Document
- p i -
-
f e e . . 0.
e . .
e e e . . e . e e . .
e . e . * e e o . e e.. e . .
e . . e .
e o e e 0 . .
. . e . e . e e - 0 - 1P .
e e . . e .
. e
.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS rn SPACE ADMINISTRATION
i TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM x-236 STATIC LONGITUDINAL, DIRECTIONAL, AND LATERAL STABILITY AND CONTROL U T A AT A MACH NUMBER OF 6 . 8 3 OF THE FINAL CONFIGURATION OF THE l L X-15 RESEARCH AIRPLANEl" By Jim A. Penland and h v i d E. Fetterman, 9 Jr.
SUMMARY
333 2-0
An investigation to determine the static longitudinal, directional, and lateral stability and control characteristics of the final configu- ration of the X-13 research airplane, configuration 3, has been carried out in the Langley 11-inch hypersonic tunnel. The tests were made at an average Mach number of 6.83 and a Reynolds number of 640,000 based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord. Data were obtained for an angle-of- attack range from -200 to 240 at angles of sideslip of Oo and -4.5'.
The horizontal-tail deflection was varied from - 3 5 ' to 15O, the vertical- tail deflection from 0 ' to -7.5O, and the speed-brake deflection from Oo to 30°. The longitudinal stability data are referred to the stability- axis system whereas the directional and lateral referred to the body-axis system.
INTRODUCTION Since the initiation of the hypersonic research airplane woject by the NACA in early 19% that resulted in the X-15 airplane project, a vast amount of information concering hypersonic airplane stability has been accumulated. Several modifications of an airplane configura- tion having a cylindrical fuselage and a trapezoidal wing were tested at Mach numbers of 4.06 and 6 . 8 6 and reported in references 1 to 7 .
From the data of these references and other available data, North American Aviation, Inc., in collaboration with the NACA, U.S. Air Force, and U . S . Navy established a preliminary developmental X-15 configura- tion, designated configuration 1. This original configuration has ~ ~~
*
Title, Unclassified.
............... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
t undergone two major changes since its conception and as many as nine alterations on components such as the vertical tail or side fairings.
Data obtained over a wide Mach number range from investigations of the original configuration 1 and the intermediate configuration 2 are reported in references 8 to 1.7. The present investigation is confined to an investigation of the final configuration 3 and some of the minor modifications of this configuration. The static longitudinal, direc- tional, and lateral stability and control characteristics of the model are presented at a Mach number of 6.83, a Reynolds number
of 640,000 based on the model wing mean aerodynamic chord, an angle-of-
attack range from -20' to 24O, and angles of sideslip of 00 and -4.5'. L Analysis of these data has been omitted in order to expedite release of this information.
SYMBOLS
CA axial-f or ce coefficient , FA/qS
CL lift coefficient, FL/qS CD drag coefficient, Fh/qS Cm pitching-moment coefficient, M y / qSc rolling-moment coefficient, MX/qSb c l Cn yawing-moment coefficient, Mz/qSb CN normal-force coefficient, FN/qS CY side-force coefficient, Fy/qS FA t- force along -X-axis F ; ) force along -Xs-axis force along Y-axis FY FL force along -Zs-axis FN force along -Z-axis 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 .
p 0 0 0 0 0 ..
moment about X-axis moment about Y-axis moment about Z-axis rate of change of side-force coefficient with angle of side- slip at zero sideslip angle,
( 2 ) p a o
L rate of change of rolling-moment coefficient with angle of sideslip at zero sideslip angle,
(3)@&o
rate of change of yawing-moment coefficient with angle of side- slip at zero sideslip angle,
(2)w
rate of change of side-force coefficient with vertical-tail -
deflection, - acY
-
a v
rate of change of rolling-moment coefficient with vertical- ac .
- - 1
tail deflection, -
a , rate of change of yawing-moment coefficient with vertical-tail
deflection, - acn
a , rate of change of side-force coefficient with differential
a %
horizontal-tail deflection, -
&h' rate of change of rolling-moment coefficient with differential
deflection, - ac1
horizontal-tail &h .
rate of change of yawing-moment coefficient with differential
deflection, - acn
horizontal-tail ash1
I
b wing span
-
mean aerodynamic chord of total wing C M free-stream Mach number free-stream dynamic pressure
-
R free-stream Reynolds numbers, based on c S total wing area including area within body and fairings L longitudinal, lateral, and vertical axes X distance along chord from leading edge distance perpendicular to chord Y U angle of attack, deg angle of sideslip, deg P horizontal-tail deflection, positive to produce positive lift 6 H coefficient, deg equivalent pitch deflection of differentially deflected hori- ‘He zontal tails, positive to produce positive lift coefficient,
-
~ H L f ~ H R
* ? deg
differential horizontal-tail deflection, positive to produce ‘h’ positive rolling moment about X-axis, 6~~ - 6 ~ ~ , deg speed-brake deflection, deg vertical-tail deflection, positive to produce positive side- force coefficient, deg equivalent vertical-tail deflection of differentially deflected speed brakes, positive to produce positive side-force coeffi- .
I Model component designations:
-
The following designations of various components of the configura- t i o n s were used throughout most of the wind-tunnel program as carried out i n various research f a c i l i t i e s and i s therefore retained f o r the presect i n v e s t l g s t b n .
h7iex-e applicable, these component designations are a l s o used as subscripts.
2 and 3 fuselage including canopy of configurations B2 L fuselage B2 w i t h wing moved forward 0.0734 inch on model B4 horizontal t a i l of configurations 2 and 3 with h h g e l i n e 9 H3 a t 31.4 percent of horizontal-tail mean aerodynamic chord horizontal t a i l H3 moved 0.108 inch rearward on model such H9 that the hinge l i n e was located a t 25 percent of horizontal- t a i l mean aerodynamic chord upper speed brakes used with VU?
Ju2 lower speed brakes used w i t h JL2 V L ~ .
upper speed brakes used with Vu8 as directional control .
Ju3 .
lower speed brakes used w i t h V L ~ a s d i r e c t i o n a l control JL3
upper loo wedge v e r t i c a l t a i l of configuration 3
vu5 lower 1 0 ' wedge v e r t i c a l t a i l of configuration 3 upper v e r t i c a l t a i l used with d i f f e r e n t i a l l y deflected speed %8 brakes J u ~ lower v e r t i c a l t a i l used with d i f f e r e n t i a l l y deflected speed vL9 brakes JL3 wing of configurations 2 and 3 w2 shortened side f a i r i n g s of configuration 3
x4
.
fairings X4 w i t h wing moved forward 0.0734 inch on model ' 1 4 , b Subscripts: L indicates left horizontal tail, lower o r left speed brake, or lower vertical tail R indicates right horizontal tail or right speed brake U indicates upper vertical tail or upper speed brake S stability-axis system L MODEL A photograph of the model used for most of the present tests is shown in figure 1. This 0.02-scale model of the final configuration of the X-15 research airplane is known as configuration 3 and is desig- nated B4W2X14H9Vu3VL7. A three-view drawing of the model is presented in figure 2 and geometric characteristics are given in table I. The model was of conventional tail-rearward design, having an ogival nose and a cylindrical fuselage with side fairings. The cylindrical portion of the model was slightly boattailed at the base. The model had a trapezoidal wing with 2 5 . 6 4 ' sweep of the quarter-chord line and had an ..
all-movable horizontal tail for pitch control. This tail, which could .
be operated differentially for lateral control, was swept back 45' at the quarter-chord line and had l5O of negative dihedral. Both the wing and the horizontal tail had modified NACA 66-005 airfoil sections; the ordinates are presented in table 11. Figure 3 pr6sents details of the vertical-tail surfaces and speed brakes. The vertical-tail surfaces had 1 0 ' included angle wedge airfoil sections and a plan-form-area dis- tribution of 55 percent of the total vertical-tail area for'the dorsal fin and 45 percent for the ventral fin. The directional controls con- sisted of the outer panels of both upper and lower vertical-tail sur- faces. The inside part of each tail surface was fixed and supported the speed brakes.
A few tests were made on a modification of configuration 3. This modified configuration (designated B2W&+H3VusVL9) is similar to configuration 3 (designated B ~ W $ ~ & H ~ V U ~ V L ~ ) except for minor shifts of the wing and horizontal tail (as noted in the definition of component- designation symbols) and a major alteration of the vertical tail and directional controls. This modified vertical tail is shown in detail in figure 3(b) and had a loo included angle wedge airfoil section and c a plan-form-area distribution of 60 percent of the total vertical-tail The direc- %rea for the dorsal fin and 40 percent for the ventral fin.
.
tional control consisted of differentially deflected speed brakes.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 D O 0.0 0
.. 0 . 0 0
0 . 0
0 0 0 0 0. . 0
0 . e .
0 0 0 0 0 0 . :' 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 ..
Figure 3(b) shows a d i f f e r e n t i a l deflection of the speed brakes t o
-
give -5O directional control and a n average speed-brake deflection of 100.
The t e s t s were conducted i n the Mach number 6.86 t e s t section of the Langley 11-inch hypersonic tunnel. The tunnel-wall boundary-layer L thickness and likewise the free-stream Mach number of t h i s t e s t sec- 7 t i o n a r e dependeqt upon the stagnation pressure. For the t e s t s , an 3 average stagnation pressure of 26 atmospheres and an average stagnation The temperature of 6 7 3 O F ( t o amid liquefaction) were imintained.
average free-stream Mach number w a s 6.83 and the Reynolds number was 640,ooO based on the model wing mean aerodynamic chord. The absolute humidity w a s kept t o l e s s than 1.9 x 10-5 pounds of water per pound of dry a i r for a l l tests. Force and moment data were obtained by use of a six-component strain-gage balance through an angle-of-attack range from -20° t o 2 4 O a t angles of sideslip of Oo and -4.5O. The horizontal- t a i l deflection was varied from -35' t o l 5 O , the v e r t i c a l - t a i l deflec- t i o n from Oo t o -7.50, and the speed-brake deflection from Oo t o 5 0 ° .
One test was made a t an angle of attack of Oo and a range of s i d e s l i p Tfie balance and model were mounted i n the angles from -2O t o 2 1 ° .
r tunnel t e s t section on a movable s t r u t which w a s rotated through an Angles of s i d e s l i p angle of a t t a c k during the run f o r each test point.
were obtained by o f f s e t t i n g the model and balance support t o the desired
-
s i d e s l i p angle p r i o r t o each run. Thus the data were obtained a t an essentially constant s i d e s l i p angle over the angle-of-attack range.
The t r u e angles of a t t a c k were set optically by use of a point source of l i g h t and a small lens-prism assembly mounted i n the model behind the fuselage fairings. The image of the l i g h t source was r e f l e c t e d by the prism and focused by the l e n s onto a calibrated chart.
Model base pressures were measured during a l l t e s t s and the axial-force component w a s adjusted t o correspond t o a base pressure equal t o stream s t a t i c pressure.
ACCWUCY O F DATA The probable uncertainties i n the force and momnt coefficients f o r t h e individual test points due to the force balance system and .+ variations i n dynamic pressure are presented as follows: .
c ............... .......
c
CL +_o .02
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.006
c , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.006
CL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +_0.0005
c , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.001
cy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.005
The errors in the positioning of the angle of attack, angle of sideslip, and horizontal-tail, vertical-tail, and speed-brake deflec- L tions were no greater than f 0 . 1 0 ' . The stagnation pressure was meas- ured to an accuracy of +2 inches of mercury out of about 800 inches and the variation of the Mach number used in calculating dynamic pres- sure was no greater than 20.01.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the tests are presented as coefficients of forces The longi- and moments as defined in the section entitled Symbols.
tudinal data are referred to the stability-axis system and the direc- tonal and lateral data are referred to the body-axis system. The body- The moment and stability-axis systems are illustrated in figure 4.
.
reference was at 20 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord. A l l * tests were made at a Mach number of 6.83 and a Reynolds number of 640,000 based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord. Typical schlieren photographs of configuration 3 are presented in figure 5.
The data are presented in the form of comparison plots to show the effects of component breakdown and control deflection. For con- venience in locating these various effects and configurations, an index to the data figures is presented in table 111. The basic longitudinal
stability characteristics (CL, CD, and Cm) are presented in figures 6
to 22.
With the exception of one test at a = Oo, no variations of the Cn, and CL) with basic lateral and directional stability data (Cy, sideslip angle are presented since most of the tests were made through the angle-of-attack range only at sideslip angles of 0 ' and -4.5O.
Straight-line slopes between the basic data at these sideslip angles were then used to obtain the lateral and directional stability param- eters. This method is believed to yield sufficiently accurate results c since the slopes so obtained agree very well with those obtained from a limited number of tests wherein the model was tested over a sideslip- angle range at a = 0 ' and in all tests the values of the lateral .
-
I tP .
I
-
C L I forces and moments were zero within thz d c u r a c y of the results a t @ = Oo. Siy-component body-axis data a t a = Oo and p = -2O t o 2 1 °
I d
?re-presented i n figure 23 and show essentially l i n e a r variations of , the coefficients CY, Cn, and C t with s i d e s l i p angle near p = 0 ' .
The l a t e r a l and directional s t a b i l i t y parameters /Cy Cnp, arrd C i p ) are presented i n figures 24 t o 3 3 . The straight-line-slope method was a l s o used t o obtain the l a t e r a l and directional control parameters presented i n figures 36 t o 48.
t Although an analysis of the data has been omitted from t h i s report, 7 a few comments concerning parts of the test results a r e i n order. A 3 comparison of the aerodynamic characteristics presented i n figures 8
9 and 3, p a r t i c d s r l y the pitching-moment coefficients &, shows t'nat
marked nonlinearities occur a t l o w angles of a t t a c k f o r the configura- I ~ tion w i t h t h e wing because of wing wake impingement and interference I I on the horizontal tail. This phenomenon has been reported previously Tests a t Reynolds numbers other than that used i n references 5 and 18.
i n the present investigation indicate that t h i s pitching-moment non- l i n e a r i t y i s aggravated a t lower Reynolds numbers and diminishes at higher Reynolds numbers. Although t o a l e s s e r degree, the r e s u l t s of t e s t s with speed-brake deflection a r e a l s o affected t o some extent by the Reynolds number level of the tests inasmuch as some flow separation the brake surfaces i n the vicinity of the occurred over and ahead of c hinge l i n e .
For the remaining t e s t s w i t h undeflected horizontal tails and of Reynolds number on the longi- speed brakes, no significant e f f e c t s tudinal, l a t e r a l , and directional s t a b i l i t y and control characteris- t i c s were observed.
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Field, Va., November 3, 1959.
. .
r .
REFEXENCES L 1. Penland, Jim A., Ridyard, Herbert W., and Fetterman, David E., Jr.: Lift, Drag, and Static Longitudinal Stability Data From an Explora- tory Investigation at a Mach Number of 6.86 of an Airplane Configu- ration Having a Wing of Trapezoidal Plan Form. NACA RM L54L03b, 2. Ridyard, Herbert W., Fetterman, David E., Jr., and Penland, Jim A,: Static Lateral Stability Data F r o m an Exploratory Investigation at L
a Mach Number of 6.86 of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing 7
of Trapezoidal Plan Form. NACA RM L55A2la, 1955. 3 3. Dunning, Robert W., and Ulmann, Edward F.: Static Longitudinal and Lateral Stability Data From an Exploratory Investigation at Mach Number 4.06 of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing of Trape- zoidal Plan Form. NACA RM L55A21, 1955.
4. Dunning, Robert W., and Ulmann, Edward F.: Exploratory Investigation at Mach Number 4.06 of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing of
Trapezoidal Plan Form - Longitudinal and Lateral Control Character-
b istics. NACA RM L55B28, 1955.
5. Fetterman, David E., Jr., Penland, Jim A., and Ridyard, Herbert W.: I Static Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Data From an Exploratory Investigation at a Mach Number of 6.86 of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing of Trapezoidal Plan Form. NACA RM L55C04, 1955.
6. Dunning, Robert W., and Ulmann, Edward F.: Exploratory Investigation at Mach Number 4.06 of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing of
Trapezoidal Plan Form - Effects of Various Tail Arrangements on
Wing-On and Wing-Off Static Longitudinal and Lateral Stability Characteristics. NACA RM L55DO8, 1955.
7. Penland, Jim A., Fetterman, David E., Jr., and Ridyard, Herbert W.: Static Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Characteris- tics of an Airplane Configuration Having a Wing of Trapezoidal Plan Form With Various Tail Airfoil Sections and Tail Arrangements at a Mach Number of 6.86. NACA RM L55F17, 1955.
8. Osborne, Robert S.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 0.0667-Scale Model of the North American X-15 Research Airplane at Transonic Speeds. NASA TM X-24, 1959.
c ‘ .
.
I 9. Leupold, Mathias J., and Freeman, Elizabeth M . : Supersonic Force Tests for Stabilizer-Control Effectiveness on the Full-Span
r
Model X-l5 for North American Aviation, Inc., Wind Tunnel Rep. 164, Naval Supersonic Lab., M . I . T . , Oct. 1957.
and Freeman, Elizabeth M . : A Second Series of 10. Leupold, Mathias J., Supersonic Force Tests on the Full-Span Model X-15 for North American Aviation, Incorporated. Wind Tunnel Rep. 200, Naval Supersonic Lab., M.I.T., Sept. 1958.
L 11. Leupold, Mathias J . , and Freeman, Elizabeth M . : A Third Series of Supersonic Force Tests on the Full-Span Model X-15 for North 3 American Aviation, Incorporated. Wind Tunnel Rep. 228, Naval 9 %personic L&., ? , ? . I .T., Nov. 1958.
12. Leupold, Mathias J . , and Freeman, Elizabeth M . : A Fourth Series of Supersonic Force Tests on the N l - S p a n Model X-15 for North American Aviation, Incorporated. Wind Tunnel Rep. 239, Naval Supersonic Lab., M.I.T., Dec. 1958.
13. Franklin, Arthur E., and Silvers, H. Norman: Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 0.067-Scale Model of the X-15 Air- plane (Configuration 2) at Mach Numbers of 2.29, 2.98, 3.96, and 4.65. NASA MEMO 4-27-59L, 1959.
-
Investigation of the Low-Speed Stability and 14. Boisseau, Peter C . : Control Characteristics of a l/T-Scale Model of the North American X-15 Airplane. NACA RM L57DO9, 1957.
15. Lopez, Armando E., and Tinling, Bruce E.: The Static and Dynamic- Rotary Stability Derivatives at Subsonic Speeds of a Model of the X-15 Research Airplane. IUCA RM A58F09, 1958.
The Static and Dynamic- 16. Tunnell, Phillips J., and Latham, Eldon A . : Rotary Stability Derivatives of a Model of the X-15 Research Air- NASA MEMO l2-23-58A, plane at Mach Numbers From1.55 to 3.50.
1959.
17. Fetterman, David E., Jr., and Penland, Jim A . : Static Longitudinal, Directional, and Lateral Stability and Control Data From an Investi- gation at a Mach Number of 6.83 of Two Developmental X-15 Airplane Configurations. PUSA TM X-209, 1960.
Flow-Field Effects on 18. U l m a n n , Edward F., and Ridyard, Herbert W . : Static Stability and Control at High Supersonic Mach Numbers.
PACA RM L55Ll9a, 1956.
TAEZZ I.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS O F M O D E L Wing. W 2 :
Area. t o t a l . sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.520
Area. exposed. sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.050
Span. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.366
Aspect r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.500
Root chord. fuselage center l i n e . i n .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.578
Root chord. exposed. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.64
Tip chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.716
Mean aerodynamic chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.465
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweepback angles. deg -
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.75
25-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.64
. . . . . . . . . . . .
T r a i l i n g edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -17.74
t;
Taper r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.200
.
. . . . . . . 0
Dihedral angle. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
u U
. . . . . . . 0
Incidence angle. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A i r f o i l section. p a r a l l e l t o fuselage center l i n e . . . . . . Modified NACA 66-005 Leading-edge radius. i n . .
Tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.008
Fuselage-line chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.014
Horizontal t a i l . H3 and H 9:
Area. exposed. sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.878
Semispan (panel span). i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.330
Aspect r a t i o of exposed a r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.229
Taper r a t i o of exposed a r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.328
Root chord. exposed. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.658
.
T i p chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.506
Mean aerodynamic chord. exposed area. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.184
Sweepback angles. deg .
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 5 8
25-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-00
T r a i l i n g edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-28
Dihedral. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -15.000
A i r f o i l section. p a r a l l e l t o f'uselage center l i n e . . . . . . Modified NACA 66-005 Leading-edge radius. i n . .
T i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.005
Fuselage-line chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.010
Upper v e r t i c a l tail. Vu5:
Area. exposed. sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.356
Span. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
Aspect r a t i o of exposed a r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.516
Taper r a t i o of exposed a r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.738
Root chord. fuselage surface l i n e . i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.450
Tip chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 8 1
Mean aerodynamic chord of exposed area. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.148
Sweepback angles. deg .
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.000
25-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.413
T r a i l i n g edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
A i r f o i l section. p a r a l l e l t o fuselage center l i n e . . . . . . . . . 1 0 ' full wedge
Leading-edge radius. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.010
Control surface .
Area. sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.521
Root chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.250
Mean aerodynamic chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.039
.
.. err ....................
0 0 0 0 . 0 0 i o ! ; * ::o :: 0 . 0 . . . . .
......... e 0.0 0.
..
.
TABLE I . - GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL . Concluded I 4 Lower v e r t i c a l t a i l . V L ~ :
Area. exposed. s q i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.982
Span. exposed. i n . .
Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o - p o
Mini mum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.880
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.900
Aspect r a t i o of exposed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.427
Taper r a t i o of exposed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.783
. . . . 2.450
Root chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tipchord. in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.919
Mean aerodynamic chord of exposed area. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.200
Sweepback angles. deg .
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.000
25-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.413
Trailing edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Ak.foil.section, p a r a l l e i t o fuseiage center l i n e . . . . . . . . . 10" full wedge
Leading-edge radius. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.010
Control surface -
Area. s q i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.149
Root chord. in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.250
Mean aerodynamic chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.@3
Upper v e r t i c a l tail. Vu8:
Area. exposed. sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.776
Span. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Aspect r a t i o of exposed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.694
. . . . 0.435
Taper r a t i o of exposed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2.23
Root chord. fuselage surface line. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.97
Tipchord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 1.683
Mean aerodynamic chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweepback angles. deg .
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5
23-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8
. . . . -14.2
Trailing edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
loo f ~ l l weage A i r f o i l section. p a r a l l e l t o fixelage center l i n e . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.01
Leading-edge radius. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.699
Area. s t a b i l i z e r (speed brakes). sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lower v e r t i c a l tail. VLg:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19
Area. exposed. sq in . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.52
Span. exposed. i n . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.227
Aspect r a t i o of exposed area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83
Taper r a t i o of exposed area . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.59
Root chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.15
Tip chord. i n . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.99
Mean aerodynamic chord. i n . . . . . .
Sweepback angles. deg .
. . . . 43.2
Leading edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7
25-percent-chord l i n e . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Trailing edge . . . . . . . . . . .
center l i n e . . . . . . . . . 1 0 ' f~ll wedge
A i r f o i l section. p a r a l l e l t o fuselage
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01
Leading-edge radius. in . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.484
Area. s t a b i l i z e r (speed brakes). sq i r Fuselage. B4X14 :
Length. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.76
Maximum diameter. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Maximum width including side fairings. in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.76
Fineness r a t i o . r a t i o of length t o body diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.50
.
Base diameter. i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.960
.'
TABLE 11.- A I R F O I L SECTION ORDINATES c .
b o d i f i e d NACA 66-0051 L ( a ) Wing w2 ( b ) Horizontal t a i l s H and H 9 y, percent chord y, percent chord x, percent x, percent chord chord Tip lRoot Tip 'Root -4 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o .348 1.25 1 .Oh8 .1 .269 .358 1.123 .408 .538 2.5 .533 .25 1.263 .728 * 531 5.0 .8% .5 . & 6 1.137 1.395 * 590 7.5 .75 10 1.382 1.25 ,650 1 523 .969 1.052 2.50 1-5 1.759 1.769 .791 2.001 2.001 .oo 1.048 1.206 20 5 2.182 2.182 1.268 7.5 1.353 2.318 2.318 10 1.458 1.493 1.768 2 h i 6 2 A i 6 35 1.5 1.765 2.476 2.476 20 2.001 2.001 2.182 2.500 2.182 2.500 45 25 2.485 2.485 2.318 2.318 2.416 2.432 2.416 2 .432 35 2.476 60 k0 2.476 2.332 2 0 332 2.151 2.500 2.500 2.151 65 45 2.485 2.085 2.485 2.085 67 50 100 .500 .500 2.432 2.432 60 2.332 2.332 L.E . radius: Root, 0.015 inch; 1.653 1.653 .961 t i p , 0.008 inch. .961 100 500 B a s i c a i r f o i l modifed f o r l i n e a r taper between r o o t and L.E. radius: Root, 0.010 inch; t i p forward of 17-percent- t i p , 0.005 inch.
chord l i n e and modified t o s t r a i g h t side rearward of Basic a i r f o i l modified f o r 67-percent-chord l i n e t o l i n e a r taper between r o o t and 1-percent-thick t r a i l i n g edge. t i p forward of ?-percent- chord l i n e a t r o o t and 15-percent-chord l i n e a t t i p 'Exposed root chord.
and modified t o s t r a i g h t side rearward of 67-percent-chord l i n e t o 1-percent-thick t r a i l i n g edge.
.
'Exposed r o o t chord.
1 . I .
.l En3 d e !
- Angle o r % attack, - a, aes -_.
-_- 4 t o 24 _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ ._____.__ __.
4 t o 24 -20 t o b 0 -4 t o w 4tob _ _ _ I 4 - 2 4 - -20 t u 24 -4 t o 24
-10 i:_ -20
--.._____ -xi 8 -20 to b -jj I -33 - -10 -20 i -20 to 24 -30 -35 O I O
L
I 4 to 24 -7.5 O I __
0 4
-5 -15
$ 1 0
- 4 t o w -10
o l o
- -10 -20 4 t o 24 -20 -20 -
d-
I -10 4toa -20 - 4 t o 24 14 - -20 t o 2i, 20 15 - -20 16 -2 to 24 - -10 17 4 to 24 -20 t i m e I - Bori.ontnl-tall deflection with
I
-10 4 to 24 -20 - 19 4 t o 24 -5 - __ _ _ _ 20 -20 to 2 4 -10 10 10 - __ L R L R ~ ~ f r ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ i 10 10 10 10 Speed-brake 21 5 15 5 15 d e f l e c t l a 4 t o 24 -10 0 2 0 0 2 0 - Differential L R L R horizontal-tail deflection "it1 5 10 10 10 10 sped-brake 4 to 24 22 deriectico - L TABLE 111.- INDEX OF D A T A FIGURES - Concluded L.
~ H o r i z o n t a l - tall V e r t i c a l - t a i l Speea-brake
Angle of 1 Angle of
d e f l e c t i o n , d e f l e c t i o n , a t t a c k , s i d e s l i p , E f f e c t s of -
C o n f i g u r a t i o n 1 de& 1 1 deg
F i g u r e - . _ - 0 0 Upper or upper a n d Lover v e r t i c a l - 0 0 -5 0 -4 t o 74 0 t a i l and speed- 35 35 b r a k e d e f l e c t 1 on: -5 35 35 - ~ - liorizontiil-tail d e f ' l c c t i o n w i t h 0 0 -10 upper v e r t i c a l - -10 0 -4 t o 24 0 35 35 t i r i i iind spricd- -20 -20 bruke d e f l u c t i o n c ~ __ H o r i z o n t a l - t a i l 0 d e f l e c t i o n w i t h v e r t i tal- tai 1 and -10 -10 -4 t o 24 - 3 35 35 0 speed-brake -20 - 20 d e f l e c t i o n s ~~ ~ ~~~ -- 0 0 0 -4.2 0 0 -20 LO 24 - 5 3> 0 -4.5 ~ Horizontal-toil deflection w i t h u p p ~ r w r t i c a l - 0 0 -10 -10 t a i l a n d speed- 0 -4 t o 24 -4 .:' b r a k e d p f l e c t i o n s - 20 -20 c a t a n g l e of S i d e s l i P -~ H o r i z o n t a l - t a i l d e f l e c t i o n w i t h 0 0 vrr t i c a l - t a i l and -10 - 10 -4 t o 24 -4.5 -2 35 35 speed-brnkc -PO -,TI d e f l e c t i o n s at iinglc of s i d e s l i p ~ n g i ~ O r s i d e s l i p w i t h upper 0 0 0 0 -4 t o 74 0 v e r t i c a l - t l i 1 -4 .> dr f l e C t i on ~ L L R Differrntinl s p e e d - 0 0 -4 t o 24 5 5 15 0 brukf d e f l e c t i o n 0 0 20 - 10 -10 ~ -10 -30 10 -IO . ' O 0 . ' I - 1 ' 0 - '0 -10 -50 I i k v m I cu ............... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . ...... 0 . :... . . . . .
..........
E
k
I L / I I N r( M In
8 !i
2 8
I
I m I - f- '" d .
r n rc\
c' J i L \\ I
P- I , J (a) Vertical t a i l s V U ~ V L ~ and speed brakes J u ~ J L ~ .
( b ) Vertical t a i l s vu8v~9and speed brakes Ju3JL3.
Figure 3 . - Details of v e r t i c a l t a i l s and speed brakes showing typical symmetrical and d i f f e r e n t i a l speed-brake deflection. All dimensions i n inches.
x r n rn m !
(a) a = 00, B = oo (b) a = bo, e = o0 ( c ) a = BO, E = o O ( d ) a = 1Z0, B = Oo ( f ) a = zoo, 5 = oo ( E ) a = 24', P = 0 ' (h) E = O.OZ', a = oo ( i ) 6 = 1 . 7 7 ' , a = 00 (j) P = 7 . a 8 " , a = 0 ' (n) E = 16.27', a = 0 ' Figure 5.- Typical schlieren photographs of configuration 3, M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
B L W ~ X ~ ~ H ~ V U ~ V L ~ .
am mea a .ma a e e ma a e a earn e e m e e e e e e e a e a a e m e a - 1 .
(I c m -.l - .2 T . .
. . . .
--I -- i w
--+ I
u.1 21.1 ( ' 1 . . .
!
' ' il' .
i ..., . .
.2 CD .. 1 -i- t 4 1 0 8 -7- , ( 1
j I I --4
. . I -
I -- .i
I ! , T
; I r t
I . . . - , .
u Q
i - t
/ ' a I , I . .
I , -+ : .+ .j . ' : , I 1 5- . . . . , . .
... i L_::I.. ! I 20 - 1 0 (a) Body-fairing,wing, horizontal tail, and upper vertical tail.
Figure 6.- Effect of component parts on the longitudinal stability char- acteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
-
m o 0.0 om 0 0 om. 0.0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 .
0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 0 0 0.0 0 .
.
.
.4 .3 C - i 6 -5 C 5 1D 15 20 25 a, deg (b) Body-wing-fairing, horizontal t a i l , and upper and lower v e r t i c a l tails.
Figure 6.- Concluded.
.1 c m -.l -.2 - . 3 .5 .3 CD .2 .1 .8 0 .6 .4 CL .2 -.2 - 10 -5 0 5 10 20 25 a , deg Figure 7.- Effect of speed brakes with and without the horizontal tail on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 .
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
P * h E- l GI (a) Lift.
Figure 8. - Effect
of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 with wing &moved M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
( B J + X ~ ~ H ~ V U ~ V L ~ ) .
e. e.. . e.. e .e e. 0 e . e.. .e
e . e . e . e 0 . . e . . e . .
e . e . . e i 0 e. e 0 . e 0 . e e . .
e. e.. . 4 e. e.. e.
.5 O .4 .3 CD .n .1 -25 -20 -15 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 a , deg Figure 8.- Continued.
-
a, deg ( c ) Pitching moment.
Figure 8.- Concluded.
a * . . e. a . e e e.. e.
e. e.. e . e e .
e . e . .
e . e .
e. e.. e
.-
-10 -20 -30 -35 C L 0 - 2 - .4 -.6 - 8 I 15 20 -20 -15 - 1 0 -25 (a) Lift.
longitudinal Figure 9.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the M = 6-85; R = 640,000- stability characteristics of configuration 3.
c
-
.
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 , deg ( c ) P i t c h i n g moment.
Figure 9.- Concluded.
0. 0.0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 . e * 0 0.0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 . e 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . : ~ o ~ * o 0 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 3 1 i m M t - t - 10 -5 0 5 10 15 2 G 25 Figure 10.- Effect of vertical-tail deflection on the longitudinal sta- bility characteristics of configuration 3 .
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
I
-.6* 1.0 .6 CL . 4 .2 -.2 20 25 -5 0 5 10 15 - 10 0 , d w Figure 11.- Effect of differential horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; - R = 640,000.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.
0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 .
: 0 0 : :' 0.0 * do i i o i i o : m M 'P- f 4 4 I .
Figure 12.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 with various speed- M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
brake deflections.
.. ... 0.. . 0 . .. . . . ... 0 .
.1 Cm -.l - .2 - . 3
F
G U .8 .6 .4 CL .2 - 9 - 1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 , deg F i g w e 13.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 with upper speed-brake deflection.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
l a I 0.
m k I d c -.” - 1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 25 a, deg Fi
14. - Effect of speed-brake deflection on the longitudina .1 sta-
- w e bil i ty characteristics of configuration 3 with differential hor i zor ttal-tail deflection. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
u U Figure 15.- Effect of differential horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 with and J without speed-brake deflection.
M = 6.83;’R = 640,000.
0 0 0 0 0 0 . . * 0 e o & 0 . 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 -
1 . .
b .
.7 .6 .5 A ._ .3 c ma m e a m m m ma ma m m m ma 0 0 -10 0 0 0 0 35 .2 .1
T
w \o -.l c m - .2 - . J - .4 - .5 - .6 1 -! I - . I 0 5 - 20 - 15 - 10 -5 -25 a, deg (c) Pitching moment.
Figure 15.- Concluded.
0. 0.. 0 0 . a . 0. . D a m a D.D m a
r n ?n l- I (-11 c -lo -5 0 5 1 0 15 25 a, deg Figure 16.- Effect of vertical-tail deflection on the longitudinal sta- bility characteristics of configuration 3 with horizontal-tail deflection.
M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
.
c m -.l - .2 - .3 - .4 , .8 .6 CL .4 .2 -.2 - 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 - 10 a, deg
Figure 1 . 7 . - Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal
stability characteristics of configuration 3 with upper vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
6 P -
e c n K\ E-
A
I - -
Figure 18.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal stability characteristics of configuration 3 with vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
0 . ... . 0.. . 0 . 0 . . . . ... a .
. 5
F
.4 .3 CD .2 .1 c Figure 19.- Effect of upper vertical-tail deflection on the longitudinal M = 6.83; R = 640,000. stability characteristics of configuration 3.
I . ?
I * CL C .2 .6 -25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 25 -15 -20 a, &g (a) Lift.
Figure 20.- Effect of speed brake and horizontal-tail deflection and the removal of the horizontal tail on the longitudinal stability charac- teristics of modified configuration 3, B ~ W & + H ~ V ~ ~ V L ~ J ~ J L ~ .
I - -
M = 4-83; R = 640,OOO.
0 . 0 . . . 0.. . 0 . 0 . . . . 0.. 0 .
.. 0 . .. . 0 . . 0 . . ...
. . . . 0 . . . . 0 . : . : . : - : *: : : 0 . 0.. . 0 . . 0 .
EL9 8%19' 10 10 0 0 10 10 10 10 -10 - 10 -15 -25 -20 -5 0 c .2 .1 e . 1 .2 . 3
t
25 -20 - 15 - 10 -5 0 5 1 0 15 20 25
a, &g (c) Pitching moment.
Figure 20.- Concluded.
I ' 1 7 - 1 Crn -.l - .2
T
-4 - .3 w 8 . ~ ~ ~ 9 deg v3 L R L R 10 10 5 15 0 20 I i CL .
) -5 Figure 21.- Effect of differential speed-brake deflection on the longi- tudinal stability characteristics of modified configuration 3, M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
B ~ W ~ X ~ H ~ V U ~ V L ~ J U ~ J L ~ .
c .
- . 1 - 2 . 5 .4 .3 CD .2 .1 .8 .4 -.2 10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 a , deg Figure 22.- Effect of d i f f e r e n t i a l horizontal-tail deflection on the longitudinal s t a b i l i t y characteristics of modified configuration 3 with speed-brake deflection ( B Z W $ ~ H ~ V ~ ~ V L $ ~ J L ~ ) . M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
0 . .e. . e.. . v e 0 . . . . 0..
0 .
0 . 0 . 0 .
0 .
. . 0 . . 0 . .
0 .
e . 0 . 0 .
48 0 .
0 . 0.. . . .
e.
CY .08 2 .4 D6
i I
.6 Cn D2 C -.02 I35 I I .
1 I 0 C I 1 1
i l l
C m -.OO -.@ C A ' N G
m
I I -_L
-02 -5 Figure 23.- Variation of longitudinal and lateral stability character- u = 0 ' ; M = 6.83; istics w i t h angle of sideslip of configuration 3.
R = 640,000.
- 10 -5 0 5 10 15 25
a, deg F 'i gure 24.- Effect of component parts on the lateral and directl 3. M = 6.83; R = stability characteristics of configuration Ooo.
............... .......
........................
CY P ,016 .012
F
.008 ,004 C ‘6 Figure 25.- Effect of speed-brake deflection on the lateral and direc- tional stability characteristics of configuration 3.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.
.02 .04 0 B4u3[14VU5VLhr2 35 0 B4"2"14%vU5VL7%2 35 0 0 %'~1hvU5vL7%2J12 35 35 a B 4 % . ~ v U 5 v L ~ 2 % 2 35 35 .m c'B .m - 1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 25 =, deg Figure 26.- Effect of speed-brake deflection on the lateral and direc- t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y characteristics of configuration 3 with and without horizontal tail. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
,004 C "P . .004 Figure 27.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
o m m m m a m m a m m m m m m am m M t - I .OW I4 C ,004
- 1 0 -5
0 5 10 15 20 25 a, deg Figure 28.- Effect of vertical-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3 .
M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
* c"B c P Figure 29.- Effect of differential horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3.
\ M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
0. 00. 0 . 0 0. *o . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.
C ' Y , . -.02 - .04 m M
t
- 1 0 -5 0 5 1 0 15 25
0 , d q Figure 30.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3 with various speed-brake deflections.
M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
c .02 CYp 0 -.02 - .04
T
-1 w \o .ooe .004 c n p ,004 c1p 0 - ,004 -5 0 5 1 0 15 20 25 -10 a, deg Figure 31.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3 with upper speed-brake deflection.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
i 0 . 0.0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . ..
0 0 . 0 0 . . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 .
B P - 57
0 0 0 0 0.0 ..
* . ... . . P
C" 'Z L a. deg Figure 32.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3 with upper vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
.e e.. . ..e . 0 . 0 . . . . 0.. 0 .
C Y p -.02 - .04 \ \ B o 4 -5 -5 -5 .GO4 c ( ' P - .ooz 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 - 10 -5 0 5 a, deg Figure 33.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the lateral and directional stability characteristics of configuration 3 with M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections.
C a, deg Figure 34.- Effect of upper v e r t i c a l - t a i l deflection on the l a t e r a l and directional s t a b i l i t y - characteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
.
-.02 - .04 .008 .004 . .004 ,004 C 2, 0 - .004 Figure 35.- Effect of speed-brake deflection on the lateral and direc- tional stability characteristics of modified configuration 3, M = 6-83; R = 640,000.
B ~ W $ ~ H ~ V U ~ V L ~ J U ~ J L ~ c
0. 0.. .. 'c . 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.
I .
.01 - .002 c
I
I
-.002 -
I -
t
-5 0 5 10 15 25 - 1 0 a, deg Figure 36.- Directional control characteristics of configuration 3 for various vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
a * * a.
a. a * * a * a * a a. a. a a a a . a . a . a * * a . . a a * * a . a . . a * a . a : : * - : *::: 62 a. a * * a a a a a * * a.
.0ox .002 C b " - ,002 0 , deg ' Figure 37.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the directional control characteristics of configuration 3 with upper vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
c .om ' b v 0 - GO2 - 10 -5 0 5 10 15 25 01, deg Fi gure 38.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on t h e d i r e c t i
. . onal
control c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of configuration 3 with v e r t i c a l - t a i .1 and speed-brake deflections. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
.o I %" ,005 C i I -1 w
I ! 1
v: I " I Y , "L Y . 1 , 0 0 0 -5 0 4 . 5
8 2 35 0
35 -4.5 a 3 ,002 1 -.002 .
Figure 39.- Effect of -4.5' sideslip and speed-brake deflection un the M = 6.83; directional control characteristics of configuration 3.
R = 640,000.
B P
.
.005 cybv - .005 c .002 ‘l6v - . I 3 0 2 -10 -5 0 5 1 0 15 25 Figure 40.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the directional control characteristics of configuration 3 at -4.5’ sideslip with upper vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections. M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
a a a * * a.
a. a * * a . * a a a. a.
a . a . a . a * a * a * * * a * a a . a a e a . .
a . * a * * a * a
- - . * * a a * *
1 1 - - - - - - -
a. a a . * a * a * a . a.
a. a * * a ea. a. a. am. a a
a a a a . : a a
a. a a * * a * a a a a .
a a a a a e a .
.a .a. a. * a * a . a. a. a 0 a a * . a.
.
t --LI I .oo; --7 cihv - .oo: - 13 -5 0 5 10 15 25 a, deg Figure 41.- Effect of horizontal-tail deflection on the directional control characteristics of configuration 3 at -4 .?' sideslip with vertical-tail and speed-brake deflections.
M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO.
.
- .004 c Figure 42.- Effect of -4.5' sideslip on the directional control charac- teristics of configuration 3 with upper vertical-tail deflection.
M = 6-85; R = 64O,OOO.
. 0 . . . 0.. 0 .
0 .
. 0 .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. 0 .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
................
. .
.
. ............
.
0 .
0 . .
.
: - : . . :: 0 .
. . .
. .
.
0 . 0 .
0 . c .01 ybv ,005 ,002 ',bv , .004 0 20 0 20 -10 .002 C k - .002 - 10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 a , deg
Figure 43 .- Directional control characteristics of modified configura-
tion 3, B ~ W ~ X ~ H ~ V U ~ V L ~ J U ~ J L ~ , for various differential speed-brake deflections.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000.
c 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - - .
- - - 0 0 C O O e' 3- 0 , 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 .
0 ' I .
.m5, G .0g2 %hh' .GC2 c26h' 0 .CQ2 -25 -20 -15 - 1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 25 =* deg Figure 44.- Effect of -4.5' sideslip on the l a t e r a l control charracter- i s t i c s of configuration 3.
M = 6.83; R = 640,000, .
.005 C '6h' - .005 002 ',bh' . 0 0 2 I I 1 1
I 1
I
I C1bh' C i i - .oo; c Figure 45.- Effect of -4.5' s i d e s l i p on the lateral control character- i s t i c s of configuration 3 w i t h an equivalent horizontal-tail deflec- M = 6.83; R = 640,000, t i o n .
.005 y6hh' 0 - .005 ' m -004 m F-
A
-002 .002 bh'
- .002
- 1 0 -5 0 5 1 0 15 25
Figure 46.- Effect of speed-brake deflection on the l a t e r a l control characteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO; p = 0 ' .
... 0 .
...
0 . . .
...
..e 0 .
0.. 0 .
. 0 .
0 . . .
. 0 .
... 0 .
.005 -
i
20 0 0 20 0 10 I I _ _ - ~.. i . 0 0 2 k-- I I I i I _ - --coo2 v I I I I I I I , I I I I I
+-+-
I , I I I
i
I I ____ L-.- 0 -15 - 10 -25 Figure 47.- Effect of speed-brake deflection on the l a t e r a l control characteristics of configuration 3 w i t h an equivalent horizontal- t a i l deflection. M = 6.83; R = 640,000; p = 0'.
.005 c Y&l 0 - .005 .
.
-002 .002
- 1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a , deg deflection on the Figure 48.- Effect of equivalent horizontal-tail lateral control characteristics of configuration 3. M = 6.83; R = 640,OOO; j 3 = 0 ' .
NASA - Langley Field, Va.
L-7'59