Document
N A S A TECHNICAL N O T E
TN D-2824
L C _
LARGE-SCALE W I N D - T U N N E L
INVESTIGATION OF THE LOW-SPEED
OF
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
A SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT MODEL
HAVING VARIABLE-SWEEP W I N G S
by Anthony M . Cook,
Richurd K . Gre$ und Kijoshi Aoyugi ' -
Ames Reseurcb Center
Moffett Field, Cui$
N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O W -_ MAY 1 9 6 5 NASA T N D-2824 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM
I l l l l 1 l 1 l l l l I lllll I l l 1 1 lllll1llll I l l 1 I l l 1
0079b48 LARGE -SCALE WIND -TUNNEL INVESTIGATION O F THE LOW-SPEED AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS O F A SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT MODEL HAVING VARIABLE-SWEEP WINGS By Anthony M. Cook, Richard K. Greif, and Kiyoshi Aoyagi A m e s R e s e a r c h Center Moffett Field, Calif.
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sale by t h e Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - Price $4.00 LARGE-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION O F TRE LOW-SPEED AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS O F A SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT M O D E L HAVING VARIABLELSWEEP WINGS* By Anthony M. Cook, Richard K. G r e i f , and Kiyoshi Aoyagi Ames Research Center SUMMARY The r e s u l t s a r e presented as six-component aerodynamic force and moment D a t a were obtained a t d a t a obtained a t various angles of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p .
a Reynolds number of 16 million, based upon t h e m e a n aerodynamic chord of t h e wing swept t o 750. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n included v a r i a t i o n s of wing sweepback and aspect r a t i o , leading-edge slat d e f l e c t i o n and geometry, trailing-edge f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , geometry, and span e x t e n t , and h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l geometry.
The r e s u l t s show t h a t a l l configurations t e s t e d , except one, were longi- The configuration t h a t w a s not unstable had t u d i n a l l y unstable at high l i f t .
a t a i l i n a low h o r i z o n t a l position, a wing sweepback angle of 23' with a l a r g e portion of t h e fixed wing d e f l e c t e d as a leading-edge f l a p .
INTRODUCTION The development of any supersonic a i r c r a f t involves combining aerodynami- c a l l y incompatible high- and low-speed design requirements. The variable- sweep wing concept i s one approach t o t h i s problem. One b a s i c requirement i n t h i s approach i s t o provide acceptable s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by minimizing t h e aerodynamic center s h i f t due t o wing sweep.
E a r l i e r concepts of variable-sweep wings (ref. 1) incorporated a longi- t u d i n a l t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e wing together with change i n sweep angle t o e l i m i - nate t h e aerodynamic center s h i f t associated with changing sweep. E f f o r t s t o avoid t h e mechanical d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent with l o n g i t u d i n a l t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e wing r e s u l t e d i n t h e concept of t h e f i x e d outboard pivot and a fixed, highly swept, inboard wing s e c t i o n designed t o minimize aerodynamic center s h i f t (refs. 2 through 6 ) . Small-scale results give evidence of l o n g i t u d i n a l i n s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t t h e stall f o r t h e h i g h - l i f t configurations of The purpose of t h e tests reported herein was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s t h i s design.
l o n g i t u d i n a l i n s t a b i l i t y and t h e maximum l i f t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h i g h - l i f t , a t high Reynolds numbers.
variable-sweep configurations The scope of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was l i m i t e d t o t h e f i r s t - o r d e r e f f e c t s of t h e v a r i a b l e s considered most important: wing sweep i n low-speed cruise and -. - ~ . . . - i - *itle, Unclassified.
I
h i g h - l i f t configurations, wing aspect r a t i o , trailing-edge f l a p systems, leading-edge slats, h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l a r e a and l o c a t i o n , and fixed-wing leading- edge radius and f l a p s .
NOTATION A wing a r e a (see Reduction of Data), sq f t b2
AR aspect r a t i o , -
A aerodynamic center ac b wing span, f t drag drag c o e f f i c i e n t , CD SA l i f t
l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t , -
CL SA r o l l i n g moment rolling-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , C l qAb p i t c h i n g moment pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , Cm qAE awing moment yawing-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , Y Cn 9Ab s i d e force side-force c o e f f i c i e n t , SA chord C b/2 n -
C mean aerodynamic chord, e J ' c2 dy, f t
FDS f l a p , double s l o t t e d fixed-wing leading-edge f l a p FZE FSS f l a p , s i n g l e s l o t t e d gap of leading-edge slats, f r a c t i o n of chord gS h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l incidence ( p o s i t i v e when t r a i l i n g edge i s down), deg i T l i f t - d r a g r a t i o L/D leading edge LE . . . __ i__ _.__ . - .
t a i l length, measured from wing pivot axis t o t h e quarter chord of t h e 2T h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l mean aerodynamic chord dynamic pressure, l b / s q f t radius, fixed-wing leading edge rFZE - t a i l volume c o e f f i c i e n t VT s t r e a m w i s e d i s t a n c e along a i r f o i l chord, f t X spanwise distance perpendicular t o t h e plane of symmetry, f t Y Z perpendicular d i s t a n c e above t h e wing-chord plane, f t a angle of a t t a c k of wing-chord plane, deg angle of s i d e s l i p of plane of symmetry, deg P angle of d e f l e c t i o n of c o n t r o l surfaces, measured normal. t o hinge l i n e , deg average e f f e c t i v e downwash, deg €av 2Y
wing semispan s t a t i o n , -
1 1 b wing t a p e r r a t i o A angle of sweepback of fixed-wing leading edge, deg * F L & angle o f sweepback o f t a i l leading edge, deg A~~ angle of sweepback o f movable-wing leading edge, deg %LE Subscripts 2 lower surface S slat, leading edge Tw t o t a l wing, including both variable-sweep panel and f i x e d wing U upper surface W wing WLE movable-wing leading edge M O D E L AND APPARATUS Description of Model The b a s i c model consisted of a low-wing, variable-sweep t r a n s p o r t con- f i g u r a t i o n . Various wing leading-edge sweepback angles ranging from l 3 - l / Z 0 t o 75' were t e s t e d . Four configurations a r e shown i n s t a l l e d i n t h e wind tunnel i n t h e photograph of f i g u r e 1: two high-aspect-ratio configurations, with low and high h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l p o s i t i o n s (configurations A 1 and A2, respectively); and two low-aspect-ratio configurations, with high and mid h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l p o s i t i o n s (configurations BL and B2) .
The wing pivot w a s l o c a t e d a t 36-percent semispan and 46-percent chord of t h e f u l l y swept wing (based upon t h e low-aspect-ratio wing of configura- t i o n B ) . The f i x e d portion of t h e wing w a s provided with e i t h e r TO0 o r 750 leading-edge sweep.
Planform Geometry Geometric d e t a i l s of t h e high-aspect-ratio configuration (A) and t h e low- aspect-ratio configuration (B) can be found i n t a b l e s I and 11, respectively.
A sketch including p e r t i n e n t dimensions of t h e model is shown i n f i g u r e 2.
The a i r f o i l s e c t i o n f o r t h e movable wing had a f l a t lower surface and t h e thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n of an NACA 6 5 ~ 0 0 6a i r f o i l s e c t i o n . 111 See t a b l e f o r wing a i r f o i l coordinates.
The lower aspect r a t i o of configuration B was obtained by removing 3-1/2 f e e t of wing t i p from configuration A.
