Errata: "The Status of Unsteady Aerodynamic Influence Coefficients"

Rodden, William P.; Revell, J. D.

doi:10.2514/3.54853

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figures 4 and 5 show the only experimental information 20 -21 that could be found by the present authors for pointed-nose bodies of sufficiently small slenderness ratio. As observed already by Rodden and Re veil, 15 the experimental information given in NASA TN-D-859 is probably too inaccurate for useful comparison. Much more information has been gathered on the cone-frustum re-entry body shown in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Dynamic stability analysis of bodies of revolution in supersonic flow.

Platzer¹,

Sherer²

1968

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A linearized characteristics method is presented for the dynamic stability analysis of bodies of revolution in supersonic flow. Using body-fixed coordinates, the first-order unsteady potential equation is solved by extending previous work by Sauer and Heinz and Erdmann and Oswatitsch to supersonic flow past slowly oscillating bodies of revolution. A simple numerical procedure is obtained which allows the analysis of pointed-nose bodies of arbitrary meridian profile including slope discontinuities (cone-cylinder bodies). Results are presented for the damping coefficient CM Q + dtfa for various body configurations as a function of Mach number and axis location. The range of validity of this approach is examined by comparison with other theoretical methods and experimental results. Nom enclature= normal force coefficient due to angular velocity C N6t = normal force coefficient due to time rate of change of angle of attack E (x, r] = complementary solution, Eq. (9) G(x, r} = zero angle-of-attack potential K(x, r) = angle-of-attack potential M = Mach number R(x\R'(x) = body radius and slope, respectively t = time u, v, w = velocity components in x, r, 6 directions, Eqs.(2) Xj r, 0 = cylindrical coordinates x g = center of oscillation a.= angle of attack 0 = (M 2 -1) 1/2 e = thickness ratio 7 = ratio of specific heats d = amplitude of oscillation $ 0 = cone semi-apex angle £, ?7 = characteristic coordinates £l(x, r, d, t) = velocity potential \(x, r) = out-of -phase potential 3?(x, r, 6, t) = perturbation potential

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Dynamic stability analysis of bodies of revolution in supersonic flow.

Platzer¹,

Sherer²

1968

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12, and a set of experimentally determined control force coefficients [C e ]. (2) The use of the experimental force coefficients may be necessary to account for aerodynamic effects that are not predictable, such as some interference loads, or not accurately predictable, such as camber loads.…”

Section: Aeroelastic Characteristics Of a Restrained Vehiclementioning

confidence: 99%

Equations of motion of a quasisteady flight vehicle utilizing restrained static aeroelastic characteristics

Rodden

Love

1985

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mean axes provide the usual reference in maneuvering and dynamic response analyses of flexible vehicles. Attached or structural axes have also been used because the flexibility characteristics of the structure are only determined for a restrained structure. If the structural axes are employed, a relationship is required for the orientations of the structural axes relative to the mean axes, since the equations of motion determine the orientations of the mean axes. If this relationship is not considered, as it has not been in a number of publications, the solution to the equations of motion of the structural axes is not invariant with the choice of support configuration used in the calculation of the structural flexibility influence coefficients and is, therefore, incorrect. This relationship and the correct equations of motion for the structural axes are presented, and the correctness of the formulation is demonstrated numerically in studies of longitudinal maneuvering of an example forward-swept-wing airplane at constant forward velocity. Although the paper assumes constant airspeed in the basic developments, it concludes with discussions of aeroelastic speed derivatives and aeroelastic effects on drag. The paper assumes quasisteady equilibrium of the structure with its applied loads throughout. Nomenclature A= aeroelastic deflection amplification factor a = flexibility, a F is free-body flexibility a s = amplitude of motion of support reference point #0 = airfoil two-dimensional lift curve slope B = aeroelastic load amplification factor b = reference span C = generalized aerodynamic force coefficient: C/ is inertial value, C q is angular rate value, C a is incidence and control surface value, C^ is incidence rate value, C 0 is initial value C e = experimental control point force coefficient C h = complex oscillatory aerodynamic influence coefficient C hs = static aerodynamic influence coefficient C m = aerodynamic pitching moment coefficient C z = aerodynamic normal force coefficient c =mean aerodynamic chord c f = local lift curve slope EI X

show abstract

“…T h is is u n fo rtu n a te as most passenger a ircra ft cruise at transonic speeds [3]. These [12], [18], [19], [20], [21]; (2) pressure m atching methods [16], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27];…”

Section: O M P U Ta Tio N a L A N A Ly Sis T Echniques 131 F Req mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reference [22] presented a procedure based on the p re -m u ltip lic a tio n of the A IC m a trix by a diagonal w eighting operator which was obtained fro m the ra tio be tween the experim ental and theoretical steady pressures. S im ilarly, Reference [23] pre-m ultiplied the A IC m a trix by a diagonal weighting operator based on the ra tio between measured and theoretical unsteady pressures related to a given downwash mode shape.…”

Section: 1 2 P R E Ssu R E M a Tc H In G M E Th O D Smentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed incorrect trends for com puted unsteady pressure results as w ell as nonconservative flu tte r speeds [16]. The com puta tio n of the correction factors presented in References [22], [23] and [24] also produced bad ly conditioned corrected A IC m atrices for zero or very low pressure values.…”

Section: 1 2 P R E Ssu R E M a Tc H In G M E Th O D Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improved frequency domain flutter analysis using computational fluid dynamics

Beaubien¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Im p roved F requency D o m a in F lu tte r A n a ly sis U sin g C o m p u ta tio n a l F lu id D y n a m ics by R yan J. B eaubien B. Eng. (Aerospace) A thesis subm itted to the Faculty o f G raduate Studies and Research in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements for the degree of M a ster's o f A pplied Science in A erospace E ngineering O ttaw a-C arleton In s titu te for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering D epartm ent of M echanical and Aerospace Engineering C arleton U niversity O ttawa, O ntario, Canada

show abstract

Errata: "The Status of Unsteady Aerodynamic Influence Coefficients"

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Dynamic stability analysis of bodies of revolution in supersonic flow.

Dynamic stability analysis of bodies of revolution in supersonic flow.

Equations of motion of a quasisteady flight vehicle utilizing restrained static aeroelastic characteristics

Improved frequency domain flutter analysis using computational fluid dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About