Document
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
W!!lrmm lum)lu’
ORIGINALLY ISSUED February 1$)42as Advance Restricted Re”iwrt WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF AN NACA 2301.2 AIRFOIL WITH A HANDLEY PAGE SLAT AND Two FLAP ARRANmm By Marvin J. Schuldenfrei Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field. Va.
NACA
WASHINGTON NACA WARTIME REPORTS arereprints ofpapers originally issued toprovide rapid distribution of advance research results toah authorized grouprequiring them forthewar effort. ‘I’hey were pre- viously held undera security status butarenow unclassified.
Some ofthese reports were nottech- nically edited. Allhave been reproduced without changeinordertoexpedite general distribution.
L 261 AIEB’OIL lfITIt A HAIWLEY PAGE SLAT
I
A .., “AND !!!Wt) ~LAP+J?IUd?G3MEHTS .+.- . -- .-
r
LI By Marvin J. Sckuldenfrei w a xl SUIWA3Y “An investlgat~on was made in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel of an VACA 23012 airfoil equipped with a Handley Page slat and e. slotted and a split flap. The purpose of the ln~es%i.gation was to determine the aerodynamic sec- tion characteristics of thie airfoil with and without flaps, a~ affected b~ the location of the Handley Page el~t . A raag~ of slut-nose locations wan Investigated both wltil and without flaps at e csnstant slat gap, and the eff~ct OS ~le.t gap was investigated for the slotted flap deflected 40°.
The slat positZon for ra:cimum lift, polars for slotted and split flaps for tke nest favorable slat arrangements for maximuin lift, ar.d co=plste soctlon data for t~le most favorable slat arrangements are included-- - Contours of slat-nose location aro given for mmzimum lift COD fficient, for angle of attack for maximtm lift coeffi- cient, ant. for drag end i>itching momonts at solectod lift COi3ff~CielltB.
The Eandley Pago slat in its optimum position on tho plain air:oil increased the maxtmum sectio~ lift .cocffi- clont b:’ 0.52 and iacreasod the angle o: attack for naxi- mum llft coefficient by about 9°. With either the nplit or slottnd flr.p deflcctcd, th~ slat Increased the maximuu lift coofficiont o: tho airfoil-flap combination by about.
0.26 and the angle 02 attack for maximum lift by about 14 .
In all cases the drag coaificiont zt a given llft cooffl- ciont was higher with tho slat oxtondod than with tho slat rotractod.
Sovoral previous invostigetions by tho WLCA and othors have shown that an oxtensihlo loading-odgo dovico offors a fair solution to tho nrobloms cncountorod In docroasing landing spcods, which havo bocomo Incroaslngly high as wing loa~lngs aro incroasod to obtain groator maximum ~ho probloa of maintaining IatorP.1 ContrOl oVOr .
Spacds.
tho incronsod spood rango usunlly rosolvos itsialf into ono of naintalning control at low spoo~s, ospoclally in tho y/rosoncn of ?.ift-increasing dovicos, The USS of high- li5t dovicos brings othor associated probloms: Incroasod tail load nocossar~ for trim, duo *C tho roarmrd clJILtOr.
of-prosnuro trnvol with flaps, nnil tha nhrupt drop in 15ft at tho stall onc~untcro~ l.;lthsOmO hig-h-~ift (~OVic~SD Th~ extenritle leadtng-e?.ge slat h,as tws separate ef- fects that contrihuie to tho solution of these problems.
Iho slat meintains the air flov over the top Qurface of :ha z:ain wing whlc> Is !ceFt fron burblinG up to an acglo Tho lift i6 ?hus q~rociabl~ ‘ooyond the aor~ai 6.tall.
maintained for an a~prec?.abla rango of an~les above the +he 6?.at itself contrib- norual fitall acg19. I.n o.ddittoc, ute a lift that aclts to tt.s llft of tho Cain wing. The totnl affect is an i~.creased mximm lift, as well as an iacre2f3ei!! anglo of attack foz raxluua lift. Above the norual stall ~ngl~ of the airfoil without the slat, the lift increased rather slowly for t>e ~irfoil-slat combi- nation. This condition yoluces a ilattecing of tho lift curvo and th~ slow respo~se of the rirpl~.~.o Ue.:-serve me a Nnrning to tlie ptiot tiiat tho stall is hcinz approached.
Tho proqor.t invosti~nt!on oztcnds tho toets of tho proviouc roforoncos to nti ITACA 23012 airf’oil cqul~~pcd 2?1c data for SUCCCSSiVCly ~’lth Split {;nd SiottOd flnl)S.
tho .airioil-flmp couhinationa rlonc mu f;lv3n in rofcr- C1lCC 6.
Pluj.n nwi,rf~.- The hnstc, or ~lain; airfoil hd R chord of 3 fout nnd n s~m.n of 7 fcot. It WaS i)lliltto tho HACA 23012 proflloo tho ordinmtos of wiiich aro given in rof’oroilco 6.
I
Tho lbm~- A Slottod ~nd Q ~pl~t f’lm WOrO tostod.
slottod flnp hcd--z-ohord of 25-..6poroontont of. tho airfoil chord, wns dosignntod 2-h in roforonoo 6, and was fastened to the main airfoil as Indicated %n that referenoe.
The ordinates for the slotted flap are given in figure 1.
The split flap had a chord of 20 percent of the airfoil chord and was nade of ~-inch plywood. Hor tests with the eplit flap, the slotted flap was locked in its ceutral positlr)n~ the ga>s at the flap-slot entry and exit were gealed with plasticene, au-d the split flap was fastened to the airfoil by ueans of wood blocks that gave the desired flap deflec- tions.
Slat.- Qhe slat, which is shown extended in figure 2, was uacLlned from an aluuinun alloy to the ordinates sup- plied by Eendley Page, Ltd., of England.
These ordinates are given in figuro 1. The slat was zada la two pieces, tho d.ivis~on being In tho center, spanwise, of the slat.
g!~rec s;>ecld fittings were attached to tho airfoil, acd tti-~ rosa of the slat (hereinafter refarrod to as tho ‘slat roferonco point”) pivoted on those fittings in such e uan- nor that tko reforonce point could bo locatod through a wido rango of positions. Tho trailing ed~e of the slat was 3old et fivo points nlong tho span by fittinge fhat RIBO sorvcd to sot tho slat grip.
T?iu :.OSO of tho basic airfoil was Llodlfiod as indi- ~~ith tho elat cated in figwo 1 tc accornriadnto t>.c slat.
fully rotractdd, {Lo airfoil shage was that of tho NACA - 25012 airfoil. A small ‘.rorkizg cloa.ranco botwcon tho slat and tho airfoil was allowed, tko slat fitting against tilo airfoil only .at tho rOfOi”O?lCO point and at tho slat trail- ing odgo in tho rotractod position.
TZSTS The model was mounted vertically In the test section b~ lo-foot wind tunnel so of the HLOA closed-throat 7- set except for small clear- that it completely spanned the The main airfoil was ances at each end (reference 6) .
rigidly atta~ed to the bala~ce frame by torque tubes which the extended through the upper and the lower boundaries of tunnel. The angle of attack of the model was set from out- sido the tunnel by rotating tha torque tubes with a cali- brated drSvo. Approximately two-dimeuelonal flow is ob- tained with thie type of test Installation and the section c!:arzctcrtstlcs of the modol under toet ce,n be d.otorminod.
All tooto woro rmdo nt a dynamtc prossuro of 16.37 pounds par squaro foot, corresponding to a volecit~ of about 80 miles por hour uador staadar?. atmospheric conCi- tlons ant! to a test Reynolds nunbor of about 2,190,000.
Bccauso of tunnel tur’tulonco, tko offcctl~c ~oynol~s nua- bor was 305@o,o@() basOd on a wi~.g ChOrd (8].&t POtraCtCd) The lift, of 3 foot nnd on a turbulor~o factor of 1.6.
nitchlng+momo.nt i?.ra~g anil . coofflcioats wore noaourod in all tcots froa an angle of attack of -6° to tho stall.
Tko posittox of tho slat rcforonce point ‘ras vartod.
systcmatico.lly, until tha location for a~ximm lift cocf- fic:cnt was C.otorniaod for the platn #r foLl, for the air- iieflectecl 60 ,Oant. for the nir- foil uit2. the sl;lit flap foil with the siotteJ flap deflected 40 . The slat gap was maintained at 2 perceut of the airfoil chord, the op- Sufficient data tiauu Gap irom previous In=resti{;ations.
were o“itained to plot coatours of tk~e slat-reference- poir.t position for ‘fario-is lift coefffcieuts.
