2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference AIAA 2004-2513

28 June - 1 July 2004, Portland, Oregon

High-Frequency Excitation Active Flow Control for

High-Speed Weapon Release (HIFEX)

William W. Bower1, Valdis Kibens2, and Andrew W. Cary3

The Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO 63166

Farrukh S. Alvi4
Florida A&M and Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32310

Ganesh Raman5
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616

Anuradha Annaswamy6
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

and

Norman M. Malmuth7
Rockwell Scientific, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Traditional weapon release from bays uses a spoiler for modifying the bay shear
layer to reduce acoustic levels within the bay and to enhance the characteristics of
weapon separation. However, for high-speed weapon release (free stream Mach
numbers between 2 and 4), passive devices such as spoilers do not provide a robust
means of achieving safe weapon dispense. To address this problem The Boeing
Company, under funding from the DARPA Micro Adaptive Flow Control Program,
has developed an active flow control approach for high-speed weapon dispense from
a bay. Boeing is currently working on preparation for the full-scale demonstration
of the concept at the Holloman AFB High-Speed Test Track. This paper reviews the
various elements of the HIFEX program performed over the past two years using
wind tunnel testing at Mach 2.5 and concludes with plans for the full-scale flow
control evaluation in 2005.

1
Senior Technical Fellow, Flight Sciences, P.O. Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166/
MC S111-1240, AIAA Associate Fellow
2
Associate Technical Fellow, Flight Sciences, P.O. Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166/
MC S111-1240, AIAA Associate Fellow
3
Engineer, Flight Sciences, P.O. Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166/ MC S111-1240,
AIAA Member
4
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 2525 Pottsdamer Street,
Tallahassee, FL 32310, AIAA Senior Member
5
Associate Professor, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 10 W. 32nd Street,
Chicago, IL 60616, AIAA Associate Fellow
6
Principal Research Scientist, Mechanical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02139, AIAA Member
7
Program Manager and Senior Scientist, Fluid Mechanics, 1049 Camino Dos Rios,
Thousand Oaks, CA 931360, AIAA Fellow
Copyright © 2004 by The Boeing Company

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2004 by Copyright 2004 by The Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 I. Introduction

T HE DARPA Micro Adaptive Flow Control (MAFC) program “High-Frequency Excitation Active Flow
Control for High-Speed Weapon Release” (HIFEX) was initiated in 2001. The objective of this
ongoing program is to develop and demonstrate an active flow control approach for achieving safe weapon
release from a bay at a flight speed of Mach 2.5. The technology developed under this program is intended
to be ultimately transitioned to the Long Range Strike Aircraft (LRSA).
Conventional weapon dispense from bays uses spoilers for modifying the bay shear layer to reduce
acoustic levels within the bay and to enhance weapon departure from the bay. However, spoilers have the
disadvantage of not having acceptable performance over a wide range of flight conditions. Therefore, the
DARPA MAFC program has focused on pursuing active flow control devices for achieving more robust
weapons bay control than that offered by passive devices. The need for enhanced weapons bay flow
control is more crucial for weapon release at Mach 2 to 3 flight speeds than for release in the transonic
flight regime.
The HIFEX program began with the development of several actuator concepts for modifying the
weapons bay shear layer and the flow in proximity to the bay. It then focused on acoustic testing of an
empty 10%-scale Boeing LRSA weapons bay to evaluate the effectiveness of the actuators in eliminating
the acoustic resonance in the bay. The thought was that suppression of the acoustic tones would also have
a beneficial effect on the weapon separation characteristics, and this was found, in fact, to be the case.
Subsequent wind tunnel testing of the HIFEX weapons bay model centered on force/moment grid testing of
a 10%-scale MK-82 JDAM metric model to determine the weapon separation characteristics through the
shear layer. High-speed video imaging was used to capture free-drop testing of weapon models from the
bay. This mode of testing was used to more accurately capture the coupling between the unsteady flow and
the store dynamics. These tests were used to find the most effective actuator for achieving acceptable
weapon departure with minimal mass flow requirements. Another wind tunnel entry was made with a
10%-scale pressure-instrumented MK-82 JDAM model to provide additional information for interpreting
the weapon separation flow characteristics without and with control.
Based on the success of the model-scale wind tunnel demonstration of the HIFEX weapon release
system, the program advanced to implementation of a full-scale demonstration of the concept. This will be
a sled test at the Holloman AFB High Speed Test Track in 2005. Five weapon releases of a MK-82 JDAM
Standard Test Vehicle from the full-scale LRSA bay will be conducted. This test series would be a
precursor to any flight test demonstration of the HIFEX system.
It should be noted that in 2002-2003 a complementary project to the HIFEX program was conducted to
demonstrate the active flow control weapon release concept in the Mach regime between 3 and 4. This
program, the Long Range Strike Aero Experiment (LRSAe), was funded by the Air Force Research
Laboratory. It too involved a sequence of acoustic, grid, and free-drop tests at the higher free stream Mach
numbers.
The subsequent sections of this paper describe the HIFEX active flow control approaches, the wind
tunnel tests of the various concepts leading to the selection of a preferred device, and finally the planning
for the 2005 full-scale sled test demonstration.

