THE APPLICATION OF A FIN-FLARE COMBINATION

FOR STABILIZING THE UPPER STAGE OF A

T WO~T A GE VEHICLE
John N. Lewak
Design Engineer
VeGicle Design Department
Rocket and Space Division
Bristol Aerospace Limited
Abstract
The Black Brant IV two-stage sounding rocket
was designed to meet scientific experimental study
requirements at altitudes of approximately 1000
K .M.
the second stage must be adequately stabilized
throughout a flight environment which includes
Mach numbers from 4 to 12, low dynamic press-
ures, and a relatively long cri ti cal stage separa-
tion period.
analyses indicated that fin stabilizing surfaces
would not provide sufficient stability. At the same
time, the use of a conical fl are stabilizer was in-
vestigated and shown to be advantageous. Thus,
the concept of a fl are stabilized second stage was
pursued. Shortly before the initial Black Brant N
firings, a wind tunnel study was carri ed out by the
Canadian National Aeronautics Establishment,
pri mari l y to verify the theoretical stability analy-
si s, which had been done for zero angle of attack.
They also indicated that non-linear effects could
promote static instability at small angles of attack.
The solution to this problem was found to be fin-
fl are combination which would provide the necess-
ary stability throughout the operating Mach number
range.
rations resulted i n an optimum design which may
now be considered for flight testing.
To satisfactorily perform these mi ssi ons,
Earl y i n the development phase,
Subsequent tests on two fin-flare configu-
1. Introduction
The concept of a two-stage high performance
sounding rocket was proposed as one of a family
of sounding rockets to probe altitudes from 100 to
1000 k.m. Naturally, this vehicle was intended
for the upper end of this altitude range, but, to
incorporate flexibility into the system, the second
stage would originate as a single stage for employ-
ment at lower altitudes. The booster, developed
initially as a propulsion test vehicle, had already
been flight proven i n a single stage version.
Therefore, while some modifications were neces-
sary to permit mating of the two stages, the
motors and much of the hardware for this vehicle
have been developed elsewhere.
2. Development of the Conical Fl are Stabilizer
In the course of the preliminary design of
the Black Brant
stabilizing assemblfes were examined.
volved a three-fin configuration similar to that
used on the booster, the other a conical fl are.
sustainer , two different
One in-
The initial analyses were carri ed out on both
assemblies simultaneously and indicated the de-
sireability of using the fin assembly for the single
stage vehicle and the fl are on the two-stage
vehicle. The decision was made to follow-up this
approach and consider the fl are as the only possi-
ble stabilizer for the sustainer. As complications
arose from this decision at the ,terminal stages of
the design program, i t would be interesting to see
how and why the fl are was selected as the stabii
lizing unit.
To begin, a number of requirements were
established to govern the design. Pri mari l y, the
philosophy of performance and reliability at min-
imum cost was adopted. Reliability was achieved
by using what would be existing hardware, thus
reducing developmental costs. In addition, the
design and vehicle operation were to be kept as
simple as possible, such that materi al costs
would be low and no complicated apparatus would
be needed for the vehicle to perform its function.
From this philosophy evolved two particularly
important design requirements:
1)
the connection between the two vehicles
would be broken by drag separation tech-
niques.
2 )
the static margin of the upper stage was
never to be l ess than 1 calibre (or 1
second stage body diameter).
These requirements influence the design of
the second stage considerably.
To conform to the procedure adopted during
the initial design phase, l et us examine the aero-
dynamic properties of fin and fl are stabilizers.
A typical example of the fin stabilizer asoembly
aerodynamic characteristics is shown i n figure 1,
for a 3-fin system that would be considered for use
on this sustainer. While the derivative of the lift
coefficient presented has been referenced to the
body cross sectional area and factored to include
body effects
Mach number, a characteristic of fin stabilizers,
i s clearly illustrated. Also shown is the predom-
inant influence of the lift coefficient on the stabil-
izing moment,
to be inversely proportional to the Mach number.
This decrement i n lift coefficient and moment is
said to be destabilizing the vehicle, as illustrated
the strong inverse dependancy on
which shows a distinct tendency
143
in figure 2. Presented here are the total vehicle
aerodynamic characteristics, the lift coefficient
derivative, and the centre of pressure, which are
determined by resolution of the nose and tail com-
ponents. The nose in this case is a cone cylinder
whose lift coefficient and centre of pressure
location increase with Mach number. These
features are also destabilizing, but the tail con-
tributions are by far the determining factor of the
lift and static stability of the vehicle. Note that
the l i ft coefficient again displays a tendency to the
inverse Mach number proportionality and that this
trait has also been developed in the centre of
pressure location, as it moves forward with in-
creasing Mach number.
If the minimum - payload centre of gravity
versus Mach number curve i s now superimposed,
the deficiency of fins in stabilizing a vehicle which
has this range of flight Mach numbers i s very
apparent. Pri or to the sustainer achieving a Mach
number of 6.5, the centre of pressure may be
seen to lie behind the centre of gravity, giving
ri se to a positive static margin and a statically
stable missile. At Mach 6.5, the centre of pres-
sure and centre of gravity are coincident and the
vehicle i s neutrally stable. At Mach numbers
above 6.5, the centre of pressure lies forward of
the centre of gravity; the static margin i s negative,
and the vehicle is statically unstable.
Technically, it is possible to side-step this
condition either by including a control system to
provide artificial stability, or by imparting a
finite spin rate and thus gyroscopically stabilizing
the vehicle in much the same way as a bullet is
stabilized. However, in designing this vehicle,
neither method i s appropriate. A control system
i s a luxury which the low-cost philosopy does not
permit, while a spun vehicle may be detrimental
with respect to user requirements.
case must consider, therefore, anunguided, non-
rolling vehicle for which the condition of static in-
stability i s intolerable.
vehicle experienced an angle of attack during this
period, the force and moment systems which result
would destabilize the vehicle more tending to
cause an angular growth. Eventually, the angle of
attack becomes sufficiently large to result in
vehicle break-up or, failing this, to prevent
successful completion of the mission.
then, the three-fin stabilizer can not be used.
The design
If for some reason, the
Obviously,
The above discussion does not provide allow-
ance for any fin stabilizer assembly other than
that originally considered, a three fin assembly
which, incidentally, is the current production
model on the single-stage version of the sustainer.
It i s possible to achieve the static stability simply
by increasing the fin area, or even adding another
fin. In this case, however, at the maximum Mach
number, the increase i n weight at the aft end,
causing a centre of gravity shift, offsets any
apparent benefit of shifting the centre of pressure
further back, and stability may not be achieved by
this method. In other situations, these additions
might be the solution, but, before this method of
over-coming static instability is adopted, the
weight and drag penalties on performance should
be evaluated and consideration given to additional
manufacturing costs in modifying the support
structure.
Returning to the problem at hand, it must be
recalled that a conical flare stabilizer was eval-
uated simultaneously with the fin assembly. The
fi rst stabilizer considered had a terminal dia-
meter equal to that of the booster thus providing
a smooth transistion in the interstage region. It
was found to be inadequate, but, by increasing
the flare angle and, thus, increasing the terminal
diameter, a suitable flare was found.
acteristics of this stabilizer are herein presented.
The char-
Theoretically, the conical flare behaves
aerodynamically like a cone, and the methods
outlined here show that cone theory may be used
to predict the characteristics to a reasonable
accuracy. The flare may be considered to con-
sist of a large cone from which a small cone,
having the same semi-vertex angle and a co-
linear axis of revolution, i s removed.
this represents the procedure for determining
the aerodynamic characteristics of the flare.
Since the semi-vertex angle i s the same, the l i f t
coefficient, referenced to the base area of each
cone, i s also the same for a given Mach number.
However, when the coefficients are referenced to
the same cross-sectional area (general practice
is to use the maximum body cross-section which
would be equivalent to that at the termination of
the small cone), the lifting power of the larger
cone takes on a truer perspective with respect to
the smaller.
generally a function of the cone length, and, there-
fore, each may be evaluated in the usual manner.
The flare characteristics are, then, the resultant
coefficient and centre of pressure determined by
removing the small cone from the large, i n the
s ame manner as the total vehicles characteristics
are calculated. It has been determined experi-
mentally that attached flows about the flare wi l l
cause a loss in l i ft effectiveness ranging from 0-
10% of the truncated cone value, depending upon
the nose shape and flow regime encountered. In
supersonic flow, for a configuration such as the
sustainer with its relatively slender nose, the
attached flow condition prevails, such that for de-
sign studies, the truncated cone values were
factored by 0.9.
sented i n figure 3, and indicate much better
stability characteristics than the fin stabilizer
especially i n the lift moment which now increases
with Mach number instead of the radical decrease
previously shown.
Basically,
The centre of pressure location i s
The analytical results are pre-
Combining the flare Characteristics with the
nose-body properties and comparing the resultant
to the fin-stabilized sustainer, the effectiveness
of utilizing a conical stabilizer may be seen
144
(figure 4).
this configuration is higher and the centre of
pressure is further aft.
of gravity location, it can be shown that static
stability is maintained throughout this Mach num-
ber range, the minimum static margin being about
1.3 calibres at approximately Mach 4. Since the
dynamic pressure i s relatively low at this time,
aeroelastic effects are negligible, and only rigid
body characteristics are considered.
Above Mach 5, the lift coefficient for
Superimposing the centre
The resul ts of figure 4, represent the terminal
design point in the development phase of the fl are
stabilizer. As this design met the static stability
requirements, it was adopted for use in the flight
testing phase. In this form, the flare has two de-
trimental aspects. The more serious may be seen
from figure 4, which shows the minimum stability
occurs at the lower Mach numbers, and, hence, at
separation of the two vehicles.
this wi l l be discussed later.
that of the drag incurred by use of the flare. In
figure 5, which shows the present flight configura-
tion, it may be seen that the flare extends beyond
the circumference of the booster. Therefore ,
during the boosted portion of the flight, the flare
wi l l contribute to the base drag of the vehicle,
This contribution, in relation to the total vehicle
drag, is quite small and does not influence per-
formance to any great extent in this phase of the
flight. Because the terminal diameter of the
nozzle i s only slightly smaller than the flare,
during the sustainer powered portion of the flight,
the base drag contribution again is relatively small.
However, during the uapowered sustainer flight,
the base drag of the flare contributes 40 - 50% of
the total second stage drag. Fortunately, the un-
powered sustainer fl i ght for this vehicle does not
commence until approximately 45 k.m. (150,000
ft.) , at which point the density is sufficiently small
as to prevent an excessive drag build-up. A drag
penalty of this nature could not be tolerated on the
single stage version, which burns out at a much
lower altitude, and, consequently, the flare stab-
ilizer is limited for use only on the two stage
vehicle.
The implications of
The second factor i s
3. Wind Tunnel Test and the Development of the
Fin Fl are Combination
Recalling the facts that the minimum stability
of the flare stabilized vehicle occurred at the
lowest Mach number, and that the lowest Mach
number during sustainer atmospheric flight oc-
curred immediately prior to second stage ignition,
it may be seen that it is desirable to maintain the
Mach number as high as possible for this event.
Due to the nature of the separation system, the
most feasible time i s shortly after the two vehicles
disengage and the sustainer has preceeded the
booster sufficiently as to prevent exhaust deflec-
tions. At this time, the Mach number has de-
creased to the Mach 4 region where stability i s
relatively low and the vehicle very sensitive to
atmospheric disturbances.
As the separation phase is extremely crucial
with respect to the whole flight, it was decided to
verify the theoretical stability calculations employ-
ing a series of wind tunnel tests.
made with the co-operation of the High Speed
Aerodynamics Section of the Canadian National
Aeronautics Establishment, who performed the
tests in their 1.5 x 1.5 m. (5 x 5 ft.) blowdown
supersonic wind tunnel. The first series of tests
on the flare stabilized vehicle were performed at
Machs 3.5 and 4.5, thus covering the expected
range of Mach numbers at separation. A theoret-
ical analysis indicated that at these Mach numbers
there would be no shock-boundary layer inter-
action causing separated flow.
photographs could not be taken to confirm this as-
pect of the study, the reduced data indicated that
unseparated Bow probably existed. Scatter in the
data reduced the effectiveness of the tests but two
important results were obtained.
These were
While schlieren
1)
the l i ft coefficient of the flare was .only
80% of the truncated cone values as com-
pared to the 90% used in theoretical
analysis, while the centre of pressure
location agreed favourably with the theo-
retical estimation.
2)
neutral Stability and subsequent static in-
stability occurred at small angles of
attack when the reduced wind tunnel data
was applied to a typical flight case in-
volving a minimum net payload weight.
To reduce the effects of data scatter and to
verify these results, a second series of tests was
run at Mach 4.25 , with a particular emphasis on
low angles of attack.
ed and when applied to flight cases indicated that
neutral stability occurred at an angle of attack of
t 2.5O for a 18.1 k,g. (401b.) minimum net payload,
and at
payload, the Wference being attributed to the
heavier payload, figure 6..
Similar results were achiev-
-
3 for a 45.4 k.g. (100 lb.) maMmum net
It should be noted that the omission of a study
into non-linear effects on veliicle stability does not
constitute an error in the fundamental design pro-
cedure. At that time, little was known about flare
stabilized vehicles, particularly at angles of attack.
The results of these tests do not increase the know-
ledge in this area except in reference to this part-
icular vehicle.
need for further understanding of the aerodynamics
of flares and the implications of their employment
for stabilizers.
They do, however , point out the
As stage separation took place at altitudts
wherein high wind shears due to jet streams exist-
ed, the low angle of attack requirements for stab-
ilrty could not be tolerated, since this implied
severe wind restrictions. To increase the stabihity
of the second stage ignition, it was decided to add
small fins to the stabilizer to utilize their low Mach
number lift effectiveness. Again, this was a yir-
145
tually an unknown region of aerodynamics, part-
iculary at this Mach number level. As yet, there
is still no theory to adequately predict the charac-
teri sti cs of this configuration. The only recourse
was, i n wind tunnel testing, and for this study two
fi ns planforms were examined, figure 7.
The resul ts of these tests, with respect to the
stability af the second stage are shown i n figure 8
for a Mach number of 4.25, and rol l angles of Oo,
45O5 and 90.
pects to be found i n these resul ts.
There are several important as-
1)
decreasing the sweep angle, thus i ncreas-
ing the planform area, i ncreases the
static stability throughout the angles of
attack.
The forward centre of pressure shift at
angles of attack i s not eliminated, but,
since the static margin at zero angle of
attack has been increased with the addition
of the fins, the angle of attack envelope
has 'now been extended to a tolerable
region.
2)
3)
The stability of this configuration is roll-
angle dependent for any angle of attack
other than zero.
This l ast feature i s pri mari l y the result of
body shed vortices interacting with fins causing a
loss i n l i ft effectiveness, and may be seen from
the assyrnetrical centre of pressure shift. In the
case of the Oo rol l angle, two fins are masked by
the body i n the negative angle of attack region,
causing a more rapid forward centre of pressure
shift than for positive angles of attack. At rol l
angles of 45O and 90, there is less interference
and consequently more symmetrical shift.
these resul ts, it may be seen that rolling the
vehicle, and thus continuously changing the rol l
orientation angle, would be beneficial from a
stability standpoint.
From
By interpolating the resul ts from two sets of
fins, a final, optimized planform may be achieved.
This was done, resulting i n a Configuration with
characteri sti cs as shown i n figure 9.
5. Flight Results
To date, the fin-flare stabilizer has been de-
signed, manufactured, and structurally tested,
but no flight testing of this configuration has been
made.
significant i ncrease i n second stage drag and
weight, resulting i n loss i n performance which has
been roughly estimated as being abaut 10% of
apogee altitude.
icle must suffer an angle of attack build-up
sufficient to involve the nonlinear effects.
cause of such a build-up must necessari l y be due
to a l arge separation induce yaw, andl or an en-
counter with a l arge square wave wind shear i n
The addition of fins naturally represents a
To necessitate its use, the veh-
The
the order of 78 meters per sec.
separation assembly design would be modified to
eliminate any separation distrubances. Wind
studies (ref. 8) have indicated the maximum
measured wind shears are i n the order of 24.4
meters per sec. over a 305 meter l ayer much
l ess severe than the square wave magnitude re-
quired to produce non-linearities.
was decided to investigate vehicle flight character-
i sti cs using the di nned stabilizer assembly, re-
taining the fin-flare combination i n reserve.
sequent flight tests revealed the absence of any
separation disturbances, while wind-shears ap-
proaching the maximum non-linear design
case were not encountered.
tunnel test resul ts indicate that it is desirable to
employ a fin-flare combination, i ts need has yet
to be demonstrated. However, flights with min-
imum payload (18.1 k.g. or 40 lb.) may yet dict-
ate the use of the nev component, and, since its
ae'rodynamic and structural development is com-
plete, its incorporation into the BIack Brant I V
system may be expedited without delay.
If necessary, the
Therefore, it
Sub-
Thus, while wind
6. References
1. Ellinwood, J . W. , Parsons, W. D., and
Nakagawa, T. T. , Effectiveness of Fl ared
Afterbodies i n Lift: Data Survey and Applica-
tion to the Exos Third Stage.
Report 106-R2, May, 1962. (CONFIDENTIAL)
Space-General
2. Black Brant IV, Engineering Report No. 4132
I ssue A, Bristol Aerospace Ltd. 1962.
4. Dixon R.C. , and Galway, R.D. , Addendum to
5 x 5 '0001 and / 0002, National Aeronautical
Extablishment High Speed Aerodynamics
Section, Wind Tunnel Data Report 5 x 5/0004,
Mar ch-April , 19 64.
Dixon, R.C., Stability of Black Brant IV
Second Stage with Flare-Mounted Fi ns, National
Aeronautical Establishment, High Speed Aero-
dynamics Section, Wind Tunnel Data Report
5 x 5:0006, September-October, 1964.
5.
7. Hayes, C. and Fourni er, R.H.,Effect of Fi n-
Fl are Combinations on the Aerodynamic
Characteri sti cs of a Body at Mach Plumbers
1. 61 and 2.20, NASA TN D-2623. February,
1965.
8. Sissenwine, Norman, Windspeed Profi l e, Wind-
shear, and Gusts for Dessgn of Guidance
Systems for Vertical Rising Ai r Vehicles,
Ai r Force Surveys i n Geophysics, Special
Proj ects Laboratory Geophysics Research
Directorate, Ai r Force Cambridge Research
Centre, Ai r Research and Developmei9
Command, November, 1954.
146
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I I I 2 1 3
MACH NUMBER
X VERSUS
2095
3 4 5 6 7 ' 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO \I 12 I
MACH NUMBER MACH NUMBER
FIGURE 1
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FIN STABILIZER ASSEMBLY
MACH NUMBER
CENTRE OF PRESSURE
AND
CENTRE OF GRAVITY
LOCATl ON S
VERSUS
MACH NUMBER
NET PAYLOAD WEIGHT - 18.1 Kg.
d =25.4 cm.
X
* B- - \ CENTRE OF PRESSURE
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I I I 2 1 3
MACH NUMBER
L
FIGURE 2
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FIN STABILIZED VEHICLE
147
3.54
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I I 1 2 1 9
MACH NUMBER
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 I 2 1 3
MACH NUMBER
FIGURE 3
AERODYNAM IC CHARACTERISTICS OF FLARE STAB1 MZER ASSEMBLY
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I1 12 I3
MACH NUMBER
CENTRE OF PRESSURE
MACH NUMBER
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1 2 1 3
MACH NUMBER
FIGURE 4
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FLARE STABILIZED VEHICLE
148
OVERALL VEHICLE LENGTH - l14.6m.
OVERALL SUSTAINER LENGTH - 55.9m.
62.6 cm.
FIGURE 5
BLACK BRANT IY FLIGHT CONFIGURATION
I
d I
r--- Xcg (45.4 Kg. NET PAYLOAD)
+
cn I Xcg (18.1 Kg. NET PAYLOAD)
w
. u
[Y
g-WI ND TUNNEL
z 2- I
I
I
I
i 13 15
I O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Y
Q
I
Y
i -
'2
4 I
1
2 0. I
I
LL I
0 - 3, I I
THEORETICAL I
I
Y - 1 1 -
Y d
- 1
I
s
a -41 I
d = 2 5 . 4 cm.
FIGURE 6
CENTRE OF PRESSURE OF FL A RE STABILIZED
VEHICLE VERSUS A NGL E OF ATTACK
M =4.25
149
FIGURE 7
FIN - FLARE COMBINATIONS -TEST MODEL CONFIGURATION
I
I
LOOK I NC
FORWARD
vXcg(l8.l Kg. NE
LEGEND
ROLL ANGLE I HALF SPAN FINS I FULL SPAN FINS
O0 0 Q 6 6
450
90 O
r PAYLOAD
d =25.4 cm.
FIGURE 8
CENTRE OF PRESSURE OF FIN-FLARE STABILIZED VEHICLE
VERSUS ANGLE OF ATTACK AT M=4.25
CENTRE OF PRESSURE
VERSUS
ANGLE OF ATTACK
STRUCTURAL LIMIT -----
Xc g (18.1 Kg. NET PAYLOAD)
FIN DIMENSIONS
FIGURE 9
OPTIMIZED FIN - FLARE CONFI(;URATION