Document
RESEARCH M E ORANDU
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMiTTEE
w c a m e m m m m m m a a m
NACA RM L56E03 : : : &
a m m m m m a m m m ma m m m m a .
NATIONAL ADVISORY C O M M I T + & $OR &GIA~~ICS
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TOW-SPEED ROLL ETFEX2IVENESS OF A DDFIBENTlXILY DEFlXCTED HORIZONTALTAIL SURFACE ON A 42' SWEPT-WING MODEL By Peter C. Boisseau SUMMARY h i m e s t i g s t i o n has been made i n t h e Langley f r e e - f l i g h t tunnel t o determine the r o l l effectiveness of a d i f f e r e n t i a l l y deflected horizontal w a s t e s t e d through an angle- t a i l on a 4 2 O swept-wing model. The model of-attack range of 0 ' through the stall i n t h e clean and landing config- The model w a s also urations with the horizontal t a i l i n a low position.
t e s t e d i n t h e clean configuration with the horizontal t a i l i n the middle or high positions.
I n general, d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of t h e horizontal t a i l had l i t t l e A t low angles e f f e c t on the longitudinal characteristics of t h e model.
of a t t a c k t h e r o l l i n g moments produced by the t a i l ( a t a mean t a i l inci- dence of 0') were l e s s than half those produced by t h e ailerons, but near the stall the moments produced by the two controls were almost equal.
The r o l l i n g moments f o r t h e three t a i l positions were generally l e s s f o r - l 5 O incidence than those f o r a t a i l incidence of Oo over t h e angle-of- attack range. Evaluated on t h e basis of longitudinal trim conditions, d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of the horizontal t a i l produced large favorable yawing moments when t h e t a i l w a s i n the low position and large adverse yawing moments when t h e t a i l was i n a high position but produced only
-
- small yawing moments f o r the middle-tail position.
INTRODUCTION I n t e r e s t has recently been shown i n t h e use of all-movable horizontal The r e s u l t s of previous tails deflected d i f f e r e n t i a l l y f o r r o l l control.
investigations ( r e f s . 1 t o 7) show t h a t the r o l l effectiveness of t h e horizontal t a i l i s less than t h a t for ailerons at low angles of a t t a c k but t h a t the r o l l effectiveness of the horizontal t a i l i s maintained up t o high angles of attack and a t transonic speeds where ailerons tend t o .
l o s e some of t h e i r effectiveness. These r e s u l t s , therefore, appear t o indicate some promise f o r controls of t h i s type.
c I n order t o provide additional information on t a i l roll controls, force t e s t s have been conducted i n t h e Langley f r e e - f l i g h t tunnel on a 4 2 ' swept-wing model with t h e all-movable horizontal t a i l deflected d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . Tests were made of t h e model i n t h e clean configuration with the horizontal t a i l i n three v e r t i c a l positions: low, middle (mid- way of the exposed height of t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l ) and high (on top of the v e r t i c a l t a i l ) .
Tests were made i n the landing configuration with t h e low t a i l position.
SYMBOLS The data are presented i n the form of standard NACA coefficients of forces and moments. The longitudinal data a r e referred t o the sta- V b i l i t y system of axes and t h e lateral d a t a are r e f e r r e d t o the body system of axes.
(See f i g . 1.) The coefficients are based on t h e dimensions of the wing plan form, the chord extension being neglected.
The origin of the axes w a s located t o correspond t o a center-of-gravity position of 28.7 percent and 35.0 percent of t h e mean aerodynamic chord f o r the model i n the clean configuration and t h e landing configuration, respectively .
wing area, sq f t wing mean aerodynamic chord, f t airspeed, f t / s e c wing span, f t
dynamic pressure, - 'r, lb/sq f t *
a i r density, slugs/cu f t angle of s i d e s l i p , des angle of yaw, deg angle of bank, deg angle of attack of fuselage reference l i n e , deg angle Of incidence of wing with respect t o fuselage reference l i n e , deg .
0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 HACA RM ~ 5 6 ~ 0 3 :::, .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0.0 0 .
angle of incidence of horizontal tail with respect t o fuselage reference line, deg difference i n deflection between a p a i r of control surfaces used as l a t e r a l controls, positive when left-hand control has more p s i t i v e deflection, deg symmetrical deflection of w i n g trailing-edge control, measured perpendicular t o hinge line, deg deflection of inboazd wing leading-edge, deg deflection of outboard wing leading-edge, deg longitudinal force, l b l a t e r a l force, lb normal force, l b side force, l b l i f t , lb &%, pitching moment, f t - l b r o l l i n g moment, f t - l b yawing moment, f t - l b lift coefficient, Lift/qS b a g coefficient, Drag/qS
p i t ching-moment coefficient , +/qSE
yawing-moment coefficient, Mz/qSb rolling-moment coefficient, MX/qSb lateral-force coefficient, Fy/qS Subscripts: W wing t horizontal t a i l '4 I i L l e f t _. ..
I. .-. t * . . . . .
R r i g h t w S s t a b i l i t y axis APPARATUS AJ!D MODEL The t e s t s were conducted i n the Langley f r e e - f l i g h t tunnel with a sting-type support system and an i n t e r n a l l y mounted strain-gage balance.
A three-view drawing of the model i s shown i n figure 2 and t h e dimen- s i o n a l characteristics a r e given i n t a b l e I. With the model i n t h e clean configuration the wing incidence w a s -lo and t h e leading- and t r a i l i n g - edge flaps were at Oo. For the landing configuration t h e wing incidence * was 9O, t h e inboard and outboard leading-edge f l a p s were down Z?>O and TO0, respectively, and the trailing-edge f l a p s were down 20'. When t h e horizontal t a i l w a s i n the middle or high position, the center section, v which represented the unexposed section of t h e horizontal t a i l i n t h e low position, w a s used f o r longitudinal t r i m but not f o r roll control.
That i s , only the o r i g i n a l exposed area w a s deflected d i f f e r e n t i a l l y .
TESTS Force t e s t s were made t o determine t h e r o l l i n g effectiveness of the horizontal t a i l with t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l off and on. The horizontal t a i l i n the low position w a s deflected d i f f e r e n t i a l l y f l O o and kl5O from t a i l incidences of 0 ' and -15' f o r t h e clean and landing configurations. The t a i l i n the middle and high positions w a s deflected kl5O from t a i l i n c i - dences of 0 ' and -15' f o r the clean configuration only. Tests were made t o determine t h e e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of t h e low horizontal t a i l on the longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e model f o r both t h e clean and landing conditions. The longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e model with t h e t a i l i n t h e middle and high p o s i t i o n were determined i n t h e clean condition only.
All t e s t s were run at a dynamic pressure of 4.37 pounds per square foot, which corresponds t o an airspeed of about 61 f e e t per second at standard sea-level conditions and t o a t e s t Reynolds number of 0.51 X 10 6 based on the mean aerodynamic chord of 1.309 f e e t .
c . -
A RESWS AND DISCUSSION Longitudinal Character i s t i c s S t a t i c iongiiuidizzl & e r e ? t e r i s t i c s of the model with the horizontal t a i l i n the low position are presented i n figure 3 f o r t n e midel ir; t k e tail incidence and clean and landing configurations. The e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of the horizontal t a i l f o r t h e l o w , middle, and high positions are shown i n figure 4 f o r the model i n t h e clean condition.
The greater effectiveness of t h e middle and high horizontal tails is a t t r i b u t e d principally t o t h e f a c t t h a t i n these cases the e n t i r e t a i l (not j u s t t h e exposed area) w a s deflected f o r control. The effectiveness of t h e t a i l i n t h e high position is s l i g h t l y greater than t h a t of t h e t a i l i n the middle position appasently because of t h e greater t a i l length f o r t h e t a i l i n the high position. I n general, (See t a b l e I and f i g . 2.)
t a i l had l i t t l e e f f e c t upon the d i f f e r e n t i a l tieflection of t h e horizontal longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mdel.
