1I
CONTRIBUTIONS 
TO MISSILE 
AERODYNAMICS 
A TRIBUTE 
TO DR. JACK 
N. NIELSEN 
Mamix
F. E. Dillenius
and Michael
R. Mendenhall
Nielsen 
Engineering 
& Research, Inc. 
Mountain 
526 Clyde Ave View, CA 9404322 12 USA 
1. INTRODUCTION 

In this section, 
some 
of 
the 
vital 
statistics 
of 
Dr. 
Nielsen are detailed. background are listed.
1.1 Vital
Statistics
Milestones
in his educational
Jack Norman Nielsen was born on November 21, 1918, in Caemarvon, Wales, Great Britain. His father
He had
_{w}_{a}_{s} _{a} Danish merchant marine
_{o}_{n}_{e} brother. The family emigrated to the United
States, and he became a U.S. citizen at age 12. He
grew up in Marin
CA).
worked
Aeronautics (NACA)
he
ship captain.
County (north of San Francisco,
After
he finished undergraduate university,
for the National Advisory
Committee for
at the Langley Aeronautical
Laboratory from 1941 to 1944. He served in the U.S.
Army
Engineers from 1944 to 1946.
While
wife Gisela in 1945.
Dagmar,
on duty in Germany,
later married
Jack Nielsen
married
his
SUMMARY 

This symposium 
is dedicated 
to the memory 
of Dr. 

Jack N. Nielsen, 
known 
all 
over the world 
as “the 
father of missile aerodynamics” and acknowledged as an authority on supersonic aerodynamics. He had 49
years experience in research and development in the
fields
findings were published in more than 200 technical
documents.
documents is included
paper. This paper provides an overview of his life, major accomplishments, and research activities. Short
and
in the reference section of this
and applied fluid mechanics; his
of theoretical
A
list
of
Dr.
Nielsen’s
papers
descriptions 
are presented 
of 
Dr. Nielsen’s 
major 

contributions 
to 
missile aerodynamics including 
analysis of wingbody interference, nonlinear flow phenomena, and store separation modeling.
The Nielsen’s
had one daughter
and three
to Dr. Leon Glover,
grandchildren. 
On November 1,1990, he passed away 

peacemlly 
in his 
sleep of a heart attack 
at age 7 1, in 

Monterey, 
CA, 
after having spent 
his 
last 
day 

building 
a 
brick 
walkway, one 
of 
his 
favorite 
pastimes.
1.2 Education
After middle school in Marin County, Jack Nielsen
went to the University
of California,
Berkeley,
and in
1941 obtained
the Bachelor
of Science Degree (with
Honors) in Mechanical Engineering, 
In 
1949, 
he 
obtained his Master of Science Degree in Mechanical 

Engineering from the California 
Institute 
of 
Technology.
In 195 1, Jack Nielsen
earned his Doctor
Copyright
1998 by Nielsen Engineering
& Research (NEAR).
Published with permission
of the authors.
Paper
presented
at the RTO
AVT
Italy,
1114
on ‘Missile
May 1998, and published
Symposium
Aerodynamics”,
in RTO
MP5.
held in Sorrento,
l2
of Philosophy in Aeronautics (Magna Cum Laude) 
aerodynamic 
and thermodynamic 
problems in aerial 

from the California Institute of Technology. 
His 
photography 
for 
the U.S. 
Corps 
of Engineers 
and 
thesis addressed wingbody interference using specially developed mathematical functions.
2. OVERVIEW
OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
others. He also conducted analytical and experimental
investigations on rocket stabilization, satellite attitude
stabilization,
satellites
rotor systems. Other studies were concerned with
threedimensional
controlled
orbits
reentry,
of
earth
including
and flexible
aerodynamics 
of 
sails 
and parawings, 
laminar 

This section highlights Dr. Nielsen’s accomplishments 
boundary layers at hypersonic speeds, communication 

during his career and service including affiliations, 
problems of antimissile missiles, subsonic separated 

awards, and distinctions bestowed on him. For the 
flows 
over 
delta 
wings, 
optical errors 
in stellar 

sake of completeness, the references at the end of this 
navigation 
systems, and 
flow separation 
issues 

paper include most of Dr. Nielsen’s publications. This 
associated with submarine hulls. Descriptions 
of these 

collection demonstrates the versatility of his scientific endeavors. This versatility has its basis in Dr. 
studies are available 
in References 3480. 

Nielsen’s 
practical 
experience 
and in his analytical 
In 1966, Dr. Nielsen 
founded Nielsen Engineering 
& 

pursuits. 
Research, Inc., (NEAR). 
This company was located 

originally 
in Palo 
Alto, 
then moved to Mountain 

2.1 Scientific Career 
View, 
CA. 
Much 
like Dr. Nielsen’s first 
company 

Vidya, 
NEAR 
was positioned to engage in research 

2.1.1 NACA Period 
and development 
in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, 
and physics essentially under contract to various U.S.
After obtaining his B.S. degree, Jack Nielsen worked 
government 
agencies. 
At 
NEAR, 
in 
addition 
to 

as a mechanical 
engineer 
at 
the 
NACA 
Langley 
management, 
Dr. Nielsen’s 
activities included research 
Aeronautical 
Laboratory, 
VA, 
from 19411944. 
He 
with staff members 
in the areas of parawings, ducted 

worked on problems/projects 
in aerodynamics, engine 
propellers, laminar 
boundary 
layer separation, 
vortex 
cooling,
papers in the references cover this period.
discharge from the U.S.
and compressibility
effects.
The first
six
After his
the
Army
in 1946, he joined
shedding
sail rotors, submarine hydrodynamics, and dispersions
in
from bodies,
Starting
wake turbulence,
in
1969,
Dr.
parawings,
Nielsen
and
estuaries.
NACA Ames Aeronautical 
Laboratory, 
Moffett 
Field, 
coworkers 
developed 
analytical 
methods 
for 

CA, to work 
in 
the 
3foot 
supersonic 
tunnel. 
He 
prediction of separation trajectory characteristics of 
undertook extensive research 
in supersonic 
external 
stores, 
analysis 
of 
airplane 
and 
missile 

aerodynamics including interference between 
aerodynamic characteristics at high angles of attack, 

aerodynamic components, becoming 
a nationally 
flow separation effects on aerodynamic 
control 

recognized authority in that area. References 
733 
characteristics, 
turbulent boundarylayer 
separation, 

cover 
this work. One of Dr. Nielsen’s 
earlier (1957) 
and more. 
The technical documents in References 8 l 

major 
contributions to missile aerodynamics was the 
20 1 cover this work. 
seminal work reported by him and collaborators in
Reference
of
29
(“Lift
and
Center
of
Pressure
2.1.3 NASA
Period
WingBodyTail Combinations 
at 
Subsonic, 

Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds”, NACA 
R 1307.) 
In 
1983, 
Dr. Nielsen resigned 
from 
NEAR 
and 

During this time, Jack Nielsen 
commenced 
work on 
became the Chief Scientist of NASA/Ames 
Research 
his wellknown
book
“Missile
Aerodynamics”,
first
Center,
Moffett
Field,
CA,
until
his retirement
in
published 
in 1960 (Ref. 
40). 
June, 1990. 
During that time he conducted research 

on circulation 
control 
airfoils 
(Refs. 202, 209), 
and 
2.1.2
Commercial
Period
In 1958, Dr. Jack Nielsen cofounded Vidya, Inc.,
examined
bodies (Ref. 203). Dr. Nielsen wrote survey papers on
supersonic wingbody
arrays for minimum
wave drag of multiple
(Ref.
206),
interference
(later a division 
of Itek Corporation, 
Palo Alto, CA) to 
published definitive articles on the equivalentangle of 

engage 
in 
fluid mechanics 
and thermodynamic 
attack concept (Refs. 194, 204, 208), and 
coedited 

research. 
His 
position in Vidya was Director 
of 
the 
AIAA 
volume 
entitled 
“Tactical 
Missile 

Research, 
and 
his activities 
included research 
on 
Aerodynamics” 
(Ref. 
207). 
In 
1988, Dr. Nielsen 
l3
presented a paper on the present status and future of missile aerodynamics (Ref. 211).
2.2 Affiliations
During
his service and career, Dr. Jack Nielsen
was
3. MAJOR
AERODYNAMICS
3.1 Missile
Dr. Nielsen’s
40) copyrighted
CONTRIBUTIONS
TO
MISSILE
Aerodynamics
book,
Book
was and
“Missile
Aerodynamics”,
is
still
(Ref.
as
in 1960,
known
elected Fellow 
(the highest 
level 
of membership) of 
“the bible of missile 
aerodynamics”. 
Some time ago, 

the 
American 
Institute 
of 
Aeronautics and 
unauthorized translated versions were found. An 

Astronautics. He also received the rank of Fellow of 
approved reprint, with corrections, was issued in 1988 
the Royal Aeronautical Society 
in 
the 
U.K. 
From 
by NEAR. 
The information 
in 
this 
significant 

1966 until 1969, Dr. Nielsen was a Director 
of the 
reference book provides insight and background 
for 

American Astronautical Society. 
aerodynamicists, especially useful today in the 

computerized 
world of computational 
fluid dynamics. 

