory and
-50 the leading-edge bluntness that has a small reduction while
increasing Mach number. Therefore, the trend of axial force
coefficient is seen at Mach number of 2.0 and 3.0, as shown
-100
-40 -20 0 20 40 in Fig. 5(a).
AoA The normal force coefficient increases when the AoA
(b) CN at various Mach numbers increases from 0 to 40 degrees, as shown in Fig. 5(b). How-
ever, the normal force coefficient at the supersonic regime is
100 lower than at the subsonic and transonic regime. The reason
M=0.7
M=0.9 is that the stronger shocks occur at the supersonic flow;
M=1.1
50 M=2.0
therefore the normal force is reduced behind the stronger
M=3.0 shocks. The pitching moment coefficient shows stability in
the longitudinal direction. When the nose of the medium
Cm

0
-50
-100
-40 -20 0 20
AoA
(c) Cm at various Mach numbers
Fig. 5. Aerodynamic characteristics of medium range type configuration.
coefficients are also calculated with the same range of Mach
numbers, AoA and control surface deflection.
In Fig. 5(a), the axial force coefficients have similar
tendencies with body-wing-tail configuration results13) from
subsonic to supersonic regimes. The medium range config-
uration produces the lowest drag at Mach number of 0.7
due to the main effects of skin friction, subsonic pressure
drag and leading-edge bluntness considered in the Missile
DATCOM method16,17) and then, it increases up to the Mach
number of 0.9 in which the wave drag starts having a small
contribution on total drag when shocks occur on the missile.
At the Mach number of 1.1, the axial force coefficient
reaches the highest values. This is because the leading-edge
bluntness drag increases and the wave drag contributes the
large portion in the total drag at this Mach number.
range configuration is up, the pitching moment coefficient
is negative, as shown in Fig. 5(c).
Three important aerodynamic coefficients, axial, normal
and moment coefficients, are presented and analyzed for dif-
ferent flight conditions. These coefficients show the right
40
trend and behavior of the medium range configuration.
The remaining fourteen medium range configuration aero-
dynamic coefficients are stored in the database with a set
of different sideslip angle, elevator and rudder.
3.2. Medium range missile short range configuration
The detailed short range configuration14) and flight condi-
tions in Table 2 and Fig. 6 are modeled into the Missile
DATCOM to predict and construct the aerodynamic data-
base. A turbulent boundary layer and full base drag condi-
tions are assumed. Additionally, the fin deflections are con-
ducted from 0 to 15 degrees and the Reynolds number is 2 
106 per foot.
In Fig. 7, three aerodynamic coefficients (the normal-
force, pitching-moment and axial-force coefficients) are
shown at the elevator deflection of 0. The axial force coef-
ficient has a similar behavior with medium range configura-
tion. However, the highest axial force coefficient variations
are at Mach number of 2.0. The discontinuity around 30
degrees of AoA can be seen clearly up to Mach number of
1.1 in Fig. 7(a). That is due to the switchover between
214 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

1 35
M=0.7
M=0.9 Wing-body-tail configuration
M=1.1 30 Short range configuration
0.8 M=2.0
M=3.0 25

20
0.6

CN
CA

15

0.4
10

5
0.2
-40 -20 0 20 40
AoA 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) CA at various Mach numbers
AoA (deg.)

50 Fig. 8. CN comparison at M ¼ 1:5 and  ¼ 45 for body-wing-tail and

M=0.7
short range configuration.
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=2.0
M=3.0
The short range configuration is designed and aimed with
the most sophisticated radar guided air to air missile (AAM)
CN

0
and the aerodynamics performance as well. The short range
configuration has the same length as the body-wing-tail
configuration. However, the wing and fin of the short range
configuration are designed to provide better performance
-50
-40 -20 0 20 40 and allow easy installation to fighters. The short range con-
AoA figuration aerodynamic charateristics are investigated and
(b) CN at various Mach numbers compared in normal force coefficient at Mach of 1.5 and roll
angle of 45 degrees, as depicted in Fig. 8. Therefore, it is
300 concluded that the short range configuration aerodynamic
M=0.7

200 M=0.9 characteristics have good agreement and reasonable results

M=1.1
M=2.0
compared with the prior body-wing-tail configuration and
100
M=3.0 published data.
Cm

0
-100
-200
-300
-40 -20 0 20 40
AoA
(c) Cm at various Mach numbers
Fig. 7. Aerodynamic characteristics of the short range configuration.
two calculation methods mentioned in the medium range
configuration results. Although it does not reflect the real
aerodynamics correctly around that switchover point, it is
still able to capture the trend of the axial force coefficient.
The axial force coefficient has a gradual change at super-
sonic regime, because of wave drag that has main contribu-
tion on total drag in this supersonic regime.
The normal force coefficient has a similar behavior with
medium range configuration, as shown in Fig. 5(b). It
increases when AoA increases from 0 to 40 degrees and
Mach number increases from subsonic to transonic regime.
However, the normal force coefficient at the supersonic
regime is lower than at the subsonic and transonic regime
due to stronger shocks occurring in front of the nose of
the missile. The pitching moment coefficient also shows
stability in the longitudinal direction, as shown in Fig. 7(c).
4. Aero DB Program Application for Missile Concep-
tual Design Optimization
4.1. Missile design optimization process using Aero DB
Aero DB is applied for the air-to-air missile conceptual
design optimization process as shown in Fig. 9. The analysis
solver is composed of Aero DB constructed from Missile
DATCOM and the TMD Spreadsheets.18) The TMD Spread-
sheet, which is based on semi-empirical equations, consists
of aerodynamics, propulsion, weight, performance and tra-
jectory analysis modules. TMD is quite appropriate for the
conceptual design of missiles as it obtains conceptual results
quickly and effectively. The validation is performed for the
body-wing-tail configuration in Fig. 3 at launch conditions
which are Mach 0.8; altitude of 20,000 ft; flight range of
7.7 n miles, exceeding the requirement of 6.7 n miles by
15%. The body-wing-tail configuration baseline achieves
the required flight range of 6.7 n miles within a time that
is 14% shorter than the required time of flight (21 vs.
24.4 s).18)
The Aero DB is stored and called to replace an aerody-
namics analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet and to pro-
vide stability and control coefficients to an optimizer as
shown in Fig. 9 for missile trajectory, propulsion and
dynamics analysis in the TMD Spreadsheet at different
flight conditions including boost, sustain and coast stage
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 215

Dbody
h
Mter
Wboost
Others
LN
Wcruiset
Wboost:Dbody
WL
Mlaunch
WL:Dbody

Fig. 10. Total range sensitivity analysis.

Fig. 9. Missile design optimization process.
after launching from a fighter. The lift, drag and stability
coefficients are estimated from Aero DB using Table lookup
as shown in Fig. 9 which implements the linear interpola-
tion technique between nearest points through Mach num-
ber, side slip angle, control deflection angle, and angle of
attack variables provided from the flight conditions.
The sensitivity analysis module is implemented to elimi-
nate small effects of design variables on objective function
and constraints. The optimizer is integrated to an analysis
solver to seek an optimum missile configuration with an
improvement in performance characteristics. The integra-
tion of missile design optimization is completed in PHX
ModelCenter 10.1.19) The high-fidelity analysis ANSYS
Fluent20) is implemented to validate aerodynamics analysis
results for an optimum configuration.
4.2. Air-to-air missile sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is performed on 24 variables includ-
ing missile characteristics and configuration using a Latin
hypercube and orthogonal method in ModelCenter 10.119)
with 300 design points to address the effects of design var-
iables on performance and stability parameters such as
boost, sustain and coast range, pitching, directional, and
lateral moment coefficient. Sensitivity analysis helps to
determine main design variables affecting the objective
and constraints function.
The most effective variable for total range parameter is a
missile diameter at 66% which causes a large increment in
drag while increasing missile diameter. It effects the range
of each boost, sustain and coast range. Other factors include
launching altitude (h), terminal Mach (Mter ), boost weight
(Wboost ), nose length, cruise weight (Wcruise ), launch Mach
number (Mlaunch ), and launch weight (WL ) which have a
smaller sensitivity to total range of missile as shown in
Fig. 10.
The drag for the sustain condition mainly effects on mis-
sile diameter (61%). The missile CG longitudinal location
Dbody
XCG
Lmissile
SW
Xtail
XW
Others
XCG:Xtail
LN
XCG:Dbody
Fig. 11. Sustain drag coefficient sensitivity analysis.
(XCG ) has a 16% effect on drag coefficient. The remaining
effects including missile length, wing area (SW ), tail location
(Xtail ), and wing location (XW ) are considered as shown in
Fig. 11.
4.3. Missile design formulation
The specific mission profile for the body-wing-tail config-
uration baseline is shown in Fig. 12 which is divided into
boost, sustain and coast phases. The propulsion, structure,
trajectory and dynamic analysis module are maintained to
complete this given mission profile in the TMD Spread-
sheet.18) Only aerodynamics and stability coefficients are
derived from Aero DB.
The total range including boost, sustain and coast stages is
selected as an objective function to be maximized. The aer-
odynamics and stability constraints are listed as follows for
boost, sustain and coast stage conditions. The design varia-
bles are reduced to 16 variables after the sensitivity analysis
process in which small sensitivity of the variables and
launch speed are removed from formulation as shown in
Table 3. The lower and upper bounds are set from 20%
from a baseline for design space.
Maximize:
RangeTotal ¼ RangeBoost þ RangeSustain þ RangeCoast
Subject to
216 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