U Lateral Characteristics Presented i n figures 5 and 6 are t h e incremental values of Cz, Cn, and C y produced by deflecting the low horizontal t a i l d i f f e r e n t i a l l y 2 1 0 ' and kl5O f o r mean t a i l incidences of 0 ' and - 1 5 ' f o r the model i n t h e clean and landing configurations with the v e r t i c a l t a i l off and on.
For the model i n t h e clean configuration ( f i g . 5 ) , the roll effectiveness is much l e s s at low angles of attack f o r an incidence of -15' than it i s f o r Oo because one of the surfaces is s t a l l e d . A t high angles of attack, roll effectiveness i s greater with t h e - l 5 O incidence, however, the because t h i s incidence then tends t o keep the t a i l u n s t a l l e d . For t h e model i n the landing configuration ( f i g . 6 ) 7 t h e overall v a r i a t i o n of r o l l effectiveness with angle of attack w a s generally similar but the values were somewhat smaller than t h a t f o r the model i n t h e clean of n C 2 configuration. This decreased effectiveness i n t h e landing configuration i s probably caused by stalling on one of the surfaces r e s u l t i n g from t h e increased downwash at a given angle of a t t a c k produced by f l a p deflec- t i o n and wing incidence. In general, t h e data of figures 3 and 6 show smaller r o l l i n g moments w i t h v e r t i c a l t a i l on than with v e r t i c a l t a i l off apparently because the loads induced on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l by t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y deflected low horizontal t a i l produce adverse r o l l i n g moments.
The d a t a show t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of the horizontal t a i l had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the yawing moments with the v e r t i c a l t a i l off but t h e deflection produced very l m g e yawing moments w i t h the t a i l on. The l a r g e yawing moments, which occurred f o r both t a i l incidences, were pro- duced by t h e asymmetrical loads induced on the v e r t i c a l t a i l by the horizontal t a i l . These large yawing moments resulted i n large values of the parameter un which would probably be considered undesirable from c a f lying-qualities standpoint.
The data f o r t h e horizontal t a i l i n t h e middle and high positions f o r the model i n the clean configuration are shown i n figures 7 and 8, respectively. I n order t o show t h e effect of t a i l position, t h e v e r t i c a l - t a i l - o n data from figures 7 and 8 and s i m i l a r data from figure 3 f o r t h e low-tail position are compared i n figure 9. The data of figure 9(a) are d i r e c t l y comparable at zero angle of attack where t h e model w a s approx- imately i n trim f o r a l l three t a i l positions.
The data of figure 9(b) f o r - l 5 O t a i l incidence are not d i r e c t l y comparable at any given angle of attack because t h e t r i m angle of attack i s d i f f e r e n t for each t a i l position. (See f i g . 4.) Although not d i r e c t l y comparable, t h e data of figure 9(b) should give some indication of t h e e f f e c t of t a i l position .
i n t h e high angle-of-attack range.
The data of figure 9(a) show that at Oo t a i l incidence the incre- V mental r o l l i n g moments f o r t h e t a i l i n the l o w and middle positions were generally s i m i l a r and somewhat less than t h e incremental r o l l i n g moments f o r t h e t a i l i n the high position.
The r o l l i n g moments were greater f o r t h e t a i l i n the high position than for t h e middle and low t a i l positions apparently because of the difference i n the loads induced on the v e r t i c a l tail, and additionally, at the higher angles of attack from t h e difference i n downwash on the horizontal t a i l . The yawing moments were favorable f o r t h e low t a i l position, almost zero f o r t h e middle t a i l position, and adverse for the high t a i l position. The changes i n yawing moment with variation i n height of the horizontal t a i l were caused by changes i n both the magnitude and direction of t h e induced loads on t h e v e r t i c a l t a i l .
