REPORT No. 534 AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS INCLUDING FLAP LOADS, DOWNWASH, AND CALCULATED EFFECT ON TAKE-OFF By Rovzar ©. Purr SUMMARY This report presents the reaults of an investigation in, the N. A, C.A, 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel of « wing in combination with each of three sizes of Fowler flap. The ‘purpose of the investigation was to determine the aero- dynamic characteristics as afected by flap chord and position, the air loads on the flape, and the efect of the flaps on the downwash. The flap position for massimum ft; polars Jor arrangements considered favorable for take-off; and complete lift, drag, and pitching-moment characteristics for selected optimum arrangements were determined. A Clark ¥ wing model was tested with 20 percent ¢, 90 percent ¢, and 40 pereent ¢ Fowler flaps of Glark Y eection. Certain additional data from earlier tests on a similar model equipped with the 40 percent ¢ Glark ¥ flap are included for comparison. Results of caleulations made to find the effect of the Fowler flap on take-off, based on data from these tests, are ineluded in an appendix, The mazimum lift coefficient obtainable, based on original wing area, had a nearly linear increase with flap chord up to 46 perent, but ths masta Hf force ‘per nit of total area increased very litle beyond the talue obiained with the 80 percent flap. The maximum load on the flap occurred very nearly at the mazimum Lift of the wing-flap combination and was nearly 1'[y Himes the load that would result from uniform distribution of the total load over the total area. In general, the flap ‘appeared to carry a large proportion of the additional ft caused by ita presence and to have its center of pressure much nearer the leading edge than it would normally be ‘in free air. The addition of the Fowler flap to a wing appeared to have no appreciable effect on the relation between lift coefficient and angle of downwash. The caloulations in the appendiz show that, by proper use of the Fowler flap, the take-off of an airplane having wing cand power loadings in the range normally encountered in transport airplanes should be considerably improved. INTRODUCTION During the past feir years the use of faps on high performance airplanes as a device for reducing space required in landing hes become common. ‘Thus far split flaps havo beon most generally usod, probably because of their simplicity of application and their superiority in giving steep gliding approaches and short landing rune: the features of flaps with which designers ‘havo been most concerned. Tn order to rétain satis- factory operation from normal fiying flelds with fast airplanes, howover, tho use of high-lift devices that improve take-off as well as landing is desirable. Since drag is unfavorable to take-off, the comparatively large drag of split flaps places them mong the least promis- ing of high-lift devices in this respect. ‘The Fowler flap appears to offer e better compromise between these conflicting requirements. For equal sizes it will give higher maximum lift with no higher profile drag than most other flap arrangements and its comparatively low drag at high lifts is favorable to take-off and steep climb, ‘This effect would normally entail somo sacri- fico of steep gliding ability. Although sufficient data, to form some estimate of ‘the performance to bo expected from an airplane equipped with Fowler flaps are available (references Land 2), they aro inadequate for normal design pur- poses. ‘Tho purpose of the tests reported herein is to provide deta to form a rational basis for the design of ‘sirplanes equipped with Fowler flaps. Tt appeare that for the present the purpose will be attained by making available the following information: effect of flap size ‘on aerodynamic characteristics attainable, aerodynamic loads applied to the flap in various conditions, and effect of the flap on downwash. In addition, # con- venient method of estimating the effeot of high-lift devices on airplane take-off should prove of assistanco in cases where this porformance feature merits special attention, ‘Tho testa wore mado in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel of the N. A. 0. A. (reference 3) at Langley Field, Va., during the summer and fall of 1034, ‘MODEL ‘The basic wing was built of laminated mahogany to tho Clark Y profile (table 1) and had o span of 60 inches and a chord of 10 inches. ‘The trailing edge was cut away and the upper surface replaced by a thin curved metal plate. ‘The lower surface was left open at tho rear to serve as a retracting well for the flaps. arr478 Blocks were inserted to maintain the correct