Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-21T10:44:36.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Numerical analysis of the impact of release timing on trajectory in internal store separation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2025

S. Türk*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
K.M. Güleren
Affiliation:
Deparment of Aeronautical Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: S. Türk; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of release timing on the trajectory of internal store separation through numerical solutions of continuity, momentum, energy equations and six degrees of freedom equations in a coupled manner. The internal store separation process in advanced fighter aircraft is analysed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and six degrees of freedom equations of motion. Initially, the equations of motion are validated by reenacting the Eglin Air Force Base study, an external store separation example with documented experimental results. Subsequently, validation is extended to the M219 cavity problem. In the internal store separation analysis, a cavity with an L/D ratio of 5, a freestream velocity of 0.85 Mach, and a generic store are utilised. Detached eddy simulation (DES) is applied using both static and dynamic mesh techniques in all numerical solutions. The generic store, positioned within a clean cavity with a 90-degree flap angle, was released at two distinct times, corresponding to the points of maximum and minimum gravitational forces. Interestingly, the results show that releasing the store when the normal force acting on it is at its maximum does not necessarily provide an optimal separation. Specifically, when the force coefficient was at its maximum (0.14), the store collided with the cavity door flap after 0.171465 seconds. In contrast, when the force coefficient was at its minimum (-0.04), the store contacted the cavity door after 0.170295 seconds at the same location. Despite the differences in force magnitudes, the trajectories were nearly identical, suggesting that the timing of the release may not have a significant effect on preventing collision. This further emphasises the need for flow control methods to ensure safe and effective store separation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

Stallings, R.L. Jr. Store separation from cavities at supersonic flight speeds, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 1983, 20, (2), pp 129133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olejnik, A., Dziubinski, A. and Kiszkowaik, L. Separation safety analysis using CFD simulation and remeshing, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2020, 106, p 106190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, R.W. A wind-tunnel investigation of bomb release at a Mach number of 1.62, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1954.Google Scholar
Shipman, J., Stanek, M., Beran, P. and Ahmed, S. Flow control for enhanced store separation, Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D.H., Choi, J.H. and Kwon, O.J. Detached eddy simulation of weapons bay flows and store separation, Comput. Fluids., 2015, 121, pp 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenko, A., Deslandes, R., Dillenius, M. and Stanek, M. Unsteady weapon bay aerodynamics - urban legend or flight clearance nightmare, Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exihibit, Reno, Nevada, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.A., Stanek, M.J. and Grove, J.E.Store separation trajectory deviations due to unsteady weapons bay aerodynamics, Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W., Ai, B., Zhao, X., Jiang, Z. and Lu, W. Influence of control device on store separation from an open cavity, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2020, 106, p 106117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W. and Ai, B. Analysis of aircraft-store compatibility for internal weapons separation, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2021, 110, p 106528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W., Dong, J., Lu, W. and Jiang, Z. Trajectory and attitude deviations for internal store separation due to unsteady and quasi-steady test method, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2022, 35, (2), pp 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.H. Generic wing, pylon, and moving finned store, NATO RTO-TR-26, Arnold AFB, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
Nightingale, D., Ross, J. and Foster, G. Cavity unsteady pressure measurements: examples from wind-tunnel tests, Aerodynamics & Aeromechanics Systems Group, QinetiQ, 2005.Google Scholar
Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Computational fluid dynamics analyses of flow over weapons-bay geometries, J. Aircraft, 2010, 47, (5), pp 16051623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcheveque, L., Sagaut, P., Le, T.H. and Comte, P. Large-eddy simulation of a compressible flow in a three-dimensional open cavity at high Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech., 2004, 516, pp 265301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barakos, G.N., Lawson, S.J., Steijl, R. and Nayyar, P. Numerical simulations of high-speed turbulent cavity flows, Flow Turbul. Combust., 2009, 83, pp 569585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayyar, P., Barakos, G.N. and Badcock, K.J. Numerical study of transonic cavity flows using large-eddy and detached-edyy simulation, Aeronaut. J., 2007, 111, (7), pp 153164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demircan, O.M., Demir, O., Türk, S. and Güleren, K.M. Aeroacoustics analysis of a hybrid control method for the flow-induced noise generation of transonic cavity flows, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Bacelona, Spain, 2018.Google Scholar
Güleren, K.M., Türk, S., Demircan, O.M. and Demir, O. Numerical analysis of the cavity flow subjected to passive controls techniques, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2018, 326, pp 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar