Flight-determined stability and control coefficients of the F-111A airplane

NASA TM-72851 FLIGHT-DE'I'RRMINED STABILITY AND CONTROL COEFFICIENTS OF THE F-111A AIRPLANE (IASA-Ttl-72851) FLIGHT-DETERHIRED STABILITY N78-18075 ABD C31TROL COEPPICIEITS OP THE F-l1tA Kenneth W . fliff, Richard E. Maine, and Sandra Thornberry Sieers Dryden Flight Research Center P -0. Box 273 Edwards, California 93523 March 1978 Centw-printed Technical Memorandums are I S s u d lo provide rapid transmillal of technical information from the researcher to the user. As such. thqr are not subjecl to Ute usual NASA review process.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washingtan, D . C . 26546

NASA Technical Memorandum ?2851 FLIGHT-DETERMINED STABILITY AND CONTROL COEFFICIENTS OF THE F-111A AIRPLANE

Kenneth W . Iliff, Richard E . Maine, and Sandra Thornberry Steers

Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, California

N A S A

Scientific and Technical Information Office FLIGHT-DETERMINED STABILITY AND CONTROL COEFFICIENTS OF THE F-111A AIRPLANE Kenneth W . Iliff, Richard E . Maine, and Sandra Thornberry Steers Dryden Flight Research Center INTRODUCTION Because of the continuing interest in flight simulation and handling qualities, reliable estimates of the stability and control derivatives of most types of aircraft are required. In response to these requirements, the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center perfected a technique for determining the stability and control derivatives of aircraft from flight data (ref. 1) and developed a set of FORTRAN computer programs to implement the technique (ref. 2). These programs use a modified maximum likelihood method with a Newton-Balakrishnan algorithm to perform the required minimization.

These computer programs are currently being used at the Dryden Flight Research Center to obtain stability and control derivatives for a wide variety of aircraft.

Among the aircraft being studied is the F-11lA fighter bomber airplane. This report presents the estimates of the derivatives for the F-11 l A airplane determined from flight data by the modified maximum likelihood estimation technique. The F-111A airplane of this report is the baseline vehicle for the transonic aircraft technology (TACT) program. The data are therefore of particular interest for assessing the effect of the TACT modifications on the stability and control characteristics of the baseline vehicle.

The flight data were selected from maneuvers performed in the course of a multiple purpoEe flight test program. A s a result, the entire flight envelope was not studied in the flight test program. In some instances, the incremental effect of a configuration w.ss studied instead of all possible configurations.

SYMBOLS Parenthetical symbols are computer identifiers.

normal acceleration * n rolling-moment coefficient pitching-moment coefficient normal-force coefficient yawing-moment coefficient side-force coefficient CG center of gravity I X roll moment of inertia

Ixz cross product of inertia between roll and yaw axes

IY pitch moment of inertia I Z yaw moment of inertia Mach number M (MACH) roll rate p (PI pitch rate q ( Q ) r (R) yaw rate a (ALPHA) angle of attack angle of sideslip P aileron deflection 6a iDA) blend of aileron and spoiler deflection elevator deflection rudder deflection Su. .cripts: partial derivative with respect to the p (PI , q (Q) , r (R) , a , p , ( D A ) , 6c (DC), indicated quantity 6, (DE). 6, (DR) DESCRIPTION OF AIRPLANE AND INSTRUMENTATION The F-11lA airplane (fig. 1 ) is a two-place (side-by-side), long-range fighter bomber aircraft designed for all-weather super~onic operation at both low and high altitudes. Power is provided by two TF30-P-3 axial flow, dual compressor turbofan engines equipped with afterburners. The wings are equipped with leading edge slots and trailing edge flaps and may be varied in sweep angle between 1 6 O and 71. So (fig. 2 ) . The empennage consists of a fixed vertical stabilizer with rudder for directional control and a horizontal stabilizer (rolling tail) that is moved symme- trically for pitch control and asymmetrically for roll control. At wing-sweep angles of less that 47O, wing spoilers augment roll-control power; at high wing-sweep angles, the spoilers are disengaged. The aircraft has an adaptive gain-scheduled stability augmentation system that was not engaged during these maneuvers. Phys- ical characteristics of the airplane are given in table 1. A more complete description of the aircraft and its control system is given in reference 3.

Airspeed, altitude, and the pertinent stability and control quantities were among the data recorded. Angles of attack and sideslip were measured by vanes on a nose boom. Data were acquired by means of a pulse code modulation (PCM) system.

Standard passive analog filters with break frequencies at 10 hertz were applied to all the data signals. The digital data were recorded at 20 samples per second on magnetic tape and telemetered to a ground station for real-time monitoring and recording. The data were corrected for all known time and phase shifts due to sampling skew and filtering.

TEST PROCEDURE AND FLIGHT CONDITIONS Standard stability and control pulses were performed at wing-sweep angles of 26O, 35O, and 58O. Elevator and rudder pulses were obtained at all wing-sweep angles. Aileron (ro1lir.g tail) pulses were obtained at a wing-sweep angle of 58O; however, at wing-sweep angles of 2 6 O and 35*, the roll-control pulses resulted in combined aileron-spoiler motion, 6 as mentioned previously. The flight conditions c ' analyzed covared a Mach number range of 0.63 to 1.43, an angle of attack range of 2 O io IS0, and an altitude range of 3000 to 11,000 meters. The stability acgmentation system was off for all these maneuvers.

The flight program consisted of 25 flights, of which flights 5 to 8, 16, and 17 contained usable stability and control maneuvers. For correlation with other data, these flight numbers are retained in this report.

The initial data were gathered from flights 5 to 8 in level flight at lg conditions.

To investigate aeroelastic effects, elevated g data were taken during flights 16 and 17. These maneuvers were performed during steady turns, and normal acceleration ranged from 0.9g to 3.8g. It was anticipated that the wing deformation under load would affect the aerodynamic derivatives. No Sc pulses were obtained at the elevated g conditions.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS A modified maximum likelihood estimator program was used to determine a complete set of linear stability and control derivatives from the maneuvers per- formed in flight. The program, sometimes called the Newton-Raphson program, minimizes the difference between the measured aircraft response and the computed aircraft response by adjusting the stability and control derivative values used in calculating the computed response. A Newton-Balakrishnan iterative algorithm was used to perform the minimization. The method can be modified to include a priori information from previous calculations, flight tests, or wind tunnel tests.

This modification is made by including a penalty for adjusting the unknown stability and control derivatives away from the a priori values.

If new information is contained in a flight naneuver , the estimate of the derivative is not affected significantly by the a priori feature. If no new information i s contained in a maneuver, however, the a priori value results. A low a priori weighting was used on these data. A complete description of the computer program used for the deriv- ative extraction and the FORTRAN listings is given in reference 2.

In addition to giving estimates of the derivatives, this method of analysis provides uncertainty levels for each derivative. The uncertainty levels are proportional to the Cram&?-Rao bounds described in reference 1 and are analogous to the standard deviations of the estimated derivatives. The larger the uncertainty level, the more uncertainty there is in the estimated value. The uncertainty levels obtained for a derivative from different maneuvers at the same flight condition can be compared to determine the best estimate. Therefore, the uncertainty levels provide additional information about the validity of the estimate of the derivative.

Since rolling tail and spoiler surfaces move together for wing-sweep angles of 26O and 35O, it is not possible to estimate their effectiveness separately. Thus, an equivalent combined effectiveness was obtained as suggested in reference 4 , by using the spoiler position only. The spoiler signal was used for the equivalent control because the moments produced by the spoiler deflection were larger than the moments produced by the rolling tail. The spoiler position was not measured directly but was computed from the differential tail movements and the known characteristics of the control system. This equivalent combined control is referred to as ac. For a wing-sweep angle of 58O, the rolling tail moves alone and the usual 6 derivatives are obtained.

a RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results are presented in figures summarizing the stability and control coefficients as functions of angle of attack. The data in these figures are corrected to the wind tunnel reference center of gravity. The center of each symbol indicates the maximum likelihood estimate of the coefficient, and the vertical line indicates the uncertainty level of the estimate. Those estimates with smaller uncertainty levels are more reliable estimates and should be considered more strongly in fairing the estimated coefficients. A further explanation of uncertainty levels is given in reference 4. The figures summarizing the coefficients are divided into groups of longitudinal and lateral-directional coefficients and then further divided as a function of increasing wing sweep.

Analysis of Data Obtained at l g Conditions Estimates of the vehicle's stability and control characteristics at l g conditions were obtained from 71 maneuvers performed during flights 5 to 8.