size of well for each size of flap tested. Figure 1 shows the profile of the wing with the various flaps in place. ‘The two smaller flaps wero made of duralumin to the Clark ¥ profile and had spans of 60 inches and chords of 2 and 3 inches. ‘Tho largest flap, which is the one described in reference 2, was made of mahogany ‘and had a 4-inch chord. ‘The flaps were supported on the wing by fittings attached to ribs located in the retracting well. Several sets of attachment Holes in the ribs, combined with several sets of fittings, gave the range of flap positions shown in figure 1. ‘The flaps ‘were supported on the fittings by hinges located et the center of the leading-edge are of the fisps, angular adjustment being obtained by sot screws attached to NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS positions shown in figure 1 were found by tests in which the flap angle was increased from 20° in 10° steps until the peak of the variation of Cz,,. With flap angle was defined for each position. ‘The range of positions in both cases was sufficient to surround the point at which the highest lift coefficient was found, thus isolating an optimum position in each caso, Similar surveys had previously been made with the 0.40 c flap (reference 2) and were not repented at this time. Optimum take-off arrangement—Lift ond drag data wero taken at a range of flop angles between 0° and that giving maximum lift for @ series of flap posi- tions somewhat more restricted than tho range used in the maximumdlft tests. | Care was exercised in theso tests also to surround what was judged to be the optimum setting, both as regards position and angle. Standard force tests of optimum arrangements,— A series of final force tests, consisting of lift, drag, and pitching-moment measurements, was mado at the flap positions considered to be of special interest. ‘These included tests of the maximum-lift arrangement of each flap, of the optimum take-off arrangement of each finp, and of an arbitrarily selected arrangement representing partial retraction of each flap. ‘All tests in these first three groups wore conducted in aceordance with standard force-test procedure as described in reference 3. Flap londs.—Air loads acting on the flaps wore found by supporting the flaps independently of the swing, at the sume position and anglo as used in the final force tests of tho wing-flap combinations, and by ‘measuring the forces on the wing alone in the presence of tho flap. The flap londs could then be readily com- puted, In order to find tho center of pressure of the oad on the figp, the flap hinge moment was measured by observing the angular deflection of a long slender Chort af Hap positions tested. -258 ‘Dots lecote cemver oF S08 ‘Leiercor nee Taste a ‘ses s5 1005 percént chord & 35100 the flap moving in quadrantal slots in the fittings. In general, where the term ‘“flap position” is used, the position of the flap hinge axis is indicated, irrespective of angle, and flap angle is measured between the chord lines of the wing and the flap. ‘rests Five groups of tests were made in obtaining the data presented in this report. ‘These five groups dealt with maximum lift, optimum flap arrangement for take-off, standard force tests of optimum arrange- ments, flap loads, and downwash behind the wing with various flap arrangements. ‘Meximum lift—The maximum lift coefficients obtainable with the 0.20 ¢ and 0.30 ¢ flaps at various torque rod required to balance tho flap at tho angle in question. Similar measurements of londs and center- of-pressure locations on split fiaps are more completely deseribed in reference 4. Downwash.—Monsuroments were made with ‘pitot- yaw” tubes attached to the wing by a rigid support. ‘Pho reference position thus moved in the air stream as the angle of attack was changed but remained the same with respect to the wing, as does the tail of an airplane. Tho angles of downwash, however, were referred to the initial direotion of the free air stream, ‘Tho apparatus could be adjusted to various horizontal distances behind the wing. Tho pitot-yaw tubes wero ordinary round-nosed pitot tubes with two additional nose holes at 45° above and below the tube axis. Alcohol manometors were used to read the pressures, and the tubes were calibrated in test position in tho clear-tunnel air stream. ‘The wind tunnel is of tho open jot, closed return type, with a rectangular jot 7 by 10 feot in size. AAERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH YOWLER FLAPS complete description of the tunnel, balance, and standard foree-test procedure appears in reference 3. ‘Tests were run at a dynamic pressure of 16.37 pounds per square foot, corresponding to an air speed of 80 miles per hour at standard sea-level conditions. ‘The Reynolds Number of the tests, based on the 10-inch chord of the wing without flaps, was approximately 609,000. PRECISION ‘Tho accidental errors in the results presented in this roport are believed to lie within the limits indionted ene Consistent differences between results obtained in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel and in free air may be ascribed to effects of the following factors: Jot boun- daries, statie-pressuro gradient, turbulence, and scale. In order that the present results be consistent with published results of tests of other high-lift devices in tho 7- by 10-foot tunnel, no corrections for theso effects havo been made. Corrections of sevoral sets of airfoil results have indicated that the values of the jet- boundary correction factors, 6.=—0.165, and 5; 0.165, used in the standard equations (cf. reference 5) are satisfactory for a 10-inch by 60-inch wing, ‘The static pressure in the jet decreases downstream, producing an increment in Cp of 0.0015 on normal 12 percent ¢ thick rectangular airfoils. Evidenco at present available indicates that the effect of tho tur- bulence in this tunnel is small ns compared with the other consistent errors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION All test results aro given in standard nondimensional coefficient form. In the case of a wing with a retrac- table surface, the convention of basing coefiicients on tho area that would be exposed in normal flight, that is, the minimum area, has been adopted. The coefficients used are then defined as follows: subscript 1 refers to the basic wing Sea Ca=Pilching moment mr normal foree on fap (perpendicular to flop In 7 479 flap chord) Og, Hongitudinal foree on a (aor a flap hingo moment Srord « angle of downwash, degrees. ‘Meximum-lift conditfon—The results of the maxi- mum-lift tests are presented as contours showing variations of O,, with flop hinge position, irrespec- tive of flap angle. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show contours "eae eho Crore tin I Trotting edge of “nosie iret 2525 w 35 Percent chord ‘roves 3—Contour showtegvaraton oC, 2ao 7 2.00| 90 7 3 00 Percent chord ‘ons 4—Contous owl vray of GW Sap peton, 040 ¢ Bp 7 (lata rom NAO, 07. NN. for the 20 percent chord, 30 percent chord, and 40 percent chord flaps, respectively. Data on the 40 percent chord fiap are taken from reference 2, no further tests having been considered necessary on that size of flap after an analysis was made of the data for the two smaller flaps. ‘The optimum position is the same for all threo flaps: 2.5 percent of the main wing chord directly below the trailing edge. The opti- ‘mum angle was 30°for the 20 percent ¢ flap and 40° for the two larger flaps.480 Variation of C,, with flap size is shown in figure 5. ‘The maximum lift coefficient increases approximately in proportion to flap size if the area of only the original ‘wing is considered. This is e reasonably satisfactory basis for comparison of the landing speeds of an air- plane with various sizes of flap if a constant maxi- ‘mum speed is maintained. If the maximum lift force thet a wing wil give at a certain air speed per unit of structural weight is taken as a criterion, itis reasonable to compare tho various sizes of flap on the basis of total 36 se aes ete ne 2e| 24 Kt c , Sonu eT di iA. ‘i 4 4 a 20-30 - —w——0 76 Flop chord, percentoge of wing chord ‘Rave &Vaseen of C,_ wlth Gap aa, Flap stot optima peston end co (wing-and-fiap) ares. On this basis there is clearly little to bo gained by using flaps larger than 30 percent o. ‘Lift, drag, and pitching-moment date for the wing with each of the three flap sizes, with the flap at the setting for maximum lift, are given in figure 6 and in tables TIT, FV, and V. Cocflicients are based on the area and/or chord of the wing alone. The data for the plain wing were obtained with tho 20 percent chord fiap fully rotracted into its well. (Gee table IL) It is ovident that an airplano having a flap of this type would have @ much larger range of center-of-pressure travel Ddetween various flying conditions then would one with a plain wing. Tt appears, then, that in a normal type of 2-spar wing the effect of adding « Fowler flap would NATIONAL, ADVISORY COMBOTTER FOR AERONAUTICS bo toleave the front-spar design load the same as for the wing without a flap but to increase considerably the Tod wg te ard onte 2806 768 s00¢ -20g50 30 “sor "1605 8B Be wad mes toe tes: go) z Sen g 3 eat & § 2a} eo ie 34 a e,coqrees iowa 6Lit, drs, aod plelogsmemest cosets for the maxawenit