JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS

Vol. 49, No. 1, January–February 2012

Flight Stability of an Asymmetric Projectile

with Activating Canards

Gene Cooper∗ and Frank Fresconi†

U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 2101
and
Mark Costello‡
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022
Driven by the creation of new smart projectile concepts with maneuver capability, projectile configurations with
large aerodynamic asymmetries are becoming more common. Standard linear stability theory for projectiles
assumes the projectile is symmetric, both from aerodynamic and mass properties perspectives. The work reported
here extends standard projectile linear theory to account for aerodynamic asymmetries caused by actuating canards.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

Differences between standard linear and extended linear theories reported here are highlighted. To validate the
theory, time simulation of the extended linear theory and a fully nonlinear trajectory simulation are made for a
representative scenario, with excellent agreement noted. The extended linear-projectile theory offers a tool to
address flight stability of projectiles with aerodynamic configuration asymmetries.

Nomenclature Introduction
Ci
Cic
= projectile aerodynamic coefficients
= projectile aerodynamic coefficients due to a
canard
T HERE is no doubt that there are many ways to create control-
lable forces and moments on a projectile to enable sufficiently
large changes to its trajectory for flight control purposes. A tradi-
D = projectile characteristic length (diameter), ft tional and powerful way to control a projectile is through aero-
f,
, = Euler roll, pitch, and yaw angles of projectile dynamic force and moment changes. Examples of the type of
g = gravitational constant, ft
s2 mechanism include canards [1]. Since the flight control system
In , Jn , Kn = unit vectors for a coordinate system designated usually commands an inertial position change, the control mecha-
by n nism fixed on the body will oscillate at the roll rate of the projectile.
I X , IT = mass moments of inertia, slug
ft2 Many aerodynamic control mechanisms (like canards) introduce an
m = projectile mass, slug asymmetry into the basic configuration.
p, q, r = angular velocity components vector of projectile, Projectile linear theory has long been an analytical workhorse in
s1 the ballistics community. Over time, projectile linear theory has been
r = atmosphere density, slug
ft3 used for stability analysis, aerodynamic coefficient estimation using
S, S
= complex and conjugate projectile yaw rates range data, and fast trajectory prediction. Basic projectile linear
SLCg = station-line center of gravity, ft theory has been extended by various authors to handle more
SLCOP = station-line center of pressure, ft sophisticated aerodynamic models [2], asymmetric configurations
SLCOPC = station-line center of pressure of canard, ft including mass properties [3,4], fluid payloads [5,6], moving internal
SLMAG = station-line center of Magnus, ft parts [7–9], dual spin projectiles [10,11], ascending and descending
u, v, w = mass center velocity components in the body flight [12], and lateral force impulses [13–16]. The work reported
reference frame, ft
s1 here is along these lines and develops an extended linear theory
jV A=I
 jV = projectile center-of-mass velocity, ft
s1 applicable to aerodynamically asymmetric projectile configurations.
xc, yc = displacement of canard center of pressure relative Moreover, the paper focuses on projectiles with dithering canards
to mass center, ft similar to that shown in Fig. 1. The extended linear theory is validated
 = canard deflection angle with respect to projectile against nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) calculations for an
axis example projectile.
The paper begins with a description of the basic projectile
mathematical model followed by the development of the extended
linear theory. The theory is then applied to an example configuration.

Presented as Paper 2010-7636 at the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Trajectory Equations of Motion
Control, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics, Modeling and Simulation To facilitate the mathematical description of the dynamic model,
Technologies, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist , and Atmospheric we define the vector component operator Cn and the vector-product
and Space Environments Conferences, Toronto, 2–5 August 2010; received operator S as a skew symmetric matrix applied to any vector A as
20 December 2010; revision received 26 April 2011; accepted for publication 8 9
19 May 2011. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is >
> A >
not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Copies of this paper < x> =
may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the A  I n Ax  J n Ay  K n Az Cn A  Ay
>
> >
$10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood : > ;
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0022-4650/12 and $10.00 in
Az
correspondence with the CCC. 2 3
∗
0 Az Ay
Research Physicist. Senior Member AIAA.
† 6 Ax 7
Mechanical Engineer. Member AIAA. SA  4 Az 0 5 (1)
‡
Sikorsky Associate Professor, School of Aerospace Engineering.
Associate Fellow AIAA. Ay Ax 0
130
 COOPER, FRESCONI, AND COSTELLO 131

