5 G z

ITHRU

ICODEI

(CATEQORYI
1M

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI'ITEE FOR AERONAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

for the

Bureau of Aeronautics, Department of the Navy

ZEXO-LIFT DRAG OF THE CHANCE VOUGHT REGULUS I1 MISSILE AT

MACH NUMBERS B E W N 0.8 AND 2.2 AS DE-D FROM THE

FLIGHT TESTS OF 'IN0 0.l2-SCALE MODELS

TED NO. NACA AD 398

By James D. Church

SUMMARY

Two noninstrumented 0.12-scale models (with internal flow) of the

Chance Vought Regulus I1 missile were flight tested to investigate drag
characteristics of the missile f o r a range of Mach numbers from 0.8
to 2.2. Measured total-drag-coefficient data were reduced to external-
drag-coefficient data by using qualitative estimates of internal and
base-drag coefficients. Both the total drag as measured on the two
models, the external drag of the present tests, and some unpublished
preliminary wind-tunnel test data show that differences in the drag
level occurred for a range of supersonic Mach numbers between 1.3
and 2.0. These differences in the drag, believed to be caused by the
additive drag characteristics of the inlet, leave the exact drag level
of the configuration investigated in question.

INTRODUCTION

A t the request of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Department of the

Navy, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics has made an
investigation of the drag characteristics near zero lift of the Chance
.
Vought Regulus I1 missile (XRSSM-N-9) This drag investigation utilized
two 0.12-scale rocket-boosted models, which were flown in the speed
range proposed for the full-scale missile. These flight tests were
conducted at the Langley Pilotless Aircraft Research Station at Wallops
Island, Va.
2

This paper presents the results obtained from the flight tests of
two noninstrumented drag models having internal flow. Measured total-
drag coefficients are presented for a range of Mach number from 0.8
9
to 2.2. In addition, the variation of external-drag coefficients has
been estimated over the same speed range by use of qualitative values
of base and internal drag.

SYMBOLS

X longitudinal distance, measured from the nose, in.

L model length, 81.50 in.

MGC wing mean geometric chord, 0.873 ft

A cross-sectional area, sq in.

S total wing area (including body intercept), 2.08 sq ft

M Mach number

9 dynamic pressure, lb/sq ft

R Reynolds number (based on MGC)

ratio of mass flow of air through the duct to mass flow of
m/% air through a free-stream tube of area equal to projected
inlet frontal area (6.68 sq in.)

CD drag coefficient, Drag/qS

Subscripts :
t total

i internal

b base pressure

e external
 3
b

MODELS AND TESTS

I t

Two models of the Regulus I1 missile were t e s t e d . Each model w a s a

0.12-scale version of the f u l l - s c a l e missile with t h e exception that it
had a smaller duct e x i t and, hence, a l a r g e r base annulus (7.06 sq i n . )
i n order t o more nearly simulate the i n t e r n a l flow of the missile. A
three-view sketch of the 0.12-scale model i s presented i n figure 1. The
fuselage consisted of a nose section (contour coordinates presented i n
t a b l e I) with a '2 body " f l a t " that l e d i n t o an underslung boundary-
l a y e r bleed and i n l e t system.

The i n l e t f a c e w a s included i n a plane swept forward 43.8' and t h e

i n i t i a l i n t e r n a l l i p angle was 14.3' (design M = 2.03). Flow from the
i n l e t went through a double minimum duct which exhausted a t the base of
the fuselage. The cross-sectional area of the duct w a s reduced from
t h e l i p t o a minimum, increased t o a constant area, then reduced again
t o a second and smaller minimum near t h e e x i t of the duct (see t a b l e 11).
The boundary-layer bleed w a s s p l i t a t the intake t o discharge from p o r t s
located under each wing. The wing and t a i l surfaces were mounted on the
afterbody and had s l i g h t l y modified biconvex a i r f o i l sections, as well
a s b l u n t t r a i l i n g edges (see t a b l e I ) .

0 The nose section, the casting f o r the inlet-boundary-layer bleed,

and t h e s o l i d wing and t a i l surfaces w e r e of aluminum a l l o y . The duct
'I '. i n the wooden afterbody w a s fabricated from f i b e r g l a s s reinforced with
i' a s h o r t aluminum sleeve inserted i n the e x i t . A p l o t of t h e longitu-
d i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of cross-sectional area i s presented i n figure 2.
The area d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s figure has been adjusted f o r mass flow
r a t i o by subtracting t h e equivalent free-stream-tube area a t M = 1.0
(projected i n l e t f r o n t a l area multiplied by m/%) as suggested i n
reference 1.

