Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research: Phase V – Buffet Test Report

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Effect of T aping to F loor A gap between the model and floor is required to prevent the model from contacting the test section floor during testing as it would result in erroneous balance measurements. However, this gap is not desirable from an aerodynamic perspective since flow between the model and floor can significantly alter pressures on the aircraft, particularly on the inboard wing and wing - body - fairing region. To prevent flow from passing freely underneath the model, a series of keel dam s (see Sections 2.3 , 2.4 , and 2.10 ) were developed to minimize the effect air flowing through the gap has on model performance. The keel dams effectively reduce the size of the gap from 0.3” down to approximately 0.1” (actual distance between keel dam edge and floor varies). The gap’s effe ct on model pressures was captured with a series of fixed - alpha diagnostic runs where the gap was completely sealed by applying metal tape to the fuselage profile plate and floor. Figure 2 - 47 includes several pictures of the taped model in the C139 configuration.

Figure 2 - 47 . Metal tape used to seal model to floor [Source: NASA] .

To provide guidance for what effect is expected in the tunnel by sealing to the floor, a comparison in OVERFLOW was made for sealed/unsealed configurations. Results in Figure 2 - 48 show how sealing the gap altered wing pressures at the design condition. Only the inboard three pressure rows are compared because the effect of sealing is essentially gone by 24% semi span. For the side - of - body row at 7%, the gapped pressure data are in better agreement with free - air results , which is expected given that the wing/body fairing was re designed to better match free - air data with the gap open.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 48 . Effect of Sealing on Wing Pressures for Re = 5.2M , Mach = 0.8, and C = 0.695 .

MAC L Given the significant amount of time required to apply the tape in the tunnel , only two diagnostic runs were made with the gap sealed. Uncorrected alphas of 2.0° and 3.5° (1.8° and 3.3° corrected) were set and the tunnel run for Re =5.18M , Mach=0.8 conditions. The “taped” wing pressure MAC coefficients are compared to the corresponding “untaped” for the two angles of attack in Figure 2 - 49 and Figure 2 - 50 . The wing pressure comparison is limited to the inboard three rows as the effect of taping the model to the floor is expected to diminish as a function of increasing distance from the floor. A comparison of the tape effect on inboard wing pressures shows a very small change in inboard wing shock position at 1.8° angle of attack. This change is seen in the 7.2% semi span station. By 24.0% span , the pressure distributions are identical. The slight disagreement in shock location at 37.3% span is not believed to be the result of the tape installation. Results at 3.3° show the same trends, with the tape effect tapering out by the 24.0% span station.

Overall, the inboard wing pressure comparisons show only minor changes when sealing the model - to - floor gap with metal tape. This is the desired outcome since it demonstrates that the effect of the gap between the model and the test section floor has been s uccessfully mitigated using tight tolerances and strategically placed keel dams.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 49 . Effect of Taping Model to Floor: Inboard Wing Pressures for C139, Re = 5.18M , Mach=0.8, a =1.8 deg .

MAC Figure 2 - 50 . Effect of Taping Model to Floor: Inboard Wing Pressures for C139, Re = 5.18M , Mach=0.8, a =3.3 deg .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Keel dam pressures Two sets of static pressure ports were installed on either side of the forward and aft keel dams to assess the amount of relative air movement across the dam. The location s of these ports are provided in Figure 2 - 23 . If the pressure difference measured across the keel dam is high, the effectiveness of the dam in restricting air flow through the gap could be called into question .

Figure 2 - 51 is a plot of D C as a function of body X - station for a range of alphas at Re =5.18M p MAC and Mach=0.8. Here D C is defined as (C ) – (C ) . The figure includes an inset image p p upper p lower showing a side view of the fuselage bottom plate with keel dams, adapter plate, and pressure port location marked by the letters A through E. The letters are also used to label the data points.

Figure 2 - 51 . Keel Dam Pressure Difference for a Range of Alphas .

The tight range on the left vertical axis in Figure 2 - 51 is the first indication that the keel dams are working as intended in restricting air flow through the gap. The accuracy of the C data is about p ± 0.002, so the measured deltas are well outside the instrumentation accuracy limits. However, the magnitude of the D C is low given the pressure differentials that would be generated by p ineffective dams. This suggests the air movement in the gap is being effectively restricted by the presence of the dams.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.9.6 Reynolds Number Effects (Full Conf i guration) Utilizing the variable - density capability of the 11 - ft transonic test section , data w ere acquired for Reynolds numbers ranging from Re =2.16M to Re =6.58M. Figure 2 - 52 presents drag polars MAC MAC at four Reynolds numbers for the C139 configuration at M=0.8. D rag coefficient at the cruise condition (C =0.695) shows a general trend of drag reduction as Re increased.

L Figure 2 - 52 . Effect of Reynolds number on Drag Polar at M=0.8.

The pressure distributions shown in Figure 2 - 53 – Figure 2 - 55 show the changes in wing pressure distribution for the inboard, mid, and outboard wings as a function of Re for a constant angle of attack. Since angle of attack is held constant for these runs , circulation increases with Re and the shock moves aft.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 53 . Effect of Reynolds Number on Chordwise Pressure Distribution: Inboard Wing [M=0.80, a =4.0°].

Figure 2 - 54 . Effect of Reynolds Number on Chordwise Pressure Distribution : Mid Wing [M=0.80, a =4.0°].

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 55 . Effect of Reynolds Number on Chordwise Pressure Distribution : Out board Wing [M=0.80, a =4.0°].

2.9.7 Transition Study A series of wing and strut trip dot applications was tested on the C139 configuration to investigate the effect that boundary layer characteristics have on lift, drag, sectional pressures, and buffet onset ( b uffet onset implications will be discussed in Section 2.9.10.2 ) . Trip dot chordwise location and height for the various applications tested are defined in Table 2 - 13 and Table 2 - 14 , respectively. Test results at the nominal Re of 5.18M and cruise design Mach of 0.8 are MAC compared to verify expected trends and provide insight on wing shock characteristics.

Figure 2 - 56 and Figure 2 - 57 compare corrected lift and drag data for the forward trip (T1) and two aft trip (T3 and T4) patterns. Repeat runs are included for T1 and T4 data (r efer to Figure 2 - 33 for information regarding the three trip patterns presented in the following plots ) .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 56 . Lift Curve Comparison for Trip Patterns T1, T3, and T4 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M].

MAC The lift curve comparison shows the expected trend of increased lift at a given angle of attack as boundary layer transition moves aft. This lift increase is due to increasing laminar flow ru ns on the main lifting surface as the trip moves aft; longer laminar runs create a thinner boundary layer and thus an increase in effective airfoil camber, which ultimately results in higher circulation levels. The inset plot in Figure 2 - 56 shows a significant increase in lift - curve slope as transition moves aft, with an increase in C of ~ 0.03 at 2 ° angle of attack (near the nominal design lift L coefficient) .

The drag polar comparison in Figure 2 - 57 shows a significant drag reduction at the design C of L 0.695 going from forward trip (T1) to aft trip (T3 and T4). The inset plot indicates moving wing trip aft results in a 15 - to - 20 count drag reduction. As with the lift curve comparison, this drag trend with transition location is expected. Aft trip allo ws for reduced angle of attack to maintain the same lift level , which translates to lower drag levels. Note that the change in drag levels measured in the tunnel include increased drag from the trips themselves.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 57 . Drag Polar for Trip Patterns T1, T3, and T4 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M].

MAC Forward Trip T1 vs. Aft Trip T3 A CFD study was conducted prior to the start of the buffet test t o investigate the effect of wing boundary layer transition location on various flow field quantities such as surface pressure, spanload, and shock - induced separation patterns. The results were compared to a fully turbulent solution at flight Reynolds number to determin e a preferred or nominal wing trip location.

Tripping the wing boundary layer at 5% of the local chord provided a better match on spanload when compared to flight Re results , and reduces the potential for variability in laminar runs over the course of the test . For th e s e reason s , a forward trip location was used for the majority of performance testing, both in this test entry and in the previous full - span TTBW wind tunnel tests.

However, significant variations in trip location were a critical element of buffet testing since changes in the boundary layer p rovide valuable insight into the shock - induced separation phenomena that are the cause of buffet onset.

The pre test CFD study on transition location identified a nominal aft trip location of 25% of the local wing chord as providing the best match of shock characteristics and boundary layer thickness to flight Reynolds number . For this reason, a ft trip wind tunnel data are expected to better represent buffet onset characteristics of the flight vehicle.

Figure 2 - 58 and Figure 2 - 59 compare wing pressures measured during the buffet test at the design Mach number of 0.8 and angle of attack of 4 ° , which is near buffet onset. The figures NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report compare only the mid - to - outboard pressure rows since the critical span station is expected to be in th is region. The primary difference in wing pressure characteristic s due to trip location is the shock position. The T3 aft trip data indicate the shock moves aft roughly 4% to 6% of the local chord resulting in increased loading. The increase in wing loading is the reason for higher lift levels at higher alphas as shown in Figure 2 - 56 . The further aft shock position (and thinner boundary layer) associated with the T3 aft trip location will contribute to more representative buffet onset characteristics.

Figure 2 - 58 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Mid - Span Region, T1 vs. T3 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M, a =4.0°].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 59 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Outboard Region, T1 vs. T3 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M, a =4.0°].

MAC Aft Trip T3 vs. Aft Trip T4 An additional aft trip location called T4 was defined to gain further insight on the sensitivity of buffet onset when the wing laminar region is extended. This alternate aft trip pattern is shown in Figure 2 - 33 and defined in Table 2 - 13 . The difference between T3 and T4 is aft movement of the wing upper surface trip location from 25% to 40% of the local chord starting outboard of the nacelle. This change resulted in the expected aft shift of the shock 3% to 8% , which is similar to the shock movement measured when trip was moved from the forward to the 25% aft trip location . Figure 2 - 60 compares wing pressures at Mach=0.8 and 4 ° angle of attack for the mid - span region and Figure 2 - 61 covers the outboard wing pressure rows. The mid span stations near the wing/strut juncture region are the most sensitive to shock movement when boundary layer transition is moved aft. As with the T3 trip location, T4 aft trip allows for a thinner boundary layer at the wing shock , which is expected to delay shock - induced separation ( t hese effects will be presented in Section 2.9.9 ) .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 60 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Mid - Span Region, T3 vs. T4 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M, a =4.0°].

MAC Figure 2 - 61 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Outboard Region, T3 vs. T4 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M, a =4.0°].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Free Wing Transition The buffet test matrix included a run series where wing upper surface boundary layer transition was allowed to occur naturally over a section of the mid - to - outboard wing . This “free” transition study provided data on the limits of laminar boundary layer behavior for the wind tunnel model.

The revised trip pattern (designated T3.1) is identical to the T3 pattern except for removal of the wing upper surface trip dots between 35% and 85% span.

A drag polar comparison at Mach=0.8 is shown in Figure 2 - 62 . By allowing the boundary layer to transition freely over a region of the wing , drag is reduced for all test points. The inset image in the figure below shows a significant drag reduction of about 10 counts at the design C of 0.695.

L Figure 2 - 62 . Drag Polar for Trip Patterns T3 and T3.1 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M].

MAC Figure 2 - 63 and Figure 2 - 64 compare wing pressures for T3 and T3.1 at Mach=0.8 and a =4 ° . By removing the trip dots between semi span stations of 35% and 85%, the laminar run extends well aft , which drives the shock movement back to 70% to 75% ? of the local wing chord. Based on the pre test CFD transition study, allowing the boundary layer to transition naturally over most of the wing upper surface will likely result in buffet onset characteristics that do not represent the flight vehicle at full - scale Re . Wind tunnel data for the T3.1 trip pattern w ere gathered mainly for research purposes with the intent of having adequate data to more fully understand buffet characteristics of a TTBW configuration in the presence of laminar flow approaching the shock .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report The data also highlight the configuration potential for large laminar runs associated with the high aspect - ratio (short chord) wing design.

Figure 2 - 63 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Mid s pan Region, T3 vs. T3.1 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 64 . Wing Pressure Comparison: Outboard Region, T3 vs. T3.1 [M=0.80, Re =5.18M].

MAC Free Strut Transition In addition to capturing free transition data for the wing, a run series was also added to capture free transition data on the strut. Th e trip pattern, designated T5, remov ed all trip dots from the strut, a llowing the strut boundary layer to transition naturally . Drag data with free transition on the strut are of interest because it gives an indication on the drag reduction potential for a natural laminar flow strut design. From a buffet perspective, this change was not expected to have a significant im pact on buffet onset since the wing is designed to be buffet critical well before the strut . However, it was possible that changes to the boundary layer thickness inside the tightest confines of the wing - strut channel may affect shock formation in this region . Figure 2 - 65 compares drag polars at Mach=0.8 with forward trip (T1) on the wing. Note the nominal T1 trip configuration includes trip dots at 10% local chord on the strut . The polar comparison shows a drag reduction for T5 for the entire polar with a 5 count reduction at the design C of 0.695.

L NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 65 . Effect of Strut Trip on Vehicle Drag Polar at Re =5.18M, Mach=0.8 .

MAC Figure 2 - 66 and Figure 2 - 67 show c omparison s of the strut pressures near the wing - strut channel for the strut free transition configuration. For an angle of attack near the cruise design point, there is relatively little change in loading in the stations near the juncture. However, when angle of attack is increased to 4° there are more substantial changes in loading, particularly inboard.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 66 . Pressure comparison in the wing - strut channel region for T1 vs. T5 [M=0.8, Re =5.18M, a =2.1° ].

MAC Figure 2 - 67 . Pressure comparison in the wing - strut channel region for T1 vs. T5 [M=0.8, Re =5.18M, a =4.0°].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.9.8 Wind Tunnel Component Build - Up A component build - up was performed , starting with the wing - body - strut configuration, and then systematically adding model parts to acquire incremental data. All data presented in this section are for the forward trip T1 location only. As described in Section 2.4.4 , no data could be obtained for configuration C143 due to concerns regarding the jury strut strength.

Wing - body - strut Configuration (WBS) Lift curves for the WBS configuration (C141) are shown below (Figure 2 - 68) for both Re =5.18M MAC and 3.94M.

Figure 2 - 68 . C vs. α for WBS (C141) configuration , Mach=0.8 .

L NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Wing - body - strut - nacelle Configuration (WBSNP) Lift curves for the WBSNP configuration (C142) are shown below (Figure 2 - 69) for Re =5.18M MAC as compared to the C141 configuration.