2.3 Awards, 
Distinctions, Appointments 
Dr. Nielsen compiled 
his knowledge 
and 
the 

knowledge of his professional colleagues 
into 
a body 

Among the many awards, distinctions, 
and 
of aerodynamic information of great utility which 

appointments bestowed on Dr. Nielsen, the following 
includes a summary of basic theories 
for calculating 

are most significant. 
pressure distributions, forces, and moments. 
Dr. Nielsen 
played 
a key role in consolidating 
the 
Dr. Nielsen was coeditor of Volume 
104 in the AIA4 

Institute of Aerospace 
Sciences and the American 
series Progress 
in Aeronautics 
and Astronautics, 

Rocket Society 
into 
the American 
Institute 
of 
copyrighted 
in 
1986, entitled 
“Tactical Missile 

Aeronautics 
and Astronautics (AIAA). 
He served as 
Aerodynamics” 
(Ref. 207). This comprehensive 
work 
the first chairman of the San Francisco section. 
He 
includes 
chapters 
containing technology 
originated 

also served as a member of the Fluid Dynamics 
and 
and/or motivated by him; for example, the equivalent 

the Atmospheric 
Flight 
Mechanics Technical 
angleofattack concept, vortex cloud model, and 

Committees 
of the 
AIAA, 
and was the General 
paneling methods with vorticity effects. 

Chairman 
of 
the Fifth 
AIAA 
Aerospace Sciences 
Technical/Analytical 

Meeting 
held 
in 1967. 
3.2 Contributions Highlights 
of 

In recognition 
of his status as the leading authority 
on 
Dr. Jack Nielsen’s 
accomplishments 
in the fields 
of 

missile 
aerodynamics 
in the U.S., Dr. Nielsen 
was 
theoretical fluid 
mechanics, applied 
aerodynamics, 

elected 
in 
1979 
by 
the AIAA 
to present 
the 
including 
missile aerodynamics, and related fields are 

Distinguished 
Wright 
Brothers 
Lectureship 
in 
many. 
This 
is 
clearly 
visible in 
Dr. Nielsen’s 

Aeronautics entitled, “Missile Aerodynamics  Past, Present, Future” (Ref. 170 ). He was also on the AIAA 
publications listed in the Reference section. 

Technical 
Committee 
on Missile Systems 
Dr. Nielsen’s evolutionary 
approach to the analysis of 
missile 
(and 
other 
flight 
vehicle) 
configuration 

In 
1986, Dr. Nielsen 
was elected a Member 
of the 
aerodynamics 
using decomposition, 
and what later 
National 
Academy of Engineering with the following 
became known as component buildup, and the 

citation, 
“For his pioneering 
contributions 
to missile 
equivalentangleofattack techniques is described in 

aerodynamics, and 
for 
contributions 
to 
the 
a following 
section. 
His analysis and modeling 
of 
interference effects among aerodynamic components 
bodyshed vorticity is also described. 
This work was 

in supersonic flight”. This membership is considered 
performed independently and merged later with the 

the highest professional distinction that an engineer 
component buildup 
approach 
for 
missile 

can receive. 
aerodynamics analysis. 
Today, 
the 
component 

buildup 
and interference 
factor 
technique is 

Dr. Nielsen 
was a member 
of the Navy Aeroballistic 
embodied 
in several engineeringlevel 
missile 

Advisory Committee 
on 
Missile 
Stability 
and 
aerodynamics prediction codes in the U.S. and abroad 

Performance 
as well as a member 
of the NASA 
(for example, the NEAR M3HAX, the U.S. Air Force 

Research and Technology 
Advisory Council, 
Missile 
DATCOM, and 
the U.S. 
Navy 
AP95/98 
Committee on Aerodynamics and Configurations.
codes). In addition,
Dr. Nielsen’s major
contributions
l4
prediction
characteristics are highlighted.
to
the
analytical
of
store
separation
Nielsen
been cognizant of the important effects of interference
made the point
that
aircraft
designers
had
3.2.1 Early Account of WingBody Interference 
among the various parts of an airplane. For low speed flight where the governing equation is the Laplace 