A comparison of the data of figures 9(a) and 9 ( b ) shows t h a t t h e r o l l i n g moments f o r t h e three t a i l positions were generally l e s s f o r -15O incidence than those f o r a t a i l incidence of Oo over the angle-of- attack range, except f o r t h e low t a i l position at high angles of attack.
I n t h e high angle-of-attack range, the r o l l i n g moments with t h e - 1 5 ' incidence were greater f o r the low t a i l position than f o r the middle and high t a i l positions probably because of t h e differences i n downwash at the t a i l .
The reasons f o r t h e large positive increase i n yawing moment f o r the middle and high t a i l positions, at low angles of attack, when t h e Only a incidence is changed from 00 t o - l 5 O are not f u l l y understood.
portion of these changes i n yawing moment can be explained by a consid- e r a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t i a l t a i l drag. O n t h e b a s i s of t h e present data, - no explanation can be given f o r t h e changes i n t h e yawing moment from a large negative value t o a large positive value when t h e incidence of t h e high horizontal t a i l i s changed from 0 ' t o -15'. Actually, t h e yawing- moment data of figure 9 ( b ) are of p r a c t i c a l significance only i n t h e high .
I angle-of-attack range where t h e model is i n trim longitudinally with the I t a i l incidence of - 1 5 ' . For these trim conditions, changes i n t a i l posi- t i o n cause changes i n yawing moment t h a t are i n t h e same direction as, but smaller than, those shown by the data of f i g u r e 9(a) f o r Oo incidence.
Interpolations based on t h e data of figures 4 and 9 indicate, f o r trimmed conditions at iii%eE&i&e amgles of attack, t h e same general v a r i a t i o n of yawing moment with t a i l position would be obtained.
figure 10 is shown a c o q a r i s o n of the incremental r o l l i n g and I n yawing moments produced by the ailerons and the low horizontal t a i l an angle of attack of 50°. A t low angles of attack t h e up t o (it = 0 ) ailerons are more than t w i c e as effective as t h e horizontal t a i l as a r o l l control. As t h e angle of attack increases, the r o l l i n g moments of t h e a i l e r o n drop off rapidly u n t i l at an angle of a t t a c k of about 1 8 ' they become approximately equal t o the moments produced by the horizontal . .
t a i l . Above an angle of attack of 3 2 ' t h e r o l l i n g moments produced by I the horizontal t a i l drop off t o zero whereas t h e ailerons maintain some I I effectiveness through an angle of attack of 50'. The yawing moments pro- u duced by t h e ailerons were favorable up t o an angle of attack of I s 0 and then become r a t h e r small and e r r a t i c over the remaining angle-of-attack range. The yawing mments produced by t h e horizontal t a i l were favorable up t o an angle of a t t a c k of about 28' and became highly adverse at very high angles of attack. It should be pointed out that, although the hori- zontal t a i l and t h e ailerons produced about t h e same yawing moments at
-
i s much an angle of a t t a c k of Oo, the important control parameter E 2 g r e a t e r f o r the t a i l control. As pointed out previously, t h i s large value of !%I f o r the low horizontal t a i l would probably lead t o unde- N-L s i r a b l e f l y i n g q u a l i t i e s .
Results of an investigation made t o determine the r o l l i n g effective- ness of an all-movable horizontal t a i l when deflected d i f f e r e n t i a l l y indi- cate t h e following conclusions: 1. D i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of t h e horizontal t a i l had l i t t l e e f f e c t on t h e longitudinal characteristics of the model.
2. A t low angles of attack the r o l l i n g moments produced by t h e low t a i l ( a t a mean t a i l incidence of O o ) were l e s s than half those produced by t h e ailerons but near the stall t h e moments produced by the two controls were almost equal.
-
-. .
3. The incremental r o l l i n g moments f o r the three t a i l positions were generally l e s s for - l 5 O incidence than those f o r a t a i l incidence ..
of Oo over t h e angle-of-attack range.
