Document
62 7 I 6 0 Co py 1
: ::. : C;0~ FI ~EN:T1A [ ~ :. ~: :. ~:"i; · i ~ : X-44
• •••• •••• t . ) . • • •• • ••
-------- -------- .. -- . ~ . ~ .. ~ . ~ . ~ .. ~~~-~
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
x - 44
EFFECTS OF WING VERTICAL LOCATION ON THE STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS AT A MACH NUMB ER OF 2.01 OF A CANARD AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION WITH A TRAPEZOIDAL A SPECT - RATIO - 3 WING By Gerald V. Foster Langley Research Center Langley Field, Va.
~
~ '- 4 ! If "C'r.'F-ON CR!.NGED TO 1]"'CV <;,I' I !'IS D t
~ ~ ~: T ~' l, DE C 1, 1962
b
I r I CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT - TITLE UNCLASSIFIED This material contains infor mation affecUng the national defense of th e United Sta tes wi thln the meanlng of the espIonage laws, TItle 18, U.S.C., Sees. 793 and 794., the trans mlssion or rev elation o! whi cb in an y manner to an unauthorized pe rson Is prohibited by la w.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMIN IS TRA TIO N
WASHING T ON
Se ptem ber 1959
CONFIDENTIAL
••• •••• ••• •••• ••• ••• • • ••• •• • • •• • • • • \I • • • • • • ••• • • • • •• II ...
• • • • ••
•
• •• • • • • e • • II • • " •• e •• • • ••
• •
• • •••• • •• • • • ••• ••• • • • • •• ••••• • ••• ~ • •• • CONFIDENTIAL NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM x-44 EFFECTS OF WING VERTICAL LOCATION ON THE STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS AT A MACH NUMBER OF 2.01 OF A CANARD AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION WITH A TRAPEZOIDAL ASPECT-RATIO-3 WING* By Gerald V. Foster SUMMARY An investigation has been conducted in the Langley 4- by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunnel to determine the effects of wing vertical location on the longitudinal and directional stability characteristics of a canard airplane configuration at a Mach number of 2.01. The wing had a trapezoidal plan form of aspect ratio 3, a taper ratio of 0.25, and 4-percent-thick circular-arc airfoil sections. The configurations investigated included a high-wing and a low-wing arrangement.
Change in wing vertical location had n9 significant effect on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of it he canard-surface-off cGnfigurations; however, with the canard-surface-on configurations, decrease in wing vertical location resulted in a small increase in lift-curve slope with an accompanying increase in drag. For a static margin of zero both wing-location configurations had a maximum trimmed lift-drag ratio of 6.0 which gradually decreased with increased static margin. For values of static margin greater than approximately 0.20 mean geometric chord, a decrease in wing vertical location had an adverse effect on the maximum lift-drag ratio. The low-wing configura- tion with canard surfaces and vertical tail on possessed greater direc- tional stability and less positive effective dihedral at low angles of attack than did the high-wing configuration. Both wing-location con- figurations were directionally unstable at high angles of attack.
Canard-surface deflection resulted in a decrease in the directional stabili)Y of the low-wing configuration at low and moderate angles of attack and in a general increase in positive effective dihedral of both wing-location configurations.
*Title, Unclassified.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• ••• • •• • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • ••• • •• • • ~ • • •• •• $
• • • • ••
• • •
• • • • • ••• $
•• e
• ••• ••••
• • ••• • • • • • ••• ~ ••• • •• CONFiDENT~Ar 2 INTRODUCTION An investigation is currently being conducted in the Langley 4- by 4-foot supersonic pressure tunnel to determine the aerodynamic charac- teristics of several canard airplane configurations at supersonic speeds.
Consideration of the effects of wing plan form, canard-surface size, wing trailing-edge flap control, and forebody length on the longitudinal, directional, and lateral stability characteristics of a canard airplane configuration at supersonic Mach numbers is given in references 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The effects of various components of configurations utilized in reference 1 are discussed in reference 5. The investigation has subsequently been extended to ascertain the effect of the vertical location of the wing on the aerodynamic characteristics of a canard airplane configuration at a Mach number of 2.01. The configuration used in this phase of the investigation was identical to the intermediate forebody-length version employed in reference 4.
The results presented herein include longitudinal and lateral aero- dynamic characteristics of a high-wing and a low-wing configuration with and without canard surfaces and vertical tail. In addition, the results include longitudinal control characteristics of both wing-body configura- tions. Some of these results have previously been reported in refer- ence 6 as a part of a summary pertaining to the effects of various fac- tors on the stability and performance characteristics of canard airplane configurations.
SYMBOLS The longitudinal stability characteristics are referred to the stability-axis system (fig. l(a)), whereas the lateral stability charac- teristics are referred to the body-axis system (fig. l(b)). The refer- ence center of moments was located 67.5 percent of the body length rear- ward of the nose (fig. 2). The symbols are defined as follows: lift coeffiCient, FL/qS C' drag coefficient, F~/qS D pitching-moment coefficient, MYs/qSc rolling-moment coefficient, MX/qSb yawing-moment coefficient, MZ/qSb , CONFIDENTIAL • .,0;
-"."' ..... ••• ••••
•••
• •
.. ••• •• • •• •
• • • • • • • • ••• • • •• ••• • • •• • •• •• • •
• • ~ . • •
• •• • • ••• • •••• • 3 : C~NFIj~t:W: • ••• • ••• • ••• • • •
.. ••••••••
••
•
Cy side-force coefficient, Fy/qS lift force F' drag force D side force Fy moment about Y-axis moment about X-axis M moment about Z-axis Z S wing area b wing span wing mean geometric chord q free-stream dynamic pressure angle of attack, deg angle of sideslip, deg canard-surface deflection with respect to body center line, positive when trailing edge down, deg Cn~ directional stability derivative per degree, dCn/d~ Cl~ rolling-moment derivative per degree, dCl/d~ Cy~ side-force derivative per degree, dcY/d~ LID lift-drag ratio Subscript: max maximum CONFIDENTIAL ••• ... ..
•••• ••• • fJ" • •••
• • • ••
• •• • • •• • • • •
- .. •
• • •
'. " ••• •
• •
- " •• • • ••
• •• • •
• • •
• •
- .. " • • ••
" •••• = • • •
••• • ••• ••• OONF!f)~~ • • 4 • • • ••• • ••
•
Components:
w wing
B body canard surface C v vertical tail MODEL AND APPARATUS Details of the model are shown in figures 2 and 3. The geometric characteristics are presented in table I. The body of the model was composed of a parabolic nose followed by a frustum of a cone which was faired into a cylinder. The fineness ratio of the body was 11.1. The coordinates of the body are presented in reference 4. The canard surfaces were trapezoidal in plan form with an exposed area equal to 7.07 percent of the wing area. The canard surfaces were deflected by remote control about a hinge line located at a station 24.6 percent of the body length rearward of the nose. The airfoil sections of the canard surfaces were hexagonal, whereas the wing was composed of circular-arc sections. The wing was attached to the body in either a high or low location. (See fig. 2.) The body-mounted vertical tail had 60 sweepback at the leading edge, an aspect ratio of 1.11, and was located so that the trailing edge of the exposed root chord would be coincident with the body base. Force and moment measurements were made through the use of a six-component internal strain-gage balance attached to a rotary-type sting.
TESTS, CORRECTIONS, AND ACCURACY The conditions for the tests were as follows:
Mach number • . . • . . • . ..... . 2.01
Stagnation pressure, lb/sq in. abs 10 Stagnation temperature, of 100
Reynolds number, based on c .... 1 10 . x
The stagnation dewpoint was maintained sufficiently low (-25 F or less) so that no significant condens'ation effects would be encountered in the test section.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• ••• •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • •
• • .. • • • •• •
• • ••• •• • • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •••• • ••• •••• ••• • • ••• • • • • ·~ID!N~··· ••• •• • • The sting angle was corrected for deflection of the sting and balance under load. The base pressure was measured and the chord force was adjusted to a base pressure equal to the free-stream static pressure.
The estimated maximum variations in the individual measured quan- tities are as follows: C . .to.0003 . . '.
L , to.0010 CD •• C • '"!:0.0004 m ±0.ooo4 C • • l C •. to.OOOl n Cy • to.0015 0" deg • . to.2 to.2 13, deg .
. to.l Dc' deg The Mach number variation in the test section was approximately to.Ol, and the flow-angle variation in the vertical and horizontal planes was within approximately to.lo.
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Figure Aerodynamic characteristics in pitch for various combinations of components. High wing ••.. 4 Aerodynamic characteristics in pitch for various combinations of components. Low wing •...
Effect of canard-surface deflection on aerodynamic characteristics in pitch. High wing •..•.. 6 Effect of canard-surface deflection on aerodynamic characteristics in pitch. Low wing •••...• Effect of wing vertical location on trim longitudinal characteristics. dCm/dCL = -0.25 •....••..• 8 Effect of wing vertical location on variation of maximUm trimmed lift-drag ratio with longitudinal stability Comparison of sideslip derivatives of high-wing and low-wing configurations with and without vertical tail. DC = 0 Aerodynamic characteristics in sideslip for various combinations of components. High wing .••••.
Aerodynamic characteristics in sideslip for various combinations of components. Low wing •••••.•.
Effect of canard-surface deflection on sideslip derivatives for complete model CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• • •• •••• ••• .... .... .... : • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• • • • ••• • • • • 6 • • • • • •• CO~D~TIAL • • •• •• • ••• •••• •••
• ••• ... .... . ... : •• •• •
••• • • •• DISCUSSION Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics A comparison of the results presented in figures 4 and 5 for the high- and the low-wing configurations indicates that variation in wing vertical location had no significant effect on the longitudinal aero- dynamic characteristics of the canard-surface-off configuration; however, with the canard surface on, a decrease in wing location from the high to the low location resulted in a slight increase in lift-curve slope with an accompanying increase in drag. A comparison of the trim character- istics of the high-wing and the low-wing configurations based on a con- stant center-of-gravity location (fig. 8) indicates that a decrease in wing location resulted in a slight increase in the value of trimmed LID at lift coefficient beyond that for maximum LID. It would appear that the high-wing configuration was more adversely affected by the canard- surface wake than was the low-wing configuration. Both wing-location configurations had a maximum trimmed LID of 5.55 for a constant static margin of 0.25c. Figure 9 indicates an increase in maximum trimmed LID to about 6.0 for either complete wing-body configuration with a decrease in static margin to zero. This is approximately 0.6 less than the maximum lift-drag ratio of the canard-surface-off configurations. It may be noted that a decrease in wing location for values of static margin greater than approximately 0.20c tends to have an adverse effect on the maximum trimmed LID.
Lateral and Directional Stability Characteristics Effect of wing vertical location.- The effects of wing vertical location on the sideslip derivatives of the models with and without a body-mounted vertical tail are shown in figure 10. Variations of Cn' Cl, and Cy with ~ for the high-wing and low-wing configurations are presented in figures 11 and 12, respectively, for angles of attack of 0 and 13.2 • As would be expected, both wing-body configurations with the vertical tail off were directionally unstable; however, the insta- bility of the high-wing configuration decreased with inerease in angle of attack, whereas the directional stability derivative Cn~ of the low-wing configuration was approximately constant through the angle-of- attack range. The contribution of the vertical tail to Cn~ of both wing-body configurations decreased with increase in angle of attack; however, the magnitude of the contribution realized with the' low-wing configuration at low angles of attack was substantially greater than that obtained vlith the high-wing configuration. Ai a result of this difference in tail contribution, Cn~ for the tail-on configuration CONFIDENTIAL ••• ••• •••• •••• ••• ••• ••• •
•• • •
• •• • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • •• • •• • • •• • • •
• • •
• • •• • • ••
• • • • •••
• • • • •• •••• • ••• • • ••• • • • ••• • • •••• • ••• • • •• CONFIDENTIAL with the low wing was highest at low angles o~ attack. With increase in angle o~ attack, Cn~ o~ both wing-body con~igurations decreased and became zero at approximately 9 . It may be noted that although both wing-body con~igurations exhibited directional instability at high angles af attack, the degree o~ instability o~ the high-wing configura- tion was markedly less than that o~ the low-wing configuration because o~ the stabilizing tendency of the high-wing tail-o~~ con~iguration.
The e~~ects o~ wing vertical location on Cn~ o~ the canard airplane configuration were similar to those indi-cated ~or tail-rearward airplane con~igurations at subsonic and supersonic speeds. (For example, see re~s. 7 to 11.) The e~~ects o~ wing location have been associated with an induced sidewash arising ~rom di~~erential wing pressures in the region of the wing-body juncture. These flow disturbances have a stabi- lizing e~~ect above the wing ~or the high-wing co~iguration and below the wing ~or the low-wing con~iguration.
The ef~ects o~ wing vertical location on the ef~ective dihedral C~~ (~ig. 10) o~ the canard airplane con~iguration are similar to e~~ects obtained with tail-rearward airplane co~igurations at subsonic and supersonic speeds (re~s. 7 to 11). With decrease in wing location ~rom the high location to the low location, C~~ o~ the wing-body co~igura-
tion at a = 0 indicated that the effective dihedral changed from posi-
tive to negative. This change in e~fective dihedral is attributed to the effect of antisymmetric spanwise variation of angle of attack due to the
body in sideslip (ref. 7). It may be noted that although the effective
dihedral of both high-wing and low-wing co~igurations tended to become more positive with an increase in a, the effect of wing location on C~~ is approximately constant through the range of a.
Effect of various components.- The results presented in figures 11 and 12 indicate that the addition o~ canard surfaces to either the high- wing or the low-wing co~iguration has no significant effect on the directional or lateral stability characteristics at a = 0 • Theresults obtained at a = 13.2 indicate that the yawing moments o~ both the high- wing and low-wing co~igurations with canard surfaces and vertical tail on varied nonlinearly with sideslip angle. A comparison of the yawing-moment characteristics of the high-wing co~iguration with and without canard surfaces tends to indicate that the vertical tail is adversely affected
by canard surfaces through a small range of sideslip angles near ~ = 0
(fig. ll(b». Similar effects of canard surfaces are shown in reference 5 for a wing-off configuration.
Effect of canard-surface deflection.- The effect of canard-surface deflection on the lateral and directional stability of the complete model CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• • ••• ••• • •• • • •• • • • • • • .
• • ••• • • • ••• • • • • •• • ••
· · • •
• • •• • •
• • •
•
• • ••
••• • • • •
•••• ••• • ••• • • • ··eO~lD~N~P~.: 8 • • ••• • • •• (fig. 13) indicates that a change in canard-surface deflection from 0 to 15 resulted in an increase in -Cl~' This increase in -Cl~ due to canard-surface deflection is approximately the same for both wing-body configurations. The canard-surface deflection also tends to have an adverse effect on the directional stability of the low-wing configuration at low and moderate angles of attack but to have no significant effect on Cn~ of the high-wing configuration. This decrease in Cn~ of the low wing is associated with canard-surface wake effects on the vertical tail, whereas the high wing appears to shield the vertical tail from the effects of the canard-surface wake.
CONCLUSIONS An investigation of the effects of wing vertical location on the aerodynamic characteristics of a canard airplane configuration at a Mach number of 2.01 indicates the following conclusions: 1. Change in wing vertical location had no significant effect on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the canard-surface-off configuration; however, with the canard surfaces on, a decrease in wing location resulted in a small increase in lift-curve slope with an accompanying increase in drag.
2. A decrease in wing vertical location for a constant static margin (0.25 mean geometric chord) resulted in a small increase in trimmed lift-drag ratio at lift coefficients beyond that for maximum lift-drag ratio. By decreasing the static margin to zero, a maximum trimmed lift-drag ratio of 6.0 was obtained with either Wing-location configuration. For a static margin greater than approximately 0.20 mean geometric chord, a decrease in wing location had an adverse effect on the maximum trimmed lift-drag ratio.
3. The low-wing configuration with canard surfaces and vertical tail on possessed greater directional stability and less positive effec- tive dihedral at low angles of attack than did the high-wing configura- tion. Both wing-location configurations were directionally unstable at high angles of attack.
4. Ganard-surface deflection resulted in a decrease in the direc- tional stability of the low-wing configuration at low and moderate angles CONFIDENTIAL ••• ••• •••• •••• ••• ••• ••• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • •• •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • ••• •••• • ••• • • ••• ••• • 9 • ••• C~WJ:~li. • •• • • of attack and in a general increase in positive effective dihedral of both wing-location configurations.
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and ,Space Administration, Langley Field, Va., April 20, 1959.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• ••• • •• •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • ••
· • • •••
• • •• •• • • • •
• • ••
• • • • • • • • ••• •••• ••• • • \~~)l~~ill 10 ••• • • • • • •• • •• • • •• REFERENCES 1. Driver, Cornelius: Longitudinal and Lateral Stability and Control Characteristics of Two Canard Airplane Configurations at Mach Numbers of 1.41 and 2.01. NACA RM L56L19, 1957.
2. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Effects of Canard S~face Size on Stability and Control Characteristics of Two Canard Airplane 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 Control and With Wing Trailing-Edge Flap Controls. NACA RM L58A20, 1958.
4. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Effects of Forebody Length on the Stability and Control Characteristics at a Mach Number 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.
NASA MEMO 10-1-58L, 1958.
6. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornel~us: Some Factors Affecting the Stability and Performance Characteristics of Canard Aircraft Configu- rations. NACA RM L58D16, 1958.
7. Goodman, Alex: Effects of Wing Position and Horizontal-Tail Position on the Static Stability Characteristics of Models With Unswept and 45 Sweptback Surfaces With Some Reference to Mutual Interference.
NACA TN 2504, 1951.
8. GilliS, Clarence L., and Chapman, Rowe, Jr.: Effect of Wing Height and Dihedral on the Lateral Stability Characteristics at Low Lift of a 45 Swept-Wing Airplane Configuration As Obtained From Time- Vector Analyses of Rocket-Propelled-Model Flights at Mach' Numbers From 0.7 to 1.3. NACA RM L5 6E17, 1956.
9. Heitmeyer, John C.: Effect of Vertical Positi9n of the Wing on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Three Wing-Body Combinations. NACA RM A52L15a, 1953.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• ••• •••• ••• •• • •• • • • ••
• •
• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • •• • ••• • • • •• •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •••• • •• • ••• •••• • • • • • ••• ••• • •• ·C~~EN'!':mt: 11 •• • • 10. Spearman, M. Leroy: Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch and Sideslip of a 45 Sweptback-Wing Airplane Model With Various Vertical Locations of the Wing and Horizontal Tail - Effect of Wing Location and Geometric Dihedral for the Wing-Body Combina- tion, M = 2.01. NACA RM L55B18, 1955.
11. Robinson, Ross B.: Effects of Vertical Location of the Wing and Horizontal Tail on the Static Lateral and Directional Stability of a Trapezoidal-Wing Airplane Model at Mach Numbers of 1.41 and 2.01.
NACA RM L58c18, 1958.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• ••• • •• • •• • • •• • • • • • • .
• • • • • • ••• • • ••• • • • ••
· • ••
• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • •
• • . .... ~ •
••• •••• ••• • • • ••• • • • ••• OOHFIDEN~J!
12 ••• • • •• TABLE I.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL Body: Maximum diameter, in.
3.33 Length, in. 37.00 Base area, s~ in. 8.71 11.1 Fineness ratio • Trapezoidal wing: Span, in. 24.00 Area, s~ in. 1,92 Aspect ratio Taper ratio ............... . 0.25 8.96 Mean geometric chord, in.
Sweep angle of leading edge • ••••• 30 58' Sweep angle of 75-percent-chord line, deg . . . • 0 Circular arc Airfoil section • . • .
0.04 Thickness-chord ratio Canard: Total area, exposed, s~ in.
13·59 Ratio of exposed area to wing area • 0.0707 Airfoil section . • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hexagonal Constant thickness, in. .•.•. ••..
0.1875 Leading-edge angle, normal to leading edge, deg 10 Vertical tail: Total area, exposed, s~ in.
23.42 Span, exposed, in. ••.• 5.10 Aspect ratio • • • . • • • • . • • • loll Wedge slab Airfoil section • • . . . • • • • • . • • .
10.6 Leading-edge angle, normal to leading edge, deg Taper ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.314 CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• •••• ••• ••• ••• •• ••• • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • ••• • • • • • •••• • •• •• • • • • • •
• •
• •••• • • • ••• • •••• • ••• • •• • ••• • • •• • • • •• •• • •
•• ·C~M'~mENTlAi·
F Y y , Relative wind > Re lative wind
z
(a) Stability axes.
Figure 1.- Axis systems. Arrows indicate positive directions.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• • •• ••• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • ..
• • • • • • •• • ••• • • ••• • • •• •• • • ••
• • • •
• • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • ••• •••• ...
• ••• • •• • • •• ~6t!F1D:E.1lmt • • •• My )(
T
<1
~
Re\otive wind
z
(b) Body axes.
Figure 1.- Concluded.
CONFIDENTIAL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
.
• • • •• •• • • • • • •••
.. ••
•• .. '
• • • • • • ••••• • • • ••••• • ••••• ••• ••••• • ••••• • •••• • • • •••• • I-' ~ D !2lt ~ ~
••••• • • i·:· \Jl
••••• • • ·1 T
I
12.00 1.3 I
i---r
-\ =-- ...,~~~==_ specified.
~-~-.--3133
- _ '< ,1/
_...,.£'=.==:~=
otherwise unless of moments inches 37.00 Center 25.00 in are If!
,~ dimensions 9.125 All I. \.
model.
of ::.====-=- ==:.=-- =- Details surface =::.
= -= 2.- 6.76
T ~-~
Canard Figure
~ H ~ ~
~
.
... ....
••• •••• . .. ..
.
• •• ..
••
. •
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • ·
• • ••• • • • • • ••• •
· • ••
•• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • ...
•••• ... . ..
• 16 • • ~Qm:rmru'l'ut ...
• • • • 0\ t- \,() C\J t- If\ H I .
CONFIDENTIAL ••• ••• • ••• • ••• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • •• •• • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• ••• . ... ...
• • AI,. • •• • • •COW.tDm11 •
· · •• •
. 16 . 12 . 08 -. 04 - . 08 em -. 12 -:16 -:20 -:24 -:28 --:32 - .36 ...,40 -:44 -4 8 12 24 28 a, OOg ~.
Cm with
of (a) Variation combinations for vari ous in pitch characteristics Aerodynamic 4 .- Figure wing.
High of components.
CONFIDENTIAL ...
•••• ...
••• •••• ••• ..
• •• •• • • • • • • • . .
• • • • • ••
· • • • • •••
· • ••• • ••
•• •
· •
• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • ...
• ••• ...
• •••• . ..
l 8
· · 'CO NF lDEI'J'I:F> ML · • • • ••
·
a, deg (b) Variation of CL with ~ .
Figure 4 .- Continued.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• ••• •••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • •• • • ••• •• • • • • • • • • •• •••• ••• •• • • ••• .30 . 28 . 26 .24 .22 . 20 . 18 .16 C' . 14 . 12 . 10 . 08 . 06 l . 04 C D lTI . 02 a, deg (c) Variation of CD with ~.
Figure 4 .- Concluded.
CONFIDENTIAL - ._ -- --- ---- ---- ...
•••• ••• •••• ••• ••• • •• •• • • • •• • • • • .
• • ...
• • • • • ••
· · · ••• •
· • •• •
•• • •
· • •
• • • •• • • • • • • • • • •••
••• ... •
•••• ••• • ...
• • • • · ~eJN~Irn:If'f!AI1 · • 20 • •
· ••
-04 - . 08 -.12 em -:16 -:20 -:24 -:28 -:32 - . 36 -.40 -.44 -4 16 20 24 28 32 36 0 4 8 12 a, OOg (a) Variation of C with ~.
m Figure 5.- Aerodynamic characteristics in pitch for various combinations of components. Low wing.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• ••• •••• ••• • • • •• • ••• • ••••••• • • • • • • •• • • •
. .. .. .: .. .. • •••
• •• • • • •
. . .. : . .... . • •
• • •• • •••• ••• ••• • ••• • .: : • • (:OOl'ID!:N T'Iitt · •• a, deg (b) Variation of CL with u .
Figure 5 .- Continued.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• • •• ••• • • • • • • •• • • ...
• • • • • • • ••
••• · · · •
· · • •
•• ••
· • • •
• • • • •• • • • • • • • • ••• •••• • •• ••• • • • • • •• •
22 · ~~NtIooN'nlL ••• •
• •• • c' o 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 a, deg , Variati on of Cl..
(c) with CD Figure 5 .- Concluded.
CONFIDENTIAL
.. ... • • •
••••
. .. . • ••
•• • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • •• t>
• . I
• • • • • .. .
• • • • •
· • · • I I
· • • •• •• I
• • . .
~ • • • • • • • . ~.
I •• •• • • • • • • ••• • : •• t;O~ m m~iM, . I •
.. .. 23
.. .
• • . 12 . 08 o 0 .04 Ll 3 o 5 ~ 7 <> 10 0 t;,. 15 em -. 04 - . 08 -.12 --:16 --:20 1 6 1 2 deg a , -4 - .1 o .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 (a ) Vari ation of em and ~ with CL.
Figure 6 .- Effect of canard - surface deflect i on on aerodynamic charac- ter i stics in pitch . High wi ng .
CONFIDENTIAL . . .. . ..
• • • .. .. e ••
. .. . . ..
0 . .0
. . .
. •
.
• . ..
OJ ". 0 . , . •
• • 0 · · • •
· • •
·
0 0 •• •• ~ •• • • • • • • • 0 '0' .. .
24 •• • • •C • • ••• .. ..
. ~
• • ·
. 30 . 2S .26 L
o
. 24 . 22 . 20 .IS . 16 C' D . 14 . 12 .10 . OS o 0 LI 3 o 5 . 06 b. 7 <> 10 t;, 15 . 04 .02 0_.1 o .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .9 .8 (b ) Variati on of LID and CD with CL- Figure 6 .- Concluded.
CONFIDENTIAL •••• ••• ••• • ••• ••• ••• •• ••• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • •• •• • ••• • •• • • ••• • • • ••• •
.. •••
:. · ~01!JFrn~'1'IAt ·· 25 • • • . 12 . 08 .04 em -.04 - . 08 - . 12 -:16 -:20 deg a.
(a ) Variation of Cm and ~ with CL' Fi gu re 7.- Effect of canard - surface deflecti on on aerodynamic charac- teristics in pitch . Low win g .
CONFIDENTIAL ...
. .. .... ...
•••• 0 •• . ..
..
. •
• • • •
· •
• • · • •• · · •
· · • • ••• •
· · • •••
• •• •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • . ...
• •
... •
... • • •
•••• ... • • •
• ~ ••• • 26 •• • C6 NF l iJEt-f T IAL ' • • • . 30 . 28 . 26 L . 24
o
. 22 . 20 . 18 .16 C' .1 4 .1 2 .1 0 . 08 . 06 . 04 . 02 .2 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0 .1 .3 Ct- I (b) Variation of and with LID CD CL ' Figure Concluded .
7 · - CO NFIDENTIAL ....
••• ••• •••• ••• •• • ••• • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • . .. •
. .. • •••
• • • • • ..
• • •
·
· · •• •
• • C~:= DE1I~ ·· 27 • • • ••• •••• •
• • . .. . · · ••• •
• • • ••
· •
• 0 •• • •
. ---
•• Wing High - - - Low L
o
2 __ 0 ____ _ a, deg 4 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
°
Fi g ure 8 .- E ffect of win g vertical l o cati on on trim l o ngitudi na l ch ara c - teri s ti cs . d Cm/ d CL = -0. 25 .
CONFIDENTIAL I~ • • • • •
• .. • •
• • •
• •
.
• • • •• • • • • • ..
..
••• .. .. ...
c • ••••• ....
• 4.
f\) • • ••••• 0) • • • ••••• • ••••• •••
· • ~ .... ••••
• ••••• • D ·
,..., • ~ ~
~.:. ~ • .. •
•• • • • ~ ••••• • • ratio -.50 lift-drag
- -
-~r--- -.40 !;:--- maximum trimmed ~-..: wing wing t::-- WBCV.
of -.30 Low m High ~ - ~CL clC .........
"- variation stability.
-.20 on ----
--
location -.10 longitudinal
I
with vertical
i t
°0
wing of Effect 9·- Figure •••• • • •
... • • •
• ••• ••• ••• ~. •• • • • • • •
• • . •
• a •
.. • • • •• •
• • •• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • 29
. .. ••••
•• • • • : •• C .O JVlfJ EW.:w. •• • ...
. .
· ·
Wing High ---- Low Cnf] o - . 002 o CZf] - . 002 - .0 04 o -04 . -4 o 4 8 12 16 20 24 a, deg Figure 10 .- Comparison of s ideslip derivatives of high-win g and low-wing configurations with and without vertical tail. Dc = 0 °.
CONFIDENTIAL ••• . ... ...
•••• ••• .
. .... .... : .... : .:: .
•
· · • • •••
• •••
· · •
• • · eoNrI~Ert'l'UL : .....: • 30 • • • • ... ....
...
...
• . ............... : : .. .
. 01 o 0 W B C V -:01 WBC C b. W B V n WB <> -:02 .0 1 -:03 o - . 01 - . 04 o - .1 --:03 -.2 -:04 - .3 -.4 -4 o 4 8 12 16 20 24 /3, deg Fi g ure 11 .- Aerodynamic charact eristi cs in sideslip f or vari ous combina - t i ons of components. High win g .
CONFIDENTIAL • -a •• ••• • ••
... ••••
••• ••• • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • •
• • · •••
• • • •• • • • •
· • •• •
• • •
.. • •
• • • • • • • • •••• • • • . ..
• • ••• ...
0 • • • • • ...
.0 t; OtfFrDEN T lAL ••
.01 o -:01 0 W B C V -:02 0 W B C t:, WB V WB . 01 . 03 . 04 - .2 20 24 -4 o 4 8 12 16 p, deg Figure 11. - Concluded .
CONF I DENT IAL , I •• t • ••• .... ...
••• . .. . ..
..
..
.
.
• • • • • •
· · · · · · • • ••• • • • • •
• ••• • • • • •• • • ..
• '.
• • • .
• • • • • • ... .
· ... .... ...
.
• • • • • ••• ••• • ~t)N1 ' tru:~·T I1\r ··· • • 32 •• . 02 .01 C -.01 n -.02 - . 03 . 03 0 W B C V W B C WB <> -.04 .02 .01 C .1 -01 - .1 C y -.3 __ -.4 -4 -8 o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 f3, deg (a) a, = 0°.
Figure 12.- Aerodynamic characteristics in sideslip for various combina - tions of c ompo nents. Low wing .
CONFIDENTIAL ••• •••• •• • ••• •••• • • •• ••• •• ••• • •• o • • • • •
• . . .. •••
• • •• •• •• • •• ••• • • • • • • • 33 • • ••• : C OOi DEN 1eI l1 T . • • ••• •••• • •• • ••••
.. . .... .. .. . . ... ~
• o -.01 -.02 - . 03 o W B C V o W B C WB <> . 01 --:01 o - .2 -4 o 4 8 12 16 p. deg Figure 12.- Co ncluded.
CONFIDENTIAL
I
... ....
...
. ... ...
... . ..
..
..
.
.
• • • 0 • •
· · • · • • ·
• ••• • • ·
••• · •• · •
• • ..
. 0
• • • ·
34 • . C~NF . rt1E N '%' I~ • • • • ... ....
...
. . ..
. .. . .. •
• 0 .... . ..
· •
· •
· • · ••
Se. deg . 002 o Cnf3 o -. 002 o C - . 002 -.0 04 o CY{3 - . 02 - . 04 -4 o 4 8 12 16 20 24 a. deg (a ) High wing .
Figure 13. - Effect of canard - surface deflection on sidesl i p de r ivatives for complete model .
CONFIDENTIAL
... . •••• •••
• •• ••• •• • •• ••• • • •• • • .
• • • • .
• . .
• • . ..
· ••• • ...
· • • ..
'" • •
•• .. 0
• • • · • .
· • •
• • • • · •••• ...
· : •• ~ 0 ••• • • •
· · · 1V! t }E ~ AJ.. • •
. • ...
..
•
· •
. 00 4 SC I deg . 00 2 ---- C 15 nf3 o -.002 o C - . 02 Yf3 - . 04 -4 o 16 20 Q. deg (b ) Lo w wi ng .
Fi g ure 13 .- Co nc lud ed.
CONFIDENTIAL NASA - Langley Field, Va.
L- 263