Figure 2 - 69 . C L vs. α for WBS (C141) and WBSNP (C142) configurations [M=0.8, Re MAC =5.18M] .

Wing - body - strut - nacelle - flap fairings Configuration (WBSNPF) The final configuration in the buildup (C139) added the flap hinge fairings . Lift curves for the C139 configuration are shown below (Figure 2 - 70) for Re =5.18M as compared to the C141 and C142 MAC configurations , and for Re =3.94M as compared to the C141 configuration .

MAC Figure 2 - 70 . C vs. α for WBS (C141), WBSNP (C142) and WBSNPF (C139) configurations (note legend in figs have C139 as L WBSNPFHF) .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.9.9 Wind Tunnel Buffet Assessment The primary focus of this wind tunnel test was an assessment of buffet onset on the TTBW configuration including the identification of potentially unique buffet - onset behaviors. These potentially unique behaviors include the potential for ‘low C ’ buffet onset, in which the local L download of the outboard strut could lead to shock - induced separation on the underside of the strut , a nd a potential concern that the juncture between the wing and strut might become buffet critical as the flow speeds through t he tight confines of the channel at higher vehicle speeds. A localized strut flap that manipulates flow on the strut and in the channel was tested to alleviate buffet onset on the strut, if present. Finally, a determination will be made as to whether the presence of the strut could fundamentally affect ‘typical’ buffet onset for the wing.

Secondary to this effort was an assessment of whether the tools and methods typically used to predict buffet onset were valid for this new configuration. This is of critical interest as many of the computational methods used for the determination of buffet onset are rooted in experimental and/or empirical data correlated from tests on conventional cantilevered low - wing aircraft.

In this section , various heritage methods used for determining buffet onset are described and potential limitations highlighted . Section 2.9.10 will then discuss the buffet results obtained during wind tunnel testing, culminating in a compar ison and assessment of these various methods .

A Discussion Regarding TTBW Vehicle Spanload An important design feature of the TTBW configuration is the necessity of flow management through the wing/strut juncture by way of local airfoil characteristics. This feature is evident in the cruise spanload plot shown in Figure 2 - 71 in which strut downward lift outboard of 45% semi span is offset by the wing in order to achieve a ‘total’ vehicle spanload approaching an elliptical distribution. It is in this way that strong shocks are prevented from forming in the channel.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 71 . Sample Wing/Strut Spanload Plot [Config C139, Run 297, M=0.8, Re = 5.2M , a =2.1°] .

MAC Note that this approach results in locally higher sectional lift coefficients on the mid wing than a typical cantilever - wing spanload would suggest. Couple this information with the knowledge that the TTBW configuration was intentionally designed such that the wing becomes critical for buffet onset well before the strut at positive load factors, and it becomes clear that the mid span region of the wing is a n area of particular interest in th e determination of buffet onset . This potential mid span criticalit y is somewhat in contrast to cantilever - wing designs in which the combination of shorter chords and higher section lift coefficients lead designs to be buffet - critical near 70% span. The critical span section of the TTBW wing as determined by experimental data is visualized in Figure 2 - 72 . This figure presents wing upper surface pressure contour s as a function of vehicle angle of attack . The presented angles of attack represent cruise (2.1 ° ), pre buffet onset (3.8 ° ), and post - buffet onset (5.7 °, 8.2° ).

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 72 . Wing Upper Surface Pressure Contours [Config C139, Run 297, M=0.8, Re =5.18M].

MAC The wind tunnel static pressure data near cruise show a relatively well behaved wing shock system across the span. However, just prior to buffet onset the shock begins to move forward and strengthen around mid span suggesting reduced loading due to a weakened boundary layer potential ly caused by localized shock - induced separation. At post - buffet conditions , both the mid wing and outboard wing exhibit shock locations that appear further forward than neighboring wing sections, suggesting this region has the greatest criticality for buffet onset. For the se reasons , the majority of the focus for buffet onset analysis will center on the wing semi span regions from 50% to 85%.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Pitching Moment Break Method The pitch break method attempts to predict buffet onset using force and moment data for a range of Mach numbers . Nose - up pitch break in the pitching moment (C ) curve is indicative of PM flow separation on the wing and is treated in this method as an indication of ensuing buffet. The pitch break is often defined as the point where the C vs α curve first deviates from the linear PM trend present before gross separation of the flow over the wing develops (2) . For the present model, an example case of the baseline configuration at Re =5.18M and Mach=0.80 is given in MAC Figure 2 - 73 . T he pitching moment curve indicates multiple roughly linear regions before the pitch break (increasing nose - up). This leads to challenges in selecting an appropriate linear fit.

Pseudo - linear Pseudo - linear region 1 region 2 Approximate point of the pitch break Figure 2 - 73 . Pitching Moment Curve [M=0.8] .

The resulting buffet onset boundary is shown in Figure 2 - 74 for the baseline configuration. A region of almost constant C L , IB (lift coefficient of initial buffet) can be i d entified for Mach numbers between Mach = 0.6 and 0.72, followed by a rapid decrease in predicted C above Mach= 0.75.

L , IB Determination of the pitch break is increasingly more difficult with increasing Mach number , as the change in pitch ing moment becomes more subtle, particularly at and above Mach 0.85.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 74 . Initial Buffet Curve According to Pitch Break Method [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC This method treats buffet onset as a global phenomen on rather than bas ed on sectional properties of given airfoil stations. Since the method relies on a distinct pitch - up, inferred buffet onset may be adversely affected by the TTBW’s more inboard critical station (as compared to conventional cantilever wing configurations).

Trailing Edge Pressure Divergence Method This method provides a predict ion of the buffet onset boundary using curves of wing trailing edge pressure coefficient versus lift coefficient. These data curves are typically composed of two distinct regions. At low lift coefficient values, where the flow is attached to the wing and well - behaved, trailing edge pressure coefficient varies with lift coefficient in a linear fashion.

Conversely, at higher lift coefficient values , the trailing edge pressure curve varies nonlinearly with lift coefficient. Within the nonlinear region of the data curve a rapid decrease in trailing edge pressure is indicative of flow separation on the wing and is a precursor to buffet.

A straight line is fit to the linear region of the trailing edge pressure curve and is extrapolated into the nonlinear region of the curve. Buffet onset is defined as the point where trailing edge pressure coefficient in the nonlinear region of the data curve diverges from the extrapolated linear trend by a pre determined margin (2) . T o increase the accuracy of the buffet onset prediction while working with coarsely sampled dat a, t he nonlinear pressure data w ere interpolated with a spline fitting method. Figure 2 - 75 presents sample plots of trailing edge NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report pressure vs. C L at Mach numbers of 0.78 and 0.85. Note that as Mach number increases , the linear region of the trailing edge pressure curve shrinks , and therefore , the uncertainty in the linear extrapolation increases.

Applying this method to each of the spanwise locations where pressure data are available at the wing trailing edge yields a set of potential initial buffet C predictions. The final value is taken at L the critical span , which is the one with the lowest predicted initial buffet C . Figure 2 - 76 presents L a sample C vs. wing span location plot with the critical span identified.

L, IB Figure 2 - 75 . Trailing Edge Pressure Divergence Method [ M=0. 7 8 (left) and M=0.85 (right)] .

Figure 2 - 76 . T railing E dge Pressure Divergence Method Critical Span [ M=0. 7 8 ] .

The buffet onset curve for the baseline configuration is shown in Figure 2 - 77 at Re =5.18M , MAC indicating an expected trend of decreasing C with increasing Mach number for Mach number s L , IB greater than 0.70 .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 77 . Initial Buffet Curve According to Trailing Edge Divergence Method [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Axial Force Offset Method Th e Axial Force Offset (AFO) method is based on the correlation of total airplane forces to flight test data for existing tube - and - wing aircraft. An envelope of curves for axial force as a function of angle of attack are evaluated over a range of Mach numbers (left side of Figure 2 - 78 ) . The data are plotted to form a locus of points that make - up a common trend, described as the attached flow curve in the plot on the right side of Figure 2 - 78 . Deviation of the axial force from this common trend is indicative of flow separation. This attached flow curve is then offset to intersect the axial force curves at points that represent buffet onset (2) .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 78 . Axial Force Offset Method .

The AFO method predicts a consistent buffet boundary for repeated baseline runs in the current test ( Figure 2 - 79 ). This indicates robustness of the AFO method in predicting the buffet onset as well as adequate repeatability in model build /installation and tunnel conditions during the test campaign.

Figure 2 - 79 . AFO: Baseline Repeatability [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC The AFO method uses global balance forces on the model to determine buffet onset, rather than relying on sectional measurements. However, the accuracy of the method is dependent on the NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report selected offset angle, which is typically determined via flight test. Since a TTBW has not yet been flown, the exact value of the offset is therefore subject to future flight - test validation .

Wing Bending Strain - Gauge Method The wing bending strain method utilizes dynamic data from the model’s structural response to infer the onset and development of shock - induced (unsteady) flow separation. Deflections in the wing were measured during testing using three strain gauges (gauge locations specified in Section 2.5.2 ) . Dynamic data from the strain gauges was recorded during continuous pitch runs and processed post - test to extract the signal RMS. The method identifi es the angle of attack at which the strain gauge RMS underwent rapid growth as angle of attack was increased . An example strain gauge RMS vs alpha curve is presented in Figure 2 - 80 . Initially, while the model is at a low angle of attack, the strain gauge signal RMS is low and remains relatively flat with increasing angle of attack. However, once the model pitch passes a criti cal angle of attack , the RMS of the signal increases rapidly. The dashed red line in Figure 2 - 80 indicates the initial buffet point identified from the dynamic data.

The buffet onset boundaries extracted from all three wing strain ga u ges for the C139 configuration with the T1 trip pattern at Re =5.18M are presented in Figure 2 - 81 . Strain gauges MAC WBM1 and WBM2 were positioned next to each other at 60% wing span , and therefore , recorded almost identical fluctuations in strain. Conversely, strain gauge WBM3 was attached at 10% wing span. Buffet onset boundary predictions from WBM3 tend to follow WBM1 and 2 closely for Mach 0.7 to 0.8. Above Mach 0.8, the RMS signal from WBM3 becomes hard to interpret because a clear initiation point for the ramp up in the strain gauge RMS is no longer present. Similar difficulties develop in WBM1 and WBM2 above Mach 0.83.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 80 . Example Wing Strain Gauge RMS Data .

Figure 2 - 81 . Buffet Onset Boundary Based on Strain Gauge Data [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report The wing strain method is based on rapid growth in wing bending moments at the start of buffet onset. While the outboard wing behaves in a similar way to a traditional cantilever - wing design, the model’s nonlinear structural response inboard of the wing - st rut join is more complicated. It is thus not surprising that the gauge inboard of this join does not follow traditional relationships for structural response.

Model Acceler ometer Method The three accelerometers attached to the wing provided an alternate method for quantifying wing structural response during buffet onset . Like the strain gauge data, the dynamic accele rometer data w ere processed post - test to compute the signal RMS, from which the point of initial buffet was extracted by finding the angle of attack at which the accelerometer RMS began increasing rapidly. An example RMS curve is presented in Figure 2 - 82 . Identifying the point of initial buffet from the accelerometer data was more difficult than it was in the strain gauge data because the accelerometer RMS tended to increase somewhat more smoothly and continuously (compare Figure 2 - 80 and Figure 2 - 82 ). In Figure 2 - 82 , the initial buffet point is indicated with a dashed red line.

Figure 2 - 82 . Example Wing Accelerometer RMS Data .

The buffet onset boundaries extracted from the three wing accelerometers for the C139 configuration with the T1 trip pattern at Re =5.18M are presented in Figure 2 - 83 .

MAC Accelerometers AW63 and AW89 were installed at 63% and 89% span, respectively, and buffet onset boundaries from those accelerometers, which were both mounted outboard of the wing/strut junction, are similar. As anticipated, the buffet onset boundary extr acted from the third accelerometer, AW36, which was installed at 36% span (inboard of the wing/strut junction), does not exhibit the same magnitude of structural response, and erroneously suggests a higher buffet margin than is projected by the outboard wi ng gauges at higher Mach numbers .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 83 . Buffet Onset Boundary Based on Accelerometer Data [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Dynamic Pressure Data Method The dynamic pressure data obtained using the model Kulites ® provide d an additio nal method for buffet boundary estim ation. In this method, t he critical span station was first identified through an examination of wing spanload , similar to that presented in Figure 2 - 71 . After identifying a critical wing span station (or spanwise range of interest) from the spanloads, a range of transducers of interest could be determined. (Note that a significant number of the original Kulites ® were damaged in model transit from the manufacturer to the wind tunnel. Fortunately, many of these were repaired prior to testing, and so were able to provide key data during testing.

However, since not all of the sensors were able to be repaired, Kulite ® data had to be examined at the remaining f unctional stations.) The optimal sensor location for studying buffet onset is located immediately aft of the shock. This position provides the best visibility of the global mode structure over a range of model pitch angles (3) , and also can provide insight into the underlying buffet flow physics. For locating precise shock location for unsteady data runs, the span stations with an array of three chordwise sensor locations were particularly useful. Once a specific sensor location downstream of the shock was identified, the data could be examined for a variety of different parameters.

The signal s from individual sensors w ere examined for both RMS pressure fluctuations as well as for spectral content. The RMS pressure fluctuations provide an effective approach for monitoring the development of the flow unsteadiness as the aircraft angle of attack is increased. This can be done during a continuous pitch sweep of the model, to provide a continuous non stationary time series. Using a sliding window to sample and analyze this time series, an RMS pressure can be calculated as a function of tim e ( or angle of attack ) . Figure 2 - 84 shows an example of an RMS NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Kulite ® unsteady pressure signal. The Kulite ® data shown [KW60U80] are for a sensor located a t 6 0 % span and 80% chord, and are presented for the conditions M=0.8, Re =5.18M, using the MAC T1 ( 5% ) trip, without aileron or strut flap deflections.

Figure 2 - 84 . Representative Kulite RMS p’ Signal [Config C139, M=0.8, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Typical of these RMS plots, there is an initial range ( in this case α <3 ° ) where the pressure signature is moderately low and the dynamic pressure fluctuation is typical ly the result of forced flow oscillations. Beyond a critical angle of attack, the RMS rises monotonically with increasing angle of attack. After an increase of approximately one order of magnitude, the RMS level reaches a maximum or gradually plateaus, dep ending on the Mach number. This region is generally associated with buffet onset.