In his thesis (195 1, Ref. 
13), Jack Nielsen presented 
equation, 
no solutions 
for 
a 
threedimensional 

an 
analytical 
for solving supersonic 
wingbody 
combination 
had 
yet 
been 
found. 

wingbody method problems. 
At 
that time, closed 
form 
Interference 
effects were evaluated 
by windtunnel 

solutions were not possible 
for such combinations. 
tests. In many instances, the wings were sufficiently 

Nielsen decomposed 
the wingbody problem 
into 
large so that no important effects of interference were 

simpler problems (see Figure 
1). This figure 
shows 
encountered, 
and if there were adverse effects, they 

how 
the complicated 
wingbody problem 
was 
by 
suitable 
fairing 
of 
the 

decomposed into abodyalone 
problem designated lb, 
could be alleviated wingbody juncture. However, for supersonic aircraft, 
plus two wingbody problems of the same type with the body at zero angle of attack and wings of the same
planform
but differing
in twist, problems
designated
the wings tended to be of low aspect ratio
interference effects can be very important.
properties of the governing differential equations were
for which
The
la and lc. 
Nielsen’s thesis considered the solution 
of 
such that some hope of obtaining 
mathematical 

problems 
la and lc. It was assumed that the boundary 
solutions exists. 

conditions 
can be specified on a plane 
for the wing 

and on a cylinder for the body, and that the wing 
In his conclusions, Nielsen mentioned that a very 
leading edge is supersonic; effects 
of the wing 
tips 
urgent need existed for a simple approximate method 

were not considered. Nielsen then decomposed 
the 
for estimating 
pressures 
acting 
on 
wingbody 
problem
QW is the perturbation potential of the wing alone, and
la
(or lc)
further
as shown in Figure 2. Here
combinations in the region where slenderbody theory was known to be inapplicable. It should be noted here
Cpis the interference potential. 
Nielsen assumed that 
that slenderbody theory was being developed by 

the normal velocity against the body induced by the 
various aerodynamicists (for example, John Spreiter) 

wing can be expanded in a cosine Fourier series of 
in that period. Also, panel method approaches had not 

even multiples of the polar 
angle 0. 
As a result, the 
yet been invented mostly because “automatic 

solution involved a wingalone 
plus a number 
of 
calculation machines” or computers were not yet 

Fourier series solutions 
for 
the 
normal velocity 
ready to invert large matrices. 

induced at the body surface by the wing alone. Each 

component is solved using Laplace transform theory, 
3.2.2 
First 
Practical 
Aerodynamic 
Prediction 
and the method
distributed solution method like that of Karman and
Moore
In his development, Nielsen “invented” two sets of
at supersonic speeds.
is then shown to be equivalent
to a
for bodies of revolution
Methodfor
WingBodyTail
Combinations
In Reference 29 (1957), Dr. Nielsen and collaborators presented a practical method for calculating lift and
universal functions to obtain strength distributions 
of 
centerofpressure 
characteristics 
of 

fundamental solutions 
along 
the body 
axis, and to 
circularcylindrical 
bodies 
in 
combination 
with 
determine directly the pressures acting on the body.
triangular,
through the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speed
rectangular,
or trapezoidal
wings or tails
Apart 
from the mathematical 
elegance 
(and 
ranges. 
The method was restricted 
to small 
angles of 

complexity) 
method, 
he 
laid 
out the 
attack 
and small angles in wing 
or 
tail incidence. 

beginnings 
of Nielsen’s of the component 
buildup 
approach by his 
Angle 
of 
roll 
or bank 
was limited 
to zero. 
This 

definition 
of interference, 
using the example 
of two 
method 
was the first 
of 
its 
kind 
which 
could 
be 

bodies: “the difference between the joint pressure 
applied 
to 
wingbody 
and 
wingbodytail 

fields and the sum of the bodyalone pressure fields is 
combinations. 
lmown
as the interference
pressure
field”.
For
a
wingbody combination, the sum of the wingalone, 
In this work, the wingbody or tailbody 
interference 

bodyalone, and interference pressure field will be 
was obtained 
by a new development using certain 

unique 
in 
so 
far 
as 
the 
external 
flow 
past 
the 
factors (later known as lift carryover or interference 

wingbody 
combination 
is unique. 
Therefore, 
one 
factors) 
that 
are 
the ratios 
of 
the 
lift 
on 
the 