colon.ABRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS design londs on the rear spar. If the speed at which the airplane may be flown with flap extended be limited to a valuo reesonably in excess of its landing speed, it appoars likely that the lords with flap extended ‘would be reduced to the ste magnitude as the largest londs with flap retracted, with flap sizes not in excess of 80 percent c. On this basis it appears that a wing with a Fowler flap as wide as 30 percent ¢ could be constructed in which there would be no increase in the Weight of the wing structure proper, the only additional weight being due to the flap and its support from the spars. ‘Take-off condition. —Investigation of wing-flap com- binations to determine the flap arrangement most favorable for take-off must involve consideration of performance parameters of the airplane in question as ‘well as of the nerodynamio effects of the lifting surfaces, Concurrently with tho tests, a series of take-off com- putntions was mado with the purpose of developing a “take-off eriterion’” for wings based on aerodynamic characteristics and depending on airplane design factors to the minimum extent possible. ‘The applica- tion of such a criterion to the data would then serve to isolate the optimum fisp arrangement for take-off. ‘Tho development of the criterion, and associated date, aro prosonted in an appendix to this report. As the tests and computations progressod, it was found that some general considerations would serve to isolate the optimum arrangement, without recourse to a rigorous criterion. ‘The computations indicated that normal transport airplanes should take off at a lift coefficient greater than 70 percent of the maximum available to achieve the shortest run to clear an obsta- dle, ‘They also indicated that the principal eerody- namic characteristics affecting take-off, high lift available, and high I/D at tho high lift are of nearly equal importance. ‘The wind-tunnel date, plotted as polar curves, are presented in figures 7 to 10 for the 0.30 ¢ flap and in figures 11 to 16 for the 0.20 ¢ flap. Comparison of these curves on the basis‘of the considerations previ- ously stated indicated the flap position 0.025 ¢ directly below the trailing edge of the wing, with an angle of 30°, to be tho optimum take-off arrangement for both flaps. At this setting each flap has as high ratios of LD throughout the high-lift region as any other setting tested, within the limits of accuracy of the tests, and has o higher maximum lift coefficient than any other setting having as high ratios of L/D. ‘The 40° setting of the 0.30 ¢ flap, at this same position, gives a higher ‘maximum lift and lower ratio of L/D then the 30° angle, tho percentage difference in L/D being greater than thet in maximum lift. Computations (eee appendix) verify tho conclusion based on the general considera- tions, that the 30° angle is better with this flap. Lift, drag, and pitching-moment data for the wing with each of threo sizes of flap, with the flap at the 481 optimum setting for take-off, are given in figure 16 and in tables TI, VI, and VIL. ‘The choice of the position 0.026 ¢ below the wing trailing edge, with a 25° angle, as optimum for the 40 percent ¢ flap is based on the relation between optimum take-off setting and that-for maximum lift of the 20 percent ¢ and 30 percent ¢ flaps. Although date for the 40 percent ¢ flap are not sufficient for a rigorous selection, comparisons of data that are available (reference 2) indicate the choice to be sufficiently near the optimum for practical purposes. Partial retraction of flap.—Lift, drag, and pitohing- moment data for the wing with the 20 percent ¢, 80 percent ¢, and 40 percent ¢ flaps in « partially retracted position are shown in figure 17 and in tables VIII to XI. The settings were chosen by assuming the flaps to move along an are from the setting for maximum lift or optimum take-off to the fully retracted position. ‘The flap hinges crossed tho wing chord line at the 90 percent c station, and the angles at this posi- tion were 15° for the 20 percont ¢ flap, 20° for the 30 percent ¢ flap, and 20° and 30° for the 40 percent ¢ flap. Comparison of the characteristics at this setting with those at the maximum-ift setting shows that the change of characteristics is in the samo direction and of the same order of magnitude os tho change of flap setting. Flap loeds—Curves of normal- and longitudinal- foree coefficients, hinge moments, and center-of-pres- sure locations of the 20 percent c, 30 percent c, and 40 percent ¢ flaps in the maximum lift, optimum take- off, and partly retracted settings are shown in figures 18 to 23. The corresponding data appear in tables II to XI. From the magnitude of the lond carried by the flap at high lift coefficients of tho combination, it is ovident that tho fiap carries neatly 1} times its proportionate share of the total lond. Tt appears that this type of flap may be regarded as separate wing, operating in an air stream whose combined velocit ‘and curvature increase considerably the lond it carries as compared with tho load it would experienco in the free air stream. Comparison of load data for a split flap (reference 4) and a Fowler flap clearly shows the fundamental difference in the action of the two flaps. At high lifts, the split flep carries almost no lift and offers large drag; whereas the Fowler carries a large proportion of the total lift, but with less drag. Although this condition is favorable to airplane per- formance, it implies a largo range of cantor-of-pressure positions for the complote flight range, with conso- quent disadvantages in longitudinal-stability charac- teristics and possibly also in structure. In connection with structural considerations it is interesting to note that a progressive reduction in. flap loads occurs with increasing flap sizo if tho maximum angle is kept below 30°. At flap settings giving high maximum lift coefficients, tho center of pressure of the flap iteelf hes little travel482 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 2 a 16 angie « jo 20" 5 So. ret 3 33" al B oe ee é ‘rooms 14—Pelan for 20 eda vases anges. vd ca ‘A Be ain) oe é d 7 ae é Powe MPa ep oa a a 2 4 24 Ph 16) M le « Mara « « 0 hi 5% 504 12 124 S504 32 iy 8 fi I Ose ee sr ; 1 pT 4 al Eat} = ee £7 eps Ca a a YooKe 1—Poluafor 090 Hepat raseseangn, — FigDRE ML—Peus or 020 pat varousangles,_TiCoWE 1L—Polan oe 30 ap ot varie anaes.gg s 8 8 percent chard trom LE, § 8g 140} eat Proves 16—Lit ig, and plang momest coulis fr the optimum heat TT Plain wing Be thee 1900-0088 30° pa o ABRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS 483 sit lord Wale eo aes: 30 too: ~ 3: 2 «| 3 i i: $ ad z ¥ & 8 o 140} 2 1" m4 Gen WL i o Rae 4 A UI oe a “SEO a eae et desrees cowgrees ‘ondlten, Moons TL, daz, ad phtngmement colt for the partly rected ‘ap een484 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS Sta, Or. Angle Ste. Ord. Angle Fo ——a206 Map 866 -o dase “BBE aaa P18 EES moo fee “3a 32} s I e geal 5 fea a § geal 8 deq 5 ee Req 8 . faq 3 8 e? é 3 S 2a 2 : 2 gs ay § gaa 2 g 8.4 a3 fs 5 8 54 77 a M is if 2 f ai i. aig a 4 3 im i os 2 og § a. 4 3 a 8 aad aad i. 5 § oh a a0 “4 Hf i a) we se et, degrees , degrees: ‘Provne 22—Air loads on flaps for tho partly ova td on tgs ety ORE A ae pina ss fale reared ci coe Sta Sta, org. Age a20¢ fap /66e ose “SBE STAGE OP 189 PRES 2 186: 2 Gage 28° ra et 8 Bardon sed on flap are, Gy, 8 & ep, parcent flea Hinge-noment costiicient based on flap oreo, Cs x24 : bad a i Es eal +48 S50) 61 gL ety eee eae eames comes ne eee crea eee reer ne not cansAERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF 4 WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS throughout most of the sngle-of-attack range and is generally nearer the leading edge than it would be on ‘an airfoil in a freo air stream. As the flap angle is, reduced below 30°, however, the center of pressure moves rapidly backward. Downwash.—Some representative data from the downwash measurements are shown in figures 24 and 25, Angle of downwash as a function of lift coefficient is shown for two positions behind the wing, with data, for the plain wing and for the same flap settings as 2 ‘Sta, 24 <4 0 a ‘goes 24—Dernvah ang gant testa ta pla behind tbe wie. ‘adn af plat: behind 035 ned pot, 005 ater om xara 0 Sore wing ber were used in tho flap lond tests plotted on each curve. Only small consistent deviations from the mean curve, within the limits of test accuracy, were found for the variety of sottings tested. It appears, then, that the addition of 2. Fowler flap has no apprecieble offect on tho basic relation between lift, span, and downwash at reasonable distances behind the wing. ‘The foregoing conclusion is subject to some ques- tion owing to the doubtful nature of the jet-boundary effect on downwash in the 7- by 10-foot tunnel. The corrections in this particular ease differ considerably from the theoretical corrections, probably on account ‘of the combined offect of static-pressure gradient in tho jot and spillage of air over the unflared lip of the exit cone. Different corrections for different posi- tions of the reference point in the air stream might produce greater consistent differences in downwash botween the plain wing and flap extended conditions than are indicated by these tests, though this