Fixed-wing s e c t i o n geometry i s d e t a i l e d i n f i g u r e 2 ( c ) by cross sections a t various fuselage s t a t i o n s . Planform d e t a i l s a r e given i n f i g u r e 2 ( d ) .
The basic leading edge w a s sharp along i t s e n t i r e l e n g t h . However, an a l t e r n a t e , rounded leading edge shown i n f i g u r e 2 ( e ) w a s a l s o t e s t e d . This rounded leading edge tapered from a radius o f 3 inches a t t h e fuselage junc- ture t o 0.73 inch (wing leading-edge radius a t movable-wing j u n c t u r e ) .
The fuselage consisted of a blended wing-body s e c t i o n , as shown i n f i g u r e 2 ( c ) , with an underslung, side-by-side engine n a c e l l e with plugged, two-dimensional i n l e t s f a i r e d t o t h e rectangular a f t fuselage shown i n f i g u r e 1.
Horizontal T a i l The h o r i z o n t a l t a i l w a s t e s t e d i n t h r e e p o s i t i o n s (see f i g . 2 ( b ) ) : low, In t h e low p o s i t i o n it w a s mounted on t h e fuselage a t 10 per- mid, and high.
it w a s C (of 25' sweep) below t h e wing-chord plane; i n t h e mid p o s i t i o n cent mounted on t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r a t LO percent C above t h e wing-chord plane; i n t h e high p o s i t i o n it w a s a l s o mounted on t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r , - a t 50 percent c above t h e wing-chord plane. Because of t h e sweepback of t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r , h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l length ( 2 ~ ) varied f o r t h e t h r e e posi- t i o n s . Two h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l s i z e s were t e s t e d i n t h e high p o s i t i o n .
For a l l t e s t s of configuration Al, t h e l o w t a i l w a s a t a negative d i h e d r a l of 100.
High-Lift Devices Fixed-wing h i g h - l i f t ~~ devices.- D e t a i l s of t h e p l a i n f l a p of t h e fixed wing a r e shown i n f i g u r e 2 ( d ) .
A simulated fiker type f l a p was t e s t e d on t h e leading edge of t h e f i x e d wing, with both sharp and rounded fixed-wing leading edge (see f i g . 2 ( e ) ) .
Movable-wing trailing-edge double-slotted f l a p system.- The double- s l o t t e d f l a p geometry and-a t y p i c a l -cross s e c t i o n are shown i n f i g u r e 2 ( f ) .
The vane w a s 7-l/2 percent of t h e wing chord, streamwise, with t h e wing a t 25' sweep.
The main f l a p comprised 25 percent of t h e wing chord. A s l o t of 2-percent wing chord w a s maintained a t t h e vane. Flap d e f l e c t i o n s ranged
from 30° t o 600 i n loo increments. The s l o t geometry w a s modified t o improve
f l a p performance. The modification ( f i g . 2 ( f ) ) consisted of adding sheet metal extensions t o t h e wing trailing-edge shroud aqd vane and w a s used f o r a l l tests of double-slotted f l a p s unless otherwise noted.
Movable-wing trailing-edge . ~- . single-slotted f l a p system.- The single- s l o t t e d f l a p configuration was achieved by removal of t h e vane of t h e double- s l o t t e d f l a p and moving t h e f l a p forward i n t o t h e wing. This reduced t h e wing chord by 4 percent and accounts f o r t h e difference i n wing area and aspect r a t i o between t h e two f l a p systems. A s l o t of 2-percent wing chord w a s maintained a t a l l f l a p d e f l e c t i o n s , and t h e range of f l a p d e f l e c t i o n w a s from 0 ' t o 300, bo0, and 5 0 ° . The geometry and cross-section d e t a i l s of t h i s f l a p system a r e given i n f i g u r e 2 ( g ) .
Both f l a p systems were constructed i n t h r e e s e c t i o n s , extending (as shown i n f i g . 2 ( a ) ) from 20 t o 52 percent semispan, from 52 t o 67 percent semispan, A s a and from 67 t o 98 percent semispan of t h e high-aspect-ratio wing.
r e s u l t , f l a p d e f l e c t i o n notation i s indicated i n t h r e e p a r t s : 6 = inboard deflection/middle d e f l e c t ion/outboard d e f l e c t ion Movable-wing leading-edge slats.- The d e t a i l s of leading-edge slat s i z e , d e f l e c t i o n , and positioning are shown i n f i g u r e 2 ( h ) . Two s i z e d slats were t e s t e d , one having a length equal t o l5-percent streamwise wing chord (at 25' sweep), and t h e o t h e r , 18-3/4-percent wing chord. The p r o f i l e of t h e 0 . 1 5 ~ slat was made t o match t h e leading-edge p r o f i l e of t h e wing. The 0.1875~ slat incorporates t h e b a s i c 0 . 1 5 ~ slat with a rounded leading-edge extension t o provide camber as shown i n t h e f i g u r e . S l a t d e f l e c t i o n , 6s1 is given r e l a t i v e t o i t s undeflected p o s i t i o n as i f it w e r e "gloved" onto t h e wing. Slat gap, gs, was varied from 0- to 2-percent chord in 1/2-percent increments. Unless otherwise noted, all slat data reflect the use of the basic slat of 0.15~ length.
TESTING AND PROCEDURE Six-component force and moment data were obtained by conventional wind- tunnel testing methods through an angle-of-attack range from - 4 ' to +22O, and an angle of sideslip from - 2 ' to A0. Free-stream dynamic pressure was 15 pounds per square foot, corresponding to a Reynolds number of 16 million, based upon mean aerodynamic chord at 75O wing sweep.
The majority of tests were directed toward the development of high-lift devices and the investigation of longitudinal stability characteristics for landing and take-off configurations.
REDUCTION OF DATA Corrections Standard corrections were applied to angle of attack to account for wind- tunnel wall effects. The corrections accounted for the variations in span due to wing sweep. Measured drag was corrected in accordance with the angle-of- attack correction. I n addition, the following correction was added to drag measurements to account for strut tares: No correction was m d e for tunnel-wall corrections for tail-on conditions due to the variable-sweep nature of the configuration.
Reference Dimensions The computation of force and moment coefficients for all wing sweeps of a given configuration was based on the dimensions corresponding to the total wing area, including fixed wing, at the 75O sweep condition of that particular configuration .
Moment Center The moment center for all configurations, regardless of wing sweep, was 2.875 inches above the wing-chord plane.
taken on the axis of the wing pivot, RESULTS The a c q u i s i t i o n o f d a t a f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n covered four t e s t i n g periods and the s e v e r a l configurations previously mentioned. The r e s u l t s i n f i g u r e s 3 through 48 present 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 and s e l e c t e d cases include l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These results are swmnarized i n f i g u r e s 49 through 56 and are discussed more completely in t h e Discussion section of t h i s r e p o r t . Table IV i s a complete index t o t h e f i g u r e s .