4 . Evaluated on t h e b a s i s of longitudinal t r i m conditions, d i f f e r - e n t i a l deflection of the horizontal t a i l produced large favorable yawing moments when the t a i l w a s i n t h e low position and large adverse yawing moments when the t a i l w a s i n t h e high position but produced only small yawing moments for t h e middle t a i l position.
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics, Langley Field, V a . , April 12, 1956.
.
1. Koenig, David G.: T e s t s in the Ames 4 0 - by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel of an Airplane Configuration With an Aspect Ratio 3 Triangular Wing and
aa All.-;2x&Le ErcrLzontal T a i l - ZnngitudGl and Lateral Character-
i s t i c s . NACA RM A52Ll5, 1953.
2. Tinling, Bruce E., and m e n , A. V.: The Effects of Trailing-Edge Flaps on t h e Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Airplane NACA R M A54IQ7, Model Having a Triangular W i n g of Aspect Ratio 3.
1955 9 3. English, Roland D.: Free-Flight Investigation, Including Some Effects of Wing Aeroelasticity, of the Rolling Effectiveness of an All- Movable Horizontal T a i l With D i f f e r e n t i a l Incidence at Mach Numbers From 0.6 t o 1.5. NACA R M L54a0, 1955.
4. Critzos, Chris C. : ,hteral-Control Investigation at Transonic Speeds of Differentially Deflected Horizontal-Tail Surfaces f o r a Config- u r a t i o n Having a 6-Percent-ThickY 4 5 O Sweptback W i n g . NACA L55126, 1955.
5. Savage, Howard F., and T i n l i n g , Bruce E.: The S t a t i c Lateral and Directional Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Airplane Model Having a Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 3. NACA RM A55Bl1, 1955 9 6. Campbell, John P.: The Use of the Horizontal T a i l f o r Roll Control.
NACA RM 1 , 5 5 ~ ~ 6 a , 1956.
7. Mitchell, Jesse L., and V i t a l e , A. James: Free-Flight Investigation of t h e Control Effectiveness of a Differentially Deflected Hori- zontal T a i l at Mach Numbers F r o m 0.8 t o 1.6. NACA RM L56B20, 1956.
.. . . . . . . 8 . . . . . ..... .......
0 .
.. . . . ..... NACA RM ~56EO3
1 0 .. 0 . . . . .
. . .
.. 0 0 . . . 7 ................
I N THE LANGIEY FREE-FLIGHT TUNNEL Wing: A i r f o i l section at root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N M A 65AO06 A i r f o i l section at t i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NACA 65A005 Area (without chord.extension). sq f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4.63
Span. f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.96
Aspect r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3.39
Root chord (on fuselage reference line). ft . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1.87
without chord.&ension). ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0.462
Tip Tip chord chord I with chord.extension). ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0.518
Mean aerodynamic chord. E . ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1 . 3 0 9
Sweep of quarter chord. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 42
Dihedral. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . -5
T a p e r r a t i o (without chord-extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.247
Incidence:
Clean configuration. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1
Landing configuration. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Y Horizontal t a i l :
A i r f o i l section at root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 65AOO6
Airfoil section at t i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 65AO04
Area: . . . . . . . . . . .
Total. S q f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Exposed (low t a i l only). sq ft . . . . . . . . .
span:
. 2.01
Total. ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 0.76
Movable panel. ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Root chord (on fuselage reference l i n e ) . f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00
0.148 Tip chord. ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweep .. q w t e r chord. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
Dihedral. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.42
Aspect r a t i o (based on t o t a l t a i l area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 0.148 Taper r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Longitudinal distance from 0.287 E t o quarter chord of tail: . . . . . . . . . . .
Low. f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.473
1.830 Middle. f't . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. 2.24
H i g h j f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vertical distance from center of gravity: -0.067 Low. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle. ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 0.79
. 1.32
H i g h j f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Vertical tail:
A i r f o i l section a t root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 65A006
!&foil section a t t i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & C A 65~004
f t 2 of). $32 . . . . . . . . 1.0
k e a (dorsal f i n exposed and including 0.~926
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.063
span. f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.455
Root chord (on fuselage reference line). f % .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.380 .