The projectile forward velocity is given in Eq. (11):

p




























V  u2  v2  w2 (11)

The moment acting on the projectile in Eq. (6) comprises the

moment due to the standard aerodynamic force (A), the moment due
Fig. 1 Asymmetric airframe with or without control mechanism.
to the Magnus aerodynamic force (M), the unsteady aerodynamic
moment (UA), and the canard moment (C), as shown in Eq. (12):
These definitions provide a succinct method of writing the mathe-
CB M  CB MA   CB MM   CB MUA   CB MC  (12)
matics in this paper. Also, the standard shorthand for sine and cosine
are employed: sin  s and cos  c .
The moments due to the aerodynamic and Magnus forces are
Placing two canards, diametrically positioned on a symmetric
expressed in Eq. (13):
projectile, results in additional aeroloads that must be accounted for
in the equations of motion. For this study, two canards are located at CB MA   SR!Cp CB FA  CB MM   SR!CM CB FM 
projectile roll angles ’  0 and ’  ; see Fig. 1. This angular
separation  > 2=3 introduces rotational asymmetry [3]; (13)
therefore, it is preferable to write the dynamic equations in the
body reference frame. In fact, the analysis is more tractable if we The unsteady aerodynamic moments acting on the projectile are
work in the body frame instead of the well-known nonrolling frame, expressed in Eq. (14):
particularly if the asymmetry is fluctuating. The angular velocity of
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

8 9
CDD  pDC LP
the body frame is  2 3< qDCMQ
2V =
CB MUA   V D (14)
! B=I  pIB  qJB  rKB (2) 8 : 2V
rDCMQ ;
2V

The equations of motion relative to the inertial and body frames are The coefficients used in this aerodynamic model are specific
2 3 functions of the projectile Mach number. For fin-stabilized projec-
c
c s s
c  c s c s
c  s s
_ A=I   4 c
s tiles, the classic Magnus force and moment associated with spin-
CI V s s
s  c c c s
s  s c 5CB V _ A=I 
stabilized projectiles are typically ignored since its effect is rather
s
s c
c c
small for slowly rolling projectiles. A Magnus moment with physical
(3) mechanisms specific to fin-stabilized projectiles (more properly
8 9 2 expressed as a dynamic side moment due to spin and angle of attack),
3
< _ = 1 s t
c t
however, may exist [17]. Expressions for the canard force XB FC 

_  4 0 c s 5CB !B=I  (4) and canard moment XB MC  are derived in the following.
: _;
0 s =c
c =c

Canard Force and Moment Model
1 Consider the change in the aerodynamic loads on a projectile when
CB V_ =I   C F  S!B=I CB V =I  (5) the pitch angle of a canard lifting surface is deflected. Figure 2 has a
m B
schematic of the canard configuration.
This analysis is for two canards located at projectile roll angles
CB !_ B=I   I
1 CB M  S!B=I  I
CB !B=I  (6) ’  0 and ’   such that their respective centers of pressures are
8 9 8 9
< xc = < xc =
The force acting on the projectile in Eq. (6) comprises the weight CB R!C1   yc ; CB R!C2   yc (15)
force (W), the aerodynamic force, and the canard force (C). The : ; : ;
0 0
aerodynamic force is split into a standard (A) and Magnus (M) force.
The combination of forces is expressed in Eq. (7): The relative aerodynamic velocities of the two canard lifting
surfaces are calculate from
CB F  CB FW   CB FA   CB FM   CB FC  (7)
CB V C1=I   CB V =I   S!B=I CB r!C1 
Equation (8) gives the weight force in the body coordinate system:
( s ) CB V C2=I   CB V =I   S!B=I CB r!C2  (16)


CB FW   mg s c
(8) Now, generate the coordinate transforms from body coordinates of
c c
the canard coordinates with deflection angle :