Thirty of these maneuvers were longitudinal. Based on the quality of the fits obtained and the uncertainty levels, 27 (that i s , 90 percent) of the longitudinal maneuvers were

considered acceptable . Similarly , 36 of the 41 lateral-directional maneuvers were

used, which constituted 88-percent utilization. Several of the lateral-directional maneuvers used were analyzed in pairs, obtaining one set of derivatives for each pair of maneuvers as discussed in reference 4 .

Table 2 summarizes the flight conditions, weights, and inertias for all the maneu- vers moth longitudinal and lateral-directional) for flights 5 to 8. The inertias are based on the best available calculated values. The estimated derivative values are presented in table 3 for the longitudinal maneuvers and in table 4 for the lateral- directional maneuvers. A l l these data are referenced to the wind tunnel center of gravity locations. The maneuver numbers used in tables 3 and 4 are defined in table 2.

Longitudinal data. -Figures 3 to 5 summarize the longitudinal stability and control data from flights 5 to 8 for wing-sweep angles of 26O, 35O, and 58O. These data are corrected to the 0.45-chord wind tunnel reference center of gravity. The longitudinal wind tunnel data were obtained from refereme 5.

The flight-determined estimates generally show consistent trends in reasonable agreement with the wind tunnel estimates. C for a wing-sweep angle of 2 6 O is " a the obvious exception. Figure 6 shows C a s a function of Mach number, with "a symbol shape denoting the approximate angle of attack. shows a significant change near Mach 0.85 and then returns to the same value as at the lower Mach numbers. Thus, the apparent scatter in Cm (fig. 3) is due to the particular Mach a breakpoints used (Mach 0 . 7 , 0.8, and 0.9); the estimates from the Mach 0.85 transition regior: were dividei. between the Mach 0.8 and 0.9 breakpoints, giving the appearance of large scatter. If the three flagged data points from the transition region are grouped, there is a well defined trend, on which the fairiligs are based.

Lateral -directional data. -Figures 7 to 9 summarize the lateral-directional stability and control data front flights 5 to 8. The format is the same as for the longitudinal data. The lateral-directional wind tunnel data are the same as those

used in the A i r Forc Flight Test Center's F- 111A simvilator . All the lateral-direc-

tional data are corrected to the 0.305-chord reference center of gravity of the wind tunnel data. Well defined trends were obtained for all the derivatives except Cl .

r The maneuvers analyzed did not contain enough information to accurately estimate C ; thus, the a priori weighting held it close to the a priori values. The wind lr tunnel data were used f ~ r a priori values in this analysis. This is evidenced by the fact that the C l estimates are all very close to the a priori values and have r large uncertainty levels. A more complete discussion of this conclusion is given in reference 4.

The C and Cn estimates were generally smaller in magnitude than the wind Y~ P tunnel estimates for-allwing sweeps. The flight estimates ranged from 40 to 80 per- cent of the wind tunnel values. The C l estimates for a wing-sweep angle of 58O P agree well with the wind tunnel estimates, but those for wing-sweep angles of 2 6 O and 3S0 show some significant differences, particularly a strong Mach effect between Mach 0.8 and 0 - 9 . The two flagged data points in figures 7 and 8 are for a Mach number of 0.82. Nonetheless, they agree quite well with the Mach 0.9 estimates rather than those for Mach 0.8 and below. This indicates a significant and abrupt Mach effect at a Mach number of approximately 0.82. Some of the discrepancies between the flight and wind tunnel estimates of the angle of sideslip derivatives may be attributable to the nonlinearities observed in the wind tunnel data near O0 sideslip.

A s a result of these nonlinearities, the wind tunnel derivative estimates depend on the angle of sideslip increment used.

The flight and wind tunnel estim?tes for C and C agree fairly well, the I D r flight estimates being slightly more negative in some areas. Although the wind tunnel C n estimates are much closer to zero than the flight estimates, all the values P are relatively small.

The flight estimates of C and C were significantly lower in magnitude Y6 "6 r r than the wind tunnel estimates, although C showed reasonable agreement.

I6 r The flight estimates of the roll control derivatives generally agreed well with the wind tunnel estimates.

Analysis of Data Obtained at Elevated g Conditions Estimates of the vehicle stability and control characteristics at elevated g conditions were obtained from data collected from flights 16 and 17. A total of 109 maneuvers were obtained from these flights. Of these, 86 maneuvers were successfully analyzed.

This resulted in 79-perceqt utilization of the maneuvers. This is lower than the 89-percent utilization achieved for the l g maneuvbrs. The reason for the lower utilization is that the elevated g maneuvers were obtained in steady turns, which are more difficult to adequately stabilize than the l g maneuvers.

Table 5 summarizes the flight conditions, weights, and inertias for all the flight 16 and 17 maneuvers. The inertias are based on the best available calculated values.

The estimated derivative values are presented in table 6 for the longitudinal maneuvers and in table 7 for the lateral-directional maneuvers. All these data are referenced to the wind tunnel center of gravity locations. The maneuver numbers used in tables 6 and 7 are defined in table 5.

Figures 10 to 15 summarize the stability and control data obtained from flights 16 and 17. The ?.g points from flights 5 to 8 are repeated on these figures for compar- ison. The data are presented in a manner similar to that used for the data from flights 5 to 8, but the shape of the symbol indicates the g level at which the maneuver was obtained, and the fairing is from the data for flights 5 to 8. Deviation from this fairing may indicate aeroelastic effects.

Longitudinal data. -Figures 10 to 12 summarize the results of the longitudinal stability and control analysis, corrected to the 0.450 cnord, obtained from flights 16 and 17. Where the data obtained from flights 16 and 17 overlap the data from flights 5 to 8, no discrepancies are evident. In some instances, the trend established by the l g data (which were only available at lower angles of attack) changes at the high angle of attack where data were obtained only at elevated g conditions. No effect is evident that can be attributed conclusively to aeroelasticity .

Lateral-directional data. -Figures 13 to 15 summarize the results of the lateral- directional stability and control analysis, corrected to the 0.305 chord, obtained from flights 16 and 17. - ~ t a wing-sweep angle of 2 6 O and high angles of attack, C , C ,

lo b

and Cn were somewhat closer to zero than an extrapolation of the l g fairing would D indicate. At wing-sweep angles of 3S0 and 58O and high angles of attack, C n remains P more negative than the l g data would indicate. The values of C l and C are not

r " r

well determined in the analysis of the elevated g data, as is indicated by the large uncertainty levels obtained and the small deviation from the extrapolated l g data.

A s mentioned previously, little information was available in the l g flight data for

C l . Since the aircraft was in a banked attitude at a high angle of attack for the

r elevated g maneuvers, it is not surprising that little information was obtained from

these maneuvers for Cn or C l . There i s no conclusive indication that aeroelasticity

r r has a marked effect on the lateral-directional stability and control characteristics.

In extracting stability and control coefficients from flight data, it is sometimes apparent that different values are indicated for the same coefficient at the same flight condition. The uncertainty levels and the quality of the fits can be used to substan- tiate the differences. The phenomenon is usually difficult to show conclusively, because the time history is a complex, simultaneous interaction of many of the coeffi- cients. However, the phenomenon is illustrated by the estimates obtained for C r at a wing-sweep angle of 3S0. Figcre 16, which is repeated from figure 14(e), shows the data points for maneuvers 7 ! and 75, which were performed within 50 seconds of each other at essentially the same flight condition. The value of C '6 r from maneuver 75 is several times greater than the value of C from maneuver 74.

I 6 r This difference is shown convincingly i ? figures 17 and 18. Figure 17 is a time history of maneuver 74, and figure 18 is a time history of maneuver 75. The signif-

icant parameters are the rudder input, 6,, and the roll response, p . A s shown in

the figures, the rudder pulse for maneuver 75 is somewhat stronger than that for maneuver 74. The two pulses have roughly the same amplitude, but the pulse for maneuver 75 occurs over a longer time period. Very little, if any, immediate roll response to the pulse is apparent for maneuver 74, while a significant immediate roll motion results from the rudder pulse for maneuver 75. A s wo'ald be expected, the value of C for maneuver 74 is smaller than that for maneuver 75. The variation '6 r in the aircraft's response to two similar pulses is probably due to some effect that has not been accounted for.

CONCLUDlNG REMARKS A complete set of linear stability and control derivatives of the F-1llA airplane was determined with a modified maximum likelihood estimator. The derivatives were determined at wing-sweep angles of 26O, 35O, and 5 8 O . The flight conditions included a Mach number range of 0.63 to 1.43 and an angle of attack range of 2 O to 15O. Maneuvers ware performed at normal accelerations from 0.9g to 3.8g during steady turns to assess the aeroelastic effects on the stability and control character- istics.

The derivatives generally showed consistent trends and reasonable agreement with the wind tunnel estimates. Significant Mach effects were observed for Mach numbers as low as 0.82, particularly for static longitudinal stability. At high angles of attack, rolling moment due to rudder deflection showed two signiiicantly different values at the same flight condition. This is presumably due to some effect that was not accounted for. N o large effects attributable to aeroelasticity were noted.

Dryden Flight Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Edwards, Calif. , August 18, 1977 REFERENCES

Iliff, Kenneth W . ; and Taylor, Lawrence W . , Jr .: Determination of Stability

1.

Derivatives From Flight Data Using a Newton-Raphson Minimization Technique.

NASA TN D-6579, 1972.

Maine, Richard E . ; and Iliff , Kenneth W . : A FORTRAN Program for Determining

2 .

Aircraft Stability and Control Derivatives Fram Flight Data. NASA TN D-7831, 1975.

3. Sisk, Thon~as R . ; Matheny , Neil W .; Kier , David A. ; and Manke, John A .: A

A Preliminary Flying-Qualities Evaluation of a Variable-Sweep Fighter-Type Aircraft. NASA T M X- 1583, 1968.

4. Iliff, Kenneth W . ; and Maine, Richard E .: Practical Aspects of Using a Maximum

Likelihood Estimator. Methods for Aircraft State and Parameter Identification, AGARD-CP-172, May 1975, pp. 16-1-16-15.

5 . Final Preliminary Stability and Control Aerodynamic Data for the F-111A Airplane.

FZM-12-4198, General Dynamics Corp. , Fort Worth Div . , Oct . 1, 1985.

TABLE 1 .-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF F-! 1IA AIRPLI . YE Wing-

. . NACA6(1A2lu.7(modified)*

Airfoil section . &: pivot .

. . NACA 64A2G9.8 (modified)*

Airfoil section. tip . .

. 16 to 71.5

Sweep. deg (leadinp edge) 1 . . . . . .

incidence . deg . .

1 . . . . . .

Dihedral . deg . .

. . . . . . 18.1

Reference span . m . .

Reference area . m . . . . . . . . 48.8

2.76 Reference chord. m . . . . . . . .

Leading-edge slats-

. . . . Area (planform projected) m

Span . percent of exposed wing-panel span

Deflection. maximum. deg . . . .

Trailing-edge l a p s .

Multisection Fowler . . .

Type . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . Area (aft of hinge line) m

Span . percent of exposed wing-pane! span

Deflection.maximum.deg . . . .

Spoilers-

. . . Area (planform projected). m

. Span m . . . . . . . .

. . . . . Deflection. maximum deg

Wing pivot- Distance from airplane nose. m . . .

Distance from airplane centerline. m . .

Horizontal tail (all movable)-

Airfoil section . . . . . . . . Biconvex

Incidence. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.1 . . . . . . . Dihedral . deg . . . . . .

5 7 . 5 . . . . . . . . .

Swccp ;at leitding cdgc. deg 9 . : I Spun . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area (exposed) . m . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.74

13.92 Arca (movable). m . . . . . . . . . . .

1.54 Asprct rntio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$Iran acrodynnmic chord (exposed). cm . . . . . . . 349.3

A s clcvetors: Tritiling edge up Trailing edge down A s i~ilc.rons (total) Surfac.e stops: 'I'ririling cdgc up 'I'railing cdge down *I'nsw ~ p t wing .

TABLE 1. -Concluded Vertical tail-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Airfoil section Riconvex

Sweep at leading edge. deg . . . . . . . . . . 5 5

Span. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 7 1

Area, m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.09

Aspect ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . ; 2

Mean aerodynamic chord, cm . . . . . . . . . 40C. 6

Rudder - Span. m . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arca. m . . . . . . . . . . 1)eflcction. m~ximum, deg Area. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 3 9 1)eflection. maximun, deg 7 7 . . . . . . . . . .

Ventrals- Arca (total). m Power plants- '1'1'30- 1 - 3 engines TABLE 2 .-FLY?" STATISTICS FOR FLIGHTS 5 TO 8 (a) Maneuver type. wing-sweep angle. Mach number, angle o P attack, and center d gravity. SWEEP, deg; ALPHA. deg; CG , fiaction of reference chord.

,--. -.---..--.----.--.-....o..-.o-------t

t t : t t t t t t#O. t F L T t TVPE tSWEEPt NACHt ALPHA: CG t t t t t t t I ?

t t t t 1 31 5 t A I L E r n r 4 t

t : RUOOER f

t 1 i s i 5 t ~ c ~ v a r o ~ i t t t t t 5 1 5 t 9 ~ ~ S ~ i t 1 1 1 t .--- t a t : I t t 26.01 . t l O L 8.001 r 31 b tELEVATOQI t t t t t t : t 9 1 6 1ELEVATORt 35.91 . 7 0 0 t l 0 . 0 0 t t I t t t t I t 1 0 1 6 tPILEROM t 3 5 . 0 1 . T i 0 1 9.501 r 1 SUDL~E? 1 t 8 : t t t t t t t 35.01 .700tlO.OOt t l l t 6 tELEV4TORt E X t X I t X i i s : 7 I E L F W A T ~ R : t t l t t t I : 1 9 8 7 IELC:'!IT'IQI t t : I 1 2 2 1 7 lELEVAT7P1 t t t t - - - I I I I I I t : 29: 7 I F L E V I T n R t 5 8 . 0 1 1 . 4 3 0 t 4.501 1 1 1 t t t I t 301 7 t RUODEP I 5 9 . 0 t l . 4 3 0 t 4.258 I l l I I t l t - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 2. --Continued (b) Mass characteristics, dynamic pressure, and velocity

: .--...-. ---..-.----.---.~------.--.-.----.-- 9

a : a I t t t t a (NO.: i 8 IY t I 2 t I X ? 8 WFfGHT t O Y N A M I C t V E L O C I T V I t t I t t : t PRE SSURE: t I t t : t t t t t

t t 2 , 2 1 2: 2 * 8 2 S 8

8 *SLUG-FT ISLUG-FT ;SLUG-FT :SLUG-FT t POUNOS 8 L R / F f t FT/SEC t t : : I 9 t 1 t :