The two models, which were i d e n t i c a l within construction tolerances,

were accelerated t o peak Mach number by two d i f f e r e n t booster-rocket
systems. Model 1 was propelled by a s i n g l e ABL Deacon booster and
model 2 by a double Deacon booster. Photographs of the model and the
two model-booster combinations a r e shown i n f i g u r e 3.

"he models were flown near zero l i f t by v i r t u e of a center of

g r a v i t y t h a t was far forward. The t o t a l drag w a s computed from data
obtained during the decelerating portion of f l i g h t t h a t followed sepa-
r a t i o n from the booster. This drag computationalmethod (presented i n
ref. 2) u t i l i z e d the following measurements of each f l i g h t : m o d e l
v e l o c i t y by CW Doppler radar (corrected f o r f l i g h t - p a t h curvature and
a winds a l o f t ) , model position i n space by a radar tracking set, and
I
atmospheric d a t a by radiosonde.
I
4 . . -
em eoe eo

The possible random error of the data is estimated from previous

experience to be within the following limits:

Subsonic Supersonic
M ..................... t o . 010 t o . 005
c ~ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0.003 i o . 002
Although these estimates apply to the absolute value of the
quantities, the probable error in these variables can be considered
to be roughly one-half as large as that shown.

The variation of Reynolds number with Mach number for both model
flights is presented in figure 4. Since an estimate of internal drag
will be presented, the estimated mass-flow ratio m/mo is also shown
on this figure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The measured total-drag coefficients for the two models tested are
presented in figure 5; also sham are qualitative estimates of base and
I
internal drag coefficients and the corresponding external drag coeffi-
cients.

Total Drag

The total-drag-coefficient (CD~) curves shown in figure 5 (a)

indicate that the 0.12-scale model had a drag-rise Mach number of
approximately 0.95. The total drag coefficients of m o d e l s 1 and 2
were in good agreement between M = 1.16 and M = 1.37; and it is
interesting to note that approached the same level for each
CDt
model at its highest test Mach number. However, in the Mach number
range between 1.4 and 2.0, the drag levels of the two models differ
by an amount larger than the estimated accuracy of the data. It is
believed that this discrepancy in may have resulted from differ-
CDt
ences in the mass-flow rates of the two models.

External Drag

In an attempt to extend the usefulness of the test results, these

total-drag values were reduced to external drag by subtracting quali-
tative estimates of the internal and base drag of each model. The
 estimated mass-flaw ratio m/% of the models used in the present
tests is presented in figure 4. Values of m / q , and total pressure
recovery were obtained over the intermediate Mach number range of the
present tests from unpublished wind-tunnel results supplied by Chance
Vought. These test points were then faired and extended over the
required Mach number range by use of calculated values of flaw param-
eters - these calculated values were obtained by assuming the duct
recovery and the choking at the minimum section near the exit. Values
of the internal drag coefficient, as usually defined for internal flow
systems, CQ, were determined by substituting the estimated flaw para-
eters into the equation contained in the appendix of reference 3 .
Further calculations indicated that for a fairly wide variation in
flow rate the associated changes in the magnitude of cDi were quite
small when compared to the magnitude of CD~. The single cDi curve
presented in figure 5(b) is therefore considered to be a good qualita-
tive estimate for both models.

Base pressure drag C% was empirically estimated from a compi-

lation of results obtained from rocket-propelled models. These results
consisted of base pressure measurements made on numerous ducted models
with base annuli that were flown with a choked exit condition. The
annulus area of the 0.12-scale model was used in conjunction with these
base-pressure coefficients to yield the qualitative estimate of
sham in figure 5(b) for both models.

The external drag C D ~ ,also shown on figure 5(b), was obtained by

subtracting the calculated C D ~ and C% values from the C D ~ curves
of both models. Also presented in figure 5(b) are preliminary test
points obtained in the Langley 4- by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunnel
on a ducted 0.065-scale model of the missile. These data are presented
for the mass-flaw ratios estimated for the flight models, shown in
figure 4. The test Reynolds numbers based on the model mean geometric
chord (5.78 in.) were R = 1.91, 1.83, and 1.57 X lo6 for M = 1.41,
1.61, and 2.01, respectively.
As shown in figure 5, the difference in the estimated external-
drag level of the two m o d e l s is reflected into the measured total drag.
Moreover, a comparison of the tunnel data and the rocket model data
shows these unexpected differences in the external drag which indicate
that the inlet may not be functioning properly. It is believed that at
any particular Mach number the flow rates of each flight model differed
a from the assumed m/m, values presented in figure 4. A s previously
stated, internal-drag variations resulting from differences in flaw
6

rate are small compared with variations of the total drag; however,
it is believed that changes in flow rate and duct characteristics
could cause appreciable variation of the external drag as a result of
the influence of scoop spillage. This additive drag due to scoop
spillage is considered part of the external drag, and by virtue of
such factors as inlet shock oscillations, changes in trim angles, small
differences in geometry, etc., could achieve sufficient magnitude to
account for the discrepancies encountered in the external drag.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results of flight tests of two 0.12-scale models of the Chance

