Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics at Mach numbers from 0.50 to 1.19 of a supersonic transport model with a modified M wing

Document

-

NASA T M X-1386 .

LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS A T MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.50 TO 1.19 O F A SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT MODEL WITH A MODIFIED M WING By Edward J. Ray and Robert T. T a y l o r Langley Research C e n t e r Langley Station, Hampton, Va.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00

LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS AT MACH NUMBERS 0.50 TO 1.19 OF A SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT FROM MODEL WITH A MODIFIED M WING By Edward J. Ray and Robert T. Taylor Langley Research Center SUMMARY An investigation has been made at Mach numbers ranging from 0.50 to 1.19 in the Langley high-speed 7- by 10-foot tunnel to determine the longitudinal aerodynamic char- acteristics of a supersonic transport airplane configuration designated SCAT 18. Longi- tudinal stability and control effectiveness characteristics were determined for various combinations of model components and the complete configuration with two different horizontal- tail sizes.

The results of the investigation indicated that the addition of the horizontal tails had only a small effect on longitudinal stability of the configuration as a result of the extremely high downwash rate in the region of the tail. Reductions in horizontal-tail con- trol effectiveness were apparent at moderate angles of attack as a result of possible reductions in dynamic pressure with increasing angle of attack in the region of the tail.

The highest untrimmed lift-to-drag ratio occurring for the model with the larger horizon- tal tail w a s 8 . 6 at a Mach number of 0.98.

INTRODUCTION During the past decade the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has directed a considerable amount of aerodynamic research towards the attainment of a com- mercially acceptable supersonic transport concept capable of cruise flight near a Mach number of 3 . 0 . In 1959, the NASA presented a technical summary to the Federal Aviation Agency which indicated that the cruise phase of commercial supersonic flight was techni- cally feasible for the ranges under consideration. (See ref. 1.)

The conflicting aerodynamic requirements presented by the off-design conditions have led to the study of a variety of configuration concepts. These concepts, designated as supersonic commercial air transports (SCAT) 1 through 19 with variations, have included variable- sweep wing, variable- sweep auxiliary wing panel, and fixed wing *\ arrangements. A summary and index of the experimental characteristics of the NASA SCAT concepts are contained in reference 2.

One of the major problems associated with the off-design conditions of a supersonic transport configuration with wings whose leading edges a r e subsonic at cruise has been the attainment of acceptable static longitudinal stability characteristics throughout the entire speed range. Several of the SCAT concepts which have been explored by the NASA have indicated promising performance characteristics but have exhibited undesirable longitudinal stability characteristics at subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. One approach which has been taken to maintain a wing with a reasonably high aspect ratio and a favorable load distribution is the M-wing concept. Subsonic and transonic investiga- tions, references 3 and 4, respectively, have indicated that favorable pitching-moment characteristics might be obtained with an M-wing arrangement.

The purpose of the present investigation is to determine the subsonic and transonic longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of a warped M-wing supersonic transport config- uration designated as SCAT 18. This concept, designed for a cruise Mach number of 2.60, incorporates a slightly cambered fuselage and horizontal tails mounted at a dihedral angle of 8 ' near the base of the vertical tail. The four simulated engines a r e mounted below the wing. A similar SCAT 18 arrangement has been tested at supersonic Mach numbers ranging from 2.30 to 2.96 and these results are contained in reference 5.

The present paper presents the static longitudinal results determined for the SCAT 18 concept at Mach numbers ranging from 0.50 to 1.19 which corresponded to a Reynolds number (based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord) range of 2.88 X lo6 to 4.50 x 106. In addition, experimental results are included herein which indicate the effects of the various model components on the longitudinal characteristics of the model.

Longitudinal stability, control, and performance parameters a r e presented for the SCAT 18 configuration with two different horizontal-tail sizes. The results of the inves- tigation a r e presented with a minimum of analysis in order to expedite publication of the basic data.

SYMBOLS The data contained herein are referred to the wind-axis system. Reference dimen- sions used in the reduction of these data are indicated in this section. The moment ref- erence point w a s at fuselage station 28.32 in. (71.93 cm) throughout the investigation.

(See fig. l(a).)

The units used for the physical quantities defined in this paper are given both in Factors relating the U.S. Customary Units and in the International System of Units (SI).

two systems a r e given in reference 6.

local chord of airfoil section, in.

(cm) mean aerodynamic chord of wing, 12.32 in. (31.29 cm) Internal axial force nacelle internal axial-force coefficient, qs Drag drag coefficient, qs effective change in drag coefficient caused by unit angular change i n

horizontal-tail deflection, 9, per deg

a it Lift

lift coefficient, -

qs aCL

lift-curve slope at an angle of attack of Oo, -

aa Pitching moment pitching - moment coefficient , 95% aCm

static margin at CL = 0, -

a CL CL = 0 caused by unit effective change in pitching-moment coefficient at

angular change in horizontal-tail deflection, s, per deg

a1t pitching-moment coefficient at zero lift horizontal-tail surface deflection measured from model reference line (position trailing edge down), deg mean wing incidence, deg lift-to-drag ratio Mach number dynamic pressure, lb/ft2 (N/m2)

-

.R Reynolds number based on c 4 S wing reference area including body intercept (see fig. l(b)), 1.525 ft2 (0.1417 m2) St horizontal-tail area, ft2 (m2) X coordinate in streamwise direction, positive rearward, in. (cm) Y coordinate in spanwise direction, y = 0 at fuselage center line, in. (cm) vertical distance measured from model reference line to upper surface of zU wing (positive direction up), in. (cm) vertical distance measured from model reference line to lower surface of z2 wing (positive direction up), in. (cm) a angle of attack, deg E average downwash angle (determined from tail-incidence tests), deg

- ck

rate of change of downwash angle with angle of attack da Subscripts : max maximum min minimum Model components: B fuselage HL large horizontal tail HS small horizontal tail N engine nacelles V vertical tail W wing P MODEL Drawings of the complete model and the various model components are shown in figure 1 and photographs of the model are presented as figure 2. Tables I and I1 give the geometric characteristics of the model and the coordinates of the wing, respectively.

The wing of the SCAT 18 arrangement consisted of symmetrical NACA 65A-series streamwise airfoil sections varying in thickness from 4.22 percent chord at spanwise sta- tion 1.50 in. (3.81 cm) to 3.25 percent chord at spanwise station 3.40 in. (8.64 cm). (See fig. l(b).) The wing thickness remained constant at 3.25 percent chord outboard to span- wise station 7.31 in. (18.57 cm). The thickness of the wing from spanwise station 7.31 in.

(18.57 cm) to the wing tip was 2.82 percent of the wing chord.

The large and small horizontal tails and the vertical tail employed 3-percent-thick circular-arc streamwise airfoil sections. Both of the horizontal-tail arrangements were mounted to the fuselage at a dihedral angle of 8'. The afterbody of the otherwise circular fuselage w a s modified to provide flat surfaces to accommodate the mounting of the horizontal-tail surfaces. (See fig. l(a).)

The model of the present study was similar to the basic model utilized in the inves- tigation of reference 5 with the exception of the assumed center-of-gravity location and

the simulated engine arrangement. Four individual circular nacelles, having constant -

internal dimensions, were employed for the present study. Details of the nacelle arrange- ment are shown in figure l(c).

TESTS AND CORRECTIONS The investigation of the modified SCAT 18 model was made in the Langley high- speed 7- by 10-foot tunnel at Mach numbers of 0.50, 0.79, 0.89, 0.98, 1.01, and 1.19. The Reynolds number (based on the average temperature) and dynamic pressure, at each of the test Mach numbers are shown in the following table: R lb/ft2 3 10 14 843

2.88 X lo6

29 542 3.80 617 704 33 708 4.01 4.37 778 37 251 .98 794 38 017 1.01 4.40 1.19 4.50 884 42 326 The model was sting mounted and the forces and moments were measured with an 1 internally mounted six-component strain- gage balance. The angles of attack have been corrected for the bending of the sting and balance combination due to aerodynamic loading..

Transition strips of No. 60 carborundum grains were applied near the leading edge of the airfoil, 1 inch (2.54 cm) behind the fuselage nose, and near the leading edge of the outside and inside of the engine nacelles to assure transition to turbulent boundary layer.

