Computational and experimental study demonstrates accurate aerodynamic modeling in finless deflectable-nose missiles, indicating reliable force predictions across supersonic regimes.
Modern combat scenarios impose increasing requirements on missiles for low drag, rapid aerodynamic force modulation, and compact structural configuration. A finless deflectable-nose missile provides a potential solution by changing the aerodynamic load distribution through nose deflection. However, the coupled aerodynamic effects of nose deflection angle, angle of attack, Mach number, and nose-body interference have not been sufficiently clarified. This study develops an aerodynamic model of a finless deflectable-nose missile and performs preliminary verification at the mechanism and aerodynamic-model levels. At the mechanism level, prototype tests demonstrate stable nose deflection within [Formula: see text] under no-load and static-load conditions, confirming that the mechanism covers the [Formula: see text] deflection range used in the aerodynamic analysis. At the aerodynamic-model level, lift and drag coefficient models incorporating nose-body interference and supersonic flow characteristics are quantitatively compared with 36 ANSYS Fluent cases covering nose deflection angles of [Formula: see text], angles of attack of [Formula: see text], and Mach numbers of 1.0-2.5. The theoretical and CFD results show mean relative errors of 9.48% for the lift coefficient and 4.08% for the drag coefficient. In addition, the CFD-based pitching moment results show that increasing the nose deflection angle generally shifts the aerodynamic moment in the positive direction under the studied conditions. These results provide preliminary structural-feasibility and numerical-aerodynamic support for subsequent aerodynamic optimization, experimental validation, and control-system studies of deflectable-nose missiles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: