Document
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
X-328
E F F E C T S O F WING HEIGHT ON THE STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTEMSTICS AT A MACH NUMBEZ O F 2.01 O F A CANARD AlRPLANE CONF'IGURATIOI A 70' DELTA WING WITH By Cornelius D r i v e r Langley Research C e n t e r Langley Field, Va.
L n 1 ;
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, 9) 1 ; 4 1
= I \ \ 4
WASHINGTON September 1960 i i ' i s
0 . . ..e . 0.. 0 .
0 . 0.. . . . 0 .
. * . 0 . * .
0 . . * . . * . .
l?
. 0 . . 0 . . 0 .
..*. . . . * .
* * . . * ..
0 . . . m..
0 . . . 0.. 0 .
0 . 0.. 0 . 0.. . 0 .
.
:- NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL MICMORANDUM X-328
!
STABILITY AND CONTROL CJMRACTERISTICS AT A MACH NUMBER OF 2.01 OF A CANARD AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION i 4 WITH A 70° DELTA WING*
4 By Cornelius Driver
SUMMARY An investigation has been made in the Langley 4- by 4-foot super- sonic pressure tunnel at a Mach number of 2.01 to determine the effects of wing height on the stability and control characteristics of a canard airplane configuration having wing and canard surfaces of TO0 delta planform. The configurations were tested with a vertical tail mounted on the body plane of symmetry and with twin tails mounted on the wing , at about the 50-percent-semispan location.
The low-wing configuration with the body-mounted vertical tail had the highest trim values of lift-curve slope, control effectiveness, and lift-drag ratio of the configurations tested.
The positioning of the vertical tails outboard on the wing caused a reversal in the wing-height effects on the directional-stability level, and the high-wing configuration maintained the highest level of directional stability. The presence of the‘canard surface on the con- figuration which had the twin vertical tails mounted on the wing had a significantly smaller decrease in directional stability with angle / of attack than did the configuration which had the vertical tail on thd] body.
INTRODUCTION A research program has been under way at the Langley 4-by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunnel to determine the aerodynamic characteristics
*
Title, Unclassified.
............... . . 0.. 0 .
0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.............
of several canard airplane configurations. Various phases of the pro- * gram are presented in references 1 to 6. As a continuation of the pro- gram, an investigation was m d e to determine the effects of wing verti- cal location on the aerodynamic characteristics of a configuration with a wing and a canard surface of TO0 delta planform. Portions of the present results have previously been reported in reference 7.
The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the extent that the aerodynamic characteristics in pitch and sideslip might be affected by changing the location of the wing-chord plane with respect to the canard wake and the vertical tail. Three vertical loca- tions of the wing were investigated with the vertical tail located on the body plane of symmetry or with twin tails located on the wings.
COEFFICIENTS AND SYMBOLS The results are referred to the body-axis system except the lift and drag coefficients which are referred to the stability-axis system.
The moment reference point is on the body center line 25 inches rear- ward of the nose of the model.
The coefficients and symbols are defined as follows: Lift
lift coefficient, -
CL qs
drag coefficient, - Drag
CD q s Pitching moment pitching-moment coefficient, qsc Rolling moment rolling-moment coefficient, Cl qSb Yawing moment yawing-moment coefficient, Cn q= Side force side-force coefficient, CY q s L free-stream dynamic pressure, l b / s q ft i t S wing area including body intercept, s q ft 0 . 0.. . . . 0 . 0 . . 0.. . ... 0 .
0 . . 0 . . e . . 0 0 . 0 . 0 .
. . e . . . 0 . . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 0
0 . . 0 . e.. 0 0 . . e . 0 .
0 . 0.. 0 . 0.. . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . ... 0 .
SC canard area, exposed panel, sq ft
-
C wing mean geometric chord, in.
b wing span, in.
M free-stream Mach number a angle of attack, deg L P angle of sideslip, deg angle of canard deflection (trailing edge down, positive), 6, L/D lift-drag ratio
directional-stability parameter, - 3%
aP
- ac1
effective-dihedral parameter , C
%
side-force parameter, - acY
3 P longitudinal-stability parameter Subscripts: maX maximum min minimum Configuration components: B body
w wing
C canard surface
v vertical tail
.e e.. . ..e e. e. .
. e e.. e.
.. . e e . e . . e . . e . .
e . e . . e . . e . e . e e . . .
D e t a i l s of t h e model a r e shown i n f i g u r e 1, and t h e geometric char- a c t e r i s t i c s are presented i n t a b l e I.
Coordinates f o r t h e body are pre- sented i n t a b l e 11.
The body of t h e model was composed of a parabolic nose followed by t h e frustum of a cone which was f a i r e d i n t o a c y l i n d e r . The f i n e n e s s r a t i o of t h e body was 11.1.
I The canard surfaces were 7 0 ' d e l t a planforms with hexagonal air- 4 f o i l section's. The canard surface was motor-driven and t h e d e f l e c t i o n s
s
were s e t by remote c o n t r o l .
The wing a l s o had a 7 0 ' d e l t a planform with hexagonal 2$ - p e r c e n t - t h i c k a i r f o i l s e c t i o n s and was mounted i n e i t h e r a high, mid, o r low The model was equipped with a swept v e r t i c a l t a i l mounted on position.
t h e body plane of symmetry or with twin swept v e r t i c a l t a i l s mounted Thus, t h e wing-mounted t a i l s had twice t h e t o t a l outboard on t h e wing.
a r e a of t h e body-mounted configuration. For t h e mid and high wing loca- t i o n s , t h e wing-mounted v e r t i c a l t a i l s were located a t t h e 0.538b/2 posi- t i o n ; whereas f o r t h e low wing l o c a t i o n , t h e t a i l s were l o c a t e d a t the 0.449b/2 p o s i t i o n . ., The model was mounted i n t h e tunnel on a remotely c o n t r o l l e d r o t a r y s t i n g , and f o r c e measurements were made through t h e use of a six-component i n t e r n a l strain-gage balance.
TESTS, CORRECTIONS, AND ACCURACY The t e s t s were conducted a t a Mach number of 2.01, a stagnation temperature of 1 0 0 ' F, a stagnation pressure of 1,440 l b / s q ft, and a Reynolds number based on t h e wing mean aerodynamic chord of 3.16 X 106.
The stagnation dewpoint was maintained s u f f i c i e n t l y low ( - 2 5 O F or l e s s ) s o t h a t no condensation e f f e c t s were encountered i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n .
Tests were made f o r an angle-of-attack range from 0 ' t o about 2 0 ' a t p = 0 ' and p = 4 ' .
The angles of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p were corrected f o r t h e d e f l e c t i o n of t h e balance and s t i n g under load. The base pressure was measured, and t h e drag f o r c e was adjusted t o a base pressure equal t o free-stream s t a t i c pressure.
....... ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
The estimated accuracy of t h e individual measured q u a n t i t i e s i s as follows :
c L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to.003
C D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fo.001
C m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iO.0004
C 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tO.0004
c n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +O.OOOl
c y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to.0015
u , d e g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t 0 . 2
p , d e g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f0.2
S c , d e g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to.1
M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . io.01
DISCUSSION Longitudinal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The b a s i c d a t a f o r t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are presented i n f i g u r e s 2 and 3 and are summarized i n f i g u r e s 4 and 5 .
The low-wing configuration had t h e most d e s i r a b l e l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of any of the wing p o s i t i o n s t e s t e d .
I n f a c t , f o r a constant center-of-gravity p o s i t i o n ( f i g .
4), t h e wing i n t h e low posi- t i o n provided a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e trim l i f t - c u r v e slope over t h a t of t h e wing i n t h e high p o s i t i o n with a corresponding i n c r e a s e i n t r i m C L ~ and t r i m (L/D)mw. The increment i n t r i m l i f t and t r i m C between t h e mid- and low-wing configurations i s smaller than t h e L/D increment between t h e mid- and high-wing configurations. The low-wing configuration maintained t h e highest values of t r i m L/D throughout t h e static-margin range ( f i g . 3 ) . These r e s u l t s are probably due t o t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t of t h e wake from the canard surface which provided a s i g n i f i c a n t loss of wing lift near the wing leading edge. (See ref. 5 . ) For c o n f i g u r a t i o n s with d e l t a wings where t h e wing apex extends s i g n i f i - c a n t l y forward of t h e center of moments, t h e loss of l i f t r e s u l t s i n a pitching-moment increment opposite t o t h a t provided by t h e canard sur- L/D.
f a c e s with a corresponding l o s s i n p i t c h e f f e c t i v e n e s s and t r i m Since moving t h e wing leading edge rearward allows t h e wake from t h e canard surface t o pass above t h e wing-chord plane a t lower angles of a t t a c k , a similar e f f e c t may a l s o be achieved by moving t h e wing down. Thus, as t h e angle of a t t a c k of t h e low-wing configuration i n c r e a s e d ( f i g . 2 ( c ) ) , t h e canard-surface wake passed above t h e wing and t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s were reduced. An i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i n t e r - ference e f f e c t s on t h e wing i s shown by t h e increasing n o n l i n e a r i t y of t h e pitching-moment curves with i n c r e a s i n g wing height. The high wing, however, remained i n t h e wake from t h e canard surface through t h e angle- of-attack range corresponding t o (L/D)ma, and t h u s a more adverse e f f e c t on the t r i m values of C L ~ ~ , and L/D was i n d i c a t e d ( f i g . 4 ( a ) ) .
C b , The r e s u l t s f o r t h e t w i n - t a i l configuration ( f i g . 4 ( b ) ) were similar t o the r e s u l t s f o r t h e body-mounted-tail configuration. The increased drag caused by t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e second v e r t i c a l t a i l d i d r e s u l t i n a lower l i f t - d r a g r a t i o , however.
L a t e r a 1 Character i s t i c s The lateral aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s with various wing heights are summarized i n figure 6.
Single v e r t i c a l tail.- The r e s u l t s for t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n with t h e s i n g l e v e r t i c a l t a i l on and t h e canard surface o f f i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i - cantly higher l e v e l of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y throughout t h e angle- CnP of-attack range f o r t h e low-wing configuration than f o r t h e mid- or s u b s t a n t i a l l y greater c o n t r i b u t i o n high-wing configuration because of a from the v e r t i c a l t a i l . The v e r t i c a l - t a i l c o n t r i b u t i o n decreased with A s a result increasing angle of a t t a c k f o r a l l three wing p o s i t i o n s .
f o r t h e high-wing of t h i s decrease and t h e i n i t i a l low l e v e l of CnP configuration, t h e angle of a t t a c k a t which became zero was lower CnP for the high-wing configuration than f o r t h e low- or mid-wing configu- r a t i o n s . I n general, t h e s e r e s u l t s f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n wing height were s i m i l a r t o those previously reported f o r conventional swept-wing con- f i g u r a t i o n s i n references 8 and 9 and f o r a trapezoidal-wing canard Configuration i n reference 7. These e f f e c t s are results of t h e induced sidewash from t h e wing-body j u n c t u r e t h a t , f o r a high wing l o c a t i o n , provided a d e s t a b i l i z i n g flow above t h e wing wake and a s t a b i l i z i n g flow below t h e wing wake and had an opposite e f f e c t f o r t h e low-wing configuration ( r e f s . 8 and 9 ) .
For t h e low wing l o c a t i o n with t h e v e r t i c a l on, t h e presence t a i l of t h e canard surface was d e s t a b i l i z i n g throughout t h e angle-of-attack range.
For t h e mid-wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h e presence of t h e canard surface was s l i g h t l y d e s t a b i l i z i n g below t h e angle of a t t a c k where became c"P The presence of zero but was s t a b i l i z i n g above t h i s angle of a t t a c k .
t h e canard f o r t h e high-wing configuration r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n t h e l e v e l of because of a decrease i n t h e t a i l - o f f Cn P i n s t a b i l i t y with i n c r e a s i n g angle of a t t a c k . With t h e canard on t h e e. e.. e e e e. e. e e.. . e.. e.
e . . . e . e . e .
e . . e . .
e . . . e e e . e e e . . . e . e .
e . . e e . e * e e . . e . . e .e e. e.. .e ne. e e e. e. e . e e..
low-wing configuration maintained the highest directional stability e level up to about 7' angle of attack. A l l three wing locations, how- ever, became directionally unstable at about 1 2 ' angle of attack.
With the vertical tail off, the effective dihedral parameter C 2 P ..
became more negative (at a , = 0") with increttsiiig wizg height., These results are similar to those reported in references 7 to 9. For all three wing locations, the vertical tdil provides an additional increase in effective dihedral. For the low wing location the canard surface throughout the angle-of- provides a further negative increment in
czB
attack range. The complete high-wing configuration had such large values of effective dihedral that provision for effective roll control might present some diff.'iculty .
The side-force parameter for the low-wing configuration (tail B on) decreased with increasing angle of attack until near 17' where the presence of the vertical tail resulted in little or no increment in side force. The high-wing configuration, which initially had the same side- force level as the other configurations, had an increasing level of side .
force with angle of attack even though the vertical-tail contribution decreased in a manner similar to that of the low-wing case. The side- force results were in general agreement with the directional-stability -I and effective-dihedral results.
Twin vertical tails.- The positioning of the vertical tails out- board on the wing to take advantage of the sidewash and canard-surface interference effects resulted in a reversal of the wing-height effects on Cnp shown for the body-mounted vertical tail. For the twin-tail configurations, the high wing location (fig. 6) had the highest level of Cn at an angle of attack of zero while the low wing location had B a significantly lower initial level. A l l three wing locations (canard surface off) showed a decrease in with increasing angle of attack
CnP
and reached neutral stability at about 16O. When the canard surface was added, however, the decrease with angle of attack was alleviated and a11 three wing locations with the twin tails had a higher C level at an angle of attack of l7O than did the single-vertical-tail configurations near O o . (Note in fig. 1 that the wing-moimted vertical tails on the low-wing configuration were mounted farther inboard than or high-wing configurations.)
for the mid- The effective dihedral results for the mid-wing configuration with the wing-mounted vertical tails are similar to the results for the body- mounted location. For the low-wing configuration with the wing-mounted vertical tails, however, a portion of the vertical-tail area was below * the body center line and thus little increase in the negative effective dihedral was indicated. Conversely, for the high-wing configuration the negative level of C was greater for the wing-mounted-tail con-
%
figuration than for the body-mounted-tail configuration and would pre- sent even greater roll-control problems. For all three wing locations the addition of the vertical tails provided a significant increment in side force even at l7O angle of attack.
CONCLUSIONS An investigation has been made in the Langley 4- by 4-foot super- sonic pressure tunnel at a Mach number of 2.01 to determine the effects of wing height on the stability and control characteristics of an air- plane configuration having wing and canard surfaces of TO0 delta plan- form. The configurations were tested with vertical tails mqunted on the body plane of symmetry and with twin tails mounted at about the 70-percent-semispan location on the wing. The investigation resulted in the following conclusions: .
1. The low-wing configuration with the body-mounted vertical tail the highest trim values of lift-curve slope, control effectiveness, had and lift-drag ratio of all the configurations tested.
2. For the configurations with the vertical tail mounted on the body the configuration with the low wing maintained the highest level of directional stability up to about 7 O angle of attack.
3. Placing the vertical tails outboard on the wing caused a rever- sal in the effects of wing height on the directional stability, and the configuration with the high wing maintained the highest level of direc- tional stability.
4. The presence of the canard surface on the configuration which had the vertical tails mounted on the wing resulted in a significantly smaller decrease in directional stability with angle of attack than with the configuration which had the vertical tail on the body.
5. The high-wing configurations had such large values of effective dihedral that provision for effective roll control might present some difficulty. .
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Field, Va., June 13, 1960.
....... ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
REFEFtENCES c 1. Driver, Cornelius: Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Characteristics of Two Canard Airplane Configurations at Mach Num- bers of 1.1;l and 2,01, NACA RM L56~19, 1957.
2. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Effect of Canard Surface Size on Stability and Control Characteristics of Two Canard Air- plane Configurations at Mach Numbers of 1.41 and 2.01.
NACA RM L57L17a, 1958.
3. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Characteristics at Mach Number 2.01 of a 60° Delta-Wing Airplane Configuration Equipped With a Canard Con- trol and With Wing Trailing-Edge Flap Controls. NACA RM L58A20, 4. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Effects of Forebody Length on the Stability and Control Characteristics at a Mach Num- ber of 2.01 of a Canard Airplane Configuration With a Trapezoidal Aspect-Ratio-3 Wing. NASA MEMO 10-14-58L, 1958.
5. Driver, Cornelius: Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Characteristics of Various Combinations of the Component Parts of Two Canard Airplane Configurations at Mach Numbers of 1.41 and 2.01.
IWSA MEMO 10-1-58~, 1958.
6. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Some Factors Affecting the Stability and Performance Characteristics of Canard Aircraft Configurations. NACA RM ~58~16, 1958.
7. Foster, Gerald V . : Effects of Wing Vertical Location on the Sta- bility and Control Characteristics at a Mach Number of 2.01 of a Canard Airplane Configuration With a Trapezoidal Aspect-Ratio-3 Wing. NASA TM X-44, 1959.
8. Spearman, M. Leroy: Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch and Sideslip of a 45O Sweptback-Wing Airplane Model With
Various Vertical Locations of the Wing and Horizontal Tail - Effect
of Wing Location and Geometric Dihedral for the Wing-BoQ Conbina- tion, M = 2.01. NACA RM L55B18, 1-93?.
Effects of Vertical Location of the Wing and 9. Robinson, Ross B . : Horizontal Tail on the Static Lateral and Directional Stability of a Trapezoidal-Wing Airplane Model at Mach Numbers of 1 . 4 1 and 2.01. NACA RM ~58~18, 1958.
. e 0 . . e.. e e. .e e 0 r e . e.
e o m e e o o & . e e o . e e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. . e . e 0 0 . e. e e.. e. e.. f.
rl
T A B T A I.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS O F MODELS Body :
Maximum diameter, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.33 I
L '
Length, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0
Base area, sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.71 4
F i n e n e s s r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1
Wing:
Span, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.72
Root chord a t body center l i n e , i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.97
Tip chord, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Area, s q i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Aspect r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46
Taper r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
.
Mean geometric chord, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.33
Sweepback angle of leading edge, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Thickness, percent chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 5
A i r f o i l s e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagonal
Canard surface :
T o t a l exposed area, sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.44
R a t i o of exposed area t o wing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.075
Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hexagonal
Maximum thickness, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3125
Sweepback angle of leading edge, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
V e r t i c a l tail:
Panel exposed area, sq i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.42
Sweepback angle of leading edge, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Panel aspect r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Taper r a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.314
A i r f o i l s e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wedge-slab
Leading-edge wedge angle, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
Constant thickness, i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1875
TABLE 11.- BODY COORDINATES L 4 Body s t a t i o n Radius .076 .627 .156 956 233 1.285 9 307 1.615 .445 1.945 2 0275 2.605 .627 2.936 .682 3.267 3.598 3 -929 4.260 .824 .865 4 0592 4 -923 903 .940 5 255 .968 5 0587 5 920 996 6.252 1.020 1.042 6 0533 1.667 17 975 1.667 37 -00 .
............... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........................
.
cu :: I \ \ .
i
\
- 1 D
I
T\ c
i
Q)
i
”
P
-b- ’k- C D
I
.
C m d a , (a) High wing l o c a t i o n .
Figure 2.- E f f e c t s of canard d e f l e c t i o n on aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Single v e r t i - i n p i t c h f o r various v e r t i c a l l o c a t i o n s of the wing.
c a l t a i l on body.
-.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .e .9 CL (a) Concluded.
Figure 2.- Continued.
-.I 0 I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .a . 9 CL .
(b) Mid wing location.
.
Figure 2.- Continued.
I ?
............... .......
0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
-.I 0 . I .2 . 3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 .9 (b) Concluded.
c Figure 2.- Continued.
3Y
I ( c ) LOW wing location.
Figure 2.- Continued.
L
-
D
T
-r \D c .I 8 .I 6 .I4 .I 2 .IO .08 . 0 6 .04 .02 ( c) Concluded.
Figure 2.- Concluded.
.
z a -.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 9 CL (a) High wing location.
Figure 3.- Effects of canard deflection on aerodynamic characteristics Twin vertical in pitch for various vertical locations of the wing.
tails on wing.
L D I -F -2 .I8 .I 6 .I4 .I2 .IO .08 .06 .04 .02 -.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 9 C L c (a) Concluded.
Figure 3.- Continued.
.04 Cm -.04 :08 I - _ I 2 a , de C - 4 -.I 0 .I .2 . 3 4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 . 9 CL (b) Mid wing location.
Figure 3 . - Continued.
-.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 .9 CL c (b) Concluded.
Figure 3.- Continued.
--
I \ ~ 3 .e 0.. . ............... .e 0.. . ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- I L L L.0 0 .
. . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 .
: * . - .......... 0 . . 0 . e .
.
.L -.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 . 5 . 6 .7 .a 9 CL ( e ) LOW wing location.
Figure 3.- Continued.
.* 0 . 0 . ... . 0 . 0 . . . . e.. 0 .
0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . ...
0 . 0 . 0 . 0.. ... 0 . . 0 . . . ...L.: . . L . . e . , *
0 . 0 . . .
L
-
D I -F \D -2 P CD -ib -.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 9 C L e (c) Concluded.
Figure 3.- Concluded.
I e. ... . . . 0 . 0 . . 0.. . 0.. 0 .
L Y
0 . . 0 . . ... . 0 . 0 . . e
0 . . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 .
. . 0 .
. . e . 0 . 0 .
0 . . . . 0.. e.
a, de (a) Single vertical tail.
Figure 4.- Effect of vertical location of wing on trim longitudi
characteristics for a constant center-of-gravity position.
.
t.
-b
a , deg .
-.I 0 .2 . 3 .4 .5 . 6 C L . trim (b) Twin v e r t i c a l t a i l s .
Figure 4.- Conclued.
....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
..........
k T k k al -P
i?i
PI
?
I '
P
w I ' ) .
............... ....... 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........
I C Q V .
" c 0, Q U a P W a N t O O
8 4 O L l 9
I
s 9 S Q
V 0 0 ............... .......
0 . 0 . 0 . 0 8 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......... --.; d ., rn PI c !
t \D .