Equation (9) provides the expression for the aerodynamic force that
acts upon the projectile at the aerodynamic center of pressure:
8 9
2 2 2
 2 2 < CX0  CX2 v  w =V =
CB FA    V D CY0  CNA v=V (9)
8 : ;
CZ0  CNA w=V

Equation (10) expresses the Magnus force acting on the projectile

at the Magnus force center:
( 0 )
 pDCNPA w
CB FM   V 2 D2 2V 2 (10)
8 pDCNPA v
2V 2 Fig. 2 Configuration of projectile with canard.
 132 COOPER, FRESCONI, AND COSTELLO

8 9 8 9 2 38 9
>
> I > > I > c 0 s > I > CB V Cj=I , CB !B=I , and  are negligible, plus axial components
< c1 >= >
< B> = >
< B> = IB  CB V =I   V and IB  CB !B=I   p are constant. These
6 7
Jc1  T1 JB  4 0 1 0 5 JB ; 0 assumptions lead to a fourth-order initial value system with constant
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; : ; : ; coefficients and time-dependent driving terms:
Kc1 KB s 0 c KB
8 9 8 9 8 9 2 AV 38 9
>
> I > > I > > v_ > D p 0 V >
>v>
< c2 >= >
< B> = >
>
>
>
>
> 6 7>>
>
>
>
>
< w_ >= 6 p VV2 A VV3  1 7 >
<w> =
Jc2  T2 JB 6 0 7
>
> >
> >
> >
>  6 BV M CV
D
7
: ; : ;
Kc2 KB >
>
> q_ >
>
>
6 2
4 D
2
D2
M3 EV
 FVpD 7>
5>> q>>
>
> > D D > >
2 32 38 9 >
: _; > >
: > ;
c 0 s 1 0 0 > > I > r CV
 D2 BV FVpD EV
r
< B> = D 2 D D
6 76 7 8 9
4 0 1 0 54 0 1 0 5 JB ;    (17) > sinpt Dg >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; >
> D2 V 2 Cnac >
s 0 c 0 0 1 KB g
< cospt D  4m
>=
 xcD2 V 2 Cnac (22)
Therefore, the relative velocities of the lifting surfaces written in >
>  >
>
>
> 4IT >
>
local canard coordinates have the form >
: >
;
yc2 pD2 VCnac
4IT

CC1 V C1=I   T1 CB V C1=I ; CC2 V C2=I   T2 CB V C2=I  The full expressions for the matrix are lengthy, and they are
(18) provided in the Appendix, which also shows the contributions due to
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

asymmetry are (V2 , V3 , M2 , M3 ). When these contributions are equal

Construct the angle of attack for each canard j as to zero, no asymmetry exists, and the system in Eq. (22) returns to the
familiar linear theory describing symmetric projectiles written in the
KC1  CC1 V C1=I  body frame. The eigenvalues of the system above split into two
tan1  
k1  IC1 CC1 VC1=I k conjugate pairs: a fast mode and a slow mode denoted as SF and SS
KC2  CC2 V C2=I  (SF;S  F;S  i_F;S ), respectively. Dynamic stability of Eq. (22) is
tan2   (19) determined by the real parts of these eigenvalues. The linear
k1  IC2 CC2 V C2=I k combination of damped and undamped sinusoid terms forming the
solution of Eq. (22) are obtained using the Laplace transform
The axial Xj and normal Nj aerodynamic forces acting on the followed with employing the Mellin inverse formula [18]. The
lifting surfaces of the canards are modeled as particular canard time-dependent deflection angle  used to generate
8 9 8 9 in this report has the form
< Xj =  < CX0C  CX2C 2j =
CCj FAj   0  jCB V C1=I j2 D2 0    sinkt;   10 (23)
: ; 8 : ;
N j C  NAC j

(20) Model Validation

Thus, the force FC and moment MC due to the two canards take the To establish the utility of the extended projectile linear theory
form developed above, time domain solutions from the linear model
[Eq. (16)] are compared with time domain calculations of the
CB FC   T11 CC1 FA1   T21 CC2 FA2  nonlinear model [Eqs. (4–7)]. The particular example given here has
mass properties m  1:2680 slug, moments of inertia IX  2:449 
CB MC   Sr!C1 T11 CC1 FA1   Sr!C2 T21 CC2 FA2  102 slug ft2 and IT  0:51569 slug
ft2 , and air density 
(21) 2:38  103 slug
ft3 . The spin rate p  75:4 s1 , and the forward
velocity V  558:0 ft
s1. This projectile’s geometry character-
Equation (21) shows net moment results from the canard istics are D  0:343521 ft, SLCOP  0:7284 ft, SLMAG  0:2390 ft,
asymmetry since the angles of attack on each canard are different. SLCG  1:17787 ft, xc  1:2434 ft, and yc  0:134 ft. The
This means that, during flight, the canards may contribute to transient projectile aerocoefficients are CNA  5:8150, CNAC  0:4875,
coning motion when jMC j is sufficiently large. CYPA  28, and CMQ  151:91, and all reference areas are
based on diameter D.
Comparisons of linear theory to nonlinear 6-DOF calculations,
Extended Projectile Linear Theory along with data from flight experiments, are shown in Figs. 3–6.
The usual assumptions corresponding to projectile linear theory Figure 3 compares linear theory to 6-DOF canard moment ratios
are products formed by transverse components of CB V=I , MCY =MCYMAX as functions of time for 5:0 s < t < 8:0 s. The scale

Fig. 3 Comparison of MCY =MCYMAX vs time.

 COOPER, FRESCONI, AND COSTELLO 133

Fig. 4 Comparison of FCZ =FCZMAX vs time.

Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

Fig. 5 Comparison of q=qMAX vs time.

factor MCYMAX is the maximum value of MCY of the linear theory rate. The perturbations in the orbits of Fig. 6 are due to the faster
calculations of the duration of the flight 0 s < t < 30 s, for which the canard actuation frequency. The canard actuation-induced angle of
canard activation frequency is chosen as k  p to effectively attack is near 3 , as seen in Fig. 6. The experimental and linear
maximize projectile range (glide). theory-based transient coning magnitude is around 3 , and the
A similar chart showing the canard force ratio FCZ =FCZMAX is angular motion perturbations due to canard actuation at the roll rate
given in Fig. 4, and the scale factor FCZMAX is the maximum value of are evident in Fig. 6.
the linear FCZ over the 30 s flight. The steady-state coning motion corresponding to the particular
The variables in Figs. 3 and 4 are chosen for comparison since the solution of Eq. (22) is attained for flight times  200 s due to the size
nonlinear effects due to the 6-DOF are most dissimilar for the canard of jF;S j. This steady-state motion is an offset ellipse centered at the
force and moment. A chart comparing linear and 6-DOF calculations
of the similarly scaled q=qMAX ratios is shown in Fig. 5
One way to view the angular motion of this asymmetric projectile
is to consider the time dependence of , , defined as follows [3]:
8  9
  >>
< tan 1 cosptvsinptw >
V
>
=
  
 (24)
 >
> >
>
: tan1 cosptwsinptv
V
;

Figure 6 has a chart for flight times t  30 s comparing linear

theory and 6-DOF calculations along with flight-test data of the
projectile modeled in the above calculations [19].
Evidently, linear theory captures most of the physics governing the
angular motion of this projectile when subjected to two activating
canards configured at   0 and   . The magnitude of transitory
coning behavior for t  30 s is caused by the canard moments MC
and the body moment B. Essentially, the canards induce the angle of
attack in the body. At the angle of attack, the Magnus moment of the
body contributes to the transient coning along with the canard
actuation. In the plot of Fig. 6, the Magnus moment appears as nearly
circular orbits that complete a full revolution at the projectile yaw Fig. 6 Comparisons of transient coning motions for time
30 s.
 134 COOPER, FRESCONI, AND COSTELLO

120 ( α 2 + β 2)1/2 at time t=30s, p = 75.4 s-1

100
Fast Mode
80

Degrees
60

40
Slow Mode
20

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
k F
Fig. 10 Metric resonance vs k=_ F .

geometric center of Fig. 6 with vanishing small radii (analysis not

presented here since the expressions are judged to be too long).

Stability Analysis
Fig. 7 Fast and slow real roots
FAST;SLOW as functions of spin rate p.
Numerical values of fast and slow eigenvalues SF;S are presented
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

as functions of projectile spin rate p, given in Figs. 7 and 8. The slow

mode SS is real and positive for 10:2 s1  p  13:3 s1, which
indicates dynamic instability; see Fig. 5 of [3]. As p increases,
120 p  79:0 s1 , causes the fast mode contribution to grow unstable.
Imag SF,S vs Spin Rate p Another way to present the numerical values of fast and slow
P eigenvalues SF;S is to form a root locus plot for changing projectile
100 spin rate p, shown in Fig. 9.
These eigenvalues provide a tool for addressing dynamic stability
of the asymmetric canard configuration modeled in this effort.
80 Sinusoidal driving terms representing canard actuation [Eq. (23)]
cause component solutions of Eq. (23) to have terms with form
φ (s-1)

60 Gt
.

_
F;S  k2  2F;S
.
40 φ FAST Gt represents a time-dependent numerator (25)
.
φ SLOW
Thus, in the event jF;S j  1, k ! j_F;S j may potentially generate
20 flight instability when the canards are actuated as sinusoids. A metric
to demonstrate this potential problem is defined in Eq. (26):
p

















0 Max 2  2 8 t 2 0; 30 s (26)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Spin Rate p (s-1 )
Figure 10 shows a plot of this behavior where the spin rate is held
Fig. 8 Fast and slow real roots FAST;SLOW as functions of spin rate p. constant p  75:4 s1 for varying values of k.
Apparently, when the frequency k is in the neighborhood of the
fast mode, the frequency _F causes the strongest destabilizing effect.

Fig. 9 Fast and slow roots S parameterized by projectile spin rate p.

 COOPER, FRESCONI, AND COSTELLO 135

Conclusions doi:10.2514/3.26412
[6] Murphy, C. H., “Angular Motion of a Spinning Projectile with a Viscous
An extension of the familiar linear-projectile theory for symmetric Liquid Payload,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 6,
and asymmetric projectiles has been formulated and solved. This No. 4, July–Aug. 1983, pp. 280–286.
extension accounts for configuration asymmetries caused by two doi:10.2514/3.19830
actuating canards placed at roll angles   0 and   . The [7] Murphy, C. H., “Influence of Moving Internal Parts on the Angular
documentation shows that a wide class of configuration asymmetries Motion of Spinning Projectiles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and
can be addressed by the techniques given in this report. One of the Dynamics, Vol. 1, No. 2, March–April 1978, pp. 117–122.
results obtained in this paper presents a way to analyze the dynamic doi:10.2514/3.55753
stability of projectiles exhibiting asymmetries. This can have an [8] Cobb, K. K., Whyte, R. H., and Laird, P. K., “The Effects of a Moving
Components on the Motion of a 20-mm Projectile,” 11th AIAA
important impact on the design of projectiles. The importance of Aerodynamics Testing Conference, New York, AIAA Paper 1980-
canard actuation focuses on a potential problem causing flight 0428, 1980.
instability when the actuation frequencies are too close to one of the [9] Hodapp, A. E., “Passive Means for Stabilizing Projectiles with Partially
modal yawing frequencies. A spinning projectile with two canards Restrained Internal Members,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and
activated as sinusoids was shown to contribute to transient coning Dynamics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1989, pp. 135–139.
motion when this additional moment was sufficiently large. The doi:10.2514/3.20382
closed-form solutions discussed in this report were shown to [10] Soper, W. G., “Projectile Instability Produced by Internal Friction,”
compare well with standard 6-DOF calculations. Postprocessing AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1978, pp. 1–11.
doi:10.2514/3.60848
solutions given here to obtain all state components of asymmetric
[11] Costello, M., and Peterson, A., “Linear Theory of a Dual-Spin Projectile
projectiles may prove useful in developing firmware. The asym- in Atmospheric Flight,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
metric linear theory reduces to the familiar linear symmetric theory
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

Vol. 23, No. 5, 2000, pp. 789–797.

when the asymmetries vanish. doi:10.2514/2.4639
[12] Cooper, G., “Extending the Jump Analysis for Aerodynamic
Appendix Asymmetry,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 3,
May–June 2006, pp. 700–703.
doi:10.2514/1.17718
D3 CNA pD5 CYPA SLMAG  SLCG  [13] Murphy, C. H., “Instability of Controlled Projectiles in Ascending or
A B
8m 16IT V Descending Flight,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 4, No. 1, 1981, pp. 66–69.
D4 CNA SLCOP  SLCG  D5 CMQ doi:10.2514/3.19716
C E
8IT 16IT [14] Cooper, G., “Influence of Yaw Cards on the Yaw Growth of Spin
Stabilized Projectiles,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001,
pDIx D3 CNAC D2 xcCNAC pp. 266–270.
F V2   V3 
IT V 4m 4m doi:10.2514/2.2784
D4 xcCNAC D3 xc2 CNAC [15] Guidos, B., and Cooper, G., “Closed Form Solution of Finned Projectile
M2  M3   Motion Subjected to Simple In-Flight Lateral Impulse,” AIAA
4IT 4IT Paper 2000-0767, 2000.
[16] Burchett, B., Peterson, A., and Costello, M., “Prediction of Serving
Motion of a Dual-Spin Projectile with Lateral Pulse Jets in Atmospheric
References Flight,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 35, Nos. 1–2,
[1] Fresconi, F., and Plostins, P., “Control Mechanism Strategies for Spin- 2002, pp. 1–14.
Stabilized Projectiles,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 224, doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(01)00143-1
No. 9 2010, pp. 979–991. [17] Pechier, M., Guillen, P., and Cayzac, R., “Magnus Effect over Finned
doi:10.1243/09544100JAERO705 Projectiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 4, July–
[2] Murphy, C. H., “Symmetric Missile Dynamic Instabilities: A Survey,” Aug. 2001, pp. 542–549.
18th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 1980-0320, doi:10.2514/2.3714
Jan 1980. [18] Carrier, G. F., Krook, M., and Pearson, C. E., Functions of a Complex
[3] Charles H. Murphy, “Angular Motion of Spinning Almost Symmetric Variable: Theory and Technique, Hod Books, Ithaca, NY, 1983,
Missiles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 364–365.
Nov.–Dec. 1979, pp. 504–510. [19] Fresconi, F., and Harkins, T., “Aerodynamic Characterizations of
doi:10.2514/3.55916 Asymmetric and Maneuvering 105 mm, 120 mm, and 155 mm Fin-
[4] Hodapp, A. E., “Effect of Mass Asymmetry on Ballistic Match of Stabilized Projectiles Derived from Telemetry Experiments,” AIAA
Projectiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 13, No. 12, 1976, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA, Paper 2011-6268,
pp. 757–760. Aug. 2011.
doi:10.2514/3.57137
[5] Weber, D. J., “Simplified Method for Evaluating the Flight Stability of
Liquid-Filled Projectiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 31, M. Miller
No. 1, 1994, pp. 130–134. Associate Editor
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yu Wang, Jiyan Yu, Xiaoming Wang. 2020. Normal acceleration response to canard control with wind for spin-
stabilized projectiles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 65,
095441002091183. [Crossref]
2. James Norris, Amer Hameed, John Economou, Simon Parker. 2020. A review of dual-spin projectile stability. Defence
Technology 16:1, 1-9. [Crossref]
3. Luisa D. Fairfax, Joseph D. Vasile, Luke Strohm, Frank Fresconi. Trajectory Shaping for Quasi-Equilibrium Glide in
Guided Munitions . [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
4. Rupeng Li, Dongguang Li, Jieru Fan. 2019. Research on Instability Boundaries of Control Force for Trajectory Correction
Projectiles. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2019, 1-12. [Crossref]
5. Rupeng Li, Dongguang Li, Jieru Fan. 2019. Dynamic Response Analysis for a Terminal Guided Projectile With a
Trajectory Correction Fuze. IEEE Access 7, 94994-95007. [Crossref]
6. Yu Wang, Xiao-ming Wang, Ji-yan Yu. 2018. Influence of control strategy on stability of dual-spin projectiles with fixed
canards. Defence Technology 14:6, 709-719. [Crossref]
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022