The RMS characteristics presented are consistent with airfoil buffeting flow phenomena ( (4) , (5) ), which have been linked to a global flow instability (6) , (3) . Subsequent investigations have shown similar global instability modes for infinite swept wings (7) , (8) and finite - span tapered wings (9) . These unstabl e modes are in good agreement with earlier experimental observations of Dandois (10) .

The dynamic pressure power spectrum provides additional insight into the flow structure underlying the observed RMS rise. Figure 2 - 85 shows the spectrogram from a slow pitch pause run corresponding to the RMS plot ( η =0.6) of Figure 2 - 84 . The spectral peak around 400 Hz , and NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report the harmonic tone at 800Hz are know n tunnel tones generated by the model support arc sector (11) .

Figure 2 - 85 . Power Spectral Density (PSD) [Config C139, M=0.8, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC A comparison of the p’ and Power Spectral Density ( PSD ) plots shows that the rapid rise in p’ RMS is associated with a narrow frequency band around 2 1 0 Hz. This corresponds to a scaled frequency of ω =2 π f c/U≈1. 53 , where ‘f’ represents frequency, ‘c’ represents unit chord length , and ‘U’ represents freestream velocity . Between α =4.5 ° and 5.5 ° , the spectral plots show the rise of an additional peak around 5 0 Hz. This corresponds to a scaled frequency of ω ≈0. 36 . These frequencies are in general agreement with the predicted frequencies for a 20 ° leading - edge sweep airfoil (calculated based on the OAT15A airfoil section) (12) . The stability results show two distinct instability modes, a 3D traveling mode at f requency ω≈1.5 and a nominally - 2D oscillatory mode at ω≈0.35. This suggests that the observed rise in the dynamic pressure on the TTBW configuration is linked to global flow instabilities, similar to more canonical flows.

Based on the data obtained with the unsteady Kulite ® pressures, a sample buffet boundary curve is shown in Figure 2 - 86 for the nominal test condition with forward trip T1 .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 86 . Buffet Onset Comparison [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Note: Kulite ® data availability was limited for several runs due to broken sensors near the critical span stations of η =65% and 72%. For consistency, the Kulite ® buffet boundary is reported for all cases as an average of two buffet boundaries, determined at η =50% and 60%. This is consistent with the most critical span station located at η =55% for most cases. The interpolated averaging introduces some uncertainty in the Kulite ® - based results.

Buffet boundary data collected from the methods presented above will next be compared for configurations and conditions of interest for the TTBW M=0.80 vehicle.

2.9.10 Buffet Method s Comparison on a TTBW In this section , a comparison between the various buffet onset prediction methods as applied to the current TTBW configuration are presented .

The legacy pitching moment break and trailing edge pressure divergence methods introduced in S ections 2.9.9.2 and 2.9.9.3 are compared to the AFO and Kulite ® methods in Figure 2 - 87 for the baseline configuration with the T1 ( forward ) trip. Between M=0.70 and M=0.80 , the trailing edge pressure divergence method agrees fairly well with both the AFO and Kulite ® buffet onset predictions. A t the higher Mach numbers , the AFO method over predicts the buffet margin relative to Kulite ® measurements, while the trailing edge pressure divergence method predicts a more conservative buffet boundary than the Kulite ® method. As discussed in S ection 2.9.9.3 , increasing uncertainty in the trailing edge pressure divergence method was observed toward NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report higher Mach numbers. This observation, taken together with the close agreement between AFO and Kulite ® buffet onset predictions, casts doubt on the conservative (low) buffet boundary predicted by the sectional assessment of surface pressures with the trailing edge pressure divergence method at higher Mach numbers.

The buffet onset curve predicted by the pitching moment break method has even less margin than the buffet curve from the trailing edge pressure divergence method. However, the trend (shape) of the buffet curve does more closely resemble the trend of both the AFO and Kulite ® buffet curves. This suggests that the pitching moment break could potentially provide useful information about buffet onset but an empirical offset would be needed to obtain more accurate estimates of the C level where buffet will occur for the present TTBW model.

L Figure 2 - 87 . Buffet Method Compar i son : Legacy Methods [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC The buffet onset curves from the Kulites ® and the strain gauges are compared in Figure 2 - 88 for the baseline configuration with T1 trip . Good agreement is generally observed between the se methods . However, difficulty in determining the exact level of vibration that constitutes buffet provides a potential lack of precision. In particular, previously described difficulties in interpreting the RMS signal of WBM3 above M=0.80 suggest that this sensor is less reliable for the determination of buffet onset at higher Mach numbers . This lack of reliability may also explain the upward turn in the WBM3 buf fet curve, whereas strain gauges WBM1 and WBM2 agree well with the curve predicted by the Kulite ® method up to M=0.83. However, since the NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report strain gauges directly measure the structural response of the model, the detection of unsteadiness in internal loads is considered a strong indicator of buffet. Therefore, the good agreement between the presented data gives confidence that the buffet onset predicted with both the Kulite ® and the AFO method are successfully capturing the global flow unsteadiness .

Figure 2 - 88 . Buffet Method Comparison: Strain Gauges and Kulites ® [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC The buffet boundary extracted from the accelerometer data is compared to the Kulite ® buffet boundary in Figure 2 - 89 for the baseline configuration. Similar to the prediction from the strain gauge data, the accelerometer method predicts a slightly lower buffet boundary in comparison to the Kulite ® method, with the exception of the region above M=0.8 in the AW36 curve. The agreement between the Kulite ® and strain gauge methods is closest at the ends of the strain gauge - derived curves (i.e., at M=0.7 and M=0.82) and most different around M=0.78.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 89 . Buffet Method Comparison : Accelerometers and Kulites ® [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC In summary, for the baseline configuration with undeflected control surfaces and T1 trip at Re =5.18M, the predicted buffet boundaries are fairly consistent between the AFO, Kulite ® , MAC strain gauge, and accelerometer methods. These methods (in general) measure global effects to determine the buffet boundary. Conversely, the pitching moment break and trailing edge pressure divergence methods did not agree particularly well with the Kulite ® data. These methods are based on sectional properties that seem less sui ted for quantifying buffet onset on this configuration . These methods will therefore not be included in subsequent discussion.

Encouragingly, the concern of buffet at low C was not observed for the baseline configuration – L the buffet predictions for the TTBW resemble those of a conventional wing. However, in contrast to a conventional wing, the critical span station for the TTBW is predicted in the midboard region, rather th an farther ou t board. This change would suggest that the TTBW may have a reduced propensity for pitch - up at buffet as compared to conventional configurations.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Spanload M odific ation Effects To gain improved understanding of critical span stations, a series of runs in which the ailerons and outboard strut flap were deflected to alter wing spanload were examined. The results of these investigations are compared in Figure 2 - 90 , Figure 2 - 91 , and Figure 2 - 92 for different combined aileron deflection angles at Re =5.18M. Figure 2 - 96 presents data for the same MAC conditions but with the strut flap deflected.

Figure 2 - 90 presents data for the 0° aileron deflection case, comparing Kulite ® , AFO , and strain gauge measurements. As previously discussed, g ood agreement is observed between the se methods for undeflected ailerons. Of the three methods, the strain gauge data yielded the most conservative buffet boundary prediction. Due to differences in the s ha pes of the buffet boundary curves , however, the gap between the strain gauge buffet curve and the Kulite ® buffet curve diminishes above M=0.80.

Figure 2 - 90 . Buffet Method Comparison: 0 ° Aileron Deflection [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , d = d =0°].

MAC IBAIL OBAIL NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report For negative aileron deflection angles ( Figure 2 - 91 ), the AFO method predicts a shift in the buffet boundary towards lower C . This trend is also seen in the Kulite ® and strain gauge buffet onset L curves in Figure 2 - 91 . At M=0.70 and M=0.87, the Kulite ® and AFO method predictions deviate more for the - 5° aileron deflection case than they did for the undeflected aileron case, while the strain gauge data still skews slightly more conservative than the other methods but matches the Kulite ® data fairly closely at Mach=0.80 .

Figure 2 - 91 . Buffet Method Comparison: - 5 ° Aileron Deflection [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , d = d = - 5°].

MAC IBAIL OBAIL NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report The buffet predictions for a positive aileron deflection angle of 5° are compared in Figure 2 - 92 . A higher buffet boundary is typically not observed when the load on the outboard wing is increased.

While Kulite ® and AFO buffet onset predictions agree well for the positive aileron deflection angle case, the strain gauge again predicts a slightly lower buffet boundary up to M=0.82.

Figure 2 - 92 . Buffet Method Comparison: +5 ° Aileron Deflection [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , d = d =5°].

MAC IBAIL OBAIL The effect of aileron deflection is shown for the AFO data in Figure 2 - 93 . Synchronous deflection of both inboard and outboard ailerons shifts the buffet onset curve relative to the undeflected baseline case. While negative aileron deflection angles reduce C for any given Mach number, L , IB positive aileron deflection angles increase C .

L , IB The changes in the buffet boundary due to aileron deflections coincide with the changes in the shock location observed in Figure 2 - 94 at M=0.75 and α =5.0 deg. For positive aileron deflection angles, the shock locations move in the downstream direction at η =81.0%, increasing the spanload on the outboard wing. The buffet boundary is increas ed relative to the undeflected aileron case in Figure 2 - 93 . Contrarily, for negative aileron deflection angles, the shock location moves in the upstream direction over a broader section of the outboard wing ( η =73.1% to 88.3% in Figure 2 - 94 ) and thereby reducing the spanload. The buffet boundary is de creased relative to the undeflected aileron case in Figure 2 - 93 .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 93 . AFO: Aileron Effect [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Figure 2 - 94 . Pressure Distribution: Aileron Effect [Config C139, Trip T1, M=0.75, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report It is perhaps important to note based on the data in Figure 2 - 95 that although spanload was effectively changed through aileron deflections, the spanload was never sufficiently altered such that the critical station moved in spanwise location as is typically common with cantilevered wings. Recall those wings typically have critical sections at ~70% span and as such would be more affected by changes in aileron deflection. When viewed through this lens, the data presented in Figure 2 - 93 could be interpreted to mean that total lift is varied through deflection of the aileron but the section of the wing that is buffet critical becomes critical at roughly the same point.

Figure 2 - 95 . Aileron Deflection Effect on Spanloads [Config C139, Trip T1, M=0.75, Re =5.2M] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Outboard s trut flap deflections we re investigated as a potential buffet mitigation path for a situation in which the channel is buffet critical . Results presented in Figure 2 - 96 show the effect of outboard strut flap deflection for the maximum and minimum deflection angles of ± 4°. ( For clarity, tested strut flap deflection angles of ± 2 deg are omitted in the plot .) F or the larger strut flap deflection angles ( ± 4 deg), no significant impact on the buffet boundary is observed for configuration C139 at Re = 5 .18M. This indicates that although the local strut download in the MAC wing - strut channel moves the critical buffet span station inboard, the channel flow itself is not critical f or the determination of buffet boundary. This finding alleviates concerns raised prior to this test and strengthens the confidence in the observation that the buffet behavior of the TTBW is driven by the wing – similar to a conventional wing.

Figure 2 - 96 . AFO: Strut Flap Effect [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Trip Location Effects In this section , the effect of boundary layer (BL) trip location on the baseline configuration buffet onset is considered. Figure 2 - 97 presents i nitial buffet curves computed using the AFO method at Re =5.18M . C is nearly identical for all trip configurations at Mach 0.65. As Mach number MAC L , IB increases, significant deviation in C is observed depending on the trip location. Up to L , IB Mach=0.75, the smallest C is predicted for both the T1 ( 5% chord wing trip and 10% chord strut L , IB trip) and T5 ( 5% wing trip and strut transition free) configurations. For larger Mach numbers (M ≥ 0.8), free transition on the strut moves the buffet boundary to larger C . This sensitivity to L , IB the state of the strut BL is likely due to the fact that the strut lifts more with free transition (thinner BL) , which unloads the wing a llowing for a slight increase in margin to buffet onset.

Moving the wing trip location downstream to 25% chord (i.e. , T3 and T6) significantly increases C specifically for Mach numbers between 0.7 and 0.8. At Mach numbers greater than 0.8 , the L , IB C increase relative to the forward trip configurations (T1 and T5) diminishes. The same trend L , IB of increased C is observed, if the trip location is moved further downstream to 40% chord (T4) L , IB and even more so if no tripping is employed on the midboard wing (T3.1).

Figure 2 - 97 . AFO: Wing Trip Location Effect [Config C139, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC The influence of trip location on wing pressure distributions wa s shown previously in Figure 2 - 58 at M=0.8 and α =4.0 ° , slightly below the buffet boundary. As the wing trip location is moved downstream (T1 to T3 in Figure 2 - 58 and Figure 2 - 59 , and T3 to T4 in Figure 2 - 60 and Figure 2 - 61 ), the shock location moves downstream as well. The aft shock movement is driven by increased NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report effective airfoil camber from a thinner BL . This BL is healthier and less susceptible to shock - induced separation at a given angle of attack . Despite the aft shock position and increased strength , which can contribute to separation, the healthier BL is considered the likely reason for the increase in C for the aft trip AFO results. With these flow physics established, the increase L , IB in C with aft trip data is larger than anticipated based on pre test predictions . Furthermore, i t L , IB should be mentioned th at the AFO C prediction s for M=0.75 with T3.1 and T4 is calculated L,IB based on extrapolated C data due to a limited angle of attack range caused by wind tunnel model L structural limitations. Here, the extrapolated C data predict a monotonously increasing trend L with increasing α , which may lead to an overestimate in C at M=0.75 for T3.1 and T4. These L,IB data points are highlighted with circles in Figure 2 - 97 and Figure 2 - 98 .

Figure 2 - 98 compares C139 buffet boundaries for three wing trip patterns computed using the AFO method and Kulite ® data. This comparison indicates that the Kulite ® - derived C levels do L,IB not change nearly as much with aft trip movement as the AFO results indicate. On the contrary, the Kulite ® buffet boundaries for forward (T1) and aft (T4) BL transition are fairly similar in level and shape. So, while the two methods agree well for forward tripping (T1) below M=0.8, they deviate significantly in the same Mach range f or the aft trip (T4). As discussed before, limited data availability and thus extrapolation weakens the trustworthiness of the AFO buffet margin.

Figure 2 - 98 . Buffet Method Comparison: Effect of Tripping [Config C139, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report With the wing trip dots installed at 25% chord (T3), the Kulite ® data indicates an increase in the buffet boundary for M=0.75 and M=0.85 relative to T1. To an even greater degree, the AFO method also predicts an increase in buffet margin when going from T1 to T3 for this Mach range.

However, given the limited amount of data available with the T3 trip pattern and the fact that the Kulite ® data indicates similar buffet onset boundaries for T1, T3, and T4 at M=0.8 (directly in between M=0.75 and M=0.85) , no clear conclusion can be drawn regarding buffet onset for higher Ma ch number condition s .

Reynolds Number Effect The effect of Reynolds number on in itial buffet boundary curves is shown in Figure 2 - 99 . For the AFO method, a general trend of increased C at a given Mach number with increased Reynolds L , IB number is observed . However, t he highest MAC Reynolds number of 6.58M does not follow this trend except for the M=0.78 data. Limited data availability due to structural limits of the wind tunnel model introduced high levels of uncertainty for the AFO analysis. For M=0.75, 0.78, and 0.80 , C was calculated based on extrapolated C data for the highest Reynolds number.

L,IB L Figure 2 - 99 . Buffet Method Comparison: Effect of Reynolds Number [Config C139].

Wing surface pressure distributions for all Reynolds numbers are plotted at α=4.0 ° and M=0.80 in the Reynolds Number Effects section of the report (see 2.9.6 ). The chordwise shock location moves in the downstream direction with increasing Reynolds number , which is the same trend seen when moving boundary layer transition aft. Increasing Reynolds number and moving the NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report trip dots aft both result in a thinner boundary layer , which delays shock - induced separation and drives C higher.

L , IB Very good agreement between the AFO and Kulite ® methods is observed for both Re =2.16M MAC and 3.94M over the entire Mach number range, strengthening the confidence in the predictions.

The agreement between the methods is similarly good for Re =5.18M and Re =6.58M up to MAC MAC M=0.85. Beyond that, the buffet boundary prediction diverges with the Kulite ® method predicting a slightly more conservative boundary. This results in the buffet boundary curves collapsing for the Kulite ® data above M=0.80, indicating no s ignificant effect of Reynolds number is present for higher Mach numbers, contrary to the predictions of the AFO method.

Configuration Effect The effect of model configuration on buffet onset is shown in Figure 2 - 100 for the baseline configuration at Re =5.18M. Overall , the effect of the various model configurations is small MAC with Δ C <0.1 over the tested range. The initial buffet curve is shifted to smaller C if nacelle L , IB L ,IB and flap hinge fairings are removed from the model (C141) compared to the baseline configuration (C139). The deviations are generally small but more pronounced for small Mach numbers (0.6<M<0.77) and large Mach number s (M>0.85). The effect of removing the flap hinge fairings from the model (C142 ) on the buffet boundary is negligible compared to the baseline configuration (C139). Some deviations are observed toward larger Mach numbers (M>0.87), where the absence of the flap hinge fairing (C142) slightly increases C relative to the baseline L , IB configuration (C139). The buffet boundary predicted using Kulite ® data is in good agreement with the AFO method. For the Kulite ® - derived curves, a similar trend of decreased buffet margin is predicted for C141 compared to C139, while the deviations are more pronounced for Mach number between M=0.75 and 0.80.

Pressure distributions for the mid span wing region at M=0.80 are given in Figure 2 - 101 at α =4.0° , which is close to buffet onset. Changes in the model configuration do not have a significant impact on wing shock location. With the flap fairings removed, there are differences in some of the lower surface pressure s , particularly in the wing - strut channel. The lack of changes to the buffet boundary predictions for these cases once again confirm s the channel flow is not buffet critical.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 100 . Buffet Method Comparison: Model Configuration Effect [Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC Figure 2 - 101 . Pressure Distribution: Model Configuration Effect [M=0.8, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M ].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.10 CFD Data Comparisons In this section, the results of the buffet wind tunnel test are compar ed to pre test CFD predictions.

The CFD simulation is based on the right side of the TTBW airplane and includes all model components tested for the C139 configuration. The CFD model includes the jury strut but this will not have a strong influence on the data compar isons as the jury strut is known to have a small effect on pressures , wing loading , and drag . All CFD data discussed here were generated using the OVERFLOW flow solver run on t he structured overset mesh shown in Figure 2 - 102 .

Figure 2 - 102 . Buffet Semi s pan CFD Model .

T he grid system is comprised of 80 individual zones with a total of 81.9 million points. The surface grid shown in red covering the wing leading edge is used to force the boundary layer to transition from laminar to turbulent at the forward trip location of 5%. A different grid defines the aft trip location. The brown grid located at the bottom of the fuselage is used to model the 0.7” profile plate that raises the model away from the test section floor. In addition to the profile plate, the CFD model includ es three strategically placed keel dams used to minimize gap effects , and a circular adapter plate used to mount the model to the balance through a hole in the floor. These details in the CFD model can be seen in Figure 2 - 103 .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 103 . CFD Model Details Showing Keel Dams and Adapter Plate .

T he pre test CFD simulations capture the effect of the test section floor with a no slip boundary condition set on a solid wall grid plane. More details on the development of the floor boundary layer will be discussed later in this section. The cut - away image shown in Figure 2 - 104 illustrates the relative size of the gap between the test section floor and the body backing plate (0.3”). This image does not include the keel dams and adapter plate for clarity. Figure 2 - 105 is another front view of the model correctly positioned above the floor. In this figure, the body profile plate and keel dams are shown to illustrate how the model - to - floor gap is reduced from 0.3” (from bottom edge of profile plate) to approximately 0.1” (from bottom edge of keel dams). It is interesting to note in this last figure how the wing/body fairing (WBF) was not simply extruded to define the profile plate like the rest of the fuselage. Instead, the profile plate is a designed extension of the WBF that improves the inboard wing loading making it similar to that of the full airplane model in free air .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 104 . CFD Model in Proximity of Test Section Floor .

Figure 2 - 105 . CFD Model with Profile Plate (yellow) and Keel Dams (blue, purple, red) Shown in Proximity of Test Section Floor .

A summary of OVERFLOW runs completed prior to the wind tunnel test is provided in Table 2 - 15 .

This table includes the type of run made and a brief geometry description of each configuration analyzed as well as key information associated with the simulation such as boundary layer trip location, the turbulence model used, and which freestream quant ities were applied. The run type is provided in the matrix to give an indication of how the results are intended to be used. ‘Rigid’ runs utilize the 1G design twist distribution (not accounting for additional aeroelastic differences such as shear/bending ) , while ‘elastic’ refers to runs where the 1G model was aeroelastically twisted to represent the expected model twist under the given load and at the applied condition.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Table 2 - 15 . OVERFLOW Run Matrix .

Turb Mach Re/ft Re Temp Run Info Configuration ma c 6 6 CL / a (x10 ) (x10 ) # Priority Type Aeroelastics Description Code d d Trip Model Number (R) a i l SF Build Up 1 1 cruise rigid WBS C141 0 0 T1 SA 0.695 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 2 1 cruise rigid WBSNP C142 0 0 T1 SA 0.695 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 3 1 cruise rigid WBSNPF C139 0 0 T1 SA 0.695 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 4 1 cruise rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA 0.695 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 Baseline 5 1 polar rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA CL1 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 6 1 polar rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA CL1 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 7 1 1.3g rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA 0.91 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 8 1 M rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA 0.616 0.85 6.3 5.2 486 MO 9 1 1.3g elastic WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA 0.91 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 10 1 M elastic WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA 0.616 0.85 6.3 5.2 486 MO 11 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.4 6.3 5.2 486 12 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.5 6.3 5.2 486 13 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A2 0.65 6.3 5.2 486 14 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.7 6.3 5.2 486 15 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.72 6.3 5.2 486 16 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.75 6.3 5.2 486 17 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.77 6.3 5.2 486 18 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 19 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.82 6.3 5.2 486 20 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.84 6.3 5.2 486 21 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.85 6.3 5.2 486 22 1 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T3 SA A1 0.87 6.3 5.2 486 23 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.4 6.3 5.2 486 24 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.5 6.3 5.2 486 25 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A2 0.65 6.3 5.2 486 26 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.7 6.3 5.2 486 27 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.72 6.3 5.2 486 28 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.75 6.3 5.2 486 29 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.77 6.3 5.2 486 30 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.8 6.3 5.2 486 31 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.82 6.3 5.2 486 32 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.84 6.3 5.2 486 33 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.85 6.3 5.2 486 34 2 AFO rigid WBSNPFJ C143 0 0 T1 SA A1 0.87 6.3 5.2 486 OVERFLOW was run using two turbulence models to help quantify the uncertainty in the computed data : the Spalart - Allmaras (SA) 1 - equation model (with the rotation and curvature corrections enabled) , and the Shear Stress Transport (SST) 2 - equation model. Other key solver information is provided below.

• OVERFLOW version 2.2g • HLLE++ upwind scheme for diffusion terms • SSOR implicit solver for convection terms • Quadratic Constitutive Relation (QCR) turned on Unless otherwise noted, the default turbulence model used for all CFD analyses was the SA model.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.10.1 CFD Drag Component Increments The “Build - Up” block of OVERFLOW runs shown in Table 2 - 15 were made to compare force and moment increments between CFD and test as well as between test entries. This build - up analysis was intended to ensure quality data were being measured for the new semi span model. The effect of each component was analyzed at a Reynolds number based on the Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) of 5.2 million and the cruise design condition of Mach = 0.8 and C = 0.695. This L condition corresponds to the tunnel condition of 6.3M/ft for which the model jig twist was designed. The four configurations analyzed for the build - up study are labeled using the letter designation shown in Table 2 - 11 .

2.10.2 Floor Only Wind tunnel installation effects have been quantified with OVERFLOW analyses of the semi span model in the presence of the floor only as well as a complete in - tunnel simulation (not discussed in this paper) .

During positive load factor maneuvers (e.g., a 1g+ turn), high speed buffet onset for a well - designed TTBW will be driven by wing upper surface shock characteristics such as chordwise location and strength. Accurate buffet prediction methods must be able to capture and resolve shock s reasonably well, so an attempt is made to document and understand differences between computed and measured pressure data at three key conditions: 1g cruise, 1.3g cruise, and M .

MO The floor only OVERFLOW data created during th e SUGAR Phase V contract will be compared directly with buffet test data for these three select conditions. This comparison will then be evaluated to account for the effects of turbulence model, model - to - floor sealing, and tunnel floor boundary layer height. General observations regarding shock location and strength will be made as a function of span.

Static Pressure Comparison at Mach = 0.8, C = 0.695 L Wing and strut static pressures are compared at the mid cruise design condition of Re = 5.2M, MAC Mach = 0.8, and C = 0.695 for the forward trip location and the WBSNPFJ CFD configuration (note L that the jury strut was not tested). The wind tunnel data selected for this comparison are from Run 297. Wing pressure comparisons are provided in three separate figures to keep plots legible.

Figure 2 - 106 compares inboard wing pressures covering semi span stations of 7% to 37%. This comparison shows the floor - only CFD simulation using the SA turbulence model predicts the shock location to be roughly 5% to 10% aft of the test data. Upper surface CFD pressures forward of the shock are less negative and slightly more negative aft of the shock. Results using the S ST turbulence model show better agreement with the experiment where the shock location is closer by a few percent of chord for the first two pressure rows.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 106 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at Design Condition: Inboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip].

MAC Figure 2 - 107 compares midboard wing pressures covering semi span stations of 50% to 66%.

Similar to the inboard comparison, the computed shock location is aft of the measured data by roughly 7% of chord for the SA model and a closer to 5% for the SST model. The juncture shock seen on the lower wing surface at 55.4% semi span agrees reasonably well for both turbulence models. Finally, the local suction peak in the buffet test pressures at 66% semi span is related to the forward trip dots applied to the model. This feature is not present in the aft trip data.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 107 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at Design Condition: Midboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 108 compares outboard wing pressures covering semi span stations of 73% to 88%. It is more difficult to accurately quantify shock location from the test due to sparse pressure tap locations for the mid cruise condition. It is clear that the difference between CFD and wind tunnel is no better on the outboard wing in terms of shock position. OVERFLOW predicts the shock to be 5% to 10% further aft relative to experiment with only a marginal difference betwe en turbulence models. There is some improvement in upper surface pressure comparisons, particularly at 88.3% semi span.

Figure 2 - 108 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at Design Condition: Outboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip].

MAC Strut pressures are compared in Figure 2 - 109 and Figure 2 - 110 for the mid cruise design condition. There are small differences in the computed pressures for the two turbulence models under study, but both sets of data are in good agreement with test data except near the leading edge on the upper surface. It is unclear whether there is a possibility of laminar flow in this region or if the trips are having a larger effect than expected. Unfortunately , the limited amount of mid - span upper surface pressure data from the experiment makes it difficult to draw firm conclu sions.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 109 . Forward Trip Strut Pressure Comparison at Design Condition: Inboard Strut [M=0.8, Re =5.2M , Fwd Trip].

MAC Figure 2 - 110 . Forward Trip Strut Pressure Comparison at Design Condition: Outboard Strut [M=0.8, Re = 5.2M, Fwd Trip].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Static Pressure Comparison at Mach = 0.8, C L = 0.91 Figure 2 - 111 , Figure 2 - 112 , and Figure 2 - 113 compare wing pressures for the 1.3g condition at Re = 5.2M and Mach = 0.8. Th e higher positive load factor is represented by data at C = 0.91 , MAC L which is 1.3 times the mid cruise C of 0.695 (rounded - up to 0.7 to get 0.91). The higher wing L loading at this condition represents the required margin for buffet - free flight per FAR 25.251.

The inboard wing comparison given in Figure 2 - 111 tells a similar story as the comparison made at the design C of 0.695 where results from the OVERFLOW - SA analysis show the shock position L is aft of the test data. However, the difference in position is considerably less at the 1.3g condition. Swit c hing to the SST turbulence model nearly closes the gap between CFD and experiment altogether. This is encouraging because it is more important to see good agreement at conditions closer to the expected buffet boundary as opposed to the mid cruise condition .