II. Weapons Bay Model and Flow Control Actuators

A 10%-scale weapons bay model (based on a representative Long Range
Strike Aircraft configuration) and a variety of flow control actuators were
developed in the HIFEX program. The weapons bay model has a length of 20
inches and a width of 4 inches. In its full depth configuration it is 4 inches deep;
however, an insert can be placed in the bay which reduces the depth to two
inches. The bay can be instrumented with three dynamic pressure transducers
along the ceiling, five on the rear wall, and six on the upstream wall and with
static pressure taps as well. Installation of the weapons bay in the Boeing
Polysonic Wind Tunnel (PSWT), St. Louis, is illustrated in Fig. 1. Figure 1: 10%-Scale HIFEX
Through its modular design, the HIFEX weapons bay model can be fitted weapons bay model installed in
with a variety of actuators. These include the powered resonance tube (PRT), a Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
“splash” actuator (SA), a jet screen (JS), and microjets (MJ). Each of these control devices offers unique
attributes for high-speed weapon release and was the subject of considerable testing in the HIFEX program.
The powered resonance tube device was developed by Boeing and the Illinois Institute of Technology
(Raman et al., 2001) and has been successfully used in a variety of tests for noise suppression of free and
impinging jets and for weapons bay acoustic suppression at transonic conditions. The device is based on
the principle of high-frequency excitation, which departs from the conventional philosophy of exciting the
shear layer only within the range of frequencies where large-scale structures are amplified. The rationale in
the conventional excitation approach is to energize the large structures that in turn enhance mixing. In
contrast, when frequencies that are an order of magnitude higher than the large-scale range are used, the
dissipative scales are excited, which in turn can bring about large changes in the development of the large
scales and the mean flow (see Wiltse and Glezer, 1993). An important consequence of the high-frequency
excitation is that the direct addition of dissipative scales apparently accelerates the dynamics of energy
cascade across a broad range of wave numbers. In simulations involving resonant acoustics, low-frequency
excitation reduces the amplitude of resonant tones by detuning the feedback loop. In contrast, high-
frequency excitation destroys the organization of the initial shear layer that is necessary to sustain flow-
induced resonance.
The powered resonance tube is a simple device with no
moving parts for producing acoustic levels in excess of 160 dB in
a frequency range from 500 to 15,000 Hz. The device is based on
a pressurized air stream from a nozzle directed into a tube with
the downstream end closed off. This creates the flow resonance
and the expulsion of fluid from the tube which is injected into the
shear layer to be controlled. Various parametric studies have
been performed on the resonance tube to determine the optimum
configuration, and it was found that a bank of powered resonance
tubes (PRTB) is the most effective device. Further optimization
studies were performed to look at the effects of varying the
diameter of the tubes, the spacing between the tubes, and the
Figure 2: Powered resonance
operating pressure of the devices. Figure 2 illustrates a powered
tube bank located upstream of the
resonance tube bank (8 tubes) installed in the HIFEX weapons
HIFEX weapons bay
bay model.
The jet screen is a flow control device suggested by AFRL for
use in the LRSAe program. It injects pressurized air normal to
the flow surface though a narrow slit upstream of the weapons
bay leading edge and extending the width of the bay. The slit
has a width of either 0.03 inches or 0.07 inches. The advantage
of this method is that in addition to providing shear layer
control, it can also provide shock control. That is, a shock can
be generated upstream of the bay which extends near the
weapon, turns the flow, and thereby corrects the weapon attitude
and prevents the weapon from striking the parent aircraft. The
jet screen installed in the HIFEX weapons bay model is
illustrated in Fig. 3.
The supersonic microjet actuators were developed at the Figure 3: Jet screen slot (0.030 inch
Fluid Mechanics Research Laboratory (FMRL) at the Florida A x 4 inches) located upstream of the
& M University-Florida State University. They were first used to HIFEX weapons bay
control the feedback loop which occurs in supersonic impinging
jets, described in Alvi et al. (2003a). They were subsequently used to control the cavity dynamics for a 2%
scale LRSA model. The microjets used in the present 10% scale tests are very similar and consist of arrays
of evenly-spaced 400 Im (~0.016 in) diameter jets, placed just upstream of the cavity leading edge.
Actuators were made with microjets inclined at 90° and 45° relative to the freestream flow. Initial acoustic
tests showed that the actuators with 90° microjets worked best, and these were used for all subsequent tests.
The physical arguments behind why the microjets were expected to work can be found in Alvi et al. (2003a
and 2003b) and Ning et al. (2003). Briefly, the microjets are effective because they efficiently disrupt the
feedback mechanism that dominates the cavity dynamics. They may do so by a) disrupting the spatial
coherence of the interaction between the acoustic waves and the shear layer in the region near the leading

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
edge and/or b) by generating significant streamwise vorticity in the cavity shear layer which tends to
diffuse or weaken the velocity gradients in the shear layer, thus making it more stable, i.e. less receptive to
perturbation by the acoustic disturbances. Figure 4 illustrates the installation of the microjets in the HIFEX
weapons bay model.

Figure 4: Microjet arrays located

upstream of the HIFEX weapons bay

III. HIFEX Wind Tunnel Testing

The HIFEX wind tunnel entries included weapons bay acoustic testing, force-and-moment grid testing
with a 10%-scale MK-82 JDAM model, MK-82 JDAM weapon drop tests, and pressure-instrumented
weapon model grid testing. The free stream Mach number was 2.5 in all cases. All tests were conducted
in the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel (PSWT) in St. Louis, which has a 4 ft X 4 ft test section with a Mach
number range from 0.3 to 5.05 and a Reynolds number range of 1 to 48 million per foot.

A. Acoustic Tests

Acoustic testing in the HIFEX program was the first opportunity to test the active flow control actuators
in a high-speed application. Although the testing was directed to evaluating the capability of the actuators
to reduce the sound pressure levels in the bay, it was felt that reducing the flow unsteadiness would also
have a beneficial effect on achieving effective weapon release characteristics. Therefore, the acoustic
testing served as a screening of the actuators prior to the subsequent grid testing with a sting-mounted
weapon for quantifying the forces and moments on the weapon in proximity to the bay shear layer.
The first HIFEX acoustic entry took place in the Boeing PSWT in June and July of 2002. The weapons
bay model was tested as a shallow bay, and for this configuration only the microjets were effective in
reducing the bay tones. The second HIFEX acoustic entry took place in the Boeing PSWT in October and
November of 2002. In this entry the weapons bay model was tested in the deep-bay configuration, which is
more representative of the bay on the Boeing Long Range Strike Aircraft. Actuators chosen for testing
were three optimized powered-resonance-tube devices, one “splash” actuator (a PRT with the receiving
tubes closed), two microjet devices (MJ), and one jet-screen device (JS). Air to the flow control devices
was applied at various pressures. Representative results obtained with two of these devices are shown in
this section.
The effect of the powered resonance tube denoted PRT1 on the acoustic levels in the bay at Mach 2.5 is
shown in Fig. 5 at various locations on the trailing edge and the ceiling of the bay. The plots show the
baseline (no control) levels as well as the levels with control. At all locations the device dramatically
reduces the levels of the tones in the deep bay.
The ability of the microjet configuration denoted MJ1 to control weapons bay acoustic levels at Mach
2.5 is shown in Fig. 6 at the various trailing edge and ceiling positions. As seen in Fig. 6, the microjets also
produced substantial reductions in the cavity dynamic pressures at all locations.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 5: Effect of powered resonance tubes (PRT1) on sound
pressure levels in the HIFEX weapons bay (Mach 2.5)
Trailing edge - 1 & 2 Trailing edge - 5 Trailing edge - 3 & 4
180 180 200

170 170
180
160 160
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
SPL (dB)
150 150 160

140 140

140 frequency vs bwk3-NC

130 130 frequency vs bwk5-NC frequency vs bwk4-NC
frequency vs bwk1-NC frequency vs bwk5-CNTRL frequency vs bwk3-CNTRL
frequency vs bwk2-NC frequency vs bwk4-CNTRL
120 frequency vs bwk1-CNTRL 120
frequency vs bwk2-CNTRL 120

110 110
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (KhZ) Frequency (KhZ) Frequency (KhZ)

Cavity Floor 1 & 2 Cavity Floor 3

160 170

160
150

150
140

SPL (dB)
SPL (dB)

140

130
130
frequency vs cwk1-NC
frequency vs cwk2-NC frequency vs cwk3-NC
120
frequency vs cwk1-CNTRL frequency vs cwk3-CNTRL
120
frequency vs cwk2-CNTRL

110 110
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (KhZ) Frequency (KhZ)

Figure 6: Effect of Microjets (MJ1, 100 psig supply pressure) on sound pressure levels in the HIFEX weapons bay
(Mach 2.5)
Trailing edge - 5 Cavity Floor 1 & 2 Cavity Floor 3
180 160 170

170
160
150

160
150
140
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

150

140
140
130
130
130 frequency vs bwk5-NC frequency vs cwk1-NC
frequency vs bwk5-CNTRL frequency vs cwk2-NC frequency vs cwk3-NC
120 frequency vs cwk3-CNTRL
120 frequency vs cwk1-CNTRL 120
frequency vs cwk2-CNTRL

110
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 110 110
Frequency (KhZ) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (KhZ) Frequency (KhZ)

B. Force/Moment Model Grid Tests

Force/moment grid testing was pursued in the HIFEX

program in order to see how the flow control devices that were
successful in acoustic suppression modified the pitching
moment on a weapon as it departed the bay. To conduct this
segment of the testing, a 10%-scale MK-82 JDAM model with
an installed balance was designed and fabricated. This model was
positioned on a traversing arm that could be moved below the
weapons bay for measurements of forces and moments on the weapon
model. This approach did not allow an extensive traverse of the
weapon in the streamwise or lateral positions. Moreover, there was
no capability for varying weapon pitch angle. Nevertheless, this
approach did give sufficient force and moment data to make
judgments regarding the effectiveness of the active flow control
actuators in modifying the weapon separation characteristics from the bay.
The traversing mechanism can be mounted at three x-axis (streamwise)
positions along the bay. The configuration is shown in Fig. 7. The forward
bay position is denoted G1; the mid-bay position is denoted G2; and the aft
bay position is denoted G3. There is a single y-axis (lateral) position. A
range of ten inches of motion is allowed in the z-axis (normal) direction.
Travel of the traversing sting starts at a weapon home position within Figure 7: Arrangement of HIFEX weapons
bay and MK-82 JDAM models for grid
testing in the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the bay for tunnel start-up and shut-down. The arm can be moved to multiple points along its full range of
travel without pausing for data acquisition. However, the capability also exists to pause the arm at discrete
positions. The traversing arm is capable of moving through a predetermined range at varying velocities to
allow continuous data acquisition for 70 to 120 seconds of tunnel run time. The 10%-scale weapon model
used in the grid tests was a MK-82 JDAM, also shown in Fig. 7.
The model consists of a four-piece body with a nose, nose adapter,
centerbody, and aftbody. In order to gain greater insight into the
flow characteristics affecting the weapon, a temporary Schlieren
system was set up in the Boeing PSWT to visualize the shock
system associated with the weapon, bay, and fluidic actuators.
Shear-layer-control actuators used in the grid testing were
those that performed the best in the acoustic testing. These
included a powered resonance tube, the splash actuator, the jet
screen, and a microjet array. For comparison a spoiler was also
fabricated for use as a passive device. Figure 8 provides a
representative comparison of the actuators for the grid traverse at
the mid-bay (G2) position and at the Mach 2.5 condition. The
baseline case shows a nose-up moment on the weapon as it passes
through the bay shear layer. With the microjet actuator array, this
positive Cm value is sustained. With the PRT the pitching moment
is near zero down to z = 6 cm. With the jet screen initially a near-
zero Cm exists, but the pitching moment increases to 0.5 before
going negative. Results obtained with the microjet and PRT each
combined with the jet screen demonstrated acceptable weapon Red line: cm vs. z
release characteristics. (without control)
blue line: cm vs. z
C. Drop Tests (with control)

The HIFEX grid tests provided useful insights into how the Figure 8: Pitching moment
active flow control actuators affected the weapon separation vs. weapon location for mid-
characteristics as reflected by the weapon pitching moment. bay position at Mach 2.5 (MJ,
However, a more definitive measure of the benefits of flow control PRT, and JS actuators)
was desired, so drop tests were conducted in the Boeing PSWT in
which MK-82 JDAM weapon models were dispensed from the bay. This testing took place over two
entries, one in December 2002 (HIFEX program) and one in March 2003 (LRSAe program). The first
entry focused on only release from the forward and mid-bay positions at Mach 2.5 and consisted of 12
drops. The second entry focused on Mach 3.2 release from all bay positions. The results from both of
these tests demonstrated the robustness of the model-scale flow control approach as a means of achieving
high-speed weapon dispense from a bay.
One issue that arises in weapon drop tests is how to scale the weapon so that model scale results can be
used to interpret full-scale results. Light scaling was used in the drop testing, where the relative importance
of weapon weight is decreased compared to the aerodynamic and ejector forces. As a result of this, with
regard to similarity variables the weapon will tend to be closer to the aircraft for a longer time than would
be experienced in flight. For this reason, the light scaling is conservative. That is, if safe separation occurs
with a light-scaled weapon model, then a safe separation with the full-scale weapon is essentially certain.
Most of the weapon models were light scaled and were fabricated by the stereo-lithography process and
contained 7075-T6 aluminum parts and Mallory 1000 weights. An ejector system was installed in the
weapons bay for the drop testing could be located at any of the three weapon release stations. The ejector
is a spring-based system operated with a burn bolt. Various springs are available in order to set the ejector
force variations.
To record the weapon trajectories, the Boeing subcontractor Instrumentation Marketing Corporation
(IMC) provided high-speed (1000 to 2000 frames/sec) video imaging of the weapon drops. In acquiring the
video images, two different approaches were used. The first was direct illumination, in which target
markers were placed on the weapon to allow accurate definition of the weapon dynamics during the release
using IMC photogrammetric software. The analysis software provided information such as weapon center-

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
of-gravity trajectory and pitch angle history. The second approach was recording Schlieren images of the
weapon drop, which had the advantage of showing the complex shock system in the flow. However, in this
approach the target markers are not visible,
so the weapon trajectories and pitch angle Downward
had to be constructed using identifiable Ejection
geometric characteristics of the weapon in
applying the analysis software.
The first drop test entry took place in the
Boeing PSWT in December 2002 and
considered twelve MK-82 JDAM models
dispensed from the forward and mid bay

positions. Confirming the grid test results,

the drop tests showed that all actuators
(powered resonance tube, splash actuator,
and jet screen) provided a clean release of

