FAPeda VALIDATION 1:
Supersonic Test Case: NASA Tandem Missile Geometry from “RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT) TG-082” [1]
![]()
|
Figure 1. NASA Tandem Missile Geometry [1] |
TABLE 1. Comparison of CFD Results with experimental data at M=1.75, Alpha=6 deg.
Authors | Organization | Solver (Tur.mod.) | Alpha | CA | CN | Cm | CA_err | CN_err | cm_err |
NASA (USA) | exp | 5.946 | 0.5594 | 1.9856 | 0.8521 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Khalid | NRC (CA) | WIND (SA) | 6 | 0.4930 | 1.9900 | 0.9730 | -0.0664 | 0.0044 | -0.1209 |
Henig | LFK (GE) | FASTRAN (k-e) | 5.9 | 0.7310 | 2.1020 | 0.8190 | 0.1716 | 0.1164 | 0.0331 |
Prince | QinetiQ (UK) | FLUENT (SA) | 6 | 0.4706 | 2.0320 | 0.8370 | -0.0888 | 0.0464 | 0.0151 |
Leavitt | NASA (USA) | USM3Dns (SA) | 6 | 0.7365 | 2.0700 | 0.8200 | 0.1771 | 0.0844 | 0.0321 |
Dujardin | DLR (GE) | TAU (SA) | 6 | 0.6845 | 2.0310 | 0.9230 | 0.1251 | 0.0454 | -0.0709 |
Dujardin | DLR (GE) | TAU (k-w) | 6 | 0.6104 | 2.0090 | 0.8470 | 0.051 | 0.0234 | 0.0051 |
Oktay | EDA (TR) | FAPeda (SA) | 6 | 0.5974 | 2.0860 | 0.8070 | 0.038 | 0.1004 | 0.0451 |
![]() |
Figure 2. Differences Between Measured and Predicted Axial Force Coefficient CA for different solvers
|
![]() |
Figure 3. Differences Between Measured and Predicted Normal Force Coefficient CN for different solvers
|
![]() |
Figure 4. Differences Between Measured and Predicted Pitch Moment Coefficient Cm for different solvers
|
References:
-
RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT) TG-082, “Assessment of Turbulence Modeling for High-Speed Vehicles”, TR-AVT-082, 2005.