DISCUSS ION General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Aspect r a t i o . - Figure 49 presents a comparison of t h e t e s t d a t a f o r wings of aspect r a t i o 6.9 and 8.4 at 2 5 O of wing leading-edge sweepback and with h i g h - l i f t devices i n s t a l l e d . A t 1 2 O angle of a t t a c k , f o r instance, t h e r e i s CL i n reducing aspect r a t i o from 8.4 t o an incremental l o s s of 6.5 percent 6.9, accompanied by a decrease i n s t a b i l i t y of >-percent s t a t i c margin. The reduction i n aspect r a t i o causes a lower l i f t - c u r v e slope, b u t it i s shown t h a t f o r t h i s degree of wing sweepback, t h e r e is e s s e n t i a l l y no difference i n C h X * Wing sweep.- Figure 50 shows t h e e f f e c t s of 1 3 - 1 / 2 O and 25O wing sweep f o r both t h e flaps-up and flaps-down conditions. In t h e case of 400 f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , it i s seen t h a t t h e r e i s no appreciable b e n e f i t t o be derived by a wing sweepback angle of l e s s than 2 5 O , i n terms of a "usable" C b x , o r t h a t CL at which pitch-up occurs. Changes i n l i f t due t o wing sweep f o r t h e flaps-up condition a r e a l s o very small. Note t h a t t h e aerodynamic-center s h i f t due t o wing sweep from l3-l/z0 t o 25' with f l a p s up amounts t o 8-percent s t a t i c margin and i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as t h e change i n s t a t i c margin du.e t o 4 0 ° of f l a p d e f l e c t i o n a t l 3 - l / Z 0 of wing sweep. (The s t a t i c margin change d.x t G flap; d e f l e c t i o n , however, i s a result of t h e downwash flow a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l l o c a t i o n , since no change i s indicated i n t h e t a i l - off d-a.t.a of f i g s . 36 m d 37. ) Longitudinal S t a b i l i t y A s mentioned i n t h e Introduction, variable-sweep configurations generally haTvre unstable pitching-moment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t high l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s . The reason i s t h a t a wing-tip s t a l l progressing inboard (based on t u f t observa- t i o n s ) i s f u r t h e r a.ggra.w,ted b y a vortex generated along t h e highly swept leading edge O f t'ne fixed wing delaying i d ~ o a r d stall. The s i z e and sweep of the fixed-wing portion contribute t o t h e s t r e n g t h of t h i s vortex. P a r t of this i m ~ e s t i g a t i o ninvolve3 t e s t i n g h o r i z c z t z l -tzil p s c i t i o n c i n cozi'aination ... I w i ~ h b a i i o u s C l u w conLro1 Gevices i n v r & r t o alievia-ce t h i s problem.
Illl11ll11 IIIIII I I I Effect of fixed wing.- Figure 24 shows t h a t reducing fixed-wing leading- edge sweepback from 75O t o 7 0 ' increases l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y approximately 7 percent and correspondingly increases maximum l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t by 7 percent.
Effect of h o r i z o n t a l t a i l . - Figure 31 summarizes t h e e f f e c t s of h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l l o c a t i o n and s i z e on p i t c h i n g moment. The only t a i l p o s i t i o n t h a t gave reasonably l i n e a r pitching moment up t o high l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s w a s t h e low position, l o c a t e d 10 percent of t h e 23' sweep C below t h e wing-chord plane. Placing t h e t a i l a t a high p o s i t i o n (50 percent E above t h e wing- chord plane) caused a severe pitch-up a t l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s of 1 . 4 . The t a i l midway between t h e high and low p o s i t i o n s w a s somewhat b e t t e r than t h e high t a i l position, b u t t h 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 were s t i l l unsatisfactory.
Figure 52 presents t h e c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s ( a C & i T ) , f o r two of t h e h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l configurations j u s t discussed, and e f f e c t i v e downwash angle (Eav) a n d t a i l angle of a t t a c k (CLT ) f o r t h e t a i l i n t h e high p o s i t i o n .
These curves were obtained f r o m cross p l o t s of pitching moment versus angle of a t t a c k f o r various values of t a i l incidence. It i s shown t h a t , f o r both t a i l positions, t h e aC&i, curve has v i r t u a l l y no change i n slope up t o 12' angle of a t t a c k , i n d i c a t i n g no change i n t a i l e f f i c i e n c y f a c t o r . However, above 1 2 ' angle of a t t a c k f o r t h e high t a i l , t h e changing downwash f i e l d causes t h e t a i l angle of a t t a c k (q) t o f a l l back t o zero a t 16O wing angle of a t t a c k so t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y contribution of t h e t a i l i s l o s t . This e f f e c t is primarily due t o t h e vortex generated by t h e fixed-wing leading edge. A t t h e same time, above 12' wing angle of a t t a c k , t h e r e is a reduction i n control power (aC&iT) f o r t h e high t a i l , i n d i c a t i n g a reduction i n dynamic pressure a t t h e h o r i z o n t a l t a i l . O n t h e other hand, t h e low t a i l is not adversely a f f e c t e d by t h e wing downwash f i e l d (as i l l u s t r a t e d by increasing dC,&iT) above 12' angle of a t t a c k .
Flow-control devices.- Reduced fixed-wing sweepback and c e r t a i n flow- c o n t r o l devices on t h e fixed-wing leading edge were e f f e c t i v e i n a l l e v i a t i n g t h e reduction of l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y a t high angles of a t t a c k . Figure 33 shows t h e e f f e c t s of these c o n t r o l devices on pitching moment. With t h e t a i l i n t h e low p o s i t i o n , d e f l e c t i n g a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e f i x e d wing about a hinge l i n e along t h e fuselage juncture (similar t o a p l a i n leading-edge f l a p ) e s s e n t i a l l y eliminated t h e unstable p i t c h i n g moment break a t t h e s t a l l . A e e r f l a p used with a l a r g e leading-edge radius (see f i g . 2 ( e ) ) improved t h e s t a b i l i t y a t t h e s t a l l but, as shown i n f i g u r e 53, not s u f f i c i e n t l y t o over- come t h e l a r g e d e s t a b i l i z i n g moment contribution of t h e h o r i z o n t a l t a i l i n t h e high p o s i t i o n .
The improvements i n s t a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g from t h e use of these control devices confirm t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y problems a r e associated with t h e vortex shed f r o m t h e fixed-wing leading edge. These devices delay formation of t h i s vortex and thus tend t o a l l e v i a t e t h e i n s t a b i l i t y .
Maximum L i f t Trailing-edge f l a p s . - Figure 54 summarizes t h e e f f e c t s of both single- The full-span double-slotted f l a p s l o t t e d and double-slotted f l a p systems.
had a 0.3 g r e a t e r l i f t increment a t zero angle of a t t a c k . For both full-span f l a p s w a s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same, with t h e d o a l e - s l o t t e d f l a p achieving C b x With a t l 5 O angle of a t t a c k , 3O e a r l i e r than t h e s i n g l e - s l o t t e d f l a p .
C h x part-span d e f l e c t i o n (outboard f l a p undeflected) t h e 400 single-slotted f l a p 300 double-slotted f l a p p a r t l y because of a achieved higher than t h e C h x higher l i f t - c u r v e slope. Tuft observations indicated t h a t double-slotted f l a p effectiveness w a s reduced a t higher angles of a t t a c k by t h e fixed-wing vortex e f f e c t .
Figure 35 shows t h e e f f e c t s of t h e amount of flap-span deflected.
Deflection of t h e outboard f l a p s e c t i o n s produced an increase i n lift through n e a r l y t h e e n t i r e range of l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s , including C h x . However, t h e a d d i t i o n a l nose-down moment produced by t h e outboard f l a p s r e s u l t e d i n a t r i m requirement which, f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, cancelled t h e advantage i n maximum l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t .
Leading-edge slats.- A l i m i t e d program t o optimize wing leading-edge slat d e f l e c t i o n and gap s i z e was conducted with t h e low-tail, high-aspect-ratio configuration (A=). Figure 56 p r e s e n t s a summary of t h e r e s u l t s a t a wing sweepback of 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' with 30° full-span double-slotted f l a p s . The e f f e c t s of these slat v a r i a b l e s on maximum l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t a r e shown and were used t o t a i l o r t h e slat geometry f o r subsequent t e s t i n g .
Lateral-Directional S t a b i l i t y No unusual l a t e r a l or d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were evident i n any of t h e configurations t e s t e d (see f i g s . 10, 13, 36, and 41). The model had d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and p o s i t i v e e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l up t o t h e s t a l l angle of a t t a c k .
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1. The r e s u l t s show t h a t a l l configurations t e s t e d , except one, w e r e l o n g i t u d i n a l l y unstable a t high l i f t . The one configuration t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y eliminated t h i s i n s t a b i l i t y a t s t a l l consisted of a drooped fixed-wing leading-edge with t h e high-aspect-ratio wing a t 25' of w i n g sweepback, i n conjunction with t h e low h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l p o s i t i o n .
2 . N o s o l u t i o n t o l o n g i t u d i n a l i n s t a b i l i t y was achieved with t h e hori- zontal t a i l i n any o t h e r than t h e low p o s i t i o n (10 percent of t h e 2 5 ' sweep
-
below t h e wing chord p l a n e ) .
c 3. Results i n d i c a t e t h a t , f o r t h e low-speed configuration, reducing wing sweepback below 23’ yielded no appreciable b e n e f i t i n terms of a usable maximum lift c o e f f i c i e n t (or t h a t CL a t which l o n g i t u d i n a l i n s t a b i l i t y occurs).
Ames Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration C a l i f . , Jan. 27, 1965 Moffett Field, 1. Kemp, W i l l i a m B., Jr.; Becht, Robert E.; and Few, Albert G . , Jr.: S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t Low Speed of a l / k S c a l e B e l l X-5 Airplane Model. Longitudinal S t a b i l i t y and Control. NACA RM ~ 9 ~ 0 8 , 2 . Alford, W i l l i a m J., Jr.; and Henderson, W i l l i a m P.: A n Exploratory Investigation of t h e Low-Speed Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Variable- Wing-Sweep Airplane Configurations. N A S A TM X-142, 1959.
3. Spencer, Bernard, Jr.: S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t Low Subsonic Speeds of an Airplane Configuration Having Two Types of Variable-Sweep Wings. T M X-303, 1960.
N A S A 4. Spencer, Bernard, Jr .: Low-Speed Longitudinal Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Associated With Variations i n t h e Geometry of t h e Fixed Portion of a Variable-Wing-Sweep Airplane Configuration Having an Outboard Pivot.
N A S A TM x-625, 1962.
3 . Alford, Williazz V T . , ZF.; Luora, Avro A.; and Hendersoii, W i l l i a m P.: Wind-Tunnel Studies a t Subsonic and Transonic Speeds of a Multiple- Mission Variable-Wing-Sweep Airplsce CGrfigT2ation. NASA T M x-206, 6. Foster, Gerald V.; and bkrris, Ode11 A.: Stz’Sility m d Control Character- i s t i c s a t a Mach “ h e r of 1.97 of an Airplane configuration Having Two Types of Variable-Sweep Wings. N A S A T M X-323, 1960.
~
-.-- .----- I . I m I. -.. . . - - = - . ..-.e-
I TABLE I.- MODEL GEOMETRY OF CONFIGURATION A Wing: NACA 6 5 ~ 0 0 6 modified airfoil; 00 twist, incidence, and dihedral - - - - Total wing Movable wing
I
AR A A~;E Area AR E Span I Area 1
8.7 0.343 70' 491 6.6 12.75 56.7 369 6.0 15.80 7 5 O 540 12.80 8.0 ,337 70° 483 6 . 1 54.3 367
1.5 .343 700 462 1.5 19.44 26.6 1 462 1
1 . 4 .470 75' 510 1 . 4 22.47 26.6 510 High- -aspect-ratio
geometry, single-slotted flaps I
13-1/2O 56.7 250 54.3 40.2 4.3 .344 454 3.6 14.51 5 5 O 26.6 486 1 . 5 .471 437 1.6 19.83 75O
I Low horizontal tail (A=) I
- ALE Span Area AR C ZT
I
- Total area 60° 19.4 169 2.2 10.0 15.8 Exposed area 60° 19.4 3.4 8.0 20.1
I High horizontal tail (A2) I
8.0 27.9 Large tail 60° 15.0 ll1 2.0 I l l I Ill11 I TABLE 11.- MODEL GEDMETRY O F CONFIGURATION B Wing: NACA 65~006 modified a i r f o i l ; Oo t w i s t , incidence, and d i h e d r a l Total wing Movable wing
I I
I
A m & L
I Low-aspect-ratio geometry, & E Span Area AR A - 13-1/2O 49.6 325 7.6 0.432 7.2 .429 180 48.5 325 2 5 O 47.4 6.9 .423 32' 43.0 327 5.7 .430 352 3.5 -4.53 55' 34.9 24.7 75O 460 1 . 3 .590 - _.
- C
span j Area j AR
AU -.
15 .O I 1 1 1 -1 2 .O 8 .o
Total a r e a 60° 8 .o I _ , I , I I I I I I ..,I. I, 111111 I 1 1 1 1 111111. 1111 I I I TABU 111.- WING AIRFOIL ORDINATES (MOVABU SECTION); MODIFIED NACA 65~006; Oo TWIST, INCIDEI!TCE, AND DIHEDRAL
Streamwise section, A w L ~ =25O
Z
+X i
0 0.00727 0 .01498 0 * 0073 .0086 0 -01533 .0130 .01672 0 .0260 .02044 0 .O?OO .02667 .0780 0 *0333-5 .loo0 0 -03729 .1500 .04479 0 .2000 ,05032 0 .2500 .05500 0 .3000 .05844 0 .06083 0 * 3500 .4000 .06219 0 .4>00 .06240 0 .5000 .06167 0
- 5500 .05969
.6000 .05625 0 .6500 .05208 0 .7000 .04688 0 .04104 .00604 * 7500 .8000 .03458 .00604 .8500 .02750 .00604 .go00 .02052 .00604 .00604
- 9500 -01333
1 .oooo .00604 ,00604 TABLE IV.- INDEX TO FIGURFlS ~~ ~ Configuration Al: high-aspect-ratio wing, low horizontal t a i l Clean configuration
13-1/2 25 7 [ O / r FiS 2
Clean configuration Clean configuration
55 5
Clean configuration I 7 5 6 I Single-slotted trailing-edge flaps: FSS 7 1 8 Part-span deflection FSS Full-span deflection FSS Part-span deflection 1 0
Part-span deflection 1 1 i
Full-span deflection 12 I I Full-span deflection 2 6 Fixed-wing leading-edge f l a p deflection 25 Fixed-wing leading-edge radius and' f l a p deflect ion 25 70 40/40/0 FSS 28 iHorizonta1-tail s i z e 70 40/40/0 FSS 29 TABLE IV.- L N D M TO FIGURES - Concluded I I Configuration B1: low-aspect-ratio wing, high horizontal t a i l ~~~
I
Figure
I Trailing-edge f l a p s
I/ Effect of: ding sweep sweepback number
30 1 '
25 31 Clean configuration 32 32 Clean configuration Clean configuration
O l l 'i'
75 34 High-lift configurations 40/40/0 FSS High-lift configurations 40/40/0 FSS 25 36 High-lift configurations 50/50/0 FSS 25 37 High-lift configurations 40/40/0 FSS 38 1 I Fixed-wing radius and Kr&er f l a p 18 40/40/0 FSS Fixed-wing radius and KrGger f l a p 18 4O/4O/4O FSS 40 Fixed-wing radius and KrGger f l a p 40/40/0 FSS Fixed-wing radius and KrCger f l a p 40/40/0 FSS Fixed-wing radius and KrGger f l a p 40/40/4O FSS 40/40/0 FSS Fixed-wing radius and Kr%er f l a p 18 40/40/0 FSS
I I Configuration B2: low-aspect-rat i o wing, mid horizontal t a i l
Fixed-wing K r k e r f l a p deflection 25 70 Fixed-wing K r k e r f l a p deflection 'Fixed-wing K r k e r f l a p deflection
1 I
Summary p l o t s
Aspect r a t i o , t a i l off 25 40/40/0 FSS 7
Wing sweep, t a i l on variable FSS 50 Horizontal-tail location
13-1,25 71 40/40/0 40/40/0 FSS FSS 51 52
Hor izontal-t a i l e f f e c t ivene s s Fixed-wing leading-edge radius and f l a p deflection variable FSS 53 Single-slotted and double-slotted flaps variable FSS and FDS 54 Amount of f l a p span deflected variable FSS 55 eading-edge slat geometry 13-1/2 75 50/50/50 F D s 56 r L u l A-30876 (a) Configuration Al: low tail, aspect-ratio-8.4 wing.
Figure 1.- Photographs of the model mounted in the Ames 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel.
U A-31298 (b) Configuration A2: high t a i l , aspect-ratio-8.4 wing.
Figure 1. - Continued .
A-31299 (c) Configuration B1: high t a i l , aspect-rat io-6.9 wing.
Figure 1. - Continued .
Iu Moment center low A R configuration) Wing reference chord plane (wing lower surface) I ------ --- 65.30 AI I dimensions in feet (a) General d e t a i l s of configuration A l .
Figure 2.- Geometric d e t a i l s of t h e model.
2 . 9 2 4 k - 2 8 . 6 7 \Pivot axis / Tail pivot a x i d Low tail position Hiah tail position Mid tail position
A T e . 7 5
WCP- - + - - - -
( b ) Details of h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l locations.
Figure 2 .- Continued .
. - Ref. line Sta. 592.7- - - - Symmetrical about E.
Wing mounting platform
-7
Sta. 523.2- -
77---- (Wing plvotl
4.25 I I wing Fixed 16.5 I
-82.25-- -I
Sta. 438.8- - - +
L.E.
-- Sta. 3 9 1 . 0 - I ( c ) Cross-section d e t a i l s of f i x e d wing.
Figure 2 . - Continued .
I 75"A flap-, f I I 70" A f l a p Section A-A (Showing hinge line on fuselage) (a) Details of fixed-wing leading-edge plain flap.
Figure 2. - Continued .
E ? - -+-
-7
)
L.E. slat w
Tapers from 3" radius a t fuselage to .75" (wing L.E.
radius at movable-wing juncture.)
Large L.E. radius 8 Kruger flap Large L.E. radius Sharp flap leading edge on fixed-wing flap L.E.
on fixed-wing L.E. flap with Krliger flap Section A-A ( e ) Details of fixed-wing leading-edge radius and KrGer f l a p .
Figure 2 . - Continued .
Flap section taken perpendicular to .772c, with AWLE =25" Deflected 30" Coordinates of double-slotted flap along streamwise direction, with h w ~ ~ = 2 5 " (f) Details of the double-slotted flap.
Figure 2. - Continued .
Gap dimensions same for all flap deflections
-- LCUndef lected
---
--\
--
--\ L_----- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - =>.
Flap section I to . 7 3 ~ for Aw~~=25' Coordinates of single-slotted flap along streamwise direction with hWLE=25O
\\ r D e f lected 40°
.040 ,0592 1
1 ,080 1 ,0748 .(
I .I20 I .0860 I
I .200 I ,0994 I
.IO23 .IO16 1 .320 .0968
I .400 I .0856 I
~~ - (g) Details of the single-slotted flap.
Figure 2 .- Continued .
For gap (gs) = 0.020~ 8s = IO". 20".30"; Slat T.E. was positioned to b e l t o a wing L.E. radius line as shown Ss = 25", 35"; Slat was rotated with T.E.
in same position as for 6 ~ = 3 0 " For all other gaps (gs): Slat was translated along a vertical to the wing chord plane.
Details of leading-edge slat deflections, .15c slat \ Standard 35" 8, Slat translated aft 8 down to seol gap (fig. 23 (a) only) @ Slat translated vertically from 33- sealed-gap position to gap=.005c (fig. 23 (b) only) Details of leading-edge slat positioning for sealed gap & , 0 0 5 ~ gap
'/
Contoured to wing Details of .1875c slat (h) Details of movable-wing leading-edge slats.
Figure 2. - Concluded.
-16 .I2 .08 .04 0 704 708 -.I2 C D Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with flaps up; slats on and o f f .
Figure 3 .- Characteristics of cruise configuration at 13-1/2O sweep.
. .
-0 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 a Longitudinal characteristics including cruise lift-drag ratio.
Figure j . - Concluded.
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 1.2 I .o CL .8 .6 . 4 0 -10"Off Off . 2 -. 2 -. 4 0 .04 .08 .I2 .I6 .20 .24 .28 .32 .36 .40 .44 .48 .52 .56 .60 .64 .68 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 -.08 - . I 2 CD cm ( a ) Longitudinal characteristics with f l a p s up; slats on and o f f .
Figure 4 .- Characteristics of cruise configuration a t 25' sweep.
I a (b) Longitudinal characteristics including cruise lift-drag ratio.
Figure 4. - Concluded.
I - - I 1 11111111 I I .6 I .4 I .2
I .o
.8 CL .6 .4 .2
-. 2
-.4 0 .04 .08 .I2 . I 6 .20 .24 .28 .32 .36 .40 .44 .48 .52 56 .60 .64 .28 .24 .20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 -.08 - . I 2 -.I6 CD Cm slats on and off.
(a) Longitudinal characteristics with flaps up; Figure 5 .- Characteristics of cruise configuration at 3.5' sweep.
w w L /D
."
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 U (b) Longitudinal characteristics including cruise lift-drag ratio.
Figure 5.- Concluded.
I I I I I CL 0 .04 .08 . I 2 .I6 .20 .24 .28 .32 .36 .40 .44 .48 .20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 -.08 -.I2 -.I6 -.20 C D Crn (a) Longitudinal characteristics with flaps up; slats off.
Figure 6 .- Characteristics of cruise configuration at 75' sweep.
W u l L / D i T 0 0" 0 -2 1/2" 0 -7 1/2" A -10" -15" CONFIG: A i AWLE: 75" A F L E : 70" rFLE: Sharp ~ F L E : 0" FLE: Plain 6s: O f f
&DS: o/o/o
0 4 0 1 2 1 6 20 24 a (b) Longitudinal characteristics including cruise lift-drag ratio.
6.- Concluded.
Figure . .. .... ... . .. - ~ . .
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 I .o CL -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 . 7 .8 .2 . I 0 - . I CD Cm Figure 7 .- Longitudinal characteristics of 300 partial-span single-slotted flaps at 13-1/20 sweep.
I w -4 w co - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 .3 .2 .I 0 -.I 0 . I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 U C D cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 8.- Characteristics of 4 0 ' partial-span single-slotted flaps at 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' sweep.
2 . 0 I .8 I . 6 I . 4 1 . 2 I .o CL .8 .. . .
.6 .L -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 0 -.I .2 .I Q CD Cm (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 8. - Continued .
2.Q 1.8 1.6 I .4 I .2 I .o CL .8 .6 .4 .2 . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . .
.
. ..... ~- ~.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
__ . .
_.
- 7 .08 .04 0 .04 .08 . I 2 .I6708 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 -.06 -04 -.02 0 .02 .04 CY Cn c2 (e) Lateral characteristics at constant s i d e s l i p .
Figure 8. - Continued .
.08 .06 .04 c y .02 -.02 -.04 .04 .02 Cn
- .02
- .04
-.06 .02 CI
- . 0 2
-.04 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 P (d) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 8.- Concluded.
I
2.0 I .8 I . 6 I .4 1.2 I .o CL .8 . 6 .4 .2 -.2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 .2 .I 0 -.I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 Q CD Cm Figure 9 .- Characteristics of 4 0 ° full-span single-slotted flaps at 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' sweep.
2.0 I . 8 I . 6 I .4 1.2 cL 1 . 0 . 8 . 6 .4 .2 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 CD Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 10.- Characteristics of 3 0 ' partial-span single-slotted flaps at 25 sweep.
c w 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 , I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 .I 0 -.I a CD c m (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip.
10. - Continued .
Figure I I I I " .I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 . O 8 CY Cn (e) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 10. - Continued .
.06 .04 .02 CY -.02 -.04 Q GFSS 0 9.1" 30/30/0 0 9.Io 40/40/0 CONFIG: A i AWLE: 2 5 O AFLE: 70° rFLE: Sharp ~ F L E : 0" FLE: Plain 8s: 35" 9s: ,005 c .
iT: -10" . 0 2 -. 04 (d) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 10. - Concluded.
4 6 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 I .o CL .8 .6 .4 TFLE :Sharp FLE : Plain .2 -.2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 . 2 .I 0 - . I - . 2 0 .I . 2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 a CD Cm Figure 11 .- Characteristics of 40° partial-span single-slotted flaps at 25' sweep.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2
I .o
.8 . 6 .4 .2 -.24 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 7 1 72 .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .2 . 7 .I 0 . I a C D Cm Figure 12 .- Characteristics of 3 0 ' full-span single-slotted flaps at 25' sweep.
- 3 .L -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 2 4 0 -.I -.2 -.3 .2 .I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 8 U C D Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 13. - Characteristics of 40° full-span single-slotted flaps at 25' sweep.
Ln .-
-4 0 4 a 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 . 7 .2 ,I 0 -.I
a CD C m (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 13. - Continued .
FLE: Plain - . L - . I 2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 .I2 -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .04 .06 -.OB -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 C Y Cn C 1 (e) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 13. - Continued .
.06 .04 .02 CY -.02 -.04 a 0 .7O 0 5 . 0 ' .04 0 9.3O CONFIG: A i -0 2 AWLE: 25O AFLE: 70" Cn 0 rF LE: Sharp ~ F L E : 0" FLE: Plain -.02 8s: 35O 9s: .005 c -.04 8 FSS: 40/40/40 i,: - 1 5 O - 1 - - - .04
.o 2
c1 O -.02
- na
." I -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 P (a) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 13. - Concluded.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL
I .o
.8 .6 rFLE: Sharp FLE: Plain .4 .2 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 0 -.I -.2 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 n a L m Figure 14.- Effect of double-slotted f l a p deflection a t 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' sweep.
u W . .
. .
FLE: Plain --0 -IO0 Figure 13 .- Characteristics of 300 full-span double-slotted flaps at 13-1/2O sweep.
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .2 . I 0 -.I -.2 a CD Cm Figure 16.- Characteristics of 3 0 ' partial-span double-slotted flaps at 25' sweep.
I I I i I !
.2 .I 0 -.I -.2 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 .8 Q CD Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 17 .- Characteristics of 5 0 ' partial-span double-slotted flaps at 2 5 O sweep.
.2 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 -.I -.2 .2 . I 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 a CD C m (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 17. - Continued .
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 c, 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 I -.I6 :I2 -.08 704 0 .04 .08 .I2 -.08 706 -.04 -.02 0 .02 -.04 702 0 .02 .04 .06 CY ( c ) Lateral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t constant sideslip.
Figure 17. - Continued .
.06 .04 .02 CY -.02 -. 04 i T 0 0 . 9 O Off 0 5 . 1 Off 9 . 4 O Off A 5.0" - 1 5 O CONFIG: Ai AWLE: 25" A F L E : 70" rF LE: Sharp ~ F L E : 0" FLE: Plain
-. W-r
0 2 4 6 -8 -6 -4 -2 P (d) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 17.- Concluded.
c n 2.0 I .8 I .6 I - . . .
-4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 - . 3 a CD Crn Figure 18 .- Characteristics of 300 full-span double-slotted flaps at 2 3 O sweep.
-4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . I 0 -.I -.2 73 a CD C m Figure 19.- Characteristics of 40° full-span double-slotted flaps at 25' sweep.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL
I .o
. 8 .6 .4 .2 n v -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 .I 0 -.I -.2 -.3 CI C D Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail on.
Figure 20 .- Characteristics of 30' full-span double-slotted flaps at 2 3 O sweep.
.
2.0 I .8 I .6 1.4 I .2
c, 1.0
.8 .6 . 4 .2 n u p -
-4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 6 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6
.I 0 -.I -.2 a CD C m (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip; tail on.
Figure 20. - Continued .
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL 1.0 .8 .6 -.IO L n (e) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip; tail on.
Figure 20. - Continued .
I c .06 .O 4
.o 2
-.o 2
-.o 4 0
0 l.oo 0 5.3O h 0 9 . 5 " CONFIG: A i A W L E : 2 5 '
.o 2
c1 -.02
-.O 4 -.O 6 0 2 4 6 -8 -6 -4 -2 P (a) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack; tat& on.
Figure 20. - Continued .
2.0 I .0 I .6 I .4 I .2
c , 1.0
.8 . 6 .4 .2 - -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 0 -.I -.2 73 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 a C D Cm (e) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip; tail off.
Figure 20.- Continued.
.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2
I .o
.8 .6 .4 .2 n
-
-.IO -.08 706 -.04 -.02 0 .02 -.04 -.02 0 .02 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .04 .06 . 0 8 CY Cn c1 (f) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip; tail off.
Figure 20. - Continued .
a 0 1.2" 0 5.4" -04 0 9 . 6 ' CONFIG: A , .02 A W L E : 25" A F L E : 70" rFLE: Sharp 8FLE: 0" -.02 FLE: Plain 8s: 30" 9s: .005 c -04 8 ~ ~ s : 50/50/50 ( g ) L a t e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t constant angle o f attack; t a i l o f f .
Figure 20.- Concluded.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL
I .o
.8 .6 .4 .2 n w 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .2 .I 0 -.I - . 2 8 12 1 6 20 -4 0 4 U Cm C D (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 21.- Characteristics of 30° full-span double-slotted flaps at 13-1/2’ sweep and 7 5 O f ixed-wing sweep.
-4 I I I I CL I .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 0 . I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 a CD Cm (b ) * hiolfi-dinal character i s t i c s a t const an3 A$#$gslip .
J Figure 21. - Continued .
i I I I I CL I -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 - . I 2 -.IO -.08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 CY Cn C 1 (e) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip.
Figure 21 .- Continued.
CY Q 0 1 . 1 O 0 5.3O .02 C" -.02
-. 04
-.06 6 FDS: 50/50/50 iT: -10" .02
c, -.02
-. 04 -.06 - - - -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 P (d) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 21. - Concluded.
...
0 . I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 . I 0 -.I -.2 =4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 a C D Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics for various slat positions.
Figure 22.- Leading-edge slat effects at 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' sweep with double-slotted flaps at 50' full-span.
2.
2.
I I I I CL I " .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 0 . I 8 12 1 6 20 -4 0 4 a (b) Longitudinal characteristics for various slat gaps at constant d e f l e c t i o n .
Figure 22. - Continued .
.2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 .7 0 . I .I 0 -.I 72 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 Q CD Cm ( c ) Longitudinal characteristics f o r various slat positions.
Figure 22. - Concluded.
I I I I CL I -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 .I 0 -.I -.2 -.3 .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .7 0 .I U CD C m (a) Effect of slat geometry with 4 0 ' full-span flaps.
Figure 23.- Leading-edge slat effects at 2 5 O sweep with single-slotted flaps.
I I I I CL I .I 0 - . I - . 2 - . 3 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 .9 a CD Crn (b) Effect of slat geometry a l t e r a t i o n s with 40' full-span f l a p s .
Figure 2 3 . - Continued.
-4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 _I 0 -.I -.2 - 0 .I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 a CD Cm (c) Effect of slat deflections w i t h 3 0 ' partial-span flaps.
w
Figure 23.- Concluded.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL
I .o
.8 .6 .4 .2 n " -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 .7 .I 0 71 - . 2 Q CD Cm Figure 24.- Effect of fixed-wing leading-edge sweep with movable wing at l 3 - l / 2 O sweep.
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2
c, 1.0
.8 .6 .4 .2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 . I 0 -.I -.2 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 Figure 2 5 . - Effect of f ixed-wing leading-edge radius, with movable wing a t 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' sweep, unmodified f l a p s l o t .
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL
I .o
0 .I .2 .3 4 .5 .6 . 7 .I 0 -.I -.2 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 a CD Cm Figure 26 .- Elfeet of f ixed-wing leading-edge f l a p deflection, with 50' double-slotted trailing-edge flaps, 1 3 - 1 / 2 ' wing sweep.
0 -.I -.2 - . 3 .I -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 .8 a CD Cm Figure 27.- Effect of fixed-wing leading-edge p l a i n f l a p deflection, a t 2 3 O wing sweep and TO0 fixed- wing sweep.
2.0 I .8 1.6 I .4 I .2 c , 1.0 .8 .6 .4 . 2 n
-
-4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 a CD Figure 28.- Effect of fixed-wing leading-edge radius and Krker flap, 4 0 ’ partial-span flaps, 2>’ wing sweep.
co w 1.8 I .6 I .4 1.2 I .o 'L .8 .6 .4 .2 - . 2 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 .3 .2 . I 0 -.I -.2 CD cml (a) Small horizontal tail.
Figure 2.9.- Effect of horizontal-tail size on longitudinal characteristics at 2 5 O wing sweep, 400 partial-span single-slotted flaps.
2 .o I .8 1.6 I .4 I .2 I .o .8 .6 .4 .2 (b) Large (basic) horizontal t a i l .
Figure 29 .- Concluded.
I I I I I CL -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .2 .I 0 -.I a CD Cm Figure 30.- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 18O wing sweep, flaps up, slats off.
FLE: Plain 110 0'1 -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .2 .I 0 -.I a CO Cm Figure 21 .- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 2 5 O wing sweep, flaps up, slats off.
I .8 I . 6 I .4 I .2
I .o
.8 CL .6 .4 'FLE : FLE : .2 i T :
-.2 f
-4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .I 0 -.I -.2 a C D Cm Figure 32 .- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 3 2 ' wing sweep, flaps up, slats off.
. ..
.
I I CL
-
0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . I 0 -.I -.2 a C D Cm Figure 33 .- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 55' wing sweep, flaps up, slats off.
I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2
I .o
c, .8
.4 .2 -. 2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .2 .3 .4 .5 .2 .I 0 -.I Q C D Cm Figure 34 .- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 7 5 O wing sweep, flaps up, slats o f f .
2.0 . . - .. .
1.8 1.6 I .4 1.2 C L 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 .L -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 . I . 2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 3 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 a Cm CD Figure j 5 .- Effect of 4 0 ' partial-span single-slotted flaps on low-aspect-ratio wing at 1 8 ' sweep.
2.0
I .a
I .6 I .4 1 . 2 I .o CL .8 .6 .4 .2 - 7 .- -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 .3 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 a CD Cm (a) Longitudinal chayacteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 36 .- Characteristics of low-aspect-ratio wing at 2 5 ' sweep, 4 0 ' partial-span flaps, horizontal and vertical tail on and off.
I I I I FLE: Plain 9s: .005 c -4 0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 . 7 .2 .I 0 -.I Q CD Cm (b) Longitudinal characteristics at constant sideslip; tail on.
Figure 36. - Continued.
.
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 ( e ) Longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s at constant sideslip; t a i l o f f .
Figure 36. - Continued .
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 1.2 1.0 .8 . 6 .4 .2 n " -.I6 -.I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 .I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 -.06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .04 CY Cn cz (d) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip; t a i l on.
Figure 36.- Continued.
2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2
c, 1.0
.8 .6 .4 -.I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .04 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 CY Cn c1 (e) Lateral characteristics at constant sideslip; tail off.
Figure 36. - Continued.
.06 .04 .02 - . O 2 a av i, 0 4.88 -5' 0 9.14 - 5 O .04 0 4.93 O f f CONFIG: BI .02 AWLE: 25" AFLE: 70" Cn 0 f'FLE: Sharp ~ F L E : Oo
-.o 2
FLE: Plain 8s: 35" -. 04 9s: .005 c 8 ~ s ~ : 40/40/0 .O 4 .02 CI O -.02 - A A .v-r 0 2 4 6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 P, deg (f) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 36.- Concluded.
0 -.I -.2 .I W -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 4 .5 .6 . 7 a C D Cm Figure 37.- Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing at 23' sweep, 5 0 ' partial-span flaps.
AWL€: 32' rFLE: Sharp FLE: Plain 8 12 1 6 20 24 0 -.I -2 .3 .2 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 . 8 0 . I a C D Crn Figure 38. - Longitudinal characteristics, low-aspect-ratio wing, 32' sweep, 4 0 ' partial-span flaps.
P 0 I 2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 . 3 .2 . I a 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 Cm CD Figure 39 .- Longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , low-aspect-ratio wing, 18O sweep, with l a r g e f ixed-wing leading-edge radius and Krker-type f l a p .
Figure 40 .- Longitudinal characteristics , low-aspect-ratio wing a t 1 8 ' sweep, 40° full-span flaps , large f ixed-wing leading-edge radius and Krker-type f l a p .
.- - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 . 3 .2 .I 0 -.I 72 .o .I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 Q CD Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics with tail incidence.
Figure 41 .- Characteristics of low-aspect-ratio wing at 25' sweep, with large fixed-wing leading-edge radius and Krker-type flap.
!
FLE: Kruger gs :.005 c 0 .I .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 .2 .I 0 -.I
-4 0 4 a 12 1 6 20 24
CD Cm (b) Longitudinal characteristics i n sideslip.
Figure 41. - Continued .
P W -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 -.08 -06 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .O -.I6 -.I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 .08 I 2 C" c'l CY (c) Lateral c .haracteristics i n sideslip.
Figure 41. - Continued .
.06 .04 .02
-. 02
-. 04
a a v 0 4.07" 0 9.15" CONFIG: 61 A W L E : 25" A F L E : 70" rF LE: Large ~ F L E : 0" F L E : Krtiger 8s: 35" gs: .005 c 8 ~ s s : 40/40/0 .04 iT: -5" .02 c1 O -. 02
. v-r
- 1 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 P (d) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 41. - Concluded.
I I I I 0 .I .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 Q C D Cm (a) Longitudinal characteristics in sideslip.
Figure 42.- Characteristics of low-aspect-ratio wing at 25' sweep, with large fixed-wing leading-edge radius and Krker-type flap; tail off.
E -
2 .o
I .8 I .6 P 0 0" I .4 0 -12" I .2
c, I .o
. 8 .6 .4 .2 n
-
-.I2 -.08 -.04 0 .04 -.04 -.02 0 .02 .04 ~ 0 8 -.04 0 .04 .08 CY Cn c1 (b) Lateral characteristics in sideslip.
Figure 42. - Cont hued.
-04 .02 CY O a a v 0 4.91" CONFIG: BI AWL€: 25" AFLE: 70" rFLE: Large ~ F L E : 0" FLE: Kruger 8s: 35"
g s : .005 c
8 ~ ~ s : 40/40/0 .04 .02 Cl O
- 04
.- .
0 2 4 6 -8 -6 -4 -2 P , deg (e) Lateral characteristics at constant angle of attack.
Figure 42. - Concluded.
2.0 1.8 I . 6 I .4 I. 2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 _ I .2 .3 .4 . .5 .6 .7 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 a CD sweep, 4 0 ' full-span flaps, ;ics, low-aspect-rat io wing a t 25' Figure 43. - Longitudinal characterist ; leading-edge radius and KYker-tg 'pe flap.
large f ixed-wing P P 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 C L I .o .8 .6 rFLE:Sharp - FLE : Krliger : gs:.005 c : 8 12 16 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 -4 0 4 a CD Figure 44.- Effect of ga,p between fixed-wing leading-edge KrGer f l a p and movable wing leading-edge slat at 1-80 wing sweep.
I I I I .2 . I 0 -.I -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 a CD Cm Figure 45.- Effect of movable wing leading-edge slats on low-aspect-ratio wing at 2T0 sweep.
. _ 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I . 2 C L 1.0 .8 .6 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 .I . 2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .I 0 -.I Q CD c m (a) Effect of K r k e r f l a p with basic slat of 0 . 1 5 ~length.
Figure 46.- Effect o f slat type and fixed-wing K r k e r f l a p deflection on mid-tail configuration, B2.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL I .o .8 .6 AWLE: 25' rFLE: Sharp FLE: Kruger " -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 . I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 . I 0 - . I -.2 a CD Cm (b) Effect of K r k e r f l a p with modified slat of 0.1875~ length.
Figure 46. - Concluded.
2.0 I . 8 I .6 I .4 I .2 C L 1.0 . 8 .6 .4 .2 0 . I .2 . 3 .4 . 5 . 6 .
2 . I 0 -.I CD C m Figure 4 7 : - Effect of fixed-wing Kr'ker flap deflection on longitudinal characteristics with basic ( 0 .l5c length) slat and 4 0 ' partial-span single-slotted flaps, mid-tail position, configuration B2.
I I I I C L I n " - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 .I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .I 0 -.I -.2 Q CD C m (a) 600 Krker flap deflection.
Figure 48.- Effect of modified slat (0.1873~ length) geometry and Krker flap deflection on mid-tail t-J
configuration B2 . P
u1 2.2 2.0 1.8 I .6 I .4 I .2 I .o .8 .6 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .I 0 -.I -.2 a C D Cm (b) 75' K r k e r f l a p deflection.
Figure 48. - Concluded.
I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 I .o C L .8 .6 .4 .2 .2 *I 0 -.I -.2 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 a CD Cm Figure 49.- Swmnary of the effects of aspect ratio on longitudinal characteristics with horizontal tail off.
I - ' I - '
I I
I
i I
I I
i
i i
i
i I
I
I 0 4 8 I2 I C 20 24 0 -.I -.2 -.3 0 .I .2 - 3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 i ! a I CD crn I : Figure 30 .- Swnazry of the ef:Xcts m 3 f ' 'Xingleading-edge sweep on longitudinal characteristics, flaps I : both up and down.
I I
- -
E- 2.0 Horizontal tail I .8 Fig. Size Position AR 0 Off 8.4 29 (b) II 0 Large Low 8.4 I .6 29 (b) 0 Large High 8.4 36 ( c ) A Off 6.9 h Large Mid 6.9 46 ( c ) I .4 I3 Large High 6.9 36 (a) A Small High 8.4 29 (a) I .2 0 Large High 8.4 29 (b) c, 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 n " 2 .I 0 -.I -.2 .2 . I 0 -.I -.2 .2 .I 0 -.I -.2 Figure 51.- Summary of the effects of horizontal-tail location and size on pitching-moment characteristics.
W > .- + W + + W W PI W k "0 5 IO 1 5 20 Q, deg Figure 52.- Control effectiveness, average effective downwash angle, and tail angle of attack for horizontal-tail positions.
2.2 2.0 I .8 I .6 Horiz tail Pos i t i o n BFLE I .4 Low 0" Low 3 0" High 0" I .2 High 0" High 0" CL
I .o
.8 .6 .4 .2 .2 .I 0 -.I 72 -.3 -.4 .2 .I 0 - . I 7 2 Cm Cm Figure 53.- Swmnary of the e f f e c t s of fixed-wing leading-edge radius and E&er f l a p deflection on P ro pitching moment.
I - ' I I I I CL I 0 - . I -.2 -.3 -4 0 4 8 1 2 1 6 20 24 . I 0 . I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 .8 .9 a CD Cm Figure '34.- Summary of the effects of single-slotted and double-slotted flap system, configuration Al, l o w tail, 2 3 O wing sweep.
2.2
2 .o
I .8 I .6 I .4 I .2 CL I .o .8 FLE: Plain 7 .2 -2 0 -.I -.2 8 12 1 6 20 24 -4 0 4 0 .I .2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 . 7 .8 a CD Cm Figure 55.- Comparison of full- and partial-span flap deflection, configuration A&, low tail, 25' wing sweep.
t-l Iu w 2.1
2 .o
X a J I .9 I .8 .( 20 25 30
IO5 -010 -015 .o 2
gs , percent C as, deg Figure 56.- Summary of effects of leading-edge slat geometry on maximum lift coefficient.
“The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be
conducted so as to contribute . . . to the expansion of hziman knowl-
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administration shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of informdon concerning its activities and the results ibereof .” -NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered important, complete, and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL. NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless of importance as a contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distri- bution because of preliminary data, security classification, or other reasons.
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Technical information generated in con- nection with a NASA contract or grant and released under NASA auspices.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign language considered to merit NASA distribution in English.
TECHNICAL. REPRINTS: Information derived from NASA activities and initially published in the form of journal articles.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information derived from or of value to NASA activities but not necessarily reporting the results .of individual NASA-programmed scientific efforts. Publications indude conference proceedings, monographs, data compilations, handbooks, sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
Details on the availability ol these publications may be obtained from: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. PO546 I I1 I I I1 Ill l l 1 1 l l 1 I