effect ‘would be emell unless the variation of the corrections with position is greater than seems likely. ‘Although the extensive investigation required to establish the corrections might produce results of academic interest, certain effects of combining a 20 24 28 485 variabletift wing with an airplane fuselage would render the results of small technical value. Since a large differance in angle of attack occurs at the same value of C, with different settings of the Fowler flap, a large variation of fuselage attitude and lift at given wing lift cooflicient results from changing flop settings. Thus, at a given over-all lift coefficient of the airplano, the lift coefficient and downwash of the wing may be expected to chango with flap sotting. ‘Tho uso of partial-span flaps produces an effective reduction of span as the flop is extended, causing an additional change of downwash at constant lift cooffi- cient with changing flap setting. Tt appears that problems involving downwash of variable-lift wings are more susceptible of solution by measurement on 2 2 0 Te 1s 20 24 28 G ‘roves 2—Doruwash an eat dint pola bind the wing. Paton of pn 8 bed 3 bod aa OSB itraly rm eota i o Sordi the actuel design in question, rather than by a fun- damental wind-tunnel investigation. CONCLUSIONS wing alone, found for the three si ‘were: For the 20 pereont ¢ flap, 2.45; for the 30 per- cont ¢ flap, 2.85; and for tho 40 percent ¢ fisp, 3.17. ‘The maximum lift coefficient for the wing with flap retracted was 1.31. 2. The location of the flap leading edge for maximum lift was found to be the same in all cases, the contar of the leading-edge are being 2.5 percent c directly below the trailing edge of the main wing. ‘The flap angles for maximum lift were 90°, 40°, and 40° for the 20 pereent ¢, 80 percent c, and 40 percent ¢ flaps, respectively. 3. The 20 percent ¢ and 30 percont ¢ flaps wore found to give the characteristics most favorable to486 take-off with the same leading-edge location as for maximum lift. ‘The optimum angle was 30° in both cases, 4. Tho maximum normal-foree and longitudinal- {oreo coofficients of the 40 percent c flap, based on flep area, were 2.89 and —1.25; those for the 30 percent ¢ flap were 3.06 and —1.54; and those for the 20 percent ¢ sp were 2.80 and —1.20, Center-of-pressure loce- tions corresponding to these coefficients were in each caso approximately at the 20 percent ¢ flap chord points. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTHR FOR AERONAUTICS 5. At positions normally occupied by the tail surfaces the reletion between lift coefficient and downwash angle appears from the present tests to bo tho same for a wing with or without a full-span Fowler flap. Lanauey Mronrar Aznoxavricat Lanonarory, Natrona Apvisony Conarrss ror Amnowavrice, Laxaver Fiezp, Va., April 26, 1985.APPENDIX ‘TAKE-OFF ‘Tho computations leading to the results presented here were made concurrently with e more detailed set of computations of the effect of various types of flap on take-off, reported in reference 6. Only brief résumé of the assumptions made and of the equations used is given here, since they are identival except in two minor respects with those of the foregoing reference, Assumptions—The sirplane is assumed to take off in a calm, from a surface having a friction cocffi- cient of 0.05, and to maintain constant air speed after leaving the ground until it clears an obstacle at an altitude of 50 fect. Further assumptions are that the airplane has ©. constant parasite-drag coefficient (ex- cluding wing drag completely) of 0.023 over the full angle-of-attack range and is equipped with on auto- matic propeller giving maximum efficiency at top speed. No allowance for induced drag at maximum speed is made, It is considered reasonable to neglect factors that ‘would be assumed to be the stumo in comparable eases. On this basis the effects of wind, wind-velocity gradient with height, proximity of the ground, and slipstream over parte of tho wing are excluded from the computa~ tions. In the estimation of the effect of flaps this assumption is conservative since wind, ground effect, and slipstream are all more helpful to high-lift devices than to normal wings, and wind-velocity gradient is moro helpful to the normal wing. ‘Tho only differences between the assumptions used hhere and thoso of reference 6 are in the parssite-drag coofficient ond in tho attitude during ground run, ‘For the other computations the parasite coefficient was 0.020 and the attitude giving minimum total resistance during ground run was used. This assumption re- quired a negative angle of attack of the Fowler wing, an attitude that is not feasible during the ground run because of danger of nosing over or of demeging the propeller. An angle of attack of 0° during the ground run was used in the computations for the present report, ‘Bquations.