) -0 --.----.-----------.---..-.--.-.-----.- *

t t : 1 : t I : : : 1: 8 370000. t t r 6 7 6 0 0 . r 315.0 t 938.0 t 8 2 : 8 3 5 1 0 0 0 . t t t 6 3 1 0 0 . t 307.0 I 8 9 9 0 0 8 I 38 6 8 5 0 0 . t r 6 O t 0 0 0 . t 3 2 t O . C t 6 2 5 0 0 . I 302.0 ! 9 0 0 . 0 t I 41 8 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 * t 5 9 8 0 6 . t 299.0 I 892.0 t S t 62500.8 r 393000. r SC70.O t 5 9 8 0 0 0 t 292.0 t 886.3 t t C I 1 427040.8 t t 7 5 3 0 0 0 1 1 7 8 . 0 082.0 1 t 78 69900.: 1 478000. t ~ 4 9 0 . 6 r 7 5 1 0 0 . t 18b.0 t 696.9 t t P I 8 427OOOo 1 t t 7503C. t 1R3.0 t 696.0 1 t a t t 431000 0 1 t 8 7 4 4 0 6 0 t 190.0 8 586.0 t 8 108 64700mt 1 4 6 9 0 0 0 . * 523O.G 8 738CO. t 1 8 8 . 0 8 696.0 t 11s 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 . l I t 7 3 7 0 0 . 1 1 0 6 . 0 t 692.0 t 1 2 1 46400. t 1 381000. t 6770.0 t 5RbO0. 1 599.C t 1 2 1 6 0 0 t I 13: t 3 ~ z o o o . r I t 3 6 0 0 0 . t 1 1 1 9 . ~ t 1267.0 r t 148 464aO.t I 377C03.1 721O.C t 5 6 6 0 9 . 8 l 1 1 9 . C 1 1265.0 t t 15; t 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 t t t 7359C. t ?W.C 2 800.5 1 1 1 b t 6 9 3 0 0 . t t 456CJJ. t 5750.C 8 7 3 0 0 0 . t 14E.0 1 804.0 1 1 1 7 % 6 b 6 0 0 . t : 433CO3. t 5630.6 t 7190G. t t 3 6 . t : 784.0 t 8 1 P t 6C6CC.t 1 453COJ. 1 -63D.C 8 7170C. t 248.0 t 804.0 t 1 1 Q I 3 7 9 4 0 0 0 . t t 1 694OC. : 235.C 1 883.0 8 t 2 4 7 9 0 0 . 1 1 4 2 9 0 0 0 . t 5300.C t 6 Q 0 0 0 . t ? i b . C ! 867.0 1 t 21: 4 7 5 o t . t t 4 2 ~ ~ ~ 3 . r 53oo.c r 6 ~ 8 0 0 . 1 7 0 9 . 6 t 853.a : 1 251 1 379503 t t 1 6 7 1 0 0 . 1 311.G t 860.3 t r 2 3 . 47flDO.t t 415C00. 1 5220.C 2 6 7 4 0 3 . : 317.0 t 871.0 t t 7 4 1 1 3 6 2 0 0 0 . t t 1 6 7 0 0 0 . 1 T03.G t 850.0 : 2 5 t 2 T k t 3 0 0 1 t 6 6 5 0 0 . t 2oa.5 8 85G.J t t 2 F t 5A5000 t t 414C00.t ZQ0U.C t 6 6 3 6 0 . 1 305.C 1 963.0 8 t 2 7 : t 751300.1 I t 6 0 3 0 0 . t b15.0 I 1 1 9 1 . 0 8 1 2 9 1 4 7 1 0 0 . 1 8 3 8 6 0 9 0 . t 5700oC t 6 0 0 0 0 . t 428.0 t 1207oO I Z ?q! 2 342000.t I t 5 7 1 0 0 . -1 556.G : 1 3 8 5 . 0 : 1 T C I 46300. t 8 378000.8 7C60.0 8 5 6 9 0 C - , t 552.C t 1 3 7 8 . 0 t : t t I 1 a I : t t------------------------------------------*---------.---------.---; TABLE 2 . -Concluded (b) Concluded ;------------------------------------------------------- t t t t t t t t tPJ0.t I X t I Y t I f t 1 x 2 t WEIGHT t O Y Y I H I C t V E L O C I T V t I 8 : t t t PRESSURE I t t t t t I t t t r t t 2 t 2 1 2 : 2 : t 2 8 t t t SLUG-FT !SLUG-FT !SLUG-Fl (SLUG-FT 8 POUNOS t L B I F T t FT/SEC 8 8 t t t t 8 t t t ;---------------------------------------------------------- t t t t r t t t t t 318 69000mt t 4 9 5 0 0 0 . t 3980.0 t 6 6 3 0 0 . t 301.0 t 810.0 t t 3 ? t t 351000.t t 8 6 6 1 0 0 . 8 296.5 8 800.0 8 t 333 63500. r t 421003. t 4430.0 t 6 5 6 0 0 . 3 306.0 t 81...0 8 I 31: t ~ 6 6 o o o . r t t 6 5 7 0 0 . t 305.0 r 8 1 3 . 0 8 1 358 68500.8 r 415000.8 3680.0 t 6 5 2 0 0 . 1 789.0 t 713.0 t t 36; 35R000.t t t 6 5 2 0 9 . 8 '96.0 t 722.3 1 t 3 7 1 6 3 7 0 0 . t 1 412000.2 4040.6 t 6 4 8 0 0 . t 304.0 1 726.0 t 1 388 8 3 4 2 0 0 0 . I t t 6 6 7 0 0 . 1 436.0 t 869.0 1 2 3 s : 67300.: r 465ooo.t 4 3 4 0 . 0 8 6 c i o o . t 305.0 725.0 :

1 40: 1 353OSC.t t 8 5 0 9 0 0 . 1 455.0 * 925.0

r 411 62500.: I 3 ~ 9 5 o o . t 5770.0 I 5 8 0 0 ~ . t 6 3 0 . 0 929.0 : 1 428 4 6 4 0 0 . 1 1 432500.r 7260.0 5 6 6 0 0 . 665.C 1 919.0 1 t 431 : 333006 t I t 5 6 5 0 0 . t 474.C t 919.3 2 t 4 4 1 5 7 0 0 0 . t 8 39L000.t 6565.C 8 5 6 0 0 0 . S99.C t A4600 2 4 5 1 t 724900 t t 5 5 8 0 0 . t 501.0 858.0 2 t bEil iZ4OC.t 7 8 3 F 0 9 , t 5B5G.C 1 5550C. 8 493.C ( 840.0 8 t 47: 2 3 3 3 0 0 2 . t I t 5 5 3 0 0 . r 5 1 1 . 0 2 853.0 2 t 1 8 ; 42540.1 1 3 6 1 5 0 0 . t 9540.0 t 5 4 9 0 0 . t ~ 9 7 . ~ t 758.0 1 t 492 2 735ooo.t I t 5 4 8 0 6 . t s 9 0 . r 8 755.0 t t 5 0 1 6 5 5 0 0 . 1 1 357600.r 4650.6 t 5 4 6 0 ~ . 1 491.0 t 745.0 6 1 5 1 1 t 3 3 5 0 0 0 . 1 t t 5 4 3 0 0 . 1 4 9 9 . 0 1 758.0 t I 5 2 8 574OD.t t 386000. 6250.5 t 56C00. t 472.C t 742.0 r t 53: : 329000.2 t 1 5 3 8 0 0 . b 8 6 . 0 2 7C8.0 1 5 4 1 4 5 7 0 C . l t 77lCOO.r 8110.6 t 5 3 3 0 6 . 1 830.0 1 9 8 7 . 7 1 : 558 t 3 t 7 0 0 0 . : t 8 53C00. 1 820.0 t 984.0 1 I 1 t I r t t 1 I

; ------ ------------------------------------------------------------ 8

TABLE 3 . -LONGITUDINAL DERIVATIVES FOR FLIGHTS 5 TO 8 [All derivatives are per degree, except CMB , which is per radian] t t t t t t 3 t N 3 . t C N , t C M , 1 CM

t t t t Q i C N OE 2 DE t

t t t I t t t ORIGI~~AL PAGE

op POOR Q O U ~ ~

TABLE 4 .-LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVES FOR FLIGHTS 5 TO 8 [ A l l deriv:rtives arc per d e g r e e , except CLp , C L R . CN; , and CN; , which are per radian] (a) Combined lateral controls * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - . - - - - - -.-.--..--.---.-...--..-...: TABLE 4 . -Concluded (b) Aileron controls i-----------------------------------------------.-------------------...-.-------------*------.o: TABLE 5 .-FLIGHT STATISTICS FOR FLIGHTS 16 AND 17 YIach number, angle of attack, center (a) Maneuver type, wing-sweep angle, ude. SWEEP. deg; ALPHA, Beg; CG , of gravity, normal acceleration, and alti fraction of reference chord; NORMAL AC 2 . . g; ALT, ft.

. - r - r - - - - r r - o - - o - r r - - r o - - . x

1 : : 8 t t 4 1 1 6 t E L E V A T O R t 3 5 - 0 8 .7OO t t t t ! b i t 6 ~ E L E V ~ T O R ~ 35.0: . 7 C G t t t t t 7116 t E L = V 4 T O R t 3 5 0 6 % a 7 0 0 t t t t t 1 A t 1 6 t F L ' V b T O R 8 2 6 e C t . 7 C O 1 8 1 : t t 9 t 1 6 ¶ E L F V A T O R 8 3 5 - 0 3 a 7 0 0 1 1 ) t t t l i t 1 6 ¶ E L E V A T O R ¶ 3 5 - 0 8 . 7 2 0 t t l I 1 L i t 1 6 ! E L ' V f i T O R t I t . : 1 1 2 8 1 6 t E L C V A T O R : I t 8 t t 1 7 1 1 6 * E L L V A T O R : 1 1 1 t 1 1 + t 1 6 t S L r V P T O R 1 s t 3 I t l V 1 6 I F L C V f i T C R t t t t t t 16tlb t C L 3 V A T O R : t 1 : .

1 : : t t Z l t l i : E L r V t T O R l 5 3 . 0 1 : : t t 3 7 1 1 6 I ' L I V f i T O R I 26.C 1 1 1 I I ? 3 : l r , : F L L c V A T 3 P : 7b.C t t ' I 8 2 4 1 1 c ~ ~ L ' V A T O R ~ 5 3 . 3 $ 8 1 t t Z S t l b I TL: V l T O H : 4 A . C 1 1 1 I t ? c t 1 6 : < L r V I T O Q t 5 9 . 0 I l l t ! ? t i 1 7 t E L f V 4 T O R t 2 h . 0 t l t 1 t Z f i t l ? t i L ~ V A T O R 1 35.0 1 1 : t 8 7 9 I 1 7 r E L E V ? T O R ! 26.C 1 : t : t 3 ' 1 1 7 t E L Z V f i T O R t 2c.C t t l t TABLE 5 . -Continued (a) Continued ! t t t t t t I N O R M A L S t t N O . t F L T t T Y P E ; S W E F P t H B C H t P L P H A t C G I A C C . t ALT r t t 1 t t t t I t t 1 : : I r 3 1 t i ? t C L E V A T O Q t t t t t t 3 2 8 1 7 t E C F V A T 9 O t I : : : r 3 3 8 1 7 t = L T V A T O n r 1 s t t t 3 4 1 1 7 t E L E V A T O R t t l t t 1 3 5 8 1 7 t F L k V A T 0 Q t 1 : s t t 3 c t 1 7 I E L ' V A T O R t t : : t 1 3 7 1 1 7 t f L c V A T O Q t : : : TABLE 5 . -Continued (a) Concluded t a t t t t r t NORMAL t t 1NO.IFLTt TVPE !SWEEP1 HACHgALPHAt CC 8 ACC. t b L T r a t : : I t r t t I t t 4 8 I 1 t t 1 1 t 6 l t 1 6 t RUDDER 1 59.Gt 0920: 6.801 . b G b t 2.4 t 31738 t t t t t 1 t t 1 1 t 6 2 1 1 6 1 RUQOEB t 58.01 .9201 L.1CI . 4 J 9 t 1.5 t 33ERt : s t t t 1 t t 1 t t 6 3 8 1 6 8 RUOnEH t 2 6 - 0 1 .8eOt 3.908 03588 1.1 t 9 k 9 9 t t t t : 1 : 1 t t 1 t 6 u t 1 6 t RUODEP ? 26.C: e6dCt 4.001 o37b8 1 . G 1 9 4 3 9 1 I t 1 I 1 t t t 1 I t 6 5 1 1 6 t AILERON8 5 8 - 0 8 .a901 6.301 . k g 5 1 l . 1 t 9 3 e k t s t : t t t t t 1 t 1 6 i t 1 6 r AILEROI:: 58.08 - 8 6 3 1 9.501 . 4 9 9 1 1.5 t 9 4 4 4 : 1 8 t t 1 1 1 8 t t t 6 7 8 1 6 1 QUDOE9 1 5 8 e C t o8bO8 9.961 .5301 1.5 : 9 k h 4 t ( $ 8 1 1 1 t t 1 t 1 6 R t 1 6 t QUODER 1 5P.01 .870111.501 oSG6t 2.0 1 9 2 k E t t t t t t 1 t 1 t t S 63S16 S 4ILFRONl 58.01 .850112.04t - 5 5 5 1 2.2 t 9 C 3 3 t t t t 1 : 1 : 1 1 t 1 7 , 1 1 7 I RUOOEP t ?'?.fit . ? l o t 4.961 03181 1 . C t 7173: t : t t 1 1 1 t t t 71817 r PUDDEF t 3 5 . ~ 1 .riot 6 . ~ 3 : .?IT: 1.: t 7 2 4 3 : 1 8 a t t 1 t t t : 1 7 E I 1 7 t RlJOflER : 76.Cl e710112.351 s 3 0 6 t 1.9 1 €95:I: ' 1 1 t t 1 t t : ' .3li6; ; 7 3 1 1 7 t Q t l r J 0 E Q t ?be(!: -730111.17; 2.1 1 L . k r 3 s : 3 : : 1 t 1 t t t ! 7 4 8 1 7 t RUOnEP t 13.Cl . f f 3 1 l k . 2 0 1 .3191 1.9 1 7719: 1 : t t I t t 1 : ; 7 5 1 1 7 1 ?lJnncP 1 3q.c: . 7 i ( l l 3 . 9 0 : ,323; 1.6 t 7777: t t : t 1 t 1 1 : t 7 5 1 1 7 t 5'J!J3EP f 53.61 .9201 . r . 0 5 : - 3 6 1 % .f : 712': t t t t 1 t 1 t : 7 7 1 1 7 1 PUODEfJ ; 5 e . L : . 9 ~ 2 t 9.601 .3561 2.1 r 7:3'1 I t : t t 1 t 8 7 9 1 1 7 1 DUO?C" 5Sb.c; . 9 3 0 t 1 1 . 3 2 1 . 3 6 3 t 2.7 : 7 1 9 5 1 3 : : t 1 1 1 : 1 7 9 1 1 7 t P ~ J O D E P t ? ~ . C I . f l 9 C ~ 5 . 5 0 ; . 3 2 7 ~ l . € . * s j > 5 G : t l l t : 1 I 1 : t 1 4,117 t ?\17q'Q t LF.Zt .7151 7.311 .3541 1 . 0 I L C L C L ?

1 : : 1 1 1 t t : t 1 4 1 ~ 1 7 1 R4JO13fQ t 3 5 . c : . 7 t 3 r 7.661 .J~I: 1 . c : i c ~ s i t 1 8 . I t I t t t 1 4 ) t 1 7 ; S O Q O F Q : 34.61 .7Z311+.00t . 3 5 7 t 1.5 t l c ~ ? ~ ; 1 ; : 1 1 1 1 t : 1 9 . ~ 1 1 7 z 9 u q t - t ~ ~ t S I ( . Z : . q ~ q : F , . ~ o : ,3968 1.2 r : c ? s ~ : 8 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 : r H a t 1 7 t Q ' J D S E G t 5 9 . 5 1 .~ZJ:II.BR~ .391~: 1.7 t i c 3 3 t 1 1 : t 1 t 1 t t t 1 R j t t 7 1 P U P f I = R t 58.6: .d9!l114.25: . b . . l t 1.9 t l C ? c h : : t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t r Y 6 ~ t 1 7 t RUOn'O t 5 Y . i l . 9 ? C l l ~ . l f t . u 2 4 t 2.C t1L5a.': : : : : t t 1 1 t t :-------------------------------.---

ORIGINAL PAGE is

OF POOR aUALrfl

2 1 TABLE 5 . -Continued (b) Mass characteristics, dynamic pressure, and velocity

; ------..-- ---. ------- --.-- -----...------..-------.---- 8

t t 8 t t t t t I tNO.1 I X t 1 ' t 1 2 t 1 x 2 t EIGHT tOVNAHIC tVELOCITYt t 1 1 t t t tPRE5SURE 1 t I t t : t t t t t t 2 r 2: 2 t 2 8 t 2 : I t ;SLUG-FT ISLUC-FT #SLUG-FT *SLUG-FT I POUNDS 8 L W F T t F T I S E C t t 1 t t 1 t 1 t t

(..,--,---.-----,---.-.---.-------.--...--

t t t I t t t t s 8 1 8 t 4 4 3 8 5 1 . * t t 7 8 2 3 7 . 8 49C.8 t 7 5 4 . 1 t 8 2 1 t 443694. 1 t 1 7 8 0 1 3 . 1 488.6 t 750.6 8 t 3 1 8 4 4 3 3 4 9 . t t t 7 7 5 6 3 . t 4 9 9 . 7 8 7 4 7 0 5 t 8 4 1 1 443528.: 1 t 7 6 9 8 8 . t 5 0 6 . 0 t 763.9 r 5 1 t 441680. 1 t t 7 6 6 6 4 . t 498.7 1 7 5 4 . 1 t t 68 8 439831. t 1 t 7 6 4 3 9 . t 4 9 1 . 6 t 744.3 t t 7 , 1 439831.8 t 1 7 6 6 3 9 . t 491.b t 744.3 8 t 8 1 t 4 2 6 0 8 8 . t 1 1 7 5 0 9 5 . 1 4 8 9 . 3 8 747.5 1 1 9t t 4 1 5779.8 t 1 7 3 5 1 6 .

1 5 1 7 . 5 8 763.9 t t 108 1 4 1 2 1 0 2 . 1 t 1 7 3 0 6 6 . 1 5 3 4 . 8 1 770.5 1 1 11: 1 4 1 0 2 5 3 . t t 1 7 2 8 4 2 . t 470.5 8 7 3 1 . 1 8 t 1 2 1 1 4 0 4 7 0 7 . : t r 7 2 1 6 7 . r 4 4 9 . 6 1 704.9 1 1 3 9 7 7 6 5 . ) 1 1 3 1 t 1 7 1 0 4 3 . ( 5 3 8 . 4 t 7 9 0 . 2 t 1 1 4 1 1 3 9 1 0 8 3 . 1 I 1 6 8 5 7 0 . 1 950.C 1 986.9 t 1 I F ; % t 3 8 9 8 1 3 . 1 t 1 6 8 3 4 5 . 1 973.0 1 1000.0 8 1 1 6 1 1 3 7 7 1 1 1 a l t t 6 6 0 9 7 . t R31.2 t 970.5 1 t 1 7 t 1 36'5516. t t t 6 5 6 4 7 . t 5 2 3 . 4 1 7 7 3 . 9 1 1 1 9 % 1 3 6 5 2 2 1 . t I t 6 5 1 9 8 .

t 5 1 8 . 6 1 767.2 t t 1 9 : r 3 4 6 6 6 0 . 1 t c 61601.

1 e s 5 . i r 7 4 4 . 1 I 1 2 0 1 1 344792.1 t 1 6 0 9 2 6 . t 46A.4 1 736.C 1 1 z i t t 3 4 9 8 5 9 . 1 t t 5 9 5 7 7 . 1 965.7 t 9 9 i . 2 t : 2 2 1 1 1 3 7 8 3 7 . 1 t 1 5 8 4 5 3 . 1 322.C 1 865.5 S 1 2 3 ; 1 337097.1 t 1 5 8 4 5 3 . 1 3 2 4 . 1 8 859.9 t : 2 4 1 1 3 3 9 9 3 5 . 1 I t 5 5 3 0 6 .

f 340.0 1 P 8 2 . J 1 1 2 5 t 1 339451. 1 t 1 5 5 0 8 1 s t 337.1 t 8 7 2 . 1 t : 2 6 : 1 3 3 0 4 9 2 0 1 I 1 5 4 6 3 1 . 1 3 1 1 . 6 1 8 5 2 . 5 1 1 27: 1 430995. t t 1 7 5 6 9 7 . t 3JC.3 1 7 2 9 . 5 t 1 PA1 1 4 3 3 7 3 0 . 1 1 8 7 5 6 9 7 . 1 309.7 1 7 3 5 . 1 1 t 298 t 4 1 2 6 4 0 . 1 1 1 7 3 4 2 6 . 8 307.G t 740.3 1 r 3 ~ t t ~ 1 2 6 4 0 . : 1 r 7 3 4 2 6 . t 3 0 7 . 0 r 1 4 0 . 3 1 1 1 1 t 1 t t 8 :---------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 5 . -Concluded (b) Concluded : - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ " ~ . . o ~ o ~ . . ~ . ~ o o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - . - . - - . - ; : : t : t I : t : tYO.1 1% ? I V t 1 2 1 1 x 2 t WEIGHT 1OVNIHIC lVELOCITVt 8 : 1 8 t 8 tPRESSURE8 8 8 t t : 1 t : 1 t : I 2 : 2: 2: 2 1 I 2 : t (SLUG-FT :SLUG-Ft tSLUG-Fl :SLUG-FT 8 POUNDS t L9/FT F T I S E C 1 : I t : t t t t t (.oo---...-o--o-.---------~-----~----------.---------...--.--; I t : t : : t t t 6 1 1 46630m; 1 385229.8 5854.1 t CQO27. 1 938.5 1 9RCm3 1 62: C6593ms 1 385660.8 5983.0 1 5 - 02. 8 836.4 8 986.3 8 t 63: 67694. 1 t 392650. t 57R3.6 8 5Bc'8. t 319.9 1 868.9 1 8 648 67634.1 8 39137s. t 5928.8 t 57554. t 319.5 t 859.0 t t 658 46368mt 1 372132. t 7723.5 t 54182. 1 333.6 1 875.4 1 t 66: 46368.1 t 372132m8 7723.5 8 54182. 1 314.9 1 852.5 t 8 679 46368.1 t 371698. t 7773.9 r 53957. 1 304.2 t 84?.6 t 1 681 46368.1 t 371244. t 7P24m3 8 53732. t 328.7 859.0 8 t 6 4 1 46368.1 t 3 7 O t ? O l . t 7874.8 8 5 3 5 0 7 0 1 326.2 1 845.9 1 t 701 69920. t t 490598. 8 3894.7 8 75989. 1 296.5 t 723.6 1 t 711 64768.8 1 485453.t 4526.9 1 75697. r 303.2 t 728.2 b : 72: 69920. : t 4 ~ 0 8 0 0 . : 4 3 ? 6 . ~ : 74798. I 310.9 t 729.5 t 8 738 69920.1 t 475R09.1 4546.4 8 74191. 1 33G.2 1 745.2 1 1 7 4 8 64762.; t 454644.1 5732.5 t 71875. 1 281.3 8 710.9 t t 751 546P9.t 1 452030.1 5625.7 1 71425. 1 278.5 t 7 i l m 5 1 t 761 47104.1 1 431163.1 5691.3 8 69447. 1 506.6 1 944.6 t 1 7 7 1 47104.1 1 4t9230.1 5E14.C 1 6911C. 1 524.6 t 957mC 1 1 781 47106.8 1 425890.1 5490.0 t 68525. t 503.5 1 946.6 8 t 79: 6 q i o l . t t 438798.t 4184.7 t 66906. 1 335.c t 877.4 1 ( 901 68615.1 1 412022.t 34RO.l t 63939. 1 194.0 693.1 t t P i t 63292.8 t 402159. 1 3653.1 t 63837. 1 170.2 t 683.9 t t 8 7 1 63238.1 t bO1hOB. 1 3P03.3 t 62567. 1 197.6 8 683.6 1 838 45b6lm' 1 382140. t 6446.9 1 58993. t 309.3 1 996.4 9 8 841 463b9.1 8 379943.* 6A35.9 1 58135. 1 313.2 1 h3A.7 1 1 551 96369.1 t 379632m1 hR71.2 t 57981. t 300.7 t 875.1 t 1 9 6 8 46368. 1 8 376303.1 7249.4 t 56295. t 302.6 1 894.3 t t t 1 t t 1 t I I :--------------------.--------------------------------------------- t TABLE 6 . -LONGITUDINAL DERIVATIVES FOR FLIGHTS 16 AND 17 TABLE 6 . -Concluded [All derivatives are per de rcept CM which i s per radian] Q ' ;-------------------------- TABLE 7 . --LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DERrVATlVES FOR PLIGHTS 16 AND 17

1411 dorivativce are per degree, except CLp. CLR . CN;, end C N ; . which are per radian]

x-----------------.-.--------------*-------------.---------.----.-.-..--.-..-..-...--.....--.-.: TABLE 7 . -Concluded t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - . . - . . o - - - . - . - - . . - . . - . . - . - - . . - - - - t t t t I t 1 t t t t

: N o . ; c Y : c L i c L I ctr* : C N * : C V * t C Y C L : C N * t c v : CL CN* t

: 1 B : P : P I r I;% j P I P 1 R O r ) s O R ; O R ; o a t o A t o a t

: 3 I : 1 I t t t 8 t 3 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - . - - - . - - - . - 0 - . . . . - . . - - - . . 0 - . . 0 - - . 0 . . - . ; I t : I : : t I t t t 8 : 6 7 : - . 2 9 3 9 i - . 0 : 7 5 a - , 1 4 ? 4 : . 3 r 4 3 ; . ? : . ~ 1 - . 3 k ! . 7 ; - . 2 5 ? : 1 . ~ 1 4 7 1 e ~ ; ~ 3 1 - e ~ ~ l ~ : 8 S t 0 : : 1 I : 1 t t t 8 t t : : 6 8 t - e G 1 1 k t - a f " 2 3 - , 1 2 6 3 : . j V > 7 5 : . 1 > 7 ~ 5 1 - . 0 5 t b 1 - . 2 2 3 5 t . ( j J i b t , 0 0 0 3 ( - . G C i 3 1 t I t : 1 : : 1 1 t t : : t t # I E J Z - . , C 9 1 2 - . , : 2 4 ! - . 1 2 3 9 : . 1 3 3 7 : , 1 ! ~ 4 : - . ~ 5 f 5 : - . 1 8 9 ~ t I 1 1 t 1 : t t t t I I I .O ~ i e : - . c 1 i s t - . o 0 0 3 : t t : 8 ~ 0 9 8 1 - . ~ ~ 2 3 ~ - . ~ 3 7 7 ~ . 1 ~ 9 i I . ? J : R 1 - . 1 1 5 5 1 - . 3 2 7 1 1 . 0 ] 2 5 t .OO02:-.OC15) I I 8 I . : : : : 1 t 1 I t I t t t : 7 1 t - . , : : 9 6 t - . 9 : 2 3 t - e 3 8 5 5 : * ? 7 5 3 : . * ! : I 8 8 - . 0 8 7 7 1 - . 3 J Y 9 1 . C ? 1 7 t . 0 0 3 3 t - . O C l b t t t 1 t 1 t t I t t 1 : : t t t t 7 2 ~ - e C O 8 Z I - e C Y Z ~ - e l Z ~ B t .1'37?: e 9 : ' 9 t - . 0 3 9 6 t - e 5 5 8 5 t .08131 . 0 0 0 i t - , O C 1 5 t t t t t : t t I I t t t t I # t t t 1 738-.:dd51-.0,24:-.?745: . i ? J S ? . ' l C J 4 t - . 0 9 P 5 1 - . 5 9 6 0 : . O c i C : .0003:-.G@15( I t t : t : t 1 t I 1 t I t t t 8 S 7 r : - . : 3 n 3 t - . O C Z E t-.lklsr , 0 9 3 5 : . 3 3 ~ 5 1 . 0 @ 5 2 t - . 5 3 9 9 1 . o c i ~ t . 0 ! ) 3 i t - . O C ~ I + I t t t t t 8 1 : 1 t t t t t t t t t 7 5 t - m J l L 8 1 - . C 5 2 9 S - e 2 3 9 9 i , 9 9 4 4 : . O @ C B t - . 0 5 R O t - . 5 5 ~ 1 t . 0 ? 2 b t . 0 0 3 3 # - . C i i 3 : t t 1 s t : : I : t t a t t I t t 7 6 : - e : 1 1 3 % - e ~ 2 1 9 8 - . i 7 1 ? ~ . 0 7 9 < 1 . 0 ~ ; 9 8 - , 0 0 9 9 t - . , ? 7 1 ~ 1 . 0 j 2 7 : e 0 0 0 2 : - e ~ ~ l b : t t t t t I t : t 1 t t I t t : t 2 7 7 1 - . 3 0 9 9 : - * 0 ? 2 3 t - . 1 6 74: - 9 7 3 6 : . 0 3 c 5 1 - . 0 7 1 9 t - . ? 5 3 9 t .0; 16 t . 0 0 3 ~ t - . 0 ~ 1 3 a t t t .

t I a : : r t t 1 I t t t t r 7 ~ r - . c ~ ~ 9 1 - . ~ ~ 2 3 : - . 1 u " 4 1 . o ~ s ? : . Y C I ? R I - . 0 6 6 6 : - . 2 ? 5 5 ; . 0 : 1 2 : .C003t-.OC13t t t I 1 I 1 : t I t t I t t t t t t 3 7 3 8 - . J 1 2 7 t . C ' ; S l t - , 4 / 3 6 : . l i - j r t . J C l L 1 . 0 4 7 3 # - . 4 5 4 7 : .OC09t . 0 0 ] 3 : - , QCl51 t t 8 I 1 t 1 I 1 8 t 0 I t t t : 8 838-• ; C 3 € 1 - e 0 0 2 9 1 - a 3 2 + 1 ! e l 1 9 7 1 . 3 C C 5 1 - . i i L 9 1 - . 4 4 1 3 : . C 5 2 2 1 . 2 G 0 3 ( - . @ C l 5 t t 1 1 : t t t I : : 1 I 1 t t t t 3 8 1 1 - e ' : 0 ~ 9 t - e c ? 3 2 1 - e f 5 5 7 1 . C c 9 1 t . S I S R I - . O C 6 9 t - . + 6 + 9 t . O c i 0 t . 3 0 0 1 : - . 0 0 1 8 ( Z I t 1 t 0 1 I 1 t 1 t t t t t t 1 8 2 1 - . 3 d 7 1 : - . C i Z l I - ' 9 4 7 : .C+5?: . 3 3 ~ 5 1 - . e 1 ~ . 4 t - . ' > 3 ~ 3 r . o r i 5 t . O @ ~ ~ ~ - . O C ~ S : t t t a t t t I : t 1 a t t t t t 3 83:-.dl;41-.9323r-.i923r .G98C: . 3 3 C 7 t - . @ 5 1 0 ~ - . 3 0 ~ ~ 1 . o t ? i r . ~ 0 0 i ~ - . o ~ i i 5 : t t t 1 1 I : t t : t t t t t t t 8 8 b S - e ; 0 9 3 : - ~ C C Z b t - . 15 ; j : m 0 3 3 3 : .93G6t-.CRZ; 1 - . 1 9 6 2 8 . C C l l t . C063:-.OC128 t t t : t : t : t 1 1 1 : t t t t r 8 5 : - . : 0 7 3 r - . C 9 Z b t - . i 7 3 5 t , P 3 2 5 1 , 0 3 0 4 : - . O 8 5 5 : - , i 9 2 9 r . C G ~ Z : . ~ 0 0 3 r . . O C ~ I + S t t t t 1 : 1 : : 8 t 1 t t t t t t 8 83%-e010C:-• 2 2291-.20771 s C 1 9 7 1 .93C 1 1 - . l i R q t - . 1 9 2 2 1 . G t i 5 t .00D3:-. 0 0 1 4 : t t t t t t t : I t t r 1 t : I t t :-----------------------------------------------------------------..-.--..-------.--.-.".------?

FFligM M tunnel 0 0.7 --- 0 0.8 A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.81 to 0.86 Solid line is fairing of flight data ( a ) C and C .

Na ma Figure 3 . Longitudinal stability and control derivatives for l g flight and 2G0 wing sweep.

'Ind FligM M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Figure 3 . Continued.

Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data C - 4 -

"r M=0.9 M=0.7 to 0.8

per rad Figure 3. Concluded.

wind fligM M tunnel

--- 0 0.60

0 0.80 -..- A 0.85 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data ( a ) C and C , .

Na a Figure 4 . Longitudinal stability and control derivatives for 1 g flight and 3!i0 wing sweep .

ORIGINAL PAGE 15

OF POOR QUALJTY

Wind Flight M tunnel --- 0 0.60 0 0.80

- - - -

A 0.85 I 'uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data

i

* M = 0.60 to 0.85

e -.@ 1

per deg - -

Ifi

.- - -

-1

iP - -

Figure 4. Continued.

Wind Flight M tunnel --- 0 0.60 0 0.80

- -. -

A 0.85 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data

-20 p -- -+---f* - -

",* -40 - - ..

per rad M = 0.60 to 0.85 Figure 4 . Concluded.

ORIGINAL PAGE LS

OF POOR cum

'Ind Flight M tunnel - - - - - - 0 0.8

---

0 0.9 - .-.

A 1.0

- -. -

+ 1.2

----

x 1.6 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data ( a ) CN and C, .

a a Figure 5 . Longitudinal stability and control derivatives for l g flight and 5 8 O wing sweep.

Flight M tunnel I Uncertainty level Solld line is a fairing of flight data Per deg M = 1.2 to 1.6

L-~T'--% - -+--*~=0.8tol.o

- - . - . _ -

-.@ F' - - - -

--I

- - - _

- - - _

- - -

(b) C and C , Nt5

me

e e Figure 5. Continued.

O R I G I S h t PAGE fii

OF POOR Q U A L ~

" " FligM M

tunnel . . - - - a 0 0.8

--- 0

0.9 - * - - A 1.0

- -. -

+ 1.2 --.- x 1.6 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data I M = 1.2 to 1.6 M = 0.8to 1.0 per rad

-

".

-60 t - \ \ / '

* 2 '

I Figure 5. Concluded.

Fairing Flight o, deg 0 6108 Open symbols indicate data from flights 5 to 8: shaded symbols indicate data from flights 16 and 17 Figure 6 .

Static stability as a function of Mach number for 2 6 O wing sweep.

ORIGWAG PAGE is

OF p \R A1,W 'Ind Fiim M tunnel o 0.7

---

0 0.8 ---. A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82 Figure 7 . Lateral-directional stability and control derivatives for l g flight and 2 6 O wing sweap.

"'& FligM M tunnel 0 0.7 --- 0 0.8 A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of fligM data Flagged symbol defiates An = 0 . 8 per rad ( b ) CN and C, .

P P Figure 7 . Continued.

wind FligM M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 -.-- A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of fligM data Flagged q m h I h a t e s M = 0.8

. 3 -

- .2 - .1

i- - - _

- --

M=0.7 to0.8 -.3 I I 1 I I I C~ .

r per rad 0 2 4 6 b 10 12 (c) Cn and C .

P I r Figure 7 . Continued.

Flight Y tunnel I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82 ( d l C and C .

"r y6 r Figure 7 . Continued.

lind Flight M tunnel I Uncettaif!ty level Sotid line is a fairing of flight data flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82 Figure 7 . Continued.

Wind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 -.-- A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Figure 7 . Continued .

Wind Flight M tunnel I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Figure 7. Concluded.

Wind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8

-. -- n 0.9

I Uncertainty level Sdid line is a fairing of fligM data Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82 t ---\ c .

-- i-

lb -.w - ----

per deg -M = 0.7 to 0.8 ( a ) C y and C l .

P P Lateral-directional stability and control Figure 8 .

derivatives for lg flight and 3S0 wing sweep.

wind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 -.-.

A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82

i

= 0.7 to 0.9 I c 0 C -- Ip -.4 p - per rad I

L

- * 6 I

Figure 8 . Continued.

'Ind Flight I tunnel 0 0.7

--- 0 0.8

-.-- A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Flagged symbol denotes FA = 0.82 per rad Figure 8 . Continued.

flight M tunnel I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight clata Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82

---- -

-

per rad Figure 8 . Continued.

'Ind FligM M tunnel 0 0.7

--- 0 0.8

-. --

A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Flagged symbol denotes M = 0.82 (e) C and C .

'6 r ng r Figure 8. Continued.

'Ind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

- - -

0 0.8 -.-.

A 0.9 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of fligM data Figure 8 . Continued.

'Ind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.8 - - - .

A 0.9 I Uncrrrtait~ty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data

-.m

9, deg Figure 8 . Concluded.

Wind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

- - -

0 0.9 - . - . A 1 . 2 - .. - + 1.5 I .Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data

k- -

C ' ~ -.002' -+++%*.;,fB-y+ - -7--

- M = 0 . 7 t o 1.5

- per deg -

(a) C y and C .

P ' P

Figure 9. Lateral-directional stability and control derivati.~eS for l g flight and 5 8 O wing w e e p .

Flighl M tunnel Solid line is a fairing of flight data

per rad '

(b) C and Cl .

"P P Figure 9 . Continued.

: F l i t M

trrnnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.9 - - - A 1.2 - - - - + 1.5 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data .

r M = 0.1 to 1.5 per rad Figure 9. Continued.

0.7 --- 0 0.9

- - - - A 1.2

- .* -

+ 1.5 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data ( d l C and C .

", ' 6

a Figure 9 . Continued.

Wind Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

---

0 0.9

----

A 1.2 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data .-.-.-.- Per des I

-.m -

i

(el C and Cn .

'6 a Figure 9 . Continued .

Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

--- 0 0.9

---- a 1.2

- -. - + 1.5 I . Uncertainty level Solid line is fairing of flight data - O O 6 r i I

1 - -1- - - -1

- * , ,_-.- 1-.-t

( f ) C and C .

Y6 r '8 r Figure 9 . Continued.

Flight M tunnel 0 0.7

- - -

0 0.9

- - - - A 1.2

----

+ 1.5 I Uncertainty level Solid line is a fairing of flight data Figure 9. Concluded.

I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fig. 31 ( a ) C N and C .

a ma Figure 10. Longitudinal stability and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 26O wing sweep.

ORIGlNAL PAGE 1s

OF POOR QUA1.m

I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 3) (b) C and C .

Ns

e e Figure 10. Continued I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing is of l g fligM data (repeated from fig. 3) , q per rad -4 Figure 10. Concluded.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0

+ 1.0

x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of l g fligM data Irepeated from fig. 4) ( a ) CN and C, .

a a Figure 11. Longitudinal s tabiliiy and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 3S0 wing sweep.

ORIGINAL PAGE I s

OF POOR QUALITY

0 1.0 o 1.5 A 2.0

+ 3;o

x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing i s of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 41

.u f

c ,

% .m '

per deg k.-

-.02 f ( b ) C and C m .

N6 e 6e Figure 1 1 . C o ~ t i n u e d .

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairlng i s of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 4) C per rad

-m t

Figure 1 1 . Concluded.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 5) ( a ) C N and C .

a "'a Figure 12. Longitudinal stability and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 5 8 O wing sweep.

I Uncertainty level Fairing is 3f lg flight data (repeated from fig. 5) C m * e -.02 - per deg

-.a --

( b ) C N and C m .

e 6e Figure 12. Continued.

Fairing is of Ig flight data (repeated from fq. 9 !

per rad Figure 12. Concluded.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0

+ 3.0

x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing i s of lg flight data (repeated from fig. 7)

-01 r

( ~ 1 C y and Cl .

P P Figure 1 3 . Lateral-directional stability and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 2 6 O wing s w e e p .

0 1 . 0 0 1 . 5 A 2 . 0

+ 3 . 0

x 1 . 0

I Uncertainty level

Solid symbol denotes M = 0 . 9 Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated fmm fig. 7) (b) Cn and C, P Figure 13. Continuec! .

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0

+ 3.0

x 1.0 I Uncertaing level Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 7) .3 I , 1.2

c, . - 4

r

per ra: ,-, i

ORIGINAL PAGE I S ( c ) C

and C, .

n OF POOR QUALITY P r F i g u r e 13. Continued.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0

+ 3.0

x 1.0 I uncertainty lwel Solid symbol denotes M = 0.9 Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fig. 7) Figure 13. Continued.

0 1 . 0 0 1 . 5 A 2 . 0

+ 3 . 0

x 1 . 0 I Uncertainty level Solid symbol denotes M = 0 . 9 Fairing is of lg fligM data (repeated from fig. 7) Figure 1 5 . Concluded.

1 tincertainty level Fairing is of Ig flight data (repeated from fig. 31 Per deg ( a ) C y and Cl .

P B Figure 14. Lateral-directional stability and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 3S0 wing sweep.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of i g flight data (repeated from fig. 8) ( b ) C and C, .

P P Figure 1 4 . Continued.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 1 Uncertainty level Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 8)

r

per rad

- 8 t

C~ '

t --

r per rad -.: -.?

(c) C n and C .

P ' r

Figure 1 4 . Continued.

I Uncertainfij level Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated fro@ fig. 8) Figure 14. Continued .

ORIGElhL PAGE 18

OF WOR @ u -

I Uncertainty level Fairing of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 8) Figure 1 4 . Concluded.

I Uncertainty level Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fk~. 9 ) Figure 1 5 . Lateral-directional stability and control derivatives for elevated g flight and 5 8 O wing sweep.

0 1.0 0 1.5 A 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of l g flight data (repeated from fig. 9 ) per rad -1.2 7 ( b ) C,, and C .

P IP Figure 1 5 . Continued.

I Uncertainty level Fairing i s of 13 flight data (repeated from fig. 9 ) P

per rad I

per rad I I (c) C , , and C .

P ' r

ORIGPJAT, PAGE

OF POOR eufim

Figure 1 5 . Continued.

I Uncertainty level Fairing is of lg flight data ~ ~ e d from fig. 9 )

r

(dl Cn and C .

r Y g a Figure 15. Continued.

0 1.0 0 1.5 a 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fig. 91 -~ -- - O r - ( e ) C and C n .

'6 a Figure IS. Continued.

I Uncertainty level Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fig. 9 ) (f) C and C - Y6 '6 r r Figure 15. Con ;inued .

0 1 . 0 0 1 . 5 A 2 . u + 3 . 0 x 1 . 0 I Uncertainty level Fairing is of lg flight data (repeated from fg . 9 ) Figure 1 5 . Concluded.

ORIGWAL PAGE is OF POOR @ U A ~ 1.0 0 1.5 a 2.0 + 3.0 x 1.0 I Uncertainty level Fairing of 1g flight data I repeated from fig. 8) Figure 16. C as a function of angle attack, showing r uncertainties at high angle o f attack.

-4 i'i A

0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, sec Figure 1 7 . Time history o f maneuver 7 4 .

I I

-4 i L I A

0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, jec Figure 18. Time historv of maneuver 75.

O R U N A L P.4GE I S OF POOR QL&JTy 1. R e w t No 2. Government Accers~on No. 3. Rec~p~ent's Ca?alog No.

NASA Thl- 72851 4. T~tle and Sub111lr 5 Report Date hldrch 1978 FLIGHT-DETERMINED STABII.ITY A N D CONTROL COEFFICIENTS OF THE F - 111A AIRPLANE 7. Au~nor(sl Kenneth W . lliff. Richard E . %li~ine, and Sandra Thornberry Steers H-999 10. VLork U n ~ t No.

9. Perfamlng Organizatlon Name and A d d ~ e u NASA Drvden Flight Kchr:rrclr C*.ntcr P .O. Box 273 Edward?. C'rlifdrnia 93523 13. Type of Report and Period Covwrd 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Addrns Technical Memorandtrm Ni~tional Acronnutics :ind S y i ~ c c Adniinistrittion 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington. I). C . 20546 6. Abstract A complete set of linear stability atrd control derivatives of the F- I I l A airplane was tfetermined with a modified maximum likelihood rstimator.

The derivatives were determined at wing-sweep nngles of 26O. 35". and 58".

The f l i ~ h t conditions included a Mach number range of 0.63 to 1.43 and an :angle of attack range of 2 O to 15O. 3laneuvers were performed at normal accclrrations from 0.9g to 3.8g during steady turns to assess the aeroelastic c,ff~.cts on the stability and control charactrristics.

The derivatives generally showed consistent trend; and reasonable agreement with the wind tunnel estimates. Si~nificant Vach effects were observed for Mach numbers a s low as 0.82. No large effects ai!ributirble to aeroelasticity h e r e noted.

7. Key Words fSuggested t y author:^) I 1 18. D~str~but~on Starernrnt F- 111A airplane Unclassified- \.nlimited Stability :and control derivatives 3laximurn likelihood estimation Flight test Category: 08

I

9. Secur~ty Uarsif (of this report) 1 20. Securltv Clau~f (of thlr pagel 21, PJo. of Pager 22 Prl1.e'

I'nclnssificd Unclassified 1 12 1

- - 'I..ov salt: by t h e N u l r o n a l T ~ c h n i c a l I n f o ~ * r n n f ~ o n Servicc, S p , ' ~ n ! ~ f r ~ l t l . \ ' i r g r n i o 2L'ltil