must define the wingalone in the manner best suited 
components in combination 
to 
the 
lift 
of the wing 
to the problem
at hand.
alone.
These ratios were obtained
from slender body
l5
by
Spreiter and others in the mid 1950’s. Morikawa first developed the lift interference method adopted by Nielsen and coworkers. Details of this early work is discussed in Reference 29. Nielsen and his coworkers knew that for wingbody combinations which were not slender, liftcurve slopes were overestimated by slenderbody theory. However, in many cases the
theory which was developed
to
a
high
level
Some examples of comparisons between prediction
and experimental
from Reference 29, for two different
configurations. The upper part of the figure shows an airplane type configuration and data for Mach 0.2.
The lower part shows an “unusual” with data for Mach 1.62. Predicted
centerofpressure
type shape
results for lift and
data are shown in Figure
5, taken
wingbodytail
missile
location with and without
wingtail
ratio 
of the lift 
of the wingbody combination 
to that 
(vertical) 
interference are compared with experimental 

of 
the wing 
alone 
can be accurately predicted 
by 
data. Note that the angleofattack range can be 

slender body theory. 
considered low by today’s standards. Regardless, these 1957 predictions are considered in good 

The lift breakdown 
is indicated in Figure 
3 for 
the 
agreement with experiment for both configurations 
case of a wingbodytail 
combination. The overall 
lift 
and Mach 
numbers. 
The importance of including 

is given by the sum of the seven principal components 
wingtail 
vertical interference is clear especially 
for 
indicated in the figure. Definitions
ratio factors are shown in Figure 4. The solution
of the various lift
of
centerofpressure and thus pitching moment.
the problem requires 
a determination of these ratios. 
The conclusions 
made by Nielsen 
et al in Reference 

The lift on any component 
can then be estimated from 
29 state that 
overall liftcurve 
slopes 
for 
most 

the wingalone slope. 
The 
“best” 
value 
of 
the 
combinations 
were predicted to within 10 percent 

wingalone slope 
should 
be 
used 
(Nielsen 
and 
through the speed range. However, 
in the transonic 
colleagues
recommended
De Young
and Harper,
range nonlinear effects could reduce the accuracy.
threedimensional 
linear theory, or experimental 
data 
Wingtail interference could change overall lift by 35 

in 
Ref. 29). In general, the ratio factors and centers 
to 40 percent. Centerofpressure positions 
were 

ofpressure locations 
were 
determined 
using 
predicted to within 0.02 of body length. Transonic 

slenderbody theory. 
effects could degrade the accuracy. Wingtail vertical 
Wingtail interference was treated by assuming one
vortex
evaluating
the vortices
vapor screen data, or they were assumed to lie along
the freestream direction.
interference factors and other quantities necessary to
obtain lift and centerofpressure positions are provided in Reference 29. This reference even
contains a sample calculation sheet to guide the user
through the procedure.
Tables and charts for the
completely
rolledup
the tail
per
wing
panel
and
load by strip theory.
The paths of
are either obtained
from charts based on
All
that is required
is a slide
interference
position
by
could
change
the
centerofpressure
as much as 20 percent of body length.
Nielsen and colleagues also mentioned that limitations
in the method
vorticity,
that viscous crossflow theory should be added in order
to make the method valid
Furthermore, effects of inverse taper, sweptforward wings, wing panels with twist and camber, or large gaps between wing or tail and the body would violate assumptions inherent to the method of Reference 29.
and
included
the lack of models
for body
more than one vortex per wing panel,
at higher
angles of attack.
rule, sharp eyes, and perseverance to extract and combine properly data from the charts and tables! A clever approach that would work today. 
3.2.3 
Equivalent 
AngleofAttack 
Approach 

During 
the sixties 
and seventies, 
estimating 
fin 
(or 
A very valuable summary of sources for experimental
data was also supplied.
and
research activities
at
in the 3t? supersonic windtunnel
Some of these data were taken
Dr.
Nielsen
Aeronautical
earlier
during
Laboratory.
his
Dr.
analyzed
by
Ames
the NACA
wing) forces and moments
and other
lateral
characteristics
attempted
tins
in the presence of a body
to predict
control
up to high angles of attack was rarely
with
sufficient
to
accuracy
(in
addition
without
longitudinal)
and
using previously
developed
data
Nielsen’s access to this supersonic wind tunnel was a 
bases. An exception 
to this 
state of affairs 
was the 

key to the development 
of this approach because it 
development 
of 
panel 
methodbased 
missile 
allowed him to create the experimental database
required
to verify
the method.
aerodynamics prediction codes which included modeling of vertical and other nonlinear effects (Refs.
139,
162).
The development
of these codes was
16
strongly encouraged and guided by Dr. Nielsen during the cited time period. One of his motivations was to employ the panel methodbased missile aerodynamics
prediction
and
check
wingbodycruciform
codes
next
(applicable
tail
to banked
cruciform
to test
experimental
combinations)
in
the
development
nonlinearities. Elements of slender body theory were
still included, particularly
and for finonfin interference. In addition, it was
observed
centerofpressure
related to the equivalentangleofattack
to account for angle of roll
and on the fin
coworkers
could
that
also be
and thus to
by
Dr.
Nielsen
locations
databased codes using the equivalentangleofattack 
fin normal 
force for cases without 
fin deflection 
as a 

concept pioneered by Dr. Nielsen. 
A comprehensive 
minimum. 
description is given in References 194,204,208.
With the advent of new systematic data bases and the continued development of vortex tracking methods, 
It is clear that Dr. Nielsen’s equivalentangleofattack approach is very powerful in its application to the experimental database and/or semiempirical missile 

the possibility 
of 
the task listed 
above was made 
aerodynamics prediction methods. As a result, his 

considerably 
easier. However, some means were still 
concept 
is 
in 
use 
in 
several 
semiempirical 
missile 
necessary for properly
accounting
for effects not
in
aerodynamics
prediction
programs,
including
the
the data bases, e.g., different fin spantobody 
codes used routinely 
at NEAR. 

diameter ratios, different vertical flow fields, 
and 

nonlinear 
body 
flow 
effects 
associated with 
high 
3.2.4 
Body and Fin 
Vorticity 
Modelihg 

Mach numbers. 
The 
method 
developed 
by 
Dr. 

Nielsen 
and coworkers 
for this purpose depended on 
Early in the development of missile aerodynamics, Dr. 
the innovative 
equivalentangleofattack 
concept. 
Nielsen and his colleagues recognized 
that 
fin 
and 

body vortices were an essential part 
of any theory 

Dr. 
Nielsen 
started with his concept 
of “modified” 
which was to have any success in 
the prediction 
of 
slender 
body theory 
explored in the classic report 
missile aerodynamics. In NACA R 1307 (Ref.29) the 

NACA 
R 1307 (Ref. 
29); this concept 
is reflected 
in 
effects of wing vorticity were included through the use 
the factor Kc shown in Figure 
4. 
In Reference 
194, 
of empirical information 
and observations. 
The 

the modified slender body theory 
was applied 
to the 
details of the vorticity 
strength 
and position 
were 
normal
deflected
attitude.
basic result, marked Equation
the normal force acting on the horizontal fins of a
force
coefficient
tins
acting
on
the
in
equally
the “plus”
horizontal
of a missile
The formulation
is shown in Figure
6. The
3 in that figure, was that
described in tables developed from experiments.
Nielsen
calculating lateral stability derivatives including
effects of body and fin vorticity.
was to
and Kaattari
(Ref. 28) discussed methods
for
_{T}_{h}_{e} _{k}_{e}_{y} _{t}_{o} _{t}_{h}_{i}_{s} _{e}_{f}_{f}_{o}_{r}_{t}
obtain the correct vortex strength and position
finbody 
combination 
could be related to the normal 
with respect to the tail surfaces of the missile. 
Dr. 

force acting on a wing alone (formed 
by joining 
the 
Nielsen 
recognized the need 
for 
including 
body 

fins 
at 
their 
root 
chords) 
by 
using 
the 
vorticity 
in a wide range of applications 
as can be seen 
equivalentangleofattack 
01,. This important 
finding 
in 
some 
of 
the early 
work 
in 
submarine 

is illustrated 
in Figure 
7 for a moderate 
and 
a low 
hydrodynamics described in References 
64, 
65, and 
aspect ratio fin mounted on a body for Mach numbers 
19 
1. The simplified 
vortex model 
used in Reference 

0.8 and 
1.3. 
Experimental 
data of the normal 
force 
29 
is shown in Figure 8(a). 
coefficients correlate well for different fin deflections. 