Vought Regulus I1 missile are presented for a range of Mach numbers
from 0.8 to 2.2. Measured total-drag-coefficient data were reduced to
external-drag-coefficient data by using qualitative estimates of internal
and base drag coefficient. The external drag of the present tests and
some preliminary wind-tunnel test points shared a difference in the drag
level for the range of supersonic Mach numbers between 1 . 3 and 2.0.
These differences in the drag are believed to be caused by the additive
drag characteristics of the inlet; determination of the exact drag level
of this configuration will therefore require additional data.

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory,

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Langley Field, Va., July 15, 1954.

James D. Church
Research Scientist

Approved :

Chie
/(+
I/
+% w
Joseph A. Shortal
of Pilotless Aircraft Research Division

JKS
 7

REFERENCES
*"
1. H a l l , James Rudyard: Comparison of Free-Flight Measurements of the
Zero-Lift Drag Rise of Six Airplane Configurations and Their
Equivalent Bodies of Revolution a t Transonic Speeds. NACA
RM L53J21a, 19%.

2. Wallskog, Harvey A., and Hart, Roger G.: Investigation of the Drag
of Blunt-Nosed Bodies of Revolution i n Free F l i g h t a t Mach Numbers
From 0.6 t o 2.3. NACA FW L53Dl&a, 1933.

3. Merlet, Charles F., and Putland, Leonard W.: F l i g h t Determination

of the Drag of Conical-Shock Nose I n l e t s with Various Cowling
Shapes and Axial Positions of the Center Body a t Mach Numbers
From 0.8 t o 2.0. NACA RM L54G2la, 1954.

' I
8

TABLE I.- PERTINENT MODEL COORDI3ATES

Body nose contour Wing a i r f o i l contour

(in.) (percent chord)

Station Radius X Y
0 0 0 0
1.20 -.668
365 .10 ’ 0057
2.76 -.20
15 .om
3.60
4.80
t
Straight 25
.Olog
.0132
6.00 line 30 .0152
7.20
1.404
J. 35 .0169
7-92 .40 .0183
8.40 1.471 45 0193
9.60 1.623 50 0199
10.80
12.00
1.726
1.891
-.60
537 .0200
.0196 J
13.20 2.011 65 .0187
14.40 2.125 -70 .0174
15.60 2-233 -75 0157
16.80
18.00
2.336 .80 -.0n0
0135
2.433 .85
19.20 2.526 90 .0083
20.40 2.613 *95 .0w2
21.60 2.695 1.00 .0020
22.80 2-771 S t r a i g h t-1 ie f a i r i n g
24.00 2.841 from tangent t o con-
25.20 2.904 s t a n t leading-edge
26.40 2.959 r a d i u s of 0.004 inch
27.00 2.982 t o tangent of 0.10
27.54 3.000 chord.
-
2M eo 0.0 e 0 eo oe 0 moa 0.0 .e

TABU 11.- DUCT AREA PERPENDICULAR TO DUCT CENTER LME

36 54 6.68
39.42 5.37
40.45 5-30
44 33 5.82
46 35 6.27
48.63 6.73
51.20 6.95
54 07 7.02
74.45 7.02
75 21 6.38
75 63 5.57
76.01 5-15
81.50 5.24
Area a t f i r s t s t a t i o n i s
the projected i n l e t
f r o n t a l area.
 c I p-24

f
c

L
B
Y
P

I IC
fi
cd
k

!I
fi
 r- (D in dc t.9 CJ r(

. . .
0
. .
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 -
0 0 0 0
#
 ( a ) Three- quarter-rear view. L-84522

L-84521
(b ) View of i n l e t and boundary-layer bleed arrangement.

Figure 3 . - Photographs of the models.

0 ae a
a
l i cua
cv

0
.
cu

a
e
ri

1D
e
rl

* a
ri

cu
ri

0
0

ri

ae #

cv 0
ri
P
 NACA RM SL54HO2:,*
.......
0.
0 .
.
:,. ... :..
. : m i e::
. .....
. ...
..e

0 .
::
0
0.
.

.06

04

CDt

.02

0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
M

(a) Measured total-drag coefficient.

.06
' j

.04

cD

.02

0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 .o 2.2
m
( b ) Estimated external-drag coefficient and estimated internal and base-
pressure drag coefficients.

Figure 5.- Variation of measured and estimated drag coefficients

with Mach number.

NACA-Langley - 1-23-54 - 50