For t:.e slotte?. CLd oplit flaps t>e i~termetiate flap angle~ were run with the roferance-point location at the location for maximum lift Zor tho flap fully &eilected. !
In these tests tl.e slottod flap was located at t2e optimum ~ositton for each deflection ag indicated by roforencc 6, The3e monitions are also given in figure 7 of the present For all tostm of the slottbd flap at zero dofloc- reyor~ .
tion, thci ~;r.ps botweon tio flap and the a?.rfoil were Sealed, In ordor to chock t~o slat-~ap SOtt~il~ of 2 porcont of t:.e airfoil chord as tko optimum for maximum lift coof- mate with 1~-porcont and 2&porcont ficiont, teets voro slat gaps, tho sla,t-roforonco-point locatlon being varied to obtain maximum lift. Although Insufficlont data woro obtained to allow t>.o plotting of contcurs, tha maxinum ltft cooffictont vith 1*-porcont and 2*-parcont slat gaps was fairly well dotorrninhd.
coofficionts.- qhc test results t-mo given in standard NACA ncndimcnsiocal s~ct~o~-c~o~ffciolit form, corroctod as oxplair.cd in ruforoncc 6:.
-.
. .
r’
c1 . section lift coo ffi. ciont (a/qc) -,.
.-. . .. . . .
. ..
,- ..,,.
section profile-drag coefficient (do-/qc) ‘d.
.
~ seotion pitching-moment coefficient about -a C%.c.)o aerody~amlc center of plain cirfotl I xl m(a.c.)o qca ( ) where 2 section lift do aectlon Frofile drag .
section pitching’.moment about nerodrnamic ‘(aoc. o ) ci3nter of plain airfoil dynauic pressure (* pva) chord of bcsic airfoil a=gle 02 r.ttaci:for infinite aspect ratio, de~ree ‘O flap deflection aeasurefl froa flnp :leutr~.1posi- 6f tion, decree o Cto. . ,. . l l *0.1 at c = 1.0 . . . . *0.0006 .
Cdo *0.03 cd Cg at c1 = 2.5 . . . . . *0.002 Iimx o . .
8f. . . . . . . l l * l *o.2°
c%.co o
) “ “ l *00003
Ho corrections %tvo been avplieil for the effect of the slat fittings.
It is believed that this effect Is snail End 10 tho eaae for nll tants, nnd that tho relative values of the tests shoul~ ho unaffected.
,, .
DISCtrSSIOH lZffoct 05 slat ?.oco,tion on section naximuu l&coef- ficie~t.- Contours of slat-reference-poi.nt location for c? are given in figuse 3 for a slat Gap of Q.02c. It ,a a:: may be seen the,t the presence or absence of tho flap has llttle effect on tho optlnua locatioc of the reference point for Kaxi:iui: lift. TLe locatioii of this point is at a s?!at wfd%h of G.09c end a slflt depth ‘iotveon -0.05c and -0.06c. Z!:.oincreae~:t ia ~axinuc lift coefficient due to tha slat bc~ is 0.52 for tfe mlain airfoil, 0.27 for aax tho slottori flap 5eflectcC 40°, and 0.24 tGr the spilt flap ?.ra~ings tfi.afilwre s~:own deflected 60°. 0:2 all contour at tko nose of the airfoil itself is the value for the air- foil vith the slat fully retracted.
Z!fftlct of slat location or. engle of attack for maxl- mua lift coefficient.. Contours of slat-reference-point 10=’ — — — —.—. ——.
cation for for uaxi.muu list coefficient, with a slat % !?k.elocation for Cap of 0.02c, are prosentrC IU figure 4.
greatest Rr.glQ of attmck flor mr.ximu.a lift coefflcoent is ap~i*OZi~at~ly tLe aahe as tLe Locatior. for grea$est naxi- Euzl lift coef~iclent. Ihe L:axinufi Increueut of an@e of attack due to th.o slnt Aao at Cz Iz approximately all= 9° To% th~ plaln air20il, 16° for tko slotted f+tip doTlect- ed 40 , and 14° ?or %he snllt flep deflec%ei! 6!)” .
Zffsct of fil~t locat~.or.Qn soctf~r. ~rofile-dra~ coef- .-.—— —— -.— L.
ficle~t.- Contours of the slat-refere:.ce-maint location foz at varioun lift coefficients are shown in figure %.