—In order that the equations may rep- resent correctly the processes occurring during the take-off of an airplane over an obstacle, it is necessary to consider tho take-off as divided into three phases: ground run—a period of horizontal acceleration with the weight partly wheelborne and partly airborne; transition—a period of vertical acceleration to a steady rate of climb; and the steady climb from the height reached in transition to the height of the obstacle. Subject to the limitations previously stated, the horizontal distance covered during each of the phases ray be computed from the following equations. ‘Ground run, foot [ potegie a Xloge| 1+- (Witr--*) 2 ‘Transition, feet: 2W IS, 2H =) sine Steady climb, feet )iness | tt es ‘tan 8 wis. P= 0, op WS) (#0, ~Coy— Bw ‘Tho anglo of climb 9 appearing in the last two phases is found from tho relation: sin ming + Con ‘The symbols appearing in the foregoing equations are defined as folloy »p, sir density, slugs per cu. ft. 4g, acceleration of gravity, ft./see.? , ground friction coofficiont, assumed equal to 0.05. WIS, wing loading, Ib. per sq. ft. Whhp., power loading, Yb. per b. bp. Cr, Coy, lift and drag coofficionts at angle of attack ‘maintained during ground run. cq, Cos; lift and drog coefficients corresponding to Vr, the speed at which the airplane eaves the ground. It is to be noted that the airplane must fly at e higher lift coefficient than Cry during transition, since the flight path is curved upward and the speed romains equal to Vr. A, B, constante expressing thrust of an automatic propeller at low forward speeds. ‘Thrust =b. hp. (A—B p2 V*). The constants apply to any one airplane, and vary with top speed among various airplanes, Ap, height of obstacle, assumed 50 feet. 487‘ouns 24—Polas for tke exmpataton, The value of Cy dos 488 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS Es 30) + 7 LEER g 4 7 iol Gar. i Fotio, S| g—T 4 ed] fener g Sia = val i? 4 ? 10 os L. L =| i | We a 618 oy 2 % ‘he arlene pare dap once Wihp., t0./rp. ee a ‘og _ a ok hgh deal] Bee ne wd 1.000 ~0025¢ 30° O 6 eee Wis wel oe ‘ = i 7 | } u 3 Soko Sad NI 4 me al 4 | 3] aa | 2 da ee ea a ae Zee eS vps 2s mapa nt “Paar 19—Takrod re ay faneten oC, s08 C-AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ‘The computations covered a range of wing loading between 10 pounds per square foot and 30 pounds per square foot and a range of power loading between 8 pounds per horsepower and 16 pounds per horsepower. Eight combinations of wing and power londing, desig- nated “cases” ond listed in table XII, together with the corresponding airplane and propeller characters ties, were considered. In combination with the eight cases, four wing conditions were taken as follows: I, Plain wing; flap retracted. IL. 20 percent ¢ flap; station, 100 percent ¢; ordi- nate, —2.5 pereent ¢; anglo, 30°. DI. 30 percent ¢ flap; station, 100 percent ¢; ordi- nate, —2.5 percent ¢; angle, 40°. IV. 80 percent ¢ flap; station and ordinate, same as for TIT; angle, 30°. Polar curves for the wing in the various conditions, from the wind-tunnel data, are shown in figure 20. For each combination of airplane case and wing con- dition, the take-off runs at four values of Vs, corre- sponding to lift eoelfcente of 00 percent 70 percent, 80 poreent, and 90 percent of Crys for the wing condition in question, were computed. ‘The results, showing total run required by the hypothetical air- plane to reach an altitude of 50 feet in a steady climb from a standing start with no wind, are presented in table XIII. ‘Table XTV shows corresponding values of the ground run alone. ‘This table is included for use in cases where the ground run alone, rather than tho take-off over an obstecle, is the factor to be con- sidered. ‘The results are satisfactory for comparison among themselves but should not be relied upon as being accurate in an actual case. ‘They are probably conservative for an airplane with an automatic pro- peller taking off from an average field with no wind. ‘Representative curves of total take-off run against take-off lift coefficient (C,,) for several cases and conditions are shown in figure 27. All the data of table XII were plotted in similar fashion and the optimum value of Grr was found for each case and condition, ‘The optimum ratio of Crr/Ormes wae nearly constant for the various wing and flap con- ditions at a given wing and power loading but varied with wing and power loading. Figure 28 shows the optimum value of Orr/Crms as a function of wing and power loading for the range covered in the computa- tions. Consideration of the analysis at this point indicated that it might be possible to develop a general relation between lift and drag which would give correct weight to these two factors in take-off, independently of other factors. It appears that a ratio C,"/Co would place extra weight on lift in accordance with its extra importance if a satisfactory value for m could be determined. For each of the eight cases, the mini- mum take-off run and the corresponding 0, and Cp for each condition were plotted as in figure 29. When OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS 489 the minimum take-off run z was divided by the corresponding Op and plotted against Cy, on logarithmic paper, the data for any caso ley very nearly in a straight line. ‘The form of the equation for this fune- tion is TK 0," and, if K and m be expressed as functions of wing and power loading, a general teke-off equation in very simple form is obtained. It will be noted in figure 29 that n is nearly constant over the range of cases considered and that the average value of n is —2.4; that is, a K G.-*4, which may be reduced to the form K/z=O,-*[Op. This ratio may be considered a “take-off criterion,” the value of total take-off distance of an eirplano being inversely pro- portional to the value of O,,24/Cp, for its wing at the ratio of Or_/C,,_, in question. It will bo noted that tho curve for caso VI, having a wing loading of 20 and e power loading of 16, is not included in figure 29. ‘The data sro not directly applicable in this easo because the power available is seriously inadequate to sntisfy the assumption that the airplane fly through the transition at its maximum lift cocfficient without loss of speed. ‘Thus, the com- puted runs aro ineorroct even assuming the runs in other cases to be strictly correct as computed. ‘When using tho criterion, it is first necessary to select the ratio of Cr_/Cregy for minimum run from figure 28, depending on the epproximate wing and power loading of the design in hand. ‘Then in order to compare the take-off properties of different wing and flap combinations it is necessary to compare the values of the criterion (,,2/0p, where C,, for any wing-flap combination is the optimum fraction of the Cunae of that combination (obtained from fg. 28) and Op, is tho corresponding drag coefficient of the com- ination. ‘The criterion should give satisfactory com- parison between normal airfoils with or without high- lift dovices. Some comparisons of cases selected from reference 6 have shown that the criterion gives a. good indication of the relative merits of the various devices considered in take-off, although when used for other devices than the Fowler flap the values of the criterion are not inversely proportional to the take-off runs within as close limits. ‘Development of the criterion was based on measured Op of the wing only, to permit comparison of various wings a3 tested in the wind tunnel without a body. ‘Variations in parasite drag of the rest of the airplane will have small effect since the wing drag is a large portion of the total drag at any lift coefficiont near Crna) Particularly with high-lift devices. ‘The variation of total take-off run with wing and power loading is shown plotted on semilogarithmic paper in figures 30, 31, 32, and 38 for each of the four490 60 ft 8 Wing loading, I Ao © o ty + oaeegey aaa Power loading, to fap ous 91a et ipod ng tng. Co “SANT pana 60 « 30 ad < $0 a s & Ao @ o 4 a 7 16 Power leading, t/hp. loons 81-—Ralnom kof ran wih aro pret and wag Indies. Con ‘leno apy ap sain, Lode ote, 20086 amp, a NAQIONAT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ABRONAUTICS & 8 Wing loading, 1,/s9.th s 12 16 Power loading, tbJhe. Movax %2—Ataimum kot run with rare pore and wg ndings. Cote ‘lon I, a30¢ 0a; map sation, 1.0 erat O02 ag 60; 8 s Wing loading, lb,fsa-ft S A 09.0 ‘0 # s 12 6 Power loading, t/ha. ‘lovns &—Aeiimam tot run with vce power and wing udlgs, Cons “don 1¥, ey ap van, 10 erat, 0035 ¢ engl, 3°AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS 491 ‘wing conditions. In the last three figures a portion of the lines at the high power loadings is curved. This curvature appears to lie within the region indicated by a dotted line, which shows the combined power and wing loading at which the power available is insufi- cient to eatiafy the transition essumption at the instant of leaving the ground. No correction has been made {or this offect, but in table XIII an approximate correc- tion is noted opposite the points to which it applies. In the range