7. Wei Zhou, Shuxing Yang, Liangyu Zhao. 2017. Limit cycle of low spinning projectiles induced by the backlash of actuators.
Aerospace Science and Technology 69, 595-601. [Crossref]
8. Frank Fresconi, Bernard Guidos, Ilmars Celmins, James DeSpirito, Wayne Hathaway. 2017. Flight Behavior of an
Asymmetric Missile Through Advanced Characterization Techniques. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 54:1, 266-277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
9. Zhongjiao Shi, Liangyu Zhao. 2016. Effects of aeroelasticity on coning motion of a spinning missile. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 230:14, 2581-2595. [Crossref]
10. Sijiang Chang. 2016. Dynamic Response to Canard Control and Gravity for a Dual-Spin Projectile. Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets 53:3, 558-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
11. Tian Hua, Fang Zhou, Wen Ya-li, Zhao Wen-jie, Li Ping. Flight control algorithm for small UAVs with aerodynamic
asymmetry 4431-4436. [Crossref]
12. Jubaraj Sahu, Frank Fresconi. 2015. Aeromechanics and Control of Projectile Roll Using Coupled Simulation Techniques.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 52:3, 944-957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
13. Frank Fresconi, James DeSpirito, Ilmars Celmins. 2015. Flight Performance of a Small Diameter Munition with a Rotating
Wing Actuator. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 52:2, 305-319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
14. Yongwei Zhang, Min Gao, Suochang Yang, Dan Fang. 2015. Optimization of Trajectory Correction Scheme for Guided
Mortar Projectiles. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2015, 1-14. [Crossref]
15. Min Gao, Yongwei Zhang, Suochang Yang. 2015. Firing Control Optimization of Impulse Thrusters for Trajectory
Correction Projectiles. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2015, 1-11. [Crossref]
16. Kishore B. Pamadi. 2014. Aerodynamic Considerations for Open-Loop Control of a Statically Unstable Mortar Projectile.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 51:5, 1576-1586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
17. John Dykes, Mark Costello, Frank Fresconi, Gene Cooper. 2014. Periodic projectile linear theory for aerodynamically
asymmetric projectiles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 228:11,
2094-2107. [Crossref]
18. Jubaraj Sahu, Frank Fresconi, Karen R. Heavey. Control Performance, Aerodynamic Modeling and Validation of Coupled
Simulation Techniques for Guided Projectile Roll Dynamics . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
19. Matthew Gross, Jonathan D. Rogers, Mark Costello, Frank Fresconi. Nonlinear Stability Analysis Methods for Guided
Artillery Projectiles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
20. Jubaraj Sahu, Frank Fresconi, Karen R. Heavey. Unsteady Aerodynamic Simulations of a Finned Projectile at a Supersonic
Speed with Jet Interaction . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
21. Ilmars Celmins, Frank E. Fresconi, Bryant P. Nelson. 2014. Actuator characterization of a man-portable precision maneuver
concept. Defence Technology 10:2, 141-148. [Crossref]
22. Luisa D. Fairfax, Frank E. Fresconi. 2014. Position Estimation for Projectiles Using Low-Cost Sensors and Flight
Dynamics. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 27:3, 611-620. [Crossref]
 23. Wei Zhou, Shuxing Yang, Liangyu Zhao. Limit Circular Motion of Spinning Projectiles Induced by Backlash of Actuators .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
24. Wei Zhou, Shuxing Yang, Jinlong Dong. 2013. Coning motion instability of spinning missiles induced by hinge moment.
Aerospace Science and Technology 30:1, 239-245. [Crossref]
25. Frank Fresconi, Tom Harkins. 2012. Experimental Flight Characterization of Asymmetric and Maneuvering Projectiles
from Elevated Gun Firings. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 49:6, 1120-1130. [Crossref]
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A32022