Ckcse contours na:” pro?e l seful in th~ ~e”lection. or 5.
dete=mina.tion of fllide angle, which la defined as the tan-~ 11.
ghe drac coefffciont gcnenally decrease~ with 61at extension ‘Jpvar?. and forwar?L, am?. the drag coefficient is a~preclahly groator with tho slat cxtonilod than with the sl~t ret.rnctod at the sane cl” .,.
Xffect of slat location ;Qm section ~itching-monen~ —— coefficient .- Contours of the slat-reference-point location for at various lift coefficients are shown in Cm(a. c.)o fi~ure 6. The slat has a positive pitching-moment effect, teild.i.~g to decrease tk.e negatiive pitching-moment coeffi- t~oe airfoil-flan cq@ir.ation. T~-e effect becomes cient of greater as the slat is n~ved farther forward and upvard.
Aerod.ynainic section cha~acterisiics of airfOil-flaD- ——-———- slat con’~inati~.- The effect of flap defection on the aei’odynani c section characteristics of the airfoil-slat- flag combination with the slo%ted. flap is indicat~cl in figure 7. I t Lm.y be seen th~ib above the angle of stall of the plain airfoil (about 15 j , the lift increases less ‘lb-e ra~itlly with change ir: ang~e -of a~iack. fiizal stall occurs at aIJ roxima,tely 24 or 25 . The break in the lift B curves at 15 is accoc:~anicd lIY a large increase in drag cocfficieilt foi’ang~cs of attack greater than 15°. Above a lift coefficient of alout 1.0, the negative pttching- noncn-t coefficient dccreascs witk: increasing lift coeffi- cient, which corrcs~onds to a forward movenco-t .of the ccntcr of yrcssurc .of.the airfoil.
ITihe ~crod-y~a~ic . section characteristics of the air- foil l;ith the s~at and the sqlit fla~ at various deflec- tions rre shown in figure 8 for two slat positions. In figure 8(3) .~fic slat rcfcrcnc,,c point is located at adc~th of -OOG6C cr-tlin figure S(h).z at a depth of L0404c. In 130th ~arts of fig-arc 8 the slat width is 0.09c, and the &ap’O.02c. The drag cocffic~ent of-the airfoil with. the split flare is hi~~icr t~~an that of the airfoil wj.th the . . . ‘ slotted. flap for si~il~r conditions, ‘out ttile .~itchin~- Jnoncnt cocfficicr.t is con-s~dqrably lower. !’he an-glc of ip-crcas~s ,~tt&.ck for si?ghtl;~ with incycasing flap Ct l?.lax d.cflcctiono A conyarison of tlLC split aid the slotted flaps at naxim-mz deflection- is shown- in ih-c following talle: i +f’ ‘“ Slat &cPth “ 1. c1 I’lap . .
Llax .(~crccnt c) Im ,.
I (dcg)
t ‘split .-0.06 2.78 -.~~ .
Split 60 . .2.68 ~o Slotted” 3.05 -.06 !
—.
- ., -. - ------ .---——-—. --- .
Cornmrison of vulous airfoil-flap-slat combination B .U A direct coapnrison of tho slottod and tho split flmp chnrnctorlstlcs with thoso of the plain airfoil with the slat in two locations is mado in figuro 9. Tho curves for tho plnin nirfoil show thnt tho offoct on the aorodynnmio characteristics, due to n sllght varlaticn in depth of the slat reference point, is negligible.
!lke gnin in maximum sectiox llft coefflciont over the maximum ltft coefficient of the plain nirfoll, due to the addition of the slnt and to the deflection of either flap, is shown in figure 10. The slat aloneondds m Increment 8f=0 of lift coefficient of 0.52 nt rind of nbout 0.26 for either flnp.
nt 8f’nax A plot showing the chn~ge in nngle of ,%ttnck for at vnrious flap deflection.s for the r.irfoll with c am=x nnd wit~out the Enndley Pnge slat 1s Given in figure Zl, The curves In figure 11 show that flnp deflection with the slnt retracted decremoes the nngle of nttnok for c1 max fron thnt of the bnsic r.irfoil, whorens flap deflection with the slat oxteadod sllgbtly incrensoa the nngle of nt- tack for cl inz%x “ A pofiparison of tho drng cLnracteristios of bo<h flnps, with and without the slat oxtondod, i“s presented in figure 12. The minimum drag coefficient with the slat ex- tended is about three times that with the slat retracted.