Sustain stage 4.4. Optimizer solver

Level out AoA=2~3 deg.
The Design Explorer algorithm, developed by Boeing and
Pitch-over integrated into PHX ModelCenter 10.1,19) helps to search on
At high AoA an entire design space by surrogate models with sequential
Climb Coast stage optimization algorithm (SEOPT).21) The Design Explorer
Launch: M=0.8
altitude Pitch-up
AoA=5~7 deg. has been implemented and validated in many Boeing design
At high AoA applications such as high lift aerodynamics, multidiscipli-
Boost stage
AoA=1~2 deg. Target impact at α ≈ 0 deg
nary wing planform design, forming of aircraft wing skin,
engine duct seal, and other products.21) The tolerances are
Fig. 12. Missile mission profile.18) set up for objective functions, constraints and projected gra-
dient which are 0.001, 0.001 and 0.01, respectively. The tol-
Table 3. Air-to-air missile design optimum configuration. erances are set by the recommended convergence criteria of
A baseline Optimum Unit the Design Explorer algorithm in the Model Center 10.1.
Objective Total range 41,419 52,935 feet
If there is no improvement in one of these tolerances, the
program is terminated.
Design variables h 20,000 19,000 feet
4.5. Optimum missile design configuration
XCG 76.2 80.01 inches
The optimum missile configuration is shown in Table 3
Mter 1.5 1.8
with 27.8% improvement in a total range including boost,
Lmissile 143.9 172.68 inches
sustain and coast conditions from 41,419 feet of baseline
Dbody 8 8.4 inches
to 52,935 feet of optimal configuration. Sixteen missile con-
LN 19.2 19.2 inches
figuration design variables are determined by an optimizer
Dhemi 0.05 0.04
for an improved range shown in Table 3. The 2D and 3D
SW 367.2 385.56 inches2
optimum configuration comparison with a baseline are
ðt=cÞW 0.044 0.0396
presented in Figs. 13 and 14.
ARW 2.82 2.538
The launching altitudes from fighters are close to a base-
XW 60.8 66.88 inches
line conditions. The optimum wing configuration becomes
W 0.175 0.193
bigger in area and moves backward along to a missile longi-
ARtail 2.59 2.46
tudinal direction. Hence, the lift coefficient over wing
tail 0 0.375
increases to extend the range of each flight condition includ-
Xtail 125.4 151.67 inches
ing boost, sustain and coast with a thinner airfoil in optimum
ðt=cÞtail 0.027 0.0284
missile configuration at 3.96% of maximum thickness ratio.
Constraints Boost CDo 1.02 0.928
The optimum tail fin becomes larger than a baseline with a
Coast CDo 1.14 0.9201
tapered tail fin and moves backward 27 inches in order to
Sustain CDo 0.982 0.951
satisfy the stability constraints while wing area is increased
L/D boost 1.376 1.386
and moved backward for better aerodynamics characteris-
L/D sustain 1.381 1.398
tics. The optimum missile body is longer than a baseline
L/D coast 0.888 1.002
at 30 inches. The optimum body fineness ratio, which is cal-
Cm boost
0.0045
0.0262
culated as body length to diameter, becomes longer to pro-
Cm sustain
0.0036
0.0273
vide better lift and less drag on the optimum configuration.
Cm coast 0.0054
0.0221
The body fineness ratio is 18 which still lies between 5 to 25
Cl
boost 0.0002 0.0429
for air-to-air missile guidance. The nose bluntness is
Cl
sustain 0.0025 0.0438
reduced to 4% compared to 5% as a baseline value. It re-
Cl
coast
0.0061 0.0407
duces the body drag with a smaller nose bluntness as shown
Boost range 5,092 5,721 feet
in Table 3. The nose fineness ratio, which is defined as nose
Sustain range 12,712 20,197 feet
length to body diameter, is reduced slightly due to the incre-
Coast range 23,661 27,017 feet
ment of diameter. However, the optimum nose length is
reached at a baseline value.
The optimum missile configuration shows a lower para-
ðRangeÞi  ðRangebaseline Þi site drag and higher lift to drag ratio values compared to
ðCDo Þi  ðCDo baseline Þi the body-wing-tail configuration baseline for the boost, sus-
tain, and coast missile flight conditions. It results in increas-
ðCL Þi  ðCL baseline Þi
ing the range of boost, sustain and coast stage as shown in
ðL=DÞi  ðL=DBaseline Þi Table 3. The pitching and rolling moment coefficient con-
ðjCl
jÞi  ð0:3jCla jÞi straints are satisfied while a bigger fin tail and further back
movement of tail location are made in the optimum missile
ðjCm jÞi  ð0:3jCme jÞi
configuration as shown in Figs. 13 and 14. In addition, the
Where: i ¼ boost, sustain, and coast center of gravity is moved backward 4 inches to satisfy
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Configuration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization
Optimum missile
configuration
Body-wing-tail
configuration
Fig. 13. 3D view of optimum configuration comparison with a baseline
body-wing-tail configuration.
Fig. 14. 2D view of optimum missile compared with a baseline body-