Wingalone data are also shown for comparison 
for 
Details 
of the early knowledge of the effects of body 

the subsonic 
Mach 
number. 
Note 
that the basic 
vortices 
on missile aerodynamics 
at high angles of 

expression marked Equation 3 in Figure 6 provides the 
attack 
are found 
in Chapter 
4 
of “Missile 

opportunity to account for different fin spantobody 
(Ref. 40). Here, the early information 

diameter ratios, fin deflections, and vertical flowfields 
Aerodynamics” on the location of separation on slender bodies, 
the 
through the factors K,, b,, and (~a), . However, 
in 
strength of the vortices, and the vertical and lateral 

order to handle cruciform fin missiles 
positions 
are developed from experimental 

attitude 
and for 
very high angles of The was needed. in a banked attack, a more 
measurements. In addition, the slenderbody tracking 

general 
formula 
derivation 
is 
procedure 
for predicting the motion of vortices 
past 

detailed 
in References 194, 204, 208. The basic 
circular 
and noncircular bodies is described. 
approach taken was to consider
seen
the actual flowfield
vertical
and
other
by
the
fin
including
At NEAR and at other organizations, the importance
of the body vorticity
of attack aerodynamic
and there
in the prediction
of high angle
characteristics was recognized,
term
effort
directed
at this
was
a long
l7
the parent
Noncircular
an
polar harmonics.
application
aircraft
for
lift
and thickness
effects.
fuselage cross sections were handled by
solution
slender body theory was
of a composite Modified
which included
technology under the guidance and supervision 
of Dr. 
applied 
to estimate 
the aerodynamic 
forces 
and 

Nielsen. NEAR, 
under 
contracts 
to NASA 
and the 
moments 
acting on the finned store in nonuniform 

U.S. Navy, developed 
a distributed 
vortex or vortex 
flow. Dr. Nielsen made clever use of reverse flow 
cloud approach to predicting the body separation
theorems
with
aspect
ratio
correction
for
the
fin
vorticity. A sketch 
of the vortex 
cloud 
model 
is 
section (empennage). Finonbody and finonfin 

shown in Figure 
8 (b). 
interference were included. Again, 
lift 

curve 
slopes were the basis the wingalone of the analysis. 
In 

The slender body tracking procedure 
played 
an 
addition, 
when the angle of attack seen by the store 
important role in the development
methodology. Much of this work was accomplished by the second author; however, a number of similar
approaches were under development around the world
of the vortex cloud
was sufficiently
store was based on crossflow drag considerations. Details of these classic approaches are available in References 124, 128, 140.
force acting on the
high, the normal
at the 
same time. 
The approach 
at NEAR was to 

develop 
the body 
vortex 
predictive 
technology 
in 
Early on, Dr. Nielsen realized that computer running 
parallel with the other developments
of missile aerodynamics.
technology matured, it was included in the missile
aerodynamics prediction methods, including those
approach and
based on the equivalentangleofattack
in the prediction
_{t}_{h}_{e}
_{b}_{o}_{d}_{y}
_{v}_{o}_{r}_{t}_{e}_{x}
_{A}_{s}
time
prediction.
which would speed up the trajectory calculation. One
was to simplify the mutual interference between the
aircraft and store by including the store volume effects
could
be
enormous
for
store
separation
Therefore,
he decided on several schemes
the panel methods. In the early days, this analytical 
in the boundary 
condition 
applied to the wing 
and 

information 
was treated 
like experimental 
data; 
pylon arrived of the parent aircraft. 
This simplification 
was 

however, 
with advances in the theory and computer 
at after performing 
an iterative calculative 

resources, the body vortex models became an integral 
analysis 
to determine 
the 
“buildup” 

part of the missile aerodynamics methods. The codes 
interference. For the cases considered of mutual at the time, 
containing 
this technology 
are 
still 
in 
use 
as 
most 
of the mutual interference 
was accounted 
for 

engineering 
prediction methods 
for high 
angle 
of 
during 
the first iteration 
which 
included the store 
attack flight conditions.
3.2.5
Store Separation
Methodology
volume effects. In this way, the parent aircraft needed
to
calculation.
employ
possible
flow
be solved only
once at the start of the trajectory
timesaving
scheme
was to
parent
aircraft
Another
the simplest
Up 
to 
the 
middle 
sixties, 
methods 
to 
perform 
modeling scheme; for example, for caseswith circular 

theoretical 
analyses of 
store 
separation 
were not 
cross section fuselages, fast running centerline 