Figure 2 - 111 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at 1.3g Condition: Inboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 112 compares the midboard wing pressures at the 1.3g condition. Similar to the inboard comparison, OVERFLOW predicts nearly the same shock location and strength as test data with the SST turbulence model. This is an improved correlation of pressures when looking back at the design C plots shown in Figure 2 - 107 . The midboard and outboard portions of the wing are L considered buffet critical in terms of loading and shock position, so good agreement in these regions builds confidence in CFD - based buffet onset prediction methods.

Figure 2 - 112 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at 1.3g Condition: Midboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 113 shows the outboard wing pressure comparison is also improved at C L = 0.91. Here even the suction pressure level forward of the shock is in good agreement (compare data at 73% semi span between Figure 2 - 108 and Figure 2 - 113 ). The improved correlation of pressures at the critical buffet condition representing 1.3g flight in key regions of the wing suggests the simplified floor only OVERFLOW model may be adequate for buffet studies.

Figure 2 - 113 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at 1.3g Condition: Outboard Wing [M=0.8, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MA C Static Pressure Comparison at Mach = 0.85, C = 0.63 L Figure 2 - 114 , Figure 2 - 115 , and Figure 2 - 116 compare wing pressures for the maximum operating Mach (M ) condition at Re = 5.2M and C = 0.63. M for the SUGAR Mach 0.8 design is 0.85 , MO MAC L MO which is cruise Mach + 0.05. This condition is called - out in FAR 25.251(d) , which states “there may be no perceptible buffeting condition in the cruise configuration in straight flight at any speed up to V /M .” MO MO The pressure comparison at M tells a similar story as the 1.3g Mach 0.8 comparison. The SST MO turbulence model provides improved correlation with test data across the span of the wing when compared to the SA model. The SST shock position is aft of the measured data but only by a few pe rcent chord , which can be partially explained by not analyzing the model fully installed in the test section . The outboard wing lower surface pressures from the SST solution exhibit local NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report irregularities caused by unidentified numerical issues. This will not impact the conclusions made here regarding upper surface shock characteristics.

Figure 2 - 114 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at MMO Condition: Inboard Wing [M=0.85, Re = 5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 115 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at MMO Condition: Midboard Wing [M=0.85, Re = 5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 116 . Forward Trip Wing Pressure Comparison at MMO Condition: Outboard Wing [M=0.85, Re =5.2M, Fwd Trip] .

MAC Effect of Boundary Layer Height Information provided by NASA during preliminary test planning set the floor boundary layer (BL) thickness at 3 inches just ahead of the model. During the buffet test entry, NASA provided additional BL information in the form of an AIAA paper (11) , which gives displacement thickness as a function of tunnel station, Mach number, and slots open/closed (see Figure 2 - 117 ). Th ese data w ere used to perform a BL height sensitivity study in OVERFLOW.

Figure 2 - 117 . Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness ( d 1) in the Ames 11 - F t Test Section (11) .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report According to the data plotted in Figure 2 - 117 , the displacement thickness at a tunnel station near the fuselage nose should be 0.51” without the model installed. The floor only OVERFLOW simulation has been calibrated to a 3” BL thickness at the fuselage nose by switching to a viscous wall boundary co ndition along a particular grid line. This approach is illustrated in the top half of Figure 2 - 118 . The grid line used to initialize the turbulent BL was moved forward by 69” to match the displacement thickness of 0.51” at a tunnel station near the fuselage nose. The location where displacement thickness was evaluated in the solution is shown by the pi nk X symbols in the color contour images shown in the lower half of Figure 2 - 118 . The baseline solution has a displacement thickness of 0.47”.

Figure 2 - 118 . OVERFLOW Boundary Layer (BL) Approximation on the Test Section Floor at Mach 0.8 .

Increasing the displacement thickness of the test section floor boundary layer by 0.04” had no significant effect on nose or wing pressures. The angle of attack was increased by 0.003 ° to hold C = 0.695 and there was a very slight nose - down C shift of - 0.0005. The results of this sensitivity L PM study show the floor only OVERFLOW model has a reasonably accurate boundary layer thickness at the fuselage nose.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.10.3 CFD Buffet Predictions C omputational studies focused on quantify ing buffet characteristics of the TTBW configuration were conducted prior to the wind tunnel test. The primary objective was to predict the initial buffet boundary using different methods and quantify effects of boundary layer transition location, strut flap deflection, and turbulence modeling. Three different buffet prediction methods were applied to the CFD data: • Axial Force O ffset ( see S ection 2.9.9.4 ) , • Trailing Edge Pressure Divergence ( see S ection 2.9.9.3 ), and • BUFFET ( see S ection 2.10.3.1 ) The AFO and BUFFET methods are based on empirical data established for conventional configurations – the AFO method is based on global forces, while BUFFET is based on sectional flow properties. T he trailing edge pressure divergence method utilizes computed data for the configuration under study . A brief description of the BUFFET method is given below.

BUFFET Code Assessment The BUFFET code estimates a configuration sensitivity to buffet by computing shock strength and position and comparing it against a critical normal Mach number database as determined by 2D high Reynolds number data from conventional and supercritical airfoil tests. The method provides an indication of when shock - induced separation leads to buffet onset. The BUFFET program has been historically shown to be accurate for predicting buffet onset for T - tailed twinjet transport designs and was used to assess buffet characterist ics for the TTBW wing and strut throughout the design process. Figure 2 - 119 shows a typical graphic produced by the program, which is used to infer whether the computed normal Mach number of the airfoil has exceeded the critical normal Mach, thereby inferring that buffet onset has been reached .

Figure 2 - 119 . BUFFET code output indicating whether buffet has been reached .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Computational Buffet Predictions Results Comparison After applying the three buffet prediction methods discussed in section 2.10.3 , the data are summarized in Figure 2 - 120 , which depicts several comparisons that should be noted. These comparisons are : • T he forward (5% chord) trip and aft (25% chord) trip locations • T he CFD processed data against the data collected from the test • V arious buffet prediction methods relative to each other , and • H ow the CFD turbulence modeling can affect the buffet prediction at various Mach number s.

Figure 2 - 120 . Buffet Prediction Comparisons f or Forward Trip Location (5% Chord, Left) & Aft Trip Locations (25% Chord, Right) [Re =5.2M] .

MAC It can generally be seen that the AFO method, particularly for the forward trip data, agrees very well between CFD and test. Speaking to the forward trip plots, the ability of the SST turbulence model to predict wing pressure at cruise and M can also be extended to AFO initial buffet MO prediction, but SA tends to better match the trend at Mach 0.75. It’s at these lower Mach number s that the prediction of C and its shape becomes increasingly important , and accounts Lmax for much of the deviation from the test data. For the aft trip configurati on, it can be seen that NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report the CFD - generated AFO prediction is conservative, when compared with wind tunnel data processed in a similar man n er. It is observed that the AFO - processed CFD data indicate a much lower sensitivity to trip location than the AFO - processed wind tunnel data, but the K ulite ® data collected from the test would suggest a much lower sensitivity, more in - line with the CFD - based prediction ( r efer to Section 2.9.10.2 ) . It can also be observed that both the BUFFET and Trailing Edge Pressure Divergence methods used to predict initial buffet are even more conservative, and diverge significantly from the test data processed using the AFO method .

Finally, a CFD analysis examined the predicted effect that the outboard strut flap had on the buffet boundary. As was verified in the wind tunnel data in Section 2.9.10.1 , t he computed AFO - based initial buffet curve is insensitive to the strut flap position . Th ese data, shown in Figure 2 - 121 , once again verif y that the wing - strut channel is not buffet critical for the TTBW.

Figure 2 - 121 . Effect o f Strut Flap Position o n Buffet Prediction Using AFO Method [Config C139, Aft Trip T3, Re =5.2M] .

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.11 Assessment of Buffet TTBW Buffet Prediction During the buffet wind tunnel test, a wide variety of methods were used to predict buffet onset .

Data w ere measured in the tunnel using an extensive suite of instrumentation and computational methods (CFD) exercised . These methods examined changes in buffet onset for a series of vehicle configurations, flow conditions, and boundary layer trip patter n s. Steady and unsteady data were acquired using pressure transducers, accelerometers, strain gauges, and a five - component balance.

In general, the most successful methods were based on global (whole vehicle) measurements or predictions. This makes sense since the various instability modes that lead to buffet onset manifest as whole - vehicle flow instabilities. Of the results measured , the most successful predictions were made when a forward trip location was used. As the amount of laminar flow grew on the wing, the more disagreement existed between the predicted values and inferred buffet onset as measured by the model array of Kulites ® . That is not to say that section - based methods do not have a place in the modern computational and design framework, since these methods are in general simple to compute as well as conservative in their estimate of buffet onset.

As pertaining specifically to the TTBW configuration, the data obtained in the current wind tunnel test strongly suggest that (at the scale and Reynolds number of the test) buffet onset is for all intents and purposes – conventional (driven by wing upper surface initiated global instability) .

No data measured during the test suggested that the lower side of the strut nor the interior of the wing - strut channel were ever buffet critical. However, it is clear that the typical spanwise station w h ere buffet often initiate s for a conventional configuration is further inboard on the TTBW – located in the span region of the wing - strut juncture . This discovery is strongly supported by mea surements of the TTBW spanload, with lift contributions coming from both the wing and strut. Where these surfaces join together , the airfoil designs are shaped to control flow accelerations int o the channel, naturally resulting in a wing that has a higher local spanload contribution than for conventional cantilevered - wing designs .

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 2.12 Stability and Control Testing Upon completion of the buffet boundary determinations, additional data collection was made regarding control surface effectiveness. The tested deflection ranges and conditions (Reynolds number and Mach ranges) were expanded from the full - span test matrix d ue to the model increased strength and physical size.

IB Aileron Effectiveness The inboard ailerons were one of the component s that could not be fully tested at higher angles of attack due to load limits during the earlier entry of the full span model. In this entry, testing was conducted at the higher angles of attack. Furthermore, smaller deflections were also tested to better capture non linear response to small aileron deflections.

Figure 2 - 122 . Effect of Inboard Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.5].

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 123 . Effect of Inboard Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.8].

A s seen in Figure 2 - 122 ( C all to figure in text should come before the figure . ) , a t Mach =0.5 , the inboard aileron behavior is very conventional and do es not show any indications of sudden loss of authority exhibited at Mach = 0.2 during low speed testing. As indicated i n Figure 2 - 123 ( C all to figure in text should come before the figure . ) , a t Mach =0.80 , the inboard aileron continues to be well behaved across the deflections.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 124 . Effect of Inboard Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re = 2.1 5 M , MAC M=0.92].

At Mach =0.92 ( Figure 2 - 124 ) ( C all to figure in text should come before the figure . ) , there are clear indications of reversal at the lower angles of attack and small TEU deflections. At angles of attack higher than 3 ° , the magnitude of the rolling moment tends to increase with increasing deflection as is desired. However, below 3 ° angle of attack, deflections of up to - 10 ° generate an opposite moment. This is consistent with results of earlier full - span model tests.

The roll reversals mentioned earlier start at Mach =0.89 . Figure 2 - 125 shows that the reversal of - 10 ° with - 5 ° and - 2.5 ° of aileron starts around 1 ° angle of attack. Below 0.5 ° angle of attack, all three TEU deflections seem to be reversing.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 125 . Effect of Inboard Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient - zoomed in . [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.89].

MAC Figure 2 - 126 . Effect of Inboard Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient - zoomed in. [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.92].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 126 ( C all to figure in text should come before the figure . ) zooms in on the region of reversal and includes the - 2.5 ° aileron deflection , which was left off Figure 2 - 124 for the sake of clarity. The observations made earlier are more readily apparent and it can also be seen that - 2.5 ° deflection reverses below 0.75 ° . The general trend seems to be that with increasing TEU deflection, the reversal is larger and spreads over a larger angle of attack range.

Combined Aileron Effectiveness Figure 2 - 127 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.5].

As with the inboard ailerons, the combined aileron deflections at Mach =0.5 are well behaved and conventional (Figure 2 - 127) (also call to figure in text should come before the figure) .

At cruise Mach number ( Figure 2 - 128 ), the combined ailerons remain well behaved and show good authority even at the higher angles of attack.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 128 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.8].

Figure 2 - 129 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.92].

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report At 0.92 Mach ( C all to figure in text should come before the figure . (Figure 2 - 129) , the rolling moment reversal seen with inboard ailerons get much worse. Near 3.25 ° angle of attack, - 10 ° deflection reverses on the - 5 ° deflection. Both reverse on the baseline 0 ° deflection around 2 ° and 1.5 ° , respectively. Furthermore, the - 10 ° aileron is coincident with the - 30 ° deflection above 4 ° angle of attack, indic ating the possibility of a dead band of 20 ° in roll authority.

These are undesirable characteristics , which can complicate the development of the flight control system and add risk.

Figure 2 - 130 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.89].

Figure 2 - 130 ( Call to figure in text should come before the figure.) show s the region of reversal, which starts at Mach = 0.89 and grows at Mach =0.9 2 . At Mach =0.89 , the beginning of a roll reversal are first seen. Below 0. 5 ° angle of attack, the - 5 ° deflection is either very slightly reversing or coincident with the - 2.5 ° deflection.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 131 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.92].

Figure 2 - 131 ( Call to figure in text should come before the figure.) zooms in on the low angle of attack range to better show the region of reversal. It also includes the - 2.5 ° deflection left of f the other plot for sake of clar ity. The rolling moment reversal makes a discernable trend across deflection and angle of attack. The TED deflections are fairly linear down to 0 ° angle of attack with a slight non linear behavior below 0.5 ° .

The effect of Reynolds number on the aileron deflections tend s to be small with deflection and hard to pinpoint without accounting for the wind tunnel model aero elastics. Since the dynamic pressure can vary dramatically to attain the desired Reynolds number, any effect of the latter on the aileron effectiveness can be lost due to effects of the former.

As show in Figure 2 - 132 to Figure 2 - 134 , varying Reynolds numbers from 2.16 million to 5.18 million, the effect on roll ing moment reversal is hard to discern. While the region of reversal does not change very much, there are small changes in magnitude of the rolling moment coefficients. However, these could have more to do with model aero elast ics than with Reynolds number.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 132 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, MAC M=0.89].

Figure 2 - 133 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1 , Re = 3.29 M, MAC M=0.89].

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 134 . Effect of Combined Aileron Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , MAC M=0.89].

Spoiler Effectiveness Testing of control surfaces was carried out during the test to fill out gaps in the test matrix of the earlier full - span model entry in 2019. The data collected for spoilers and ailerons deflected w ere often limited to low angles of attack due to the load limits and possible areas of concern at the higher angles of attack remained uninvestigated until this entry. A better range of deflections – small, mid range, and large – for the spoilers was available and tested enabling capture of the characteristics across deflection, Mach, and angle of attack with sufficient granularity to identify problem areas. (Do not see call to figures 2 - 135 and 2 - 136.)

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 135 . Effect of Spoilers on the Lift Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.5].

MAC Figure 2 - 136 . Effect of Spoilers on the Lift Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.8].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Lift is reversing above 4.5 ° angle of attack for - 5 ° and - 10 ° of spoiler deflections. The magnitude of the reversal is small but it remains an undesirable characteristic.

While the baseline wing and those small deflections show a decline in lift curve slope at the higher angles of attack, the larger deflections are highly separated from the beginning and exhibit a linear trend across the range of angles of attack.

Figure 2 - 137 . Effect of Spoilers on the Lift Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re = 2.1 5 M , M=0.92].

MAC At Mach =0.92 ( Call to figure in text should come before the figure. (Figure 2 - 137) , with the presence of strong shocks, the effects of small deflections are linear with angle of at tack in lift coefficient. T he baseline curve also follows this trend . Larger deflections, however, are now non linear but no reversals are observed anywhere in the angle of attack range.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 138 . Effect of Spoilers on the Drag Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.5].

MAC The use of spoilers for speed brakes show good overall results across a ngle of a ttack, Mach, and deflection. However, at Mach =0.92 , the smaller deflections show relatively small increases in drag. The presence of stronger shocks and separated flow tends to dominate the flow field and small deflections of the spoiler do not affect it very much. Larger deflections are required to create significant increases in drag from the baseline configuration. (Don't see call to Figs 2 - 13 8 through 2 - 140.)

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 139 . Effect of Spoilers on the Drag Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.8].

MAC Figure 2 - 140 . Effect of Spoilers on the Drag Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re = 2.1 5 M , M=0.92].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 141 . Effect of Spoilers on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.5].

MAC Figure 2 - 142 . Effect of Spoilers on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.8].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Pitching moment shows reasonable response across Mach, angle of attack , and deflection.

Magnitude of pitching moment changes due to the spoilers are well within the tail pitch limits mapped earlier during the full span entry and presumable elevator authority for this type of tail.

(Don't see call to Figs 2 - 141 through 2 - 14 3 . Also c all to figures in text should come before the figures).

While the magnitudes remain small, the baseline level of instability increases with increasing Mach number.

Figure 2 - 143 . Effect of Spoilers on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re = 2.1 5 M , M=0.92].

MAC The pitching moment characteristics at Mach =0.92 (Figure 2 - 143) are highly non linear but still well within tail pitch limits .

Rolling m oment characteristics follow lift generally and changes due to deflection are linear at low Mach numbers ( Figure 2 - 144 ) . At Mach =0.80 (Figure 2 - 145) , there are signs of reversal at the higher angles of attack and smaller deflection angles. The reversal follows the same patterns as seen in lift coefficient.

At the higher Mach numbers ( Figure 2 - 146 ) , there are no indications of reversal of rolling moment control authority. However, the smaller deflections of spoilers are not very effective. This is not surprising as previous testing on swept wing transports has shown similar characteristics. Small deflections do not alter the flow field which is dominate d by strong shocks and separated flow.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 144 . Effect of Spoilers on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.5].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 145 . Effect of Spoilers on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re =2.16M, M=0.8].

MAC Figure 2 - 146 . Effect of Spoilers on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T2, Re = 2.1 5 M , M=0.92].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Outboard Strut Flap Effects Small deflections of the strut flap were tested to assess levels of additional roll control. At a Reynolds number of 5.18 million, four small deflections, - 4 ° , - 2 ° , +2 ° , and +4 ° , were tested. A summary of the rolling and pitching moment coefficients is presented below.

As expected, changes in pitching moment are small at the lower Mach numbers and miniscule at the highest Mach numbers. TED deflections at the lower Mach numbers do not cause significant changes in pitching moment. Only the - 4 ° deflection seems to affect the baseline pitching moment by a small but discernible airplane nose up moment.

With increasing Mach, the effect of the - 4 ° deflection becomes smaller (s ee Figure 2 - 147 to Figure 2 - 149 ) .

Figure 2 - 147 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.5].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 148 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.8].

MAC Figure 2 - 149 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Pitching Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.89].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report T he TED deflections add no significant changes to the rolling moment at lower Mach numbers (s ee Figure 2 - 150 ) . TEU deflections are more effective but changes in rolling moment are an order of magnitude smaller than what the inboard aileron alone can generate.

At cruise Mach ( Figure 2 - 151 ), both TEU and TED deflection alter the rolling moment minimally while at Mach = 0.89 ( Figure 2 - 152 ), the effect essentially is collapsed and no significant changes in rolling moment can be observed.

Due to the semi span installation, the ability to test the effects of the strut flap as a yaw effector were not possible to test. However, the potential of this surface to be used as a potential yaw control or speed brake will be assessed in the future.

Figure 2 - 150 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.5].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure 2 - 151 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.8].

MAC Figure 2 - 152 . Effect of Strut Flap Deflection on the Rolling Moment Coefficient [Config C139, Trip T1, Re = 5.2M , M=0.89].

MAC NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report General Assessment of Vehicle Control During the early phases of wind tunnel testing a new airplane, primary concern is on general characteristics, levels of control authority, and any indications of problems areas. The full span model entry included testing of the horizontal tail. The angle of attack range was highly limited but, in general, showed good stability and pitch authority from the horizontal. However, lack of higher angle - of - attack data and elevator testing precluded a more complete assessment of the stability and control in th e pitch axis. Testing during this entry, with a semi span model, added no further information toward a more conclusive evaluation.

In the lateral axis, investigation of rolling moment characteristics during the previous test was generally limited to lower angles of attack due to load limits. However, indications of roll reversal with aileron deflections were uncovered at the higher e nd of the Mach range and small deflections. During this entry, a wider range of deflections and at higher angles of attack were tested and the rolling moment reversal was confirmed and more thoroughly mapped. While the reversals are only present with TEU deflections, they remain an undesirable characteristic that complicates development of the flight control system and carries risk.

With spoiler deflections, the single indication of roll reversal during the previous entry was with the deployment of the outboard spoilers. Midboard and inboard spoilers did not show this characteristic. During this entry, only the combined inboard, midb oard, and outboard spoilers were tested and, as a combined element, show no indication of reversal , which is as expected.

Also, as is consistent with previous swept wing transport configurations, small deflections are ineffective at the high end of the Ma ch range. This is observed both in rolling moment and drag.

However, the larger deflections of the spoilers remain effective and do not generate severe changes in pitching moment and remain well within the pitch limits of the horizontal. Since elevator authority was not defined, the horizontal pitch limits were used to make a rough assessment.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 3.0 Final High - Speed Test Conclusions The transonic buffet test successfully investigated buffet onset on a TTBW, and gathered important data for the validation of existing tools and processes. A series of heritage tools for buffet boundary prediction were compared against unsteady pressure me asurements taken with a new, 9% scale semi span wind tunnel model tested in the NASA ARC 11 - F t Transonic Wind Tunnel. With the exception of the pitching moment break and trailing edge pressure divergence methods, reasonably good agreement in buffet boundary predictions was found for the axial force offset, accelerometer, and strain gauge methods, when using the wing forward trip configuration . However, buffet boundaries for configurations that tested more significant laminar runs using a series of aft trips were found to have disagreement with unsteady pressure measurements taken during testing, particularly for higher Mach flows. In these cas es , resolution of buffet prediction methods still requires additional work to understand and resolve differences.

Changes to vehicle configuration and changes in flow conditions were also well predicted when using the forward trip. Alterations in vehicle span load did not have a strong effect on buffet critical station.

CFD analysis of the vehicle was compared to acquired test data. While good agreement was found in incremental changes based on changes to configuration and flow conditions, the analysis highlighted a disconnect between the predicted and measured vehicle surface pressures. In particular, the cruise design condition shock location was significantly further forward in test than in analysis. A review of previous in - tunnel CFD predictions highlighted the ne ed for full - tunnel modeling (floor, walls, and ceiling) to achieve improved matching between CFD and test.

Nevertheless , for the conditions of interest in the buffet test, floor - only CFD of the wind tunnel model provided a good match to test, giving confidence that the desired buffet - onset flow characteristics in the tunnel were suitable for investigations of buffet bounda ry.

For the TTBW configuration, this test has successfully mitigated concerns regarding potential alternate buffet onset mechanisms. Measured data confirm that low - C and wing - strut - channel L induced buffet onset are no longer a primary concern. Rather, the TTBW configuration has a fairly conventional wing - upper - surface - based buffet onset, where the only difference from a standard cantilever wing buffet is an inward movement of the critical wing section from ~70% span to the wing - strut spanwise attachment loc ation.

The testing also expanded the range of stability and control investigations begun in the last high - speed wind tunnel test campaign. Data for an expanded range of deflections, Mach and angle of attack for wing - mounted control surfaces w ere collected. Th ese data identified a region of rolling moment reversal with greater definition across a range of control surface deflections, Mach, and angle of attack.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 4.0 Recommendations for Future High - Speed Testing Completion of the transonic buffet test marks the conclusion of the latest high - speed risk reduction effort for the SUGAR M ach =0.80 TTBW configuration. In this test , it was shown that buffet onset flow physics for the TTBW are similar to conventional cantilevered wing aircraft , with the primary buffet instabilities occurring on the wing, and not on the strut or in the wing - strut channel. Despite this determination, there are several elements of the test that could be improved on to provide more complete inf ormation regarding buffet onset on the TTBW .

In particular, the loss of unsteady pressure transducer s (Kulites ® ) before and during testing in the key spanwise region provided some limitations to the results of the test . Replacement of these sensors and re visitation /addition of key test points could provide more complete information regarding buffet onset. In addition, since the buffet boundary was determined through a post - test analysis process (and not in real time), load limitations on the model occasio nally cut testing short at some conditions of interest . This directly resulted in the need for some calculated buffet boundaries to use more significant extrapolation. These extrapolations occasionally led to increased uncertainty in predicted buffet boundaries.

Therefore, revisiting of these conditions a t slightly lower dynamic pressures may provide additional data to complement available buffet estimates .

In addition , t he buffet wind tunnel model is fairly stiff and is not representative of anticipated flight vehicle aeroelastics. Since significant structural maturation of the TTBW has occurred in the last few years, interest has increased in revisiting aeroelastic testing with an updated configuration structur al and aerodynamic design. This test could leverage the learnings from the last decade of TTBW development (both M=0.80 aero design with EI/GJ distributions from new structural designs), and provide the most accurate insight into TTBW aeroelastic behaviors t o date. T he creation of a new test a sset would provide the potential for future studies of gust load alleviation benefits and exploration of aeroservoelasticity effects that may be used for control law development.

I t is noted that for future testing of any configuration in the 11 - F t transonic tunnel in which unsteady pressure measurements are collected, a fairing applied to the tunnel arc sector might reduce background noise, increasing dynamic data quality.

H igh speed (transonic) testing to date has been completed in the wind tunnel . These tests have provided critical technology maturation. However , in order to best match vehicle aeroelastics and Reynolds number , the next step in maturation would be best accomplished using a full - scale flying test article. This article could be used to substantiate the high aerodynamic efficiency of the configuration, and further calibrate both buffet prediction and flutter prediction methods.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 5.0 References 1. Investigation of Seal - to - Floor Effects on Semi - Span Transonic Model. Sleppy, Mark A., et al.

Orlando : AIAA, 2009. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.

2. Characterisation of Buffet on a Civil Aircraft Wing. Lawson, Simon G, Greenwell, Doug and Quinn, Mark Kenneth . San Diego : 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2016.

3. Global Structure of Buffeting Flow on Transonic Airfoils. Crouch, Jeffrey D, et al. Dordrecht : Springer, 2009. IUTAM Symposium on Unsteady Separated Flows and Their Control.

4. McDevitt, John B and Okuno, Arthur F. Static and Dynamic Pressure Measurements on a NACA 0012 Airfoil in the Ames High Reynolds Number Facility. Moffet Field : NASA Technical Paper 2485, 1985.

5. Experimental Study of Shock Oscillation over a Transonic Supercritical Profile. Jacquin, L, et al.

9, 2009, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47.

6. Origin of Transonic Buffet on Aerofoils. Crouch, Jeffrey D, et al. June 2009, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 628, pp. 357 – 369.

7. Global Instability in the Onset of Transonic - Wing Buffet. Crouch, Jeffrey D, Garbaruk, A and Strelets, M. 2019, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 881, pp. 3 - 22.

8. Analysis and Comparison of Transonic Buffet Phenomenon over Several Three Dimensional Wings. Paladini, E, et al. 1, 2019, AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 379 - 396.

9. Global Instability of Wing Shock - Buffet Onset. Timme, S. February 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 885.

10. Experimental Study of Transonic Buffet Phenomenon on a 3D Swept Wing. Dandois, Julien. 1, 2016, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 28.

11. Flow Quality Survey of the NASA Ames 11 - by 11 - Ft Transonic Wind Tunnel. Amaya, Max A.

Tokyo and Nagoya : s.n., 2011. 114th Meeting of the Supersonic Tunnel Association.

12. Rodde, A M and Archambaud, J P. A Selection of Experimental Test Cases . Neuilly - Sur - Seine : Advisory Group for Aerospace Research & Development, 1994.

13. Droney, C., Sclafani, A. and Grasch, A. Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase III: Mach 0.745 Aerodynamic Design. s.l. : NASA, 2015.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report 14. Harrison, Neal A, Droney, Christopher K and Beyar, Michael D. SUGAR Phase III: 4.5% Scale Transonic Truss - Braced Wing (TTBW) LB - 649A Transonic Wind Tunnel Test - Final Report [Limited Rights Data]. 2016. Contract Number: NNL10AA05B, Task Order: NNL14AB51T.

15. Braslow, Albert L and Knox, Eugene C. Simplified Method for Determination of Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Particles for Boundary Layer Transition at Mach numbers from 0 to 5.

Washington, D.C. : NACA, 1958. Technical Note 4363.

16. Harrison, Neal A, et al. SUGAR Phase IV Final Report - Volume I: Transonic Truss - Braced Wing High - Speed Design Report. 2020. Contract number: NNL16AA04B, Task order: NNL17AA46T.

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Appendix A – Buffet Test Run Matri x

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re MAC Mach Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB Reynolds Number Study for Safety of Flight/Tunnel Cleanliness Check 108 1/26/22 1 PP C139 LE tape on T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 109 1/26/22 1 SLO C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 110 1/26/22 1 SLO C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 111 1/26/22 1 SLO C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 112 1/26/22 1 SLO C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 113 1/26/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 117 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.20 Forward Trip 118 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.20 119 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 120 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 121 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 122 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 4 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 123 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 3 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 124 1/27/22 1 PP C139 T1 - 3 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 128 1/27/22 2 PP C139 LE tape on T1 - 2 to +9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.50 129 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.70 130 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.75 131 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.80 132 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.85 133 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.89 135 1/27/22 2 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.29 0.92 136 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 137 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 LE tape on T1 - 2 to +9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 138 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 Appendix A - 1

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 139 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to +6.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 140 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to +7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 141 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 142 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to +7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 143 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 144 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to +6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 145 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 2 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 146 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 147 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 148 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 149 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 1.5 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 150 1/27/22 3 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 151 1/27/22 3 SLO C139 T1 - 1.5 to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 158 1/27/22 4 PP C139 LE tape on T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.70 159 1/27/22 4 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.75 160 1/27/22 4 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 161 1/27/22 4 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.82 162 1/27/22 4 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 165 1/27/22 5 PP C139 LE tape off T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.70 166 1/27/22 5 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.75 167 1/27/22 5 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 168 1/27/22 5 SLO C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 169 1/27/22 5 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.82 170 1/27/22 5 PP C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 171 1/27/22 5 SLO C139 T1 0. to +5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 174 1/27/22 6 PP C139 LE tape off T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 175 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 176 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 177 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 Appendix A - 2

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 178 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 179 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 181 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 182 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 183 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 184 1/27/22 6 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 188 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 189 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 190 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 191 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 192 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 193 1/27/22 7 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 194 1/27/22 9 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 195 1/27/22 9 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 196 1/27/22 9 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 197 1/27/22 10 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 198 1/27/22 10 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 8.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 199 1/27/22 10 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 200 1/27/22 11 SLO C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 201 1/27/22 11 SLO C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 204 1/28/22 12 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 205 1/28/22 12 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 206 1/28/22 12 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 207 1/28/22 12 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 208 1/28/22 12 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 12.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 217 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 218 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 219 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 Appendix A - 3

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 220 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 221 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 222 1/28/22 12 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 223 1/28/22 13 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 224 1/28/22 13 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 225 1/28/22 13 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 226 1/28/22 13 CPR C139 T1 - 2. to 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 227 1/28/22 13 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.92 228 1/28/22 13 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 229 1/28/22 13 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 230 1/28/22 13 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 231 1/28/22 13 PP C139 T1 - 2. to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 232 1/28/22 13 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.92 Forward Trip, Inboard Aileron +5deg 235 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 + Inbd Ail T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 238 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 239 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 240 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.92 242 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 243 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 244 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.92 245 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 2.0 to 9.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 246 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 247 1/28/22 14 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 248 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 2.0 to 9.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 249 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 250 1/28/22 14 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 256 1/28/22 15 SLO C139 T1 - 2.0 to 9.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 Appendix A - 4

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 257 1/28/22 15 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 258 1/28/22 15 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 259 1/28/22 15 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 260 1/28/22 16 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 261 1/28/22 16 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 262 1/28/22 16 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 263 1/28/22 16 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 264 1/28/22 17 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 265 1/28/22 17 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 266 1/28/22 17 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 267 1/28/22 17 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 Forward Trip, Inboard Aileron 0deg 270 1/28/22 18 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 271 1/28/22 18 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 272 1/28/22 18 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 273 1/28/22 18 CPR C139 T1 +2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 274 1/28/22 19 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 275 1/28/22 19 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 276 1/28/22 20 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 277 1/28/22 20 SLO C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 278 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 279 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 280 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 281 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 282 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 283 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 284 1/28/22 21 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 287 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 Appendix A - 5

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 288 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 289 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 290 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 291 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 292 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.72 293 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 294 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.77 295 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 296 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 297 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 298 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 299 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 300 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 301 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 310 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 311 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 312 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 313 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 314 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 315 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 316 1/30/22 22 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 319 1/30/22 23 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 320 1/30/22 23 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 321 1/30/22 23 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 322 1/30/22 23 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 324 1/30/22 24 Static Tap Test C139 T1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 326 1/31/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 327 1/31/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 10. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 328 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.72 Appendix A - 6

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 329 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.77 330 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 331 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 332 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 333 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 334 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 335 2/1/22 25 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 336 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 337 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 338 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 339 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 340 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 341 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.72 342 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 343 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.77 344 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 345 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 346 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 347 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 348 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 349 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 350 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 351 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 352 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 353 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.92 354 2/1/22 26 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 355 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 356 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 357 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 Appendix A - 7

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 358 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 359 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 360 2/1/22 27 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 Forward Trip, Add missing trip dots on Outboard Strut Upper Surface 363 2/1/22 28 PP C139 add strut trip dots T1 - 2 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 364 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 365 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 366 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 367 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 368 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 369 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 370 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 371 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 372 2/1/22 28 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 373 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 374 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 375 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 376 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 377 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 378 2/1/22 29 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 Forward Trip, Build Up. Removed added Strut US trip dots in juncture 380 2/1/22 30 PP C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 381 2/1/22 30 PP C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 382 2/1/22 30 PP C139 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 383 2/1/22 31 PP C141 - NPFHF T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 384 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 385 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 386 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 Appendix A - 8

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 387 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 388 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.72 389 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 6.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 390 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.77 391 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 392 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 393 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 394 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 397 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 398 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 399 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 400 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 401 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 402 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 403 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 404 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 405 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 406 2/1/22 31 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 407 2/1/22 32 SPP C141 T1 - 2 to 6.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 408 2/1/22 32 SPP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 409 2/1/22 32 SPP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 410 2/1/22 32 SPP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 411 2/1/22 32 SPP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 412 2/1/22 33 CP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 413 2/1/22 33 CP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 414 2/1/22 33 CP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 415 2/1/22 33 CP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 416 2/1/22 33 CP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 417 2/1/22 33 wind off zer o C141 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Appendix A - 9

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 418 2/1/22 33 wind off zer o C141 T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 421 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 422 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 423 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 424 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 425 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.77 426 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 427 2/1/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 428 2/2/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 429 2/2/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 430 2/2/22 33 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 433 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 434 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 435 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 436 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 437 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 438 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 439 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 440 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 441 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 442 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 443 2/2/22 34 PP C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 444 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 445 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 446 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 447 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 448 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 449 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 450 2/2/22 35 CPR C141 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 Appendix A - 10

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 453 2/2/22 36 PP C142 +NP T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 454 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 455 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 456 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 457 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 458 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.72 459 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 460 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.77 461 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 462 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 463 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 464 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 465 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 466 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 467 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 468 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 469 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 470 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 471 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 472 2/2/22 36 PP C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 473 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 474 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 475 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 476 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 477 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 478 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 479 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 480 2/2/22 37 CPR C142 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 485 2/2/22 38 PP C139 +FHF T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 Appendix A - 11

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 486 2/2/22 38 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 487 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 488 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 489 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 490 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 491 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 492 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 493 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 494 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 495 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 496 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 497 2/2/22 38 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.92 498 2/2/22 39 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 499 2/2/22 39 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 500 2/2/22 40 SPP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 501 2/2/22 40 SPP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 Aft Trip Wing 0.40c 504 2/2/22 41 SPP C139 Aft trip 2 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 505 2/2/22 41 SPP C139 T4 - 2 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 506 2/2/22 41 SPP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 512 2/2/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 513 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 514 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 515 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 516 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 517 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 518 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 519 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 Appendix A - 12

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 520 2/3/22 42 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 521 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 522 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 523 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 524 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 525 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 526 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 527 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 528 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 529 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 530 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 531 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 532 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 533 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 534 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 535 2/3/22 43 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 537 2/3/22 43 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 538 2/3/22 43 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 541 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 542 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 543 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 544 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 545 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 546 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 547 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 548 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 549 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 550 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 551 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 Appendix A - 13

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 552 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 553 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 554 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 555 2/3/22 44 PP C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 556 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 558 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 560 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 561 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 562 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 563 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 564 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 565 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 566 2/3/22 45 CPR C139 T4 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 Aft Trip Wing 0.25c 569 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 Aft trip 1 T3 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 572 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 573 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 574 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 575 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 576 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 577 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 578 2/3/22 46 CPR C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 579 2/3/22 47 PP C139 T3 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 580 2/3/22 47 PP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 581 2/3/22 47 PP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 582 2/3/22 47 PP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 583 2/3/22 48 SPP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 584 2/3/22 48 SPP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 Appendix A - 14

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 585 2/3/22 48 SPP C139 T3 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 Aft Trip Wing 0.25c/Mod 588 2/3/22 49 SPP C139 mod aft trip 1 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 589 2/3/22 49 SPP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 592 2/3/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 593 2/3/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 594 2/3/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 595 2/3/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 596 2/3/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 597 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 598 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 599 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 600 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 601 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 602 2/4/22 50 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 603 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 604 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 605 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 606 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 607 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 608 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 609 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 610 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 611 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 612 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 613 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 614 2/4/22 51 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 615 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 Appendix A - 15

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 616 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 617 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 618 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 619 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 620 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 621 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 622 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 623 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 624 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 625 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 626 2/4/22 52 CPR C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 627 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 628 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 629 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 630 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 631 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 632 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 633 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 634 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 635 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 636 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 637 2/4/22 53 PP C139 T3.1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 Aft Trip Wing 0.25c 639 2/4/22 54 PP C139 Aft trip 1 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 640 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 641 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 642 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 643 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 Appendix A - 16

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 644 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 645 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 646 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 647 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 648 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 649 2/4/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 650 2/7/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 651 2/7/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 652 2/7/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 653 2/7/22 54 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 654 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 655 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 656 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 657 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 658 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 659 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 660 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 661 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 662 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 663 2/7/22 55 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 664 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 665 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 666 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 667 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 668 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 669 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 670 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 671 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 672 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 Appendix A - 17

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 673 2/7/22 56 CPR C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 674 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 675 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 676 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 677 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 678 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 679 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 680 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 681 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 682 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 683 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 684 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 685 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 686 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 687 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 688 2/7/22 57 PP C139 T6 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 691 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.70 692 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.75 693 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.78 694 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 695 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.82 696 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 697 2/7/22 58 PP C139 T6 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.89 Return to T1 - Repeatability Series.

700 2/7/22 59 PP C139 Fwd Trip, tape gaps T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 701 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 702 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 703 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 Appendix A - 18

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 704 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 705 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 706 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 707 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 708 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 711 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 712 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 713 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 714 2/7/22 59 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 715 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 716 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 717 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 718 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 719 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 720 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 721 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 722 2/7/22 60 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 723 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 724 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.70 725 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.75 726 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.78 727 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 728 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.82 729 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.83 730 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 731 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.87 732 2/7/22 61 PP C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.89 733 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.87 734 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 Appendix A - 19

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 735 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.83 736 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.83 737 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.85 738 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.87 739 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.82 740 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.80 741 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.78 742 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.75 743 2/7/22 62 CPR C139 T1 0 to 5.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.58 0.70 746 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 747 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 748 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 749 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 750 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 751 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 752 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 753 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 754 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 755 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 756 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 757 2/7/22 63 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 758 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 759 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 760 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 761 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 762 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 763 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 764 2/7/22 64 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 Appendix A - 20

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB Forward Trip, No Trip on Strut (US + LS) 767 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 768 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 769 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 770 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 771 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 772 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 773 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 775 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 776 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 777 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 778 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 779 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 780 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 781 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 782 2/7/22 65 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 792 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 794 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 795 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 796 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 797 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 798 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 799 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 800 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 801 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 802 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 803 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 804 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 805 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 Appendix A - 21

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 806 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 807 2/7/22 67 PP C139 T5 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 Tape Fuselage to Floor, replace strut trips (return to T1) 811 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 812 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 813 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 814 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 815 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 816 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 817 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 818 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 819 2/7/22 68 fixed C139 T1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 821 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 822 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 823 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 824 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 825 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 826 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 827 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 828 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 829 2/7/22 69 fixed C139 T1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 Fwd Trip, Both Aileron s - 5deg 832 2/7/22 70 PP C139 Fwd Trip, Aileron - 5deg T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 833 2/7/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 834 2/7/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 835 2/7/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 836 2/7/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 837 2/7/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 Appendix A - 22

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 838 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 839 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 840 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 841 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 842 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 843 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 844 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 845 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 846 2/8/22 70 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 847 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 848 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 849 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 850 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 851 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 852 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 853 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 854 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 855 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 856 2/8/22 71 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 857 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 858 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 859 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 860 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 861 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 862 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 863 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 864 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 865 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 866 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 Appendix A - 23

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 867 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 868 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 869 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 870 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 871 2/8/22 72 PP C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 874 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 875 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 876 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 877 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 7.5 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 878 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 7 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 879 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 880 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 881 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 882 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 883 2/8/22 73 CPR C139 T1 - 1 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Both Aileron s +5deg 886 2/8/22 74 PP C139 Aileron +5deg T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 887 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 888 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 889 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 890 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 891 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 892 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 893 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 894 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 896 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 897 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 898 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 Appendix A - 24

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 899 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 900 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 901 2/8/22 74 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 902 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 903 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 904 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 905 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 906 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 907 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 908 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 909 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 910 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 911 2/8/22 75 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 912 2/8/22 76 PP C139 PP at 6.3M/ft T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 913 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 914 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 915 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 916 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 917 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 918 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 919 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 920 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 921 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 922 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 923 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 924 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 925 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 926 2/8/22 76 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 928 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 CPR at 6.3M/ft T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 Appendix A - 25

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 929 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 930 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 931 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.25 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 932 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 933 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 934 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 935 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 936 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 937 2/8/22 77 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Aileron s 0deg, Strut Flap - 4deg 940 2/8/22 78 PP C139 Strut Flap - 4 deg T1 - 2 to 8.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 941 2/8/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 942 2/8/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 943 2/8/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 944 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 945 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 946 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 947 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 948 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 949 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 950 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 951 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 952 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 953 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 954 2/9/22 78 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 955 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 CPR at 4.8M/ft T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 956 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 957 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 Appendix A - 26