Tip chord. f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweep of quarter chord. deg . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Aspect r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24
T a p e r r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26
.
.
.
.
Wind direction -
Wind direction I Azimuth reference Figure 1.- System of axes used i n the investigation.
The longitudinal data are referred t o the s t a b i l i t y system of axes and t h e lateral d a t a are referred t o the body system of axes.
Arrows indicate posi- tive directions of moments, forces, and angles.
0.12 c
Chord - extension
I
+-- 24.11- 4
Figure 2.- Three-view drawing of the model used in the investigation.
A l l dimensions are in inches.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 o r . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NACARM L56m3 : : 0 0 . 0 e .
0 - 0 : 4 - 0 0 0 0
_ _ - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I - Figure 3 . - Longitudinal characteristics of the model in the clean and landing conditions with the horizontal tail in the low position.
.2 Cm I .4 1.2
I .o
.8 CL . 6 .4 .2 0 72 -4 C m (a) Horizontal tail in low position.
Figure 4.- Effect of vertical position and differential deflection Of the horizontal tail on the longitudinal characteristics of the model in the clean condition. zero. i , = - 1 ' .
0 8 1 6 24 32 4 .2 0 -.2 -.4 Cm and(% (b) Horizontal tail in middle position.
Figure 4.- Continued.
1.2
I .o
. 8 .6 .4 .2 -. 2
4 .2 0 - .2
(c) Horizontal tail in high position.
Figure 4.- Concluded.
.
e- - e . e 0 e e e e . e e . . e . . e . e .
.I ACy 0 .o I Act7 TO I ( a ) it = oO.
Figure 5.- Increments i n the lateral-force and moment coefficients pro- duced by d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of t h e horizontal t a i l i n the l o w p o s i t i o n f o r the model i n t h e clean condition.
.
6 Vertcal tail .. . . -.
(deg 1 . e .
off ' '-10
-- 215 off
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -- -
2 IO on --- +-I5 on .I ACy 0 -. I .02
.o I
AC" (b) it = -17'.
Figure 5. - Concluded.
c .02 .o I ACn .02 .o I - 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 a , deg (a) it = 00.
Figure: 6.- Increments in the lateral-force and moment coefficients pro- duced by differential deflection of the horizontal tail in the low position for the model in the landing condition.
.I :I * .02
.o I
70 I
.o I
n " 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 Q 2 deg Figure 6 . - Concluded.
. I
ACy o
-. I .02
.o I
Figure 7 . - Increments in the lateral-force and moment coefficients produced by differential deflection of the horizontal tail in the middle position for the model in the clean configuration with ver- tical t a i l on.
6 ' t
: . '(eg) (deg)
+ i s : 0
--
+-I5 '-15 . I ACY 0 -. I AC n F igurc 8. - Incr'efnents i n the l a t e r a l - f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s praduced by d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of t h e horizontal t a i l i n t h e high position f'or the model i n the clean configuration with v e r t i - cal t a i l on.
Tail position L ow Mid
--
n i g h
------
.02
.o I
-0 I -.02 a, deg (a) it = oO.
Figure 9.- Comparison of the yawing- and rolling-moment coefficients pro- duced by differential deflection of the horizontal tail at various vertical positions. 6 = f15O.
0 . ... . *.. . 0 . 0 . . . . 0.. 0 .
0 . 0 . 0 . .. 0 . 0 . . NACA RM L56EO3
0 . e . .
0 . 0 . 0.. 0 . . s r r l l L . I L I ) L . . 0 . 0 . . . 0.. 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 .
Tail p o s i t i o n
.o 2
.o I
-.o I
- .02 4 8 1 2 16 20 24 28 a , d e g (b) it = -15'.
Figure 9.- Concluded.
NACA - Langley Field, VS.