Correction to: Photogrammetry measurements of blunt body dynamics in a supersonic wind tunnel
File(s)
Correction
Author(s)
Innocenzi, Pietro
Bruce, Paul JK
Navarro-Martinez, Salvador
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
In this article, some sentences were inadvertently omitted during the article publication process.
The original article has been corrected.
Incorrect sentence:
Equation 4 is fit to the motion data shown in Fig. 15a, showing the measured angle of attack and sideslip in the aeroballistic coordinate frame alongside the fit. The residuals (shown in Fig. 16b) are lower than 1° for most of the run, indicating that the tricyclic equation closely captures the dynamics.
Corrected sentence:
Equation 4 is fit to the motion data shown in Fig. 15a. The tricyclic solution assumes constant roll rate and aerodynamic coefficients, hence the data is split into windows in which both are treated as constants. The window size is set to 0.17 s with 20% overlap, containing around 5 cycles in pitch, and is chosen via trial-and-error as a trade-off between high variance (small window, over-fit) and high bias (big window, under-fit). In each window, the 12 variables are obtained through a non-linear least squares approach. Figure 16a shows the measured angle of attack and sideslip in the aeroballistic coordinate frame alongside the fit. The residuals (shown in Fig. 16b) are lower than 1° for most of the run, indicating that the tricyclic equation closely captures the dynamics.
Incorrect sentence:
The increase in roll rate is reflected by the increase in amplitude of the rolling trim mode Kt, see Fig. 17b.
Corrected sentence:
The increase in roll rate is reflected by the increase in amplitude of the rolling trim mode Kt, see Fig. 17b. The same figure reveals that the source of increased limit cycle amplitude at t ≥ 3.4 s can be attributed to the precession mode.
Incorrect sentence:
Note that the angular rates in the present study (Fig. 18a) are two orders of magnitude higher than those in Fig. 18b, suggesting a transition between two distinct rigid body modes, each defined by a limit cycle amplitude and by an equilibrium between the static roll moment and the aerodynamic damping in roll.
Corrected sentences:
Note that the angular rates in the present study (Fig. 18a) are two orders of magnitude higher than those in Fig. 18b, since the oscillation frequency scales approximately as √∞V∞∕L. Both figures exhibit similar trends: the rolling trim mode Kt increases with roll rate until a sudden growth of the precession mode Kp, which is accompanied by a larger oscillation amplitude and a drop in roll rate. In the specific case of the geometry studied here, Fig. 18a suggests a transition between two distinct rigid-body modes, each defined by a limit cycle amplitude and by an equilibrium between the static roll moment and the aerodynamic damping in roll.
In Page 6: addition of the phrase “previously presented in Vlieghe et al. (2025).” has been included.
In Page 7, addition to the caption of Fig. 5 has been updated as Fig. 5: Cross-section of experimental rig, adapted from Vlieghe et al. (2025).
In Page 19, Acknowledgment has been changed as below:
The authors acknowledge Sevan Vlieghe for his significant contribution to the design and development of the experimental rig. The first author acknowledges the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College London for funding the research.
The original article has been corrected.
Incorrect sentence:
Equation 4 is fit to the motion data shown in Fig. 15a, showing the measured angle of attack and sideslip in the aeroballistic coordinate frame alongside the fit. The residuals (shown in Fig. 16b) are lower than 1° for most of the run, indicating that the tricyclic equation closely captures the dynamics.
Corrected sentence:
Equation 4 is fit to the motion data shown in Fig. 15a. The tricyclic solution assumes constant roll rate and aerodynamic coefficients, hence the data is split into windows in which both are treated as constants. The window size is set to 0.17 s with 20% overlap, containing around 5 cycles in pitch, and is chosen via trial-and-error as a trade-off between high variance (small window, over-fit) and high bias (big window, under-fit). In each window, the 12 variables are obtained through a non-linear least squares approach. Figure 16a shows the measured angle of attack and sideslip in the aeroballistic coordinate frame alongside the fit. The residuals (shown in Fig. 16b) are lower than 1° for most of the run, indicating that the tricyclic equation closely captures the dynamics.
Incorrect sentence:
The increase in roll rate is reflected by the increase in amplitude of the rolling trim mode Kt, see Fig. 17b.
Corrected sentence:
The increase in roll rate is reflected by the increase in amplitude of the rolling trim mode Kt, see Fig. 17b. The same figure reveals that the source of increased limit cycle amplitude at t ≥ 3.4 s can be attributed to the precession mode.
Incorrect sentence:
Note that the angular rates in the present study (Fig. 18a) are two orders of magnitude higher than those in Fig. 18b, suggesting a transition between two distinct rigid body modes, each defined by a limit cycle amplitude and by an equilibrium between the static roll moment and the aerodynamic damping in roll.
Corrected sentences:
Note that the angular rates in the present study (Fig. 18a) are two orders of magnitude higher than those in Fig. 18b, since the oscillation frequency scales approximately as √∞V∞∕L. Both figures exhibit similar trends: the rolling trim mode Kt increases with roll rate until a sudden growth of the precession mode Kp, which is accompanied by a larger oscillation amplitude and a drop in roll rate. In the specific case of the geometry studied here, Fig. 18a suggests a transition between two distinct rigid-body modes, each defined by a limit cycle amplitude and by an equilibrium between the static roll moment and the aerodynamic damping in roll.
In Page 6: addition of the phrase “previously presented in Vlieghe et al. (2025).” has been included.
In Page 7, addition to the caption of Fig. 5 has been updated as Fig. 5: Cross-section of experimental rig, adapted from Vlieghe et al. (2025).
In Page 19, Acknowledgment has been changed as below:
The authors acknowledge Sevan Vlieghe for his significant contribution to the design and development of the experimental rig. The first author acknowledges the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College London for funding the research.
Date Issued
2026-05
Date Acceptance
2026-01-12
Citation
Experiments in Fluids, 2026, 67 (5)
ISSN
0723-4864
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Journal / Book Title
Experiments in Fluids
Volume
67
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2026, modified publication 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
License URL
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
51
Date Publish Online
2026-04-18