available 
in 
the 
public 
domain. Instead, store 
singularity distributions were employed. 
certification (safe separation) relied on flight tests often accompanied by disastrous results.
Another of Dr. Nielsen’s clever ideas was to insist on
a windtunnel
test
program
to
be
conducted
In 
the late 
sixties, 
Dr. Nielsen set out to develop 
an 
concurrently 
with the theoretical 
development. 
These 

analytical 
method 
(then called a rational 
method) 
to 
systematic tests were performed during the late sixties 
predict the trajectory
characteristics
of stores launched
and early seventies. The tests involved measurements
from subsonic aircraft. The initial effort was limited 
of velocity components, load distribution, and captive 

to three degrees of freedom 
for store motion, 
but 
it 
store separation measurements. Later, similar tests 

was later extended 
to full 
six degrees of freedom. 
were conducted for supersonic conditions. A valuable 

Using 
an inertial set of axes, Dr. Nielsen 
wrote the database was generated using generic models 
shown 

equations 
of motion 
_{a}_{p}_{p}_{l}_{i}_{c}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} 
_{t}_{o} 
_{t}_{h}_{e} 
in 
Figure 
9. 
Among other things, the tests helped 

threedimensional (finite size) store accounting 
for 
decide when to employ the crossflow considerations. 

centerofgravity offset. 
A 
vortexlattice 
panel 
The duct could be removed to form a circular 
cross 

method 
and 
distributions 
of 
sources/sinks 
and 
section fuselage. The store could be a body alone, or 

doublets were employed to model 
the components 
of 
it could have rectangular tail fins. 
l8
A sample comparison
characteristics
between
predicted
trajectory
and captive store test results is shown
4.2 Barry
Haines
in 
Figure 
10. The store was released with 
10 ftisec 
Mr. 
Haines, 
Chairman 
of the Aerodynamics 
Group 

downward 
ejection 
velocity 
from 
under 
the pylon 
Committee 
of the Royal 
Aeronautical 
Society, 
wrote 

located at onethird wing semispan. In this sample, the fuselage was circular in cross section. The store had 
the following 
obituary 
for publication 
in “Aerospace”. 

a cruciform tail fin set. In Figure 10, the translational 
“Dr. Nielsen played an active 
part in many 

characteristics of the store center of gravity are shown 
international conferences, and in 1989 he readily 
in the left portion, the angular attitude angles are on
the right. It is worth noting here that captive store
accepted an invitation
chairman at the R.Ae.S Conference on Store Carriage,
to speak
and act as a session
tests include a change in attitude angle of the store to aerodynamic are updated during the 
Integration 
and Release 
held 
at Bath 
in April 
1990. 

account for damping due to translation. This causes 
Later in the same month, 
it was hoped that he would 

the store to be in a slightly different position when 
act as the Technical Evaluator for an AGARD International Conference on Missile Aerodynamics in 

trajectory. 
calculations In addition, 
rotational damping 
is 
not 
Germany. He was very disappointed when he had to 

measured 
by the captive 
store method 
in 
the 
wind 
withdraw from both of these conferences owing to ill 

tunnel and thus not included 
in the offline 
6degrees 
health. It is sad to think that we will never again hear 
of 
motion integration scheme. To show an indication 
his pungent comments in discussions on aerodynamic 

of 
the difference, Dr. Nielsen insisted on being able 
issues. These comments were always to the point; 

to 
calculate the trajectory characteristics 
with 
and 
they always revealed his clear thinking. 
He never 
without rotational effects in all three angular motions. The damping effects are (fortunately) negligible 
shirked the need to criticize when he felt criticism was merited but, on the other hand, he was unstinted in his 

except 
in the pitching oscillation 
as shown 
in 
the 
praise for promising young members of the research 

figure. 
When comparing 
present 
day CFDbased 
fraternity. His advice, enthusiasm, and encouragement 

calculations to captive store data, these considerations should be taken into account. 
will be sorely missed”. 
4. PERSONAL
AUTHORS
REMARKS
BY
PEERS
AND
4.1 Dean R. Chapman
Dr. Chapman
was a former colleague of Dr. Nielsen at
4.3 M.
F. E. Dillenius
The lead author was hired by Dr. Jack Nielsen in 1969
to work on applications of panel methods. One of Dr. Nielsen’s favorite sayings was to exclaim how easy it was for young engineers to perform aerodynamic wingbody (including interference) calculations using panel methods in contrast to the complex approach he
NASA/Ames Research Center in the period during 
had developed 

Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.