wing-tail configuration.
pitching and rolling moment coefficient.
Therefore, the missile configuration design optimization
problem is successfully formulated to obtain an optimum
missile configuration with an improvement in total missile
range while implementing aerodynamics and stability data-
base generated from Missile DATCOM to replace aerody-
namics analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet.
4.6. High-fidelity analysis validation
High-fidelity analysis ANSYS Fluent 1320) is used to val-
idate the optimal configuration results as shown in Fig. 13.
Steady state calculations are used to compute aerodynamic
coefficients and flow field of the optimum missile configura-
tion using ANSYS Fluent 13. The mesh is modeled using
Pointwise 1622) grid generation software. Reynolds-aver-
aged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are applied to
describe flow around the missile. The single equation
Spalart-Allmaras turbulent model (S-A), which was specif-
ically developed by Spalart and Allmaras for aerospace
applications involving wall-bounded flows, is used in the
current calculation. The model shows good agreement for
boundary layers subject to adverse pressure gradients.
Flow around half of the optimum missile configuration is
investigated due to symmetric missile geometry. For precise
calculation of boundary layer properties, dense mesh is gen-
erated around missile configuration. Yþ value at the wing
and tail surface is equal to 1.0 and greater than 1.0 at the
body surface. Applying a Yþ value at the body surface of
less than 1.0 leads to high aspect ratio cells and mesh geom-
etry problems. Dense mesh with a number of grid points of
3.1 million is used to precisely predict aerodynamic charac-
teristics of the optimum configuration. Grid topology is
217
Fig. 15. Air intercept missile mesh topology.
Fig. 16. Pressure coefficient contours along an optimum missile configu-
ration.
18
TMD analysis
16
14
ANSYS-Fluent
Missile DATCOM
12
10
CN
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
AoA (deg.)
Fig. 17. Normal force validation for the optimum missile configuration.
shown in Fig. 15. Due to the complex flow at the rear part
of the missile it is decided to use a density-based solver with
CFL number equal to 0.5 at the first 5,000 iterations and 3
to 5 at later iterations. This approach allows us to obtain a
converged solution of the flow around the optimum missile
configuration. Convergence criteria is selected as the maxi-
mum residual of velocity components, energy and continu-
ity less than 10
4 .
The pressure coefficient contours along the missile sur-
face are shown in Fig. 16 for 5 degrees of AoA. The weak
shock captured at the top surface of the wing and strong
pressure gradient at missile nose area are observed. The
high-fidelity ANSYS Fluent 13 is calculated for 0, 5 and
10 degrees of AoA as shown in Fig. 16. The normal force
coefficient results on the missile optimum configuration
are also performed with the TMD Spreadsheet aerodynam-
ics analysis model and missile DATCOM to compare with
the high-fidelity ANSYS Fluent 1320) analysis results in
Fig. 17. The comparison graph indicates that the TMD
Spreadsheet and Missile DATCOM predict a normal force
218 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci.
Table 4. Normal force results comparison with ANSYS Fluent 13.
AoA ANSYS- Missile Difference TMD Difference
(degree) Fluent DATCOM (%) analysis (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 4.57 4.82 5.49 5.19 13.52
10 8.07 9.56 11.76 11.13 37.95
coefficient quite close to high-fidelity analysis results at low
AoA of approximately 5 degrees. At higher AoA, the TMD
Spreadsheet and Missile DATCOM shows an over-
estimated lift coefficient as shown in Fig. 17. The Missile
DATCOM is closely predicted with ANSYS Fluent 13
results compared with TMD analysis as shown in Table 4.
The maximum normal force coefficient difference with
ANSYS Fluent 13 is 11.76% at 10 degrees of AoA while
the TMD aerodynamics analysis result shows a 37.95%
difference with ANSYS Fluent at 10 degrees of AoA in
Table 4. In addition, the designed missile mission profile
operates at approximately 7 degrees of AoA as shown in
Fig. 12. Therefore, it is worthy to replace an aerodynamics
analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet by Missile
DATCOM for obtaining more accuracy and reliability at a
missile conceptual design stage.
5. Conclusion
The investigations on short and medium range missile
aerodynamic characteristics of medium range configuration
and short range configuration were addressed by implement-
ing the results from a developed Aero DB program. The val-
idations of Missile DATCOM were reproduced for the
body-wing-tail configuration by comparing with experiment
data and AeroPrediction AP98. The investigations on
medium and short range configuration aerodynamic coeffi-
cients show the correct aerodynamics trend and capture
the physical phenomena of air-to-air missiles.
The conceptual missile design optimization process was
established to obtain a quick and relatively accurate optimal
missile configuration. The Aero DB was implemented suc-
cessfully and efficiently into a missile conceptual design
stage for replacing aerodynamic analysis module of the
TMD Spreadsheet and providing stability coefficient con-
straints supporting resizing of an air-to-air missile configu-
ration by maximizing total range performance. A 27.8%
improvement in a total range was obtained by an optimal
missile configuration while satisfying given aerodynamics,
stability and performance constraints.
The high-fidelity analysis performed on the optimal mis-
sile configuration using ANSYS Fluent 13 demonstrated
more accurate and reliable results provided by Aero DB
rather than the TMD Spreadsheet aerodynamics analysis at
angle of attack up to 10 degrees.
Vol. 57, No. 4
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge that this research was
supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
(MEST), Space Core Technology Development Program–a
grant number 2012033521 and the 2013 KU Brain Pool (Konkuk
University), and the corresponding author for the grant Jae Woo
Lee..
References
1) Blake, W. B.: Missile DATCOM User’s Manual–1997, Fortran 90
Revision, 1998.
2) White, J. T.: An Assessment of Missile Datcom Prediction Accuracy
Relative to Generic Body+Wing+Tail Missile Pitch Aerodynamics,
AIAA Paper 95-1893-CP, 1995.
3) Abney, E. J. and McDaniel, M. A.: High Angle of Attack Aerody-
namic Predictions Using Missile Datcom, AIAA Paper 2005-5086,
2005.
4) Smith, E. H., Hebbar, S. K. and Platzer, M. R.: Aerodynamic Charac-
teristics of a Canard-Controlled Missile at High Angles of Attack,
J. Spacecraft Rockets, 31, 5 (1994), pp. 766–772.
5) Riddle, D. B., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E. and Jenkins, R. M.:
Genetic-Algorithm Optimization of Liquid-Propellant Missile Sys-
tems, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 46, 1 (2009), pp. 151–159.
6) Riddle, D. B., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E. and Jenkins, R. M.: Ge-
netic Algorithm Optimization of Liquid Propellant Missile Systems,
AIAA Paper 2007-362, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, 2007.
7) Talpallikar, M. V. and Nelsont, H. F.: Modeling Supersonic Missile
Fin-Body Interference for Preliminary Design, J. Spacecraft Rockets,
27, 6 (1990), pp. 571–576.
8) Zipfel, P. H.: Modeling and Simulation of Aerospace Vehicle Dynam-
ics, 2nd ed., AIAA Education Series, 2007.
9) Leng, G.: Compression of Aircraft Aerodynamic Database Using Mul-
tivariable Chebyshev Polynomials, Adv. Eng. Software, 28, 2 (1997),
pp. 133–141.
10) Chen, Y., Kopp, G. A. and Surry, D.: Interpolation of Pressure Time
Series in an Aerodynamic Database for Low Buildings, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodynam., 91, 6 (2003), pp. 737–765.
11) Min, B.-Y., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H.: Numerical Investigation of
the Shock Interaction Effect on the Lateral Jet Controlled Missile,
Aerospace Sci. Technol., 10, 5 (2006), pp. 385–393.
12) Monta, W. J.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Sparrow
III Type Missile Model with Wing Controls and Comparison with
Existing Tail-Control Results, NASA Technical Paper 1078, 1977.
13) Sooy, T. J. and Schmidt, R. Z.: Aerodynamic Predictions, Compari-
sons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM (97) and Aeropredic-
tion 98 (AP98), J. Spacecraft Rockets, 42, 2 (2005), pp. 257–265.
14) Raytheon Co., http://www.raytheon.com/
15) Moore, F. G. and Moore, L. Y.: 2009 Version of the Aeroprediction
Code: AP09, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 45, 4 (2008), pp. 677–690.
16) Vulkelich, S. R., Stoy, S. L., Burns, K. A., Castillo, J. A. and Moore,
M. E.: Missile DATCOM Volume I—Final Report, McDonnell Doug-
las Missile Systems Co., 1988.
17) Jorgensen, L. H.: Prediction of Static Aerodynamic Characteristics for
Slender Bodies Alone and with Lifting Surfaces to Very High Angles
of Attack, NASA TR-R-474, 1977.
18) Fleeman, E. L.: Tactical Missile Design, AIAA Education Series,
2001.
19) ModelCenter 10.1, PHX ModelCenterÒ , http://www.phoenix-int.com/
software/phx-modelcenter.php
20) ANSYS Fluent 13, ANSYS, Inc., www.ansys.com
21) Booker, A. J., Meckesheimer, M. and Torng, T.: Reliability Based
Design Optimization Using Design Explorer, Optim. Eng., 5, 2
(2004), pp. 179–205.
22) Pointwise 16 User Manual, http://www.pointwise.com/