Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T19:32:31.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACFD applications to store separation — status report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. Cenko  and
M. Lutton
A. Cenko
Affiliation:
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, USA
M. Lutton
Affiliation:
Air Force Seek Eagle Office, Eglin AFB, Fla, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the past decade, the Navy has considerably improved its capabilities in aircraft-weapon integration. In 1989 it took more than 400 hours of wind-tunnel testing, which cost $1,5000,000, and 20 flights to clear the JSOW from the F-18 to Mach 0·95. This year the Mk-83 JDAM was cleared after only 60 hours of wind-tunnel testing and five flights to the full F-18 aircraft envelope of Mach 1·3. This reduction occurred because the Navy not only learned to test smarter, but also developed an integrated approach to modelling and simulation (M&S), wind-tunnel and flight testing which allowed lessons learned on previous programmes to be applied to new ones. However, the present approach still requires a fairly large commitment of time and financial resources to accomplish the mission.

The present approach has optimised the use of available resources; any further gains will have to come not by improving existing techniques, but by bringing new resources into the process.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1040 , October 2000 , pp. 459 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cheveney, J.V. The challenge of combat superiority through modernisation, Keynote Paper RTO Symposium on Aircraft Weapon System Compatibility and Integration, Chester, UK, October 1998.Google Scholar
2. Taverna, F. and Cenko, A. Navy integrated T&E approach to store separation, Paper 13, RTO Symposium on Aircraft Weapon System Compatibility and Integration, Chester, UK, October 1998.Google Scholar
3. Heim, E. CFD wing/pylon/finned-store mutual interference wind-tunnel experiment, AEDC-TSR-91-P4, 1991.Google Scholar
4. Newman, J.C. and Baysal, O. Transonic Solutions of a wing/pylon/finned store using hybrid domain decomposition, AIAA paper 92-4571, August 1992.Google Scholar
5. Parikh, P., Pirzadeh, S. and Frink, N.T. Unstructured grid solutions to a wing/pylon/store configuration using VGRID3D/USM3D, AIAA Paper 92-4572, August 1992.Google Scholar
6. Meakin, R. Computations of the unsteady viscous flow about a generic wing/pylon/finned-store configuration, AIAA Paper 92-4568, August 1992.Google Scholar
7. Millett, D. More than a pretty picture, Leading Edge, December 1992.Google Scholar
8. Madson, M. et alTranAir computations of the flow about a generic wing/pylon/finned-store configuration, AIAA paper 94-0155, January 1994.Google Scholar
9. Welterlen, T. et al Application of viscous, cartesian CFD to aircraft store carriage and separation simulation, AIAA-96-2453, June 1996.Google Scholar
10. Madson, M. and Talbot, M. F-16/generic store carriage load predictions at transonic Mach numbers using TranAir, AIAA-96-2454, June, 1996.Google Scholar
11. Chine, D. et al Calculation of generic store separation from an F-16 aircraft, AIAA-96-2455, June 1996.Google Scholar
12. Kern, S. and Bruner, C. External carriage analysis of a generic finned-store on the F-16 using USM3D, AIAA-96-2456, June 1996.Google Scholar
13. Kennon, S. et al STORESIM: An integrated system for multi-body CFD simulation, AIAA-96-2458, June 1996.Google Scholar
14. Wey, T. and Martin, F. Application of the OVERFLOW Code to the F-16 configuration, AIAA-96-2459, June 1996.Google Scholar
15. Cenko, A. ACFD Applications to store separation, ICAS Paper 98-2.10.4, September 1988.Google Scholar
16. Cenko, A. F-18C/JDAM CFD Challenge wind-tunnel and flight test results, AIAA Paper 99-0120, January 1999.Google Scholar
17. Hall, L. Navier-Stokes/6-DOF analysis of the JDAM store separation from the F/A-18C aircraft, AIAA Paper 99-0121, January 1999.Google Scholar
18. Tomaro, R. et al A solution on the F-l 8C for store separation simulation using COBALT, AIAA Paper 99-0122, January 1999.Google Scholar
19. Woodson, S. and Bruner, C. Analysis of unstructured CFD codes for the accurate prediction of A/C store trajectories, AIAA Paper 99-0123, January 1999.Google Scholar
20. Welterlen, T. Store release simulation on the F/A-18C using split flow, AIAA Paper 99-0124, January 1999.Google Scholar
21. McGroy, W. et al Store trajectory analysis about the F/A-18C using GUST unstructured grid generation and flow solver package, AIAA Paper 99-0125, January 1999.Google Scholar
22. Fairlie, B. and Caldeira, R. Prediction of JDAM separation characteristics from the F/A-18 aircraft, AIAA Paper 99-0126, January 1999.Google Scholar
23. Benmeddour, A. Application of the Canadian code to the F/A-18C JDAM separation, AIAA Paper 99-127, January 1999.Google Scholar
24. Noak, R. and Jolly, B. Fully time accurate CFD simulations of JDAM separation from an F-18C aircraft, AIAA Paper 2000-0794, January, 2000.Google Scholar
25. Sickles, W.L., Denny, A.G. and Nichols, R.H. Time-accurate CFD predictions for the JDAM separation from an F-18C aircraft, AIAA Paper 2000-0796, 10-13 January 2000.Google Scholar