International Scientific Journal


This paper presents modification of the existing guided missile which was done by replacing the existing front part with the new five, while the rear part of the missile with rocket motor and missile thrust vector control system remains the same. The shape of all improved front parts is completely different from the original one. Modification was performed based on required aerodynamic coefficients for the existing guided missile. The preliminary aerodynamic configurations of the improved missile front parts were designed based on theoretical and computational fluid dynamics simulations. All aerodynamic configurations were tested in the T-35 wind tunnel at the Military Technical Institute in order to determine the final geometry of the new front parts. The 3-D Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes numerical simulations were carried out to predict the aerodynamic loads of the missile based on the finite volume method. Experimental results of the axial force, normal force, and pitching moment coefficients are presented. The computational results of the aerodynamic loads of a guided missile model are also given, and agreed well with.
PAPER REVISED: 2015-11-22
PAPER ACCEPTED: 2015-11-22
CITATION EXPORT: view in browser or download as text file
THERMAL SCIENCE YEAR 2017, VOLUME 21, ISSUE Issue 3, PAGES [1543 - 1554]
  1. Auman, M.L., et al, Aerodynamic characteristics of a guided anti-tank missile utilizing a ram air powered control actuation system, AIAA, Reno, USA, 1996.
  2. Anderson, J.,D.,Jr, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1991.
  3. Barlow, Jewel, B., et al, Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, Wiley, New York, 1999.
  4. Katz, J., Plotkin, A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1991.
  5. Tropea, C., et al, Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Berlin, 2007.
  6. AIAA Recommended Practice for Wind Tunnel Testing — Part 1, R-092-1-2003e; Part 2, R-092-2-2003e, AIAA Standards, 2003.
  7. AIAA Recommended Practice for Calibration and Use of Internal Strain-Gage Balances with Application to Wind Tunnel Testing, R-091-2003, AIAA Standards, 2003.
  8. Nomenclature and Axis Systems for Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel Testing AIAA G-129-2011, Reston, USA, 2011.
  9. Tuncer, I.,H., et al, Navier-Stokes Analysis of Subsonic Flowfields over a Missile Configuration, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.35 No.2, pp 127-131, 1998.
  10. Omar, H. and Abido, M., Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm for Designing Fuzzy-Based Missile Guidance Laws." J. Aerosp. Eng., 24(1), pp 89-94, 2011.
  11. Blair, A.B.JR, et al, Experimental study of tail-span effects on a canard-controlled missile, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.30 No.5, pp 635-640, 1993.
  12. Jong-Eun Kim, et al, Development of an efficient aerodynamic shape optimization framework, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol.79, No.8, pp 2373-2384, 2009.
  13. Spirito,J.,D., et al,Numerical Investigation of Canard-Controlled Missile with Planar and Grid Fins, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,Vol.40,No.3,pp363-370, 2003.
  14. Sooy,T.,J., et al, Aerodynamic Predictions, Comparisons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM(97) and Aeroprediction, Journal of Space and Rockets,Vol.42,No.2, pp257-265, 2005.
  15. Doyle,J.,B., Rosema, C.,C., Improved Validation Methodology for Missile Datcom Development, AIAA, Orlando, Florida, 2011.
  16. Videnović,N., et al, Validation of the CFD code used for determination of aerodynamic characteristics of non-standard AGARD-B calibration model, Thermal Science, Vol.18, No.4, pp 1223-1233, 2014.
  17. Jahangirian, A., Shahrokhi, A., Aerodynamic shape optimization using efficient evolutionary algorithms and unstructured CFD solver, Computers & Fluids, Vol.46, No.1, pp 270-276, 2011.
  18. Wei, C., Guo, et al, IFF Optimal Control for Missile Formation Reconfiguration in Cooperative Engagement." J. Aerosp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000359, 04014087, 2013.
  19. Mao, X. and Yang, S. Optimal Control of Coning Motion of Spinning Missiles, J. Aerosp. Eng., 28(2), 04014068, 2015,
  20. B. Rasuo, Scaling between Wind Tunnels-Results Accuracy in Two-Dimensional Testing, Japan Society of Aeronautical Space Sciences Transactions, 55, pp 109-115, 2012.
  21. Damljanović, D., et al, T-38 Wind-Tunnel Data Quality Assurance Based on Testing of a Standard Model, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.50, No.4, AIAA, pp 1141-1149, 2013.
  22. Ocokoljić, G., Rašuo, B., Testing of the Anti Tank Missile Model with Jets Simulation in the T-35 Subsonic Wind Tunnel, Scientific Technical Review, Vol.62, No.3-4, pp 14-20, 2012.
  23. Reuther, J., Jameson, A., Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Wing and Wing-Body Configurations Using Control Theory, AIAA paper, 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 9-12, 1995.
  24. Baysal, O., Eleshaky, M. E., Aerodynamic design optimization using sensitivity anaysis and computational fluid dynamics, AIAA Journal,Vol.30,No.3 pp.718-725,doi:10.2514/3.10977, 1992.
  25. Young R. Yang, et al, Aerodynamic Shape Optimization System of a Canard-Controlled Missile Using Trajectory-Dependent Aerodynamic Coefficients, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 49, No. 2, March-April 2012.
  26. Gavrilović, N., et al, Commercial Aircraft Performance Improvement Using Winglets, FME Transactions, Vol. 43, No1, pp 1-8, 2015.
  27. Dulikravich, S., G., et al, Automatic Switching Algorithms in Hybrid Single-Objective Optimization, FME Transactions, Vol. 41, No3, pp 167-179, 2013.

© 2022 Society of Thermal Engineers of Serbia. Published by the Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International licence