Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

Aerodynamics study using computational fluid dynamics is very famous among the engineers and scientists, because it not only reduces the cost of the entire project but also saves a lot more time. The results of the CFD simulations needed to validate through experiments. So, we can say that CFD simulation studies reduce the no. Of experiments taken, if it cannot eliminate. In this research paper, we made four different aerodynamics missiles shapes CAD models in solid works by using underlying principles, mathematical equations of different curves and engineering judgement, one of them is a missile of standard basic shape. We have analysed and compared them with basic shape of missile. Here, in this study, Volume is taken a constant parameter. Drag Coefficient is the main parameter which is evaluated and studied at different Mach no’s and at a constant angle of attack. Reasons behind the magnificent drop in drag coefficient explained in discussion section.

Keywords

Missiles; Fluid dynamics; Flow separation; Drag force; Drag coefficient; Comparative study; Aerodynamics CFD

1. S Piedra, F Martinez, CA Escalante-Velazquez, SMA Jimenez. Computational aerodynamics analysis of a light sport aircraft: compliance study for stall speed and longitudinal stability certification requirements. Aerospace Science and Technology. 2018, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.09. 016


2. F Rizzo, V D’Alessandro, S Montelpare, L Giammichele. Computational study of a bluff body aerodynamics: Impact of the laminar-to-turbulent transition modelling. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 178, 2020, 105- 620. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105620


3. J Sahu, KR Heavey. Parallel CFD computations of projectile aerodynamics with a flow control mechanism. Computers & Fluids, 88, 678–687. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid. 3(15), 2013.


4. Y Zhou, L Hou, D Huang. The effects of Mach number on the flow separation control of airfoil with a small plate near the leading edge. Computers & Fluids, 156, 2017, 274–282.


5. R Placek, P Ruchała. The flow separation development analysis in subsonic and transonic flow regime of the laminar airfoil. Transportation Research Procedia, 29, 2018, 323–329. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2018.02.029


6. P Razi, P Tazraei, S Girimaji. Partially-averaged Navier–Stokes (PANS) simulations of flow separation over smooth curved surfaces. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 66, 2017, 157–171. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2017.05.005


7. G Jones, M Santer, M Debiasi, G Papadakis. Control of flow separation around an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers using periodic surface morphing. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 76, 2018, 536–557. doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs. 2017.11.008


8. KL Kang, KS Yeo. Combined effects of amplitude, frequency and bandwidth on wavepackets in laminar turbulent transition. Computers & Fluids, 197, 2020, 104-358. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2019.104358


9. C Mills. High frequency pressure loss measurements of laminar- turbulent transitional flow. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 74,2020, 101-770. doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2020.101770


10. W Chang, G Pu-zhen, W Zhan-wei, T Si-chao. Experimental study of transition from laminar to turbulent flow in vertical narrow channel. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 47, 2012, 85–90. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2012.04.018


11. SP Schneider. Hypersonic laminar–turbulent transition on circular cones and scramjet forebodies. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 40(1-2), 2018, 1–50. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.20 03.11.001