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 958 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 959 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 960 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 961 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 962 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 963 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 964 2/9/22 79 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 965 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 966 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 967 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 968 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 969 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 970 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 971 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.5 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 972 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 973 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 974 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 975 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 976 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 977 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 978 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 979 2/9/22 80 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 982 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 983 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 984 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.75 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 985 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 986 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 987 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 988 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 Appendix A - 27

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 989 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 990 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 991 2/9/22 81 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Strut Flap - 2deg 994 2/9/22 82 PP C139 Strut Flap - 2 deg T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 995 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 996 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 997 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 998 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 999 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1000 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 1001 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1002 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 1003 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1004 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1005 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1006 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1007 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 1008 2/9/22 82 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1009 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 1010 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1011 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1012 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1013 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 6.7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1014 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1015 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1016 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1017 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 Appendix A - 28

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1018 2/9/22 83 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1019 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1020 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 1021 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1022 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1023 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1024 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1025 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 1026 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1027 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 1028 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1029 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1030 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1031 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 1032 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 1033 2/9/22 84 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1034 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1035 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1036 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1037 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1038 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1039 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1040 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1041 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1042 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1043 2/9/22 85 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Strut Flap +2deg 1046 2/9/22 86 PP C139 Strut Flap +2 deg T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 Appendix A - 29

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1047 2/9/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 1048 2/9/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1049 2/9/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1050 2/9/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1051 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1052 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 1053 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1054 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 1055 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1056 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1057 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1058 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1059 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 1060 2/10/22 86 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1063 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 1064 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1065 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1066 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1067 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1068 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1069 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1070 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1071 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1072 2/10/22 87 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1073 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1074 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 1075 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1076 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1077 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 Appendix A - 30

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1078 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1079 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 1081 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1082 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 1083 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1084 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1085 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1086 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 1087 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 1088 2/10/22 88 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1089 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1090 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1091 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1092 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1093 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1094 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1095 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1096 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1097 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1098 2/10/22 89 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Strut Flap +4deg 1101 2/10/22 90 PP C139 Strut Flap +4 deg T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 1102 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 1103 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1104 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1105 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1106 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1107 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 Appendix A - 31

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1108 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1109 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 1110 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1111 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1112 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1113 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1114 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 1115 2/10/22 90 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1117 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 1118 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1119 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1120 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.25 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1121 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 6.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1122 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 7.25 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1123 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1124 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1125 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1126 2/10/22 91 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1127 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1128 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 1129 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1130 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1131 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1132 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1133 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 1134 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1135 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 1136 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1137 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 Appendix A - 32

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1138 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1139 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 1140 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 1141 2/10/22 92 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1142 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1143 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1144 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 2 to 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1145 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.25 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1146 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.5 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1147 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1148 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1149 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1150 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1151 2/10/22 93 CPR C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 Fwd Trip, Strut Flap - 2deg PP Repeat 1153 2/10/22 94 PP C139 Strut Flap - 2 deg T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.50 1154 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.60 1155 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.65 1156 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.70 1157 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.75 1158 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.78 1159 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.79 1160 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 6.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1161 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.81 1162 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.82 1165 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.83 1166 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.85 1167 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.87 1168 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.89 Appendix A - 33

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1169 2/10/22 94 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.95 0.80 1170 2/10/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1171 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 1172 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1173 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1174 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1175 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.78 1176 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 7.5 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.79 1177 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 1178 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.81 1179 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.82 1180 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.83 1181 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.85 1182 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.87 1183 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.89 1184 2/11/22 95 PP C139 T1 - 1.5 to 8 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 STABILITY & CONTROL SECTION Hysteresis Runs 1187 2/11/22 96 PP C139 strut flap 0deg T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.50 1188 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.60 1189 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.65 1190 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.70 1191 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.72 1193 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.75 1194 2/11/22 96 PP C139 T1 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0.80 S&C Envelope Expansion 1197 2/11/22 97 PP C139 Both Aileron s = - 30 T1 - 2 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1198 2/11/22 97 PP C139 T1 0 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 Appendix A - 34

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1199 2/11/22 97 PP C139 T1 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1200 2/11/22 97 PP C139 T1 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1201 2/11/22 97 PP C139 T1 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1202 2/11/22 97 PP C139 T1 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 Combined Aileron Effectiveness 1205 2/11/22 98 PP C139 Both Aileron s - 30deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1206 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1207 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1208 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1209 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1210 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1211 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1212 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1213 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1214 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1215 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1216 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1217 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1218 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1219 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1220 2/11/22 98 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 - 30 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1222 2/11/22 99 PP C139 Both Aileron s - 10deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1223 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1224 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1225 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1226 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1227 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1228 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 Appendix A - 35

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1229 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1231 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1232 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1233 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1234 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1235 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1236 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1237 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1238 2/11/22 99 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 - 10 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1240 2/11/22 100 PP C139 Both Aileron s - 5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1241 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1242 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1243 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1244 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1245 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1246 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1247 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1248 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1249 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1250 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1251 2/11/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1253 2/14/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1254 2/14/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1255 2/14/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1256 2/14/22 100 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 - 5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1258 2/14/22 101 PP C139 Aileron +5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1259 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1260 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1261 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 Appendix A - 36

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1262 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1263 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1264 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1265 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1266 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1267 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1268 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1269 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1270 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1271 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1272 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1273 2/14/22 101 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +5 +5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1275 2/14/22 102 PP C139 Both Aileron s +10deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1276 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1277 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1278 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1279 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1280 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1281 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1282 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1283 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1284 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1285 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1286 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1287 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1288 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1289 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1290 2/14/22 102 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +10 +10 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1292 2/14/22 103 PP C139 Both Aileron s 0deg T2 - 2 to 16 to - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.20 Appendix A - 37

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1293 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1294 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1295 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1296 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1297 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1298 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1299 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1300 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1301 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1302 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1303 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1304 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1305 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1306 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1307 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1309 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1310 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 16 to - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.20 1311 2/14/22 103 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 16 to - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.20 1312 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1313 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1314 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1315 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1316 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1317 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1318 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1319 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1320 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1321 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1322 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 Appendix A - 38

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1323 2/14/22 104 CPR C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1325 2/14/22 105 PP C139 Both Aileron s +20deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1326 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1327 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 9 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1328 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1329 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1330 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1331 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1332 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1333 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.25 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1334 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1335 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1336 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1337 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1338 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1339 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1340 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1341 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1342 2/14/22 105 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 +20 +20 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1344 2/14/22 106 PP C139 Both Aileron s +30deg T2 - 2 to 8 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1345 2/14/22 106 PP C139 T2 - 2 to 8 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1348 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.75 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1349 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1350 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.25 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1351 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1352 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1353 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 3.5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1354 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1355 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.25 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 Appendix A - 39

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1356 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1357 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.25 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1358 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1359 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.25 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1360 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.25 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1361 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1362 2/15/22 106 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.5 0 +30 +30 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1364 2/15/22 107 PP C139 Both Aileron s - 2.5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1365 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1366 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1367 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1368 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1369 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1370 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1371 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1372 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1373 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1374 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1375 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1376 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1377 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1378 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1379 2/15/22 107 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1380 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 Both Aileron s - 2.5deg T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1381 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1382 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1383 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1384 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1385 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 Appendix A - 40

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1386 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1387 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1388 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1389 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1390 2/15/22 108 CPR C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1392 2/15/22 109 PP C139 Both Aileron s - 40deg T2 1 to 9 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1393 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 9 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1394 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 9 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1395 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 9 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1396 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1397 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1398 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1399 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1400 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 3 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1401 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 2 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1402 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1403 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1404 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1405 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1406 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1407 2/15/22 109 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 7 0 - 40 - 40 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 Combined Spoiler Effectiveness 1409 2/15/22 110 PP C139 All Spoilers - 10deg T2 - 2 to 8.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.50 1410 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.60 1411 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.65 1412 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.70 1413 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.75 1414 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.78 Appendix A - 41

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1415 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.79 1416 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.80 1417 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.81 1418 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.25 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.82 1419 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.83 1420 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.85 1421 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.87 1422 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.89 1423 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.92 1424 2/15/22 110 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 2.16 0.80 1427 2/15/22 111 PP C139 All Spoilers - 30deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.50 1428 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.60 1429 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.65 1430 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.70 1431 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.75 1432 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.78 1433 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.79 1434 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.80 1435 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.81 1436 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.82 1437 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.83 1438 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.85 1439 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0.25 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.87 1440 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0.75 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.89 1441 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0.75 to 8 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.92 1442 2/15/22 111 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 30 - 30 - 30 2.16 0.80 1444 2/15/22 112 PP C139 All Spoilers - 60deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.50 1445 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.60 1446 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 9 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.65 Appendix A - 42

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1447 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8.5 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.70 1448 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.75 1449 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.78 1450 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.79 1451 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.80 1452 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.81 1453 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.82 1454 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 0.75 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.83 1455 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 0.75 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.85 1456 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.87 1457 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 2 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.89 1458 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 2.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.92 1459 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1.5 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.80 1460 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 9 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.65 1461 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8.5 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.70 1462 2/15/22 112 PP C139 T2 1 to 8 0 0 0 - 60 - 60 - 60 2.16 0.75 1465 2/15/22 113 PP C139 All Spoilers - 5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.50 1466 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.60 1467 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.65 1468 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.70 1469 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.75 1470 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.78 1471 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.25 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.79 1472 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.80 1473 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.81 1474 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.82 1475 2/15/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.83 1479 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.85 1480 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.83 Appendix A - 43

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1481 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 4.75 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.87 1482 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.89 1483 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.92 1484 2/16/22 113 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 0 0 - 5 - 5 - 5 2.16 0.80 1486 2/16/22 114 PP C139 All Spoilers 0deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1487 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1488 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1489 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1490 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1491 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1492 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1493 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1494 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1495 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1496 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1497 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1498 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1499 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1500 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1501 2/16/22 114 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 Inboard Aileron Effectiveness 1503 2/16/22 115 PP C139 Inboard Aileron - 40deg T2 0 to 9 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1504 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1505 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1506 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1507 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1508 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1509 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 Appendix A - 44

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1510 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1511 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1512 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1513 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1514 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1515 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1516 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1517 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1518 2/16/22 115 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 40 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1520 2/16/22 116 PP C139 Inboard Aileron - 30deg T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1521 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1522 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1523 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1524 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1525 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1526 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1527 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1528 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1529 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1530 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1531 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1532 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1533 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1534 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1535 2/16/22 116 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1537 2/16/22 117 PP C139 Inboard Aileron +30deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1538 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1539 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1540 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 Appendix A - 45

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1541 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1542 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1543 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.25 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1544 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1545 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1546 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1547 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1548 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1549 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1550 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1551 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1552 2/16/22 117 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 30 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1555 2/16/22 118 PP C139 Inboard Aileron - 5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1556 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1557 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1558 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1559 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1560 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1561 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1562 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1563 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1564 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1565 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1566 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1567 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1568 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1569 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1570 2/16/22 118 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1573 2/17/22 119 PP C139 Inboard Aileron +5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 Appendix A - 46

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1574 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1575 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1576 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1577 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.75 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1578 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1579 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1580 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1581 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1582 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1583 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1584 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1585 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1586 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1587 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1588 2/17/22 119 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1589 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 Inboard Aileron +5deg T2 0 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1590 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1591 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1592 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1593 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1594 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1595 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1596 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1597 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1598 2/17/22 120 CPR C139 T2 0 to 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1600 2/17/22 121 PP C139 Inboard Aileron - 10deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1601 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1602 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1603 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 Appendix A - 47

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1604 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1605 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1606 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1607 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1608 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1609 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1610 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1611 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1612 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1613 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1614 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1615 2/17/22 121 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1617 2/17/22 122 PP C139 Inboard Aileron +10deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1618 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1619 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1620 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1621 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1622 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1623 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1624 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1625 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1626 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1627 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1628 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1629 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1630 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1631 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1632 2/17/22 122 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1634 2/17/22 123 PP C139 Inboard Aileron +20deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 Appendix A - 48

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1635 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1636 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1637 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1638 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1639 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.25 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1640 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 5.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1641 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1642 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1643 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1644 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1645 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1646 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1647 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1648 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1649 2/17/22 123 PP C139 T2 0 to 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1651 2/17/22 124 PP C139 Inboard Aileron - 2.5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1652 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1653 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1654 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1655 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1656 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1657 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1658 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1659 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1660 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1661 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1662 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1663 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1664 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 Appendix A - 49

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1665 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1666 2/17/22 124 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.75 0 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1668 2/17/22 125 PP C139 Inboard Aileron 0deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1669 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1670 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1671 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1672 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1673 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1674 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1675 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1676 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1677 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1678 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1679 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1680 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1681 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1682 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1683 2/17/22 125 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 Miscellaneous Runs 1685 2/17/22 126 PP C139 Spoilers - 2.5deg T2 - 2 to 2.5 0 0 0 - 2.5 - 2.5 - 2.5 2.16 0.50 1687 2/17/22 126 PP C139 All Aileron s 2.5deg T2 - 2 to 9 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.50 1688 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.60 1689 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.65 1690 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 9 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.70 1691 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.75 1692 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.78 1693 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.79 1694 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 Appendix A - 50

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113

Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Ailerons Spoilers Run Run Run Model Transition OB Strut As - run Date Config Alpha Re Mach MAC Number Series Type Change Trip Flap IB OB IB MB OB 1695 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.81 1696 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.82 1697 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.83 1698 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.85 1699 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.87 1700 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 8 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.89 1701 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.92 1702 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1703 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1704 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 1705 2/17/22 126 PP C139 T2 0 to 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.16 0.80 Alpha and Mach set to 1709 2/17/22 127 Pressure Sweep C139 zero T2 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1710 2/17/22 127 Pressure Sweep C139 T2 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1711 2/17/22 127 Pressure Sweep C139 T2 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1712 2/17/22 127 Pressure Sweep C139 T2 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Appendix A - 51

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report

Appendix B – Model Instrumentation Specifications

Figure B - 1 . Kulite Specification Data Sheet .

Appendix B - 1

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure B - 2 . Accelerometer Data Sheet .

Appendix B - 2

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra - Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure B - 3. Strain Gauge Data Sheet 1 .

Appendix B - 3

NASA Contract NNL16AA04B, 80LARC20F0113 Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research Phase V – Buffet Test Report Figure B-4. Strain Gauge Data Sheet 2.

Appendix B-4