The internal skin friction of the four straight-through engine-nacelle simulators was computed and the experimental axial-force data were corrected at each test Mach number by the computed internal axial-force coefficient presented in the following CA ,i table: cA,i 0.0017 -0015 .0015 .98 .0015 1.01 .0015 1.19 .0014 Nacelle base pressure and fuselage chamber pressure measurements were made and the drag data were adjusted to correspond to a condition of free-stream static pres- sure at the solid portions of the nacelle bases and in the balance cavity of the fuselage.

Jet-boundary and blockage corrections a r e negligible for the slotted tunnel configu- ration and, therefore, were not applied to the data.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS The results of the investigation are presented in the following figures: Figure Effect of configuration components on the longitudinal characteristics of the

model. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Effect of horizontal -tail size on the longitudinal characteristics of the model.

M = 0 . 5 0 t o 1 . 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal characteristics of the Effect

model with the small horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal characteristics of the

model with the large horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Effect of horizontal-tail size on longitudinal control effectiveness.

M = 0 . 5 0 t o 1 . 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ? Figure Downwash characteristics of the model with the small horizontal tail and

. with the large horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary of the longitudinal characteristics of the model at Mach numbers

from 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SUMMARY OF RESULTS A detailed discussion of results obtained in this investigation of a supersonic trans- port model with a modified M wing at Mach numbers from 0.50 to 1.19 has been omitted in order to expedite publication of these data. A few observations are made, however, in order to point out some of the more important results obtained.

Longitudinal Stability and Control Nonlinearities in the variation of pitching-moment coefficient with lift coefficient were exhibited for all the configurations investigated. (See figs. 3 and 4.) The addition of two different horizontal-tail arrangements, differing in size, had only a small effect on the longitudinal stability level of the configuration due to the extremely high downwash rate in the region of the tail. As shown in figure 7, the downwash rate at the tail dc/da!

w a s about 0.8 throughout the Mach number range of the investigation. In addition, the con- figurations incorporating the two different horizontal-tail arrangements indicated substan- tial reduction in longitudinal control effectiveness with increasing angle of attack (fig. 8), probably resulting from reduced dynamic pressure at the tail. Addition of the horizontal tails resulted in sizable positive increments in the zero-lift pitching-moment coefficient due to the misalinement between the effective mean chord planes of the wing and horizon- tal tail. (See fig. 9.) If the assumed center -of -gravity location were moved forward by about 10 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord to a center-of-gravity location sim- ilar to the one assumed in the investigation of reference 5, the large horizontal-tail con- figuration would trim without control deflection at the lift coefficient for maximum lift-to- drag ratio in the subsonic Mach number range. (See figs. 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c).)

Performance The maximum untrimmed lift-to-drag ratios of the large horizontal-tail configura- tion varied from 7.6 at a Mach number of 0.50 to a maximum lift-to-drag ratio of 8.6 at (See fig. 9 . ) The transonic drag r i s e occurred at a Mach num- a Mach number of 0 . 9 8 .

ber near 0 . 9 8 . An untrimmed lift-to-drag ratio of about 7.0 was indicated for the r( .large-tail configuration at the highest test Mach number of 1.19. A maximum untrimmed lift-to-drag ratio of 9.2 w a s exhibited for the tail-off configuration at a Mach number of 0.98.

Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Station, Hampton, Va. , December 20, 1966, 7 720-01- 00-03-23.

__ -

REFERENCES

1. Staff of the Langley Research Center: The Supersonic Transport - A Technical

Summary. NASA TN D-423, 1960.

2 . Ray, Edward J. : NASA Supersonic Commercial A i r Transport (SCAT) Configurations: A Summary and Index of Experimental Characteristics. NASA TM X-1329, 1967.

3 . Henderson, William P.: Longitudinal Stability Characteristics of Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings Having Variations in Leading- and Trailing-Edge Contours. NASA TN D-1796, 1964.

4. Loving, Donald L.: Investigation of the Effect of Indentation on an M-Plan-Form- Wing-Body Combination at Transonic Speeds. NACA RM L54F14, 1954.

5 . Shrout, Barrett L.; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 2.30, 2.60, and 2.96 of a Supersonic Transport Model with a Modified M Wing.