At take-off llft coefficients (cl, approximately 1.5), the drag is slightly higher with the slat extended than with the slat retracted. Above the naxiuun lift of the airfoil- flap combination with tLe slat retracted, the extension of the slat causes a large increaae i~ the ratio D/L. In flight this increase would be equivalent to a steepening of the gltde angle (tan-z D/L) .
Figure 13 summarizes the important characteristics of figures 5 to 12. 3ecause the Incrensed angle-of-attack range is probably the most Important advantage gained through the use of the slat and because it is the variable directly under the pilot:s control, the characteristics are plotted with respect to angle of attack. l’rom the pilotSs viewpoint, the flattening of the lift curve is advantageous as a warning of an approaching stall which would probably be accompanied by a marked vibration throughout the air- plane. The decrease in negative pitching-moment coeffi-
i’
ciont with increase in angle of attack is desirablo because for. lan-d$ng may bo re- the.elevator defl.oct.ions.required,., . .
duced. It should bo notod, howevor, that there is almost no reduction In pitching-moment coofficlont in the lovor lift range.
The uee of m slat will not, therefore, allow a decrease in tall area because the tail size will be de- termined primarily by the maximum ving pitching moment to be balanced at the design high speed with the flap deflect- ed and the”slat extended. The Increased angle-of-attack range makes the use of the slat deeirable over the aileron portion of tho wing in order to Improvo the lateral etabfl- ity and cont~ol at angles of attack near or above the stall of the ?lasic wing.
l?l~fect OS Elat Tho offoct of slat gap is shown Ean .- -.. -—..———-.— la fi cro 14 lor tho airfoil with tLe slotted flap deflect- ed ~C .
ITitllp snaller gap, the optimum position of the slr.t ne:erence point for noved forwa~d and down- c a~~x warfi; however, a comparison OS characteristics at the best locations for c1 shows no appreciable e~fect with na.x small ckangen in slat gap.
CONCLUSIONS .
1. The Ibndley Page slat extended the angle-of-attack range about 9° for the plain alrfo~l ant. about 14° with op- ti~um deflection of either slottad or split flap.
The maximum section lift coefficient of the plain 2.
airfoil wee increr.sed 0.52 by use of the slat, and the xa::inum lift coeff~cisat of the airfoil with either flap at optlaum flap deflection was increased about 0.26 by the use of the ~ls.t. The htgh drag associated with the increaeed llf% should allow r. steeper glide angle.
3. Tho extonslon of the slat decreased. the negative pitchZnG momonts at hl~h lift coof:i.ciente wfth flaps de- flcctad but hr.d littlo effect In decreasing pitching mo- ments tat moderate lift coefficients.
National Advieory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley lie~o:-1~1 Aeronnuticnl Laboratory, Ltangley B’ield, Va.
RmmEi?cEs 1. Wenzinger, Carl J., cnd Shortal, Joseph L.: Qhe Aero- dyne=ic Characterlstios of a Slotted Clark Y Wing no Affected by tile Auxillnry Airfoil Position.
Rep. YO. 400, HACA, 1931.
2. Weick, Fred E., ~.nd Platt, Robert C.: Wind-Tunnel Iests on :io.?!el W!ng with I!’owlerZ’3.npand Specially Ileveloped LentiinG-qdgs Slot.
T.IT. ~~0. 459, I:ACA, 1s33 .
3. Wenzingez-, Carl J., cnd ROGR11O, Fr.nncls H. : R613um4 of Atr-Lend Data on Slats and Ylaps. T.N. NO. 690, IT.; CA , 1939.
4. Welck, Fred E., nnd Wenzlnger, Crr2 J.: ~he Character- istics of a Clark Y Wing !io?.elXquippad with Sevorrbl Forms of Lov-Drng Fixed Slots. 2bep. 30. 407, N.~cJ&, 1932.
5. Banbor, Ii. J.: ~~lnd-gunnel !Ceste of Seirerml Forms of.
Z’ixed Y;lng Slot in Coabinntion trith a Slotted Flcp .3 on r-n X.A.5.A. 23012 Airfoil. *.U. No. 702, NACA, 19S9.
lienzln~sr, Carl J., azd ?lnrris, Tkomr,s A.: lfind-Tunnel 6.