the weapon from the forward and mid bay

positions (aft release was not tested). The
microjet array alone was ineffective but
worked in combination with the jet screen.
Figure 9 shows sequences of the
uncontrolled and controlled (splash jet)
departures from the mid-bay position at
Mach 2.5. Without flow control, the
weapon model returned to the bay. Drop
tests from the forward bay position were
unsuccessful without control and successful
with control. Acceptable weapon departure
was achieved without control at the aft bay
position for both Mach numbers.
Baseline With control
( l hj )
The second drop test entry took place in the
Boeing PSWT in March 2003. Its objective was to Figure 9: Sequence of high-speed video images
check the robustness of the flow control actuators, for baseline and controlled release of weapon
to determine if additional weapon stabilization was model from the mid-bay position at Mach 2.5
required, and to minimize the actuator mass flow
consumption to meet the bleed flow limitations of the aircraft propulsion system. The drop tests conducted
at Mach 2.5 (HIFEX program) and 3.2 (LRSAe program) showed that a “tandem actuator” provided the
best weapon separation characteristics at both Mach numbers. The tandem system consisted of a microjet
array at the bay leading edge and another at the jet screen position and required the least mass flow
requirement of all the actuators considered. Therefore, the tandem microjet array was selected as the
actuator of choice for the high-speed weapon release problem.

D. Pressure-Instrumented Model Grid Tests

To better define the high-speed weapon release characteristics

without and with control, a grid test was conducted in June-July
2003 with a pressure-instrumented MK-82 JDAM model
positioned at various locations below the bay. The test
arrangement is illustrated in Fig. 10. Dynamic data acquired along
the length of the weapon without control at Mach 2.5 revealed
spectral peaks associated with the weapons bay resonance. Figure 11
shows dynamic pressure data on the weapon model traversed below the
mid-bay position. This finding led to the conclusion that a system of
Figure 10. Installation of pressure-instrumented
weapon model in Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
shock waves moves at Mach 1.25 relative to the shear layer structures and traverses the essentially
stationary weapon model. This creates an increasingly stronger pressure footprint on the rear portion of the
weapon model due to the generation of stronger shocks because of the structure growth through vortex
pairing over the streamwise distance. This higher pressure, together with the greater control power of the
tail, leads to the nose-up moment on the MK-82 JDAM model. With flow control the structures are absent,
and the weapon has the desired separation characteristics.

Figure 11: Dynamic pressures recorded on weapon

model in mid-bay grid survey (top: weapon in initial
grid position; bottom: weapon at grid position before
encountering actuator-generated shock)
(bottom left: weapon at grid position during passage
through actuator-generated shock; bottom right: weapon
at grid position after clearing actuator-generated shock).

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. HIFEX Sled Testing
Based on the success of the 2003 drop tests and with the concurrence of DARPA, Boeing engaged the
support of the 846th Test Squadron, Holloman AFB, and began planning for a 2005 full-scale demonstration
of the high-speed weapon release concept at the Holloman High Speed Test Track (HHSTT).
In March 2003 the Boeing HIFEX team visited Holloman AFB and gave HHSTT personnel an overview of
the HIFEX program. Discussions were then held on the feasibility of sled testing the weapon release concept
based on active flow control. The 846th Test Squadron subsequently concluded that such a test was feasible.
However, due to the size of the weapons bay model and the desired test condition (Mach 2.5), an existing sled
could not be modified for the HIFEX application. Boeing then funded the 846th Test Squadron, and work
began on the preliminary design of a new sled and planning for the full-scale tests in 2005.

A. Sled Design

Given the HIFEX test objectives, HHSTT personnel formulated a preliminary sled concept for a test Mach
number of 2.0 (reduced from 2.5 to make the design feasible). This design had a cantilever wedge with a
length of 150 inches from the leading edge of the cantilever to the leading edge of the weapons bay. The bay
had a length of 200 inches, a width of 40 inches, and a
depth of 40 inches. The width of the sled was 60
inches.
Upon review of the configuration, Boeing concluded
that the 60-inch width was too short and led to three-
dimensional flow effects that were not consistent with
the flow that would be encountered for the LRSA and
that characterized that in the HIFEX weapons bay
model wind tunnel tests. Therefore, Boeing began a
CFD study of the sled to investigate the flow
characteristics and, in particular, to increase the sled
width. Representative CFD simulations are illustrated
in Fig. 12, which show the basic shock structure in (a)
for the 60-inch sled width and in (b) for the 90-inch
sled width.

Both cases did not consider the bay in order to reduce the
required computing time in the design study. The primary
flow field differences between the two widths are the location
of the oblique wedge shock spill, relief of pressure behind this
shock, and expansion behind the oblique shock. The CFD
analysis indicated that the 90-inch width is appropriate for the
full-scale test and has reasonable loads. Figure 13 provides a
comparison of the pressure load distribution, where
differences are due to the wider plan form providing more
area. It was found that having pressure spill onto the front
surface could not be avoided. Corner vortices were found to Figure 12. CFD analysis of HIFEX sled for
rotate toward the upper surface of the sled but stay on the side edge. 90- and 60-inch sled widths
Moreover, the rotation is weak compared to the axial velocity.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Sled 90 Sled 60

1000

800

600
S e c t io n a l L if t ( lb s /in )

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-200
Figure 13. Comparison of pressure
-400
load distributions for 60- and 90-inch
Fuselage Station (in)
800
HIFEX sled widths
600
S e c t io n a l D ra g ( lb s /in )

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-200
Fuselage Station (in)
8000
S e c t io n a l P it c h in g M o m e n t ( f t -

6000

4000
lb s /in )

2000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-2000

B. Weapons Bay Design with Integrated

Fuselage Station (in) AFC

The actuator concept chosen for the full-scale sled test is the tandem
microjet array tested in the HIFEX free-drop tests in March 2003. Further
testing of this concept took place in April 2004 under the final HIFEX wind
tunnel entry. Light-scaled weapons were ejected upward from the bay at
conditions that more closely characterized the Holloman AFB conditions than
those considered in previous drop tests. Scaling studies were performed to
define the required full-scale air supply. Figure 14 illustrates the proposed air
tank installation in the sled design.
The full-scale MK-82 JDAM stores that will be ejected from the bay are
Standard Test Vehicles (STVs) used in weapon release testing. The ejector
that will be used is the Boeing-developed “Pneumatically Actuated
Constrained Ejection Rack” (PACER). The PACER prototype flight
demonstration article will be loaned to the HIFEX program for use in the sled
testing. The advantage of a pneumatic ejection system is that no explosive
cartridges are required, which require hazardous waste documentation for
spent cartridges and add to program cost. The PACER has been extensively tested in
laboratory and flight environments and has been shown to be highly reliable. Less Figure 14. HIFEX
than 1% deviation in ejection velocity and peak ejection force was found from shot to sled configuration
shot in evaluation testing.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As part of the preliminary planning for the Holloman test, Boeing used the sled velocity profile
provided by the 846th Test Squadron and defined the timing sequence of events in the weapon release.
Figure 15 shows a representative profile of sled velocity versus station/time. In this sequence the HIFEX
actuator is triggered at 7600 feet. If the release occurs too early the sled may accelerate out from
underneath the STV, and the STV would not interact with the control shock. On the other hand, if the
trigger is too late, the STV may have a direction reversal relative to the sled. It was concluded that the
main positional flow features that must be considered are the locations of the control shock and the shock
from the trailing edge of the weapons bay. Since both of these shocks travel downstream, additional “slip”
distance is acquired as the STV goes higher. If the trailing edge shock is parallel to the control shock, then
it is possible to tolerate the leading edge of the STV slipping to 8 ft 8 in. behind the control shock (200 in.,
bay length minus 96 in., STV length). This simple analysis based solely on two-dimensional flow
arguments indicates that the STV tail would not hit the trailing edge shock.