NASA TM X-1056, 1965.

6. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conver-

sion Factors. NASA SP-7012, 1964.

I * TABLE I.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL (Volume)2/3 0.163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S wing: Aspect ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.90

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.40 (51.82)

Reference area, ft2 (m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.525 (0.1417)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44 (6.20)

Mean aerodynamic chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . 12.32 (31.29)

Airfoil section (streamwise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 65A series

Fuselage:

Length, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.63 (118.44)

Fuselage base area, in2 (cm2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.02 (25.94)

Small horizont a1 tail:

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.23 (18.36)

Area, ft2 (m2), both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 (0.020)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53 (3.89)

Root chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.70 (17.02)

Airfoil section (streamwise) . . . . . . . . . 0.03~-thickcircular-arc

st/s 0.14

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

Dihedral angle, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.00 Large hor izont a1 tail :

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.40 (23.88)

Area, ft2 (mz), both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.32 (0.030)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53 (3.89)

Root chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 (20.57)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03~-thickcircular-arc

Airfoil section St/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.21 Dihedral angle, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.00 Engine nacelles (each):

Length, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.50 (19.05)

Capture area, in2 (cm2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.71 (4.58)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.43 (9.22)

Base area, in2 (cm2) TABLE 11.- WING COORDINATES [Nl dimensions in inches (cmd X X zu 4 ZU 21 ~ y = 1.095 (2.781) y = 2.040 (5.182) x = 0 at model station 22.420 (56.947) x = 0 at model station 22.101 (56.137) 0.300 (0.762) 0 0 0.300 (0.762) 0.642 (1.631) 0.642 (1.631) ,261 ( .663) .067 ( 0.170) .068 0.173) ,346 ( ,879) .684 (1.737) .599 (1.521) .357 ( .907) .253 ( ,643) ,100 ( .254) .lo2 .259) ,694 (1.763) ,589 (1.496) ,374 ( ,950) .240 ( .610) .167 ( .424) ,709 (1.801) ,575 (1.460) ,169 ,429) .339 ,861) ,404 (1.026) .218 ( .554) .334 ( ,848) ,734 (1.864) ,549 (1.394) ,677 1.720) ,443 (1.125) ,187 ( ,475) ,667 ( 1.694) ,767 (1.948) .510 (1.295) 1.016 2.581) ,464 (1.178) .156 ( .396) 1.000 ( 2.540) ,784 (1.991) ,476 (1.209) ,122 ( .310) 1.353 3.437) ,476 (1.209) 1.334 ( 3.388) ,798 (2.027) ,446 (1.133) .482 (1.224) ,075 ( .190) 2.001 ( 5.082) 2.031 5.159) .819 (2.080) ,403 (1.024) 2.708 ( 6.878) ,023 ( .058) .489 (1.242) 2.667 ( 6.774) ,814 (2.068) ,349 ( ,886) ,479 (1.217) -.023 (-.058) 3.385 ( 8.598) 3.335 ( 8.471) ,812 (2.062) .313 ( ,795) .471 (1.196) -.054 (-.137) 4.061 (10.315) 4.001 (10.162) ,802 (2.037) ,276 ( ,701) -.079 (-.201) 4.738 (12.034) .462 (1.173) 4.668 (11.857) .785 (1.994) .245 ( .622) 5.416 (13.757) .449 (1.140) -.096 (-.244) 5.335 (13.551) .757 (1.923) ,222 ( .564) 6.092 (15.474) .425 (1,080) -.112 (-,284) 6.002 (15.245) .728 (1.849) ( ,488) .192 6.769 (17.193) .403 (1.024) -.113 (-.287) 6.668 (16.937) .690 (1.753) ,175 ( ,444) 7.446 (18.913) ,379 ( ,963) -.lo6 (-,269) 7.336 (18.633) ,648 (1.646) ( ,399) ,157 8.122 (20.630) .345 ( ,876) -.lo2 (-,259) 8.002 (20.325) ,600 (1.524) ,154 ( ,391) 8.800 (22.352) ,321 ( ,815) -.082 (-,208) 8.669 (22.019) ,559 (1.420) ,157 ( ,399) 9.477 (24.072) ,293 ( ,744) -.059 (-,150) 9.336 (23.713) .509 (1.293) ,158 ( ,401) -.037 (-.094) 10.154 (25.791) ,260 ( ,660) 10.003 (25.408) ,455 (1.156) ,159 ( ,404) -.110 (-.025) 10.830 (27.508) .227 ( ,576) 10.669 (27.099) ,406 (1.031) ,168 ( ,427) 11.507 (29.228) .192 ( .488) ,015 ( ,038) 11.337 (28.796) ,367 ( ,932) ,188 ( ,478) 12.185 (30.950) ,158 ( ,488) ,038 ( ,096) 12.003 (30.488) ,317 ( .805) ,196 ( ,498) 12.861 (32.667) ,123 ( ,401) ,062 ( ,157) 12.670 (32.181) ,275 ( ,698) ,214 ( ,544) ( ,226) 13.337 (33.876) ,233 ( ,592) 13.538 (34.386) ,089 ,086 ( ,218) ,231 ( ,587) y = 2.551 (6.480) y = 1.500 (3.810) x = 0 at model station 22.835 (58.001) x = 0 at model station 20.528 (52.141)

I

J

c 0 c ' t ' E e V

I StO. 2863

172.72J (d) Continued.

Figure 1.- Continued.

VI .I= c1 m L c .I= a Confiquro tion 0 WB 0 WBV 0 WBVN A WBVNH, a, de -.2 0 .2 4 .6 .8 l.0 62 CL (a) M = 0.50.

Figure 3.- Effect of components on the longitudinal characteristics of the model at Mach numbers from 0.50 to 1.19.

Con f igum f ion 0 w0

0 w0v

0 W 0 V N A W 0 V N H S (a) Concluded.

Figure 3.- Continued.

Con fiqurot ion o W B 0 WBV 0 WBVN A W B VNH, P, de (b) M = 0.79.

Figure 3.- Continued.

Configuration 0 wt3 0 WBV 0 WBVN Ll WBVNH, (b) Concluded.

Figure. 3.- Continued.

C on f igu ra t ion 0 W B 0 WBV 0 WBVN - u . 6 . 8 1.0 - 4 : 2 0 -2 4 CL (C) M = 0.89.

Figure 3.- Continued.

con f igur a tion 0 W 6 0 W 6 V 3 WBVN A W 6 VNH’ - 4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 -8 LO CL ( c ) Concluded.

Figure 3.- Continued.

Con figuro tion 0 WB 0 WB V 0 WBVN A WB VNH,

c

(d) M = 0.98 Figure 3.- Continued.

.24 ./6 ./2 .08 (d) Concluded.

Figure 3.- Continued.

C Con f i g u fa tion 0 WB 0 W B V 0 W B V N A WBVNff,

G '1 7

(e) ' M = 1.01.

Figure 3.- Continued.

a Con figu ration 0 W B Q WBV 0 W B V N A WBV", 2 4 ./6 ./2 CD .08 .04 (e) Concluded.

Figure 3.- Continued.

Con fig u r 0 tion 0 WB

0 W B v

0 WBVN A WB VNH, (f) M = 1.19.

Figure 3.- Continued.

Con f igumtion 0 W 6 W 6 V 0 W 6 V N A W6VNH43 .28 2 4 .08 .04 -4 7 2 0 .2 4 .6 .8 L O C L (f) Concluded.

Figure 3.- Concluded.

(a) M = 0 . 5 0 .

Figure 4- Effect of horizontal-tail size on the longitudinal characteristics of the model at Mach numbers of 0.50 to 1.19.

Con f iguraiion 0 WBV/VHs 0 WBVNH‘ .52 .48 .44 .33 .32 .28 2 4 . /6 ./2 .08 .04 (a) Concluded.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Con f i g u IO t ion

0 W B V " * w 0 V " , a (b) M = 0.79.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Co n f igu ro tion 0 WB VN ffs 0 W S V N f f L - 4 -2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 (b) Concluded.

CL (f) M = 1.19.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Configuration 0 W 6 VNH, 0 W 6 VN HL .24 ./6 .08 .04 - 4 -2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 L O C L If) Concluded.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

C o n figuration it deg 0 W 6 V N T a i l o f f 0 W 6 V N H s 0 0 W 6 V N H s -8 (a) M = 0 9 .

Figure 5.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal characteristics of the model with the small horizontal tail.

C o n f i g u r a t i o n i t , deg 0 W B VN TUiI o f f c i WBVNH' 0 0 w 0 VNHs -8 .52 .48 .44 .40 .36 .32 .28 2 4 . /6 . /2 .08 .04 -4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 I.' 2 CL la) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

C 0 n f i g u r a t ion

it , deg

0 W 0 VN T a i l o f f 0 W 0 V N H S 0 0 W B VNHS -8 a, de

-4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 /O

CL (b) M = 0 . 7 9 .

Figure 5 . - Continued.

C o /I f iguro tion i t , deg 0 W B V N To i / 0 ff 0 W 6 VNHs 0 0 W 6 V N f f s -8 ./6 ./2 .08 .04 (b) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

Con f igu r a t ion

it, deg W B VN T a i l o f f

0 WSVNH, 0

0 w 0 VNH, -8

a, d c (c) M = 0 . 8 9 .

Figure 5. Continued.

Configuration i t , deg 0 W 6 VN T a i l o f f W 6 VNffs 0 0 W 6 V N f f s -8 . 12 .08 .04 -4 72 0 .2 . 4 . 6 CL (c) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

Configuration it , d q

we V N Tail off

WBV", 0

0 we V " , -8

-.4 -2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8

(d) M = 0.98.

Figure 5.- Continued.

Configuration it ,deg 0 WBVN Tail o f f 0 WBVNHs 0 WSVNHS -8 -4 -2 0 .2 4 .6 .8 LO (d) Concluded.

Figure 5 . - Continued.

Configuration it ,deg 0 WBVN Toil o f f

0 W B VNHS 0

0 W B VNffS -8

-4 -.2 0 .2 4 .6 .8 10

C L (e) M = 1.01.

Figure 5 . - Continued.

Con f i g u m f ion i f , deg 0 W B V N Tu il o f f W B VNffs 0 0 W B V N H S -8 .24

. l6

.I2 CD .08 .04 -.4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 l.0 CL (e) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

Con f igurution i t , deg 0 W 0 V H Tuil o f f

w0 V " , 0

0 w0 V " , -8

CI, de -U

0 .2 4 .6 .8 LO

- 4 -2

CL (f) M = 1 . 1 9 .

Figure 5.- Continued.

(f) Concluded.

Figure 5.- Continued.

Configurot ion it,deg 0 WBVN T o i l o f f WBVNHs 0 0 W6VNHs -8 M M 0.85 /. /9 0.79 1.0 / 0.50 0.98 -8 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 /6 20 24 -8 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 I6 @,deP @ ,deq (g) Cm plotted against a .

Figure 5 . - Concluded.

Configuration i t , deg 0 WB VN Toil o f f

0 W B VNH' 0

0 -8 (a) M = 0.50.

Figure 6.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal characteristics of the model with the large horizontal tail.

Configuration it ,deg

0 we VN T o i / o f f

0 we V " , 0

0 wev", -8

-4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 L O L 2 CL (a) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

Configuration it, deg 0 WBVN Tai/ off 0 W 6 VNH, 0 0 WBVNH, -8 a, de : # -2 0 .2 .4 .6 B 1 . 0 CL (b) M = 0.79.

Figure 6.- Continued.

Con f ;pur at io i t , deg 0 W B V N T a i l o f f 0 W B V”, 0 0 W B VNHL - 8 ./6 .08 (b) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

C o n f igu fa f ion

it, deg 0 WBVN Tai/ o f f

0 W 6 VNff, 0

0 W 6 VNff, -8 - 4 72 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 CL (c) M = 0.89.

Figure 6.- Continued.

. /2 .08 CD .04 - 4 1 2 0 .2 . 4 . 6 CL (c) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

Con f iguro tion i t , deg 0 WBVN Tail o f f 0 WBVNHL 0 0 W6VNHL -8 -.4 -2 0 .2 .4 . 6 . 8 A 0 C L (d) M = 0.98 Figure 6.- Continued.

I

Configuration it,deg 0 W6VN Tail o f f 0 W6VNH' 0 0 W 6 VNH, -8 L

4 2

.24 ./6 1 /2 .08 .04 (d) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

a,de ( e ) M = 1.01.

Figure 6.- Continued.

C o n f i g u r a t i o n it ,deg 0 W 6 V N T a i l o f f 0 W 6 V N H L 0 0 W 6 V N f f L -8 (e) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

Con f igura t ion i t , deg 0 W B V N Toil o f f 0 W6VNH' 0 0 W19vNl-f~ -8 a,de -U -4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 LO CL If) M = 1.19.

Figure 6.- Continued.

C o n f i g u r a t i o n it, deg

0 W6VN mi/ o f f

W 6 VNHL 0 0 W6VNHL -8 L I .24 ./6 .08 .04 (f) Concluded.

Figure 6.- Continued.

Configuration it deg 0 WBVN Tail off WBVNHL 0 0 W6VNHL -8 M /1/9 l.Ol 0.98 .- .

- 8 -4 0 4 8 l2 l6 20 24 - 8 - 4 0 4 8 M le a, de9 a I de9 (g) C , plotted against a Figure 6.- Concluded.

- Small fai/

-----

L a r g e f a i l l2 M 0 /.l9 0 1.0 / e+iw,deg 0 3.98 0 9.89 3.79 0 3.50 -4 -4 0 4 8 /2 l6 20 24 a, de9 Figure 7.- Effect of horizontal-tail size on longitudinal control effectiveness. M = 0.50 to 1.19.

t M 1. /9 LO/ 0.98 0.89 0.79 0.50 - 4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 Q t d W Figure 8- Downwash characteristics of the model with the small horizontal tail and with the large horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19.

Tai/ o f f i

- Sma/f ho/: taif

- - ---_

Large hor. foif .60 BO LOO 120 -40 .60 .80 LOO I .

M M Figure 9.- Summary of the longitudinal characteristics of the model at Mach numbers from 0 . 5 0 to 1.19.

NASA-Langley, 1967 - 2 L-5229 73

Overview

Document

-

Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00

horizontal-tail deflection, 9, per deg

lift coefficient, -

lift-curve slope at an angle of attack of Oo, -

static margin at CL = 0, -

angular change in horizontal-tail deflection, s, per deg

-

- ck

the simulated engine arrangement. Four individual circular nacelles, having constant -

2.88 X lo6

model. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

model with the small horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

model with the large horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. with the large horizontal tail. M = 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

from 0.50 to 1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

__ -

1. Staff of the Langley Research Center: The Supersonic Transport - A Technical

6. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conver-

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.40 (51.82)

Reference area, ft2 (m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.525 (0.1417)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44 (6.20)

Mean aerodynamic chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . 12.32 (31.29)

Airfoil section (streamwise) . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 65A series

Length, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.63 (118.44)

Fuselage base area, in2 (cm2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.02 (25.94)

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.23 (18.36)

Area, ft2 (m2), both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 (0.020)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53 (3.89)

Root chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.70 (17.02)

Airfoil section (streamwise) . . . . . . . . . 0.03~-thickcircular-arc

st/s 0.14

Span, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.40 (23.88)

Area, ft2 (mz), both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.32 (0.030)

Tip chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53 (3.89)

Root chord, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 (20.57)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03~-thickcircular-arc

Length, in. (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.50 (19.05)

Capture area, in2 (cm2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.71 (4.58)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.43 (9.22)

I

zU z1 I -~ =U J 4

I

I

I

I

I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

-9

I

I

I

I

I

I l l I I

J

I StO. 2863

0 w0v

c

G '1 7

0 W B v

Con f i g u IO t ion

- 4 -.2 0 .2 4 .6 . 8

- 4 2 0 .2 4 .6 .8

- 4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 . 8

-4 -2 0 .2 4 -6 . 8 1.0

C 0 n f i g u r a t ion

it , deg

-4 -.2 0 .2 4 . 6 .8 /O

Con f igu r a t ion

0 WSVNH, 0

0 w 0 VNH, -8

Configuration it , d q

we V N Tail off