Investigation of r.n N._4.C..6. 23012 Airfoil with Var- ious Arrnr.30~lents of Slotted Fl~lPs.
Rep. HO. 664, TKCA , 1?39 .
— ----- + I \- —. 8081 C { Ordkw%s “given IV perce-nt c Noncflej Pqe .9a+ Siotfed F/..
r I
Sf.)%n +Y’or ‘“tier surfire s urfac o—
Ed
slope of rod;us:a30K Q Swiny rdm from X=6./1, = -L49 2.96 -’ ? #o inch’e his pht /0.s/ /5.66 /..68 +23 2046 . 2 -.70 25. . -.
Center of L E arc : X%91 y:=la LE. nadkz O, 9/ *W & odbhs d VACA i?XY2 airfoil with hbdley we dot, sldfe$ ad spfif +%ps. .
?%wr l.-
/ .d on A44CA P30/2 airfoil.
&nd/eI Page W?’ .
.
(c) 0.”20 e Sp flq% a Jp40: .— —-—.
n#. 4 ,, HAUA
/%w-c..+ ./>/2,7 ./j..~
) /2 /0 6 8 4 2 { / > /) o;r+;l . S/d p?, iio& e.
HQ#dley Rfge S/o + m #’&?c4 230/2 ..- — .-. —. ____ .
-—. . .
rig. 50 -,. .
.
— smA . .
. ... -. ., ------- ----
2“
qmfi.o , I yi I
II
I , (’3) S/o# Akjj FI WRE
6.- C&/hund
Fig. 6C A —,.
I ‘1 I
-1
-8 /‘: /’ u --- Ex+rapola+ed — Loco/ion of flap nose for FU .vorious flap deflections b /0 1;.;7 ,.
“from pin perceni airfoil 4“{
““k. ch?r!~ :%15%
1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I -A.
1 1 1 1 I 1 I \u I I I $:/ .- x x
I u--+-n--l I I I I I
8 -.4 ‘ * % % o ~ b < SecfiOn Iiftcoefficient. c.
Figure 7.- Aerodynamic section charactori’stiesof NACA .Secf70n lift coefficient, c, 23012 airfoil with a 0.2566c slotted flap Figcme 9.- Aerodpmic section characteristics of NACA and a Handley Page Blat. Width, 0.09c; depth,-O.06c; 23012 airfoil with and without flaps and with gap, 0.02C.
Handley Page slat at optimum l~ation for C~ax.
HACA Fig. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I GoR- f?”.- — I 1 1 ./6 I II .
-.4 0 .4 .8 2.4 2.8 1.2 1.6 2?0 2.4 .?8 -.4 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Sec fion lift coe fficien+. C, (a) Depth of slat reference point, -0.06c (b) Depth of slat reference point, O .04c Figure 8.- Aerodynamic section characteristics of NACA 23012 airfoil with a 0.20c split flap and a Handley Page slat. Slat width, 0.09c, slat gap, 0.02c.
.— .- Fign. 10,11,12 I I I .
‘“ EH-%+2%m?b%si?fkh
.48 .44 .40 $35
$.32
..
& $28 Figure 10. - ~faot of fhpa end [.24 Handloy Pa@ Slat on inorement ofmax- sootion lift & ooaffioient.
5.20 & C.16 :.
“q./2 .m .04 0+ O .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 28 32 Sectim lift cue fficienf, c, FlgPre 12. - Comparison of profile-dreg ooeffioientm Qf llACA 23012 airfoil with two typen of flaps and a Hamlley Page slat.
o~m
FIw ahtk%n. L$. ~ F@Ire 11. - Effeot of flqa and FIandley ~ mlat on angh of attaok for mnxi- lift.
IA(U .
‘.M .44 .47 .04 $:
i fe
.
1!
~8 % :0 $ ‘O .4 .8 L2 1.6 20 2.4 2.8 3.2 Alq?& of dtkk, e.+ Secfkm lift cmffktkf. c, F* H.- Hfsat on l rdpmmio moti m olmrcotarin- Z ‘L- Efhot of slnt *p on uridyimdo meotioo tiom of h IACd 23012 al Oil dm to th OhrMtoristiom of MIX 2m.2 airfoil addltioo of twotypo of flmpn d a Iimdloy R@ Slmt. with O.i?&Ido fllp dof’hotad 4@ ad mht l t optilmm slat looation Opth for Olin.
lomtion for ok .