Canards interference on the Magnus effect of a fin-stabilized spinning missile

Abstract

Reynolds-averaged simulations of flow over spinning finned missiles with and without canards were carried out at Ma = 0.6, 0.9, 1.5, and 2.5; a= 4°, 8°, and 12.6°; and v = 0:025 to investigate different mechanisms of the Magnus effect. An implicit dual-time stepping method and the g À Re ut transition model were combined to solve the unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations. Grid independence study was conducted, and the computed results were compared with archival experimental data. The transient and time-averaged lateral force coefficients were obtained, and the flow field structures were compared at typical rolling angles. The results indicate that in subsonic conditions, the canards interference intensifies the asymmetrical distortion of the body surface boundary layer and flow separation at different angles of attack, doubling the absolute value of the time-averaged body lateral force; the wash flow effect strengthens on the leeward tail due to the canards interference, increasing its time-averaged lateral force; in supersonic conditions, the shock and expansion waves induced by canards, the vortex system, and the flow separation are responsible for the fluctuation of the body lateral force; the direction of the canard induced wash flow alters as angle of attack increases, increasing first and then decreasing the time-averaged tail lateral force.

Karadan Karaya Bir Merminin Burun Eyletim Kiti Kullanılarak Güdüm ve Denetimi

“…The overall orientation of the projectile with respect to 0 can be expressed using the rotated-frame-based yaw, pitch, and roll rotation sequence, i.e. 3-2-1 sequence, in the following manner [9][10][11][12]:…”

“…The aerodynamic effects can be dealt with separately for steady and unsteady states. The thrust force is exerted on the projectile at the beginning of its motion and it burns out after a while very short compared to the total flight time [9][10][11][12]. In Figure 3, as = 1,2 3 and k = 0 and b ⃗ ( ) denotes the unit vector indicating the ℎ axis of 0 and which correspond to the earth-fixed reference frame with the origin of point and projectile-fixed reference frame with the origin of point , respectively.…”

Numerical investigation of aerodynamic characteristics of free-spinning tail projectile with canards roll control

“…The absolute value of the side force decreases when the tail section is free to roll, i.e., the static term of the side force coefficient C z1 a; u ð Þ is negative, while the dynamic term C z _ u a; _ u ð Þis positive. Therefore, the rotation of the tail section decreases the side force of the projectile, which is the Magnus effect of the fin-stabilized spinning projectile 38 .…”

Performance Comparison of Guided Mortar Projectiles with Fixed and Moving Fins

“…In those munitions, one of the control strategies below is considered in order to reach the desired guidance and control effectiveness [1,5]:  Use of nose actuation kits. In the selection of the most convenient control approach, the first attempt is upon the establishing a convenient mathematical model for the projectile under consideration [6][7][8]. In this extent, one of the most significant considerations is the endurance of the relevant munition against the high acceleration loads occurring in firing through the launcher [1,[7][8][9][10].…”