Sled Test Profile

2500 14

12

Velocity [ft/s]
2000

10

1500 Velocity Profile

8

HIFEX Trigger
HIFEX Stable
6
1000 Ejection

500
2

0 0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Station/Time

Figure 15. HIFEX sled scheduling

C. Weapon Trajectory Analysis

When the MK-82 JDAM STVs are released from the Notional Geometry for
HIFEX bay, it is necessary to ensure that they do not Tilting Ejector
damage the test track. To formulate a means of achieving
this goal, Boeing performed six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
analyses to predict the likely store locations after ejection.
This approach was used to assess options for preventing the
store from hitting the track, which included both canted
ejection and a deflection board over the track. Results of Figure 16. Effects of tilting ejector
these studies are shown in Fig. 16 for tilting the ejector and on STV trajectory
in Fig. 17 for using a diverter board. The former approach
would require about 10 degrees of tilt, and it was concluded Pitch(0) = 0 Pitch(0) = 2 Pitch(0) = 4

that the diverter board was the preferable approach. It was 15

Pitch(0) = 6 Pitch(0) = 8 No Aero

estimated that the board should be placed about 1000 feet

25

from the weapon release point and start about 4 feet above 10 20
Lateral separation distance (ft)

the sled. The board will be 5-6 feet tall.

H eight above b ay (ft)

15
5

10

0
5

0
-5
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Lateral separation distance (ft) Bay tilt angle

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0 deg 2 deg 4 deg 6 deg
8 deg No Aero Drop Tes t, No Cntrl Drop Test, AFC
12

10

Height above bay (ft)

8

0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Ground distance from release (ft)

Figure 17. Diverter board assessment for sled test

D. Sled Test Program Schedule

Currently detailed planning for the HIFEX full-scale sled test demonstration is underway. In early 2004
Boeing and the 846th Test Squadron finalized plans for the HIFEX sled test. Boeing then designed the
flow control actuators and weapon ejector structure, and the 846th Test Squadron designed the HIFEX sled.
Fabrication of the actuators, ejector support structure, and sled are scheduled to begin in the third quarter of
2004. In the fourth quarter of 2004 Boeing will calibrate and test the jet actuators and certify the STV
ejector system. All the test hardware will be delivered to Holloman AFB in the second quarter of 2005,
with the five sled tests to occur during the third quarter. The HIFEX program will end the first quarter of
2006.

Summary

The HIFEX program has provided an extensive database for validation of prediction methods that will
be applied in evaluating weaponization concepts for the Long Range Strike Aircraft. This database
includes acoustic spectra, grid force-and-moment model data, particle-image-velocimetry data, high-speed
weapon release videos and photogrammetric results, and grid pressure-instrumented model data.
The program, in conjunction with the AFRL program “Long Range Strike Aero Experiment”, has
demonstrated at model-scale the safe weapon release from a conventional bay at Mach numbers from 2.5 to
3.2. This approach has been shown to have a robustness that is not found with a conventional spoiler at the
conditions tested.
The active flow control technology originating from the HIFEX and LRSAe programs will ultimately
be tested at full scale in 2005 at the Holloman AFB High Speed Test Track. Such a test would be a
preliminary step toward a flight test demonstration of the active flow control high-speed weapon release
concept.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 References
Alvi, F. S., Elavarsan R., Shih, C., Garg G., and Krothapalli, A., “Control of Supersonic Impinging Jet
Flows Using Microjets,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp: 1347 – 1355. First presented as AIAA Paper
2000-2236.

Alvi. F. S., Lou, H. and Shih, C., “The Role of Streamwise Vorticity in the Control of Impinging Jets”,
FEDSM2003-45062 (2003a).

N. Zhuang, F. S. Alvi, M. B. Alkislar, C. Shih, D. Sahoo and A. M. Annaswamy, “Aeroacoustic Properties

of Supersonic Cavity Flows and Their Control,” AIAA Paper 2003-3101 (2003b).

Raman, G., Mills, A., Othman, S., and Kibens, V., “Development of Powered Resonance Tube Actuators
for Active Flow Control”, ASMR FEDSM 2001-18273 (2001).

Wiltse, J. M. and Glezer, A., “Manipulation of Free Shear Flows Using Piezoelectric Actuators”, J. Fluid
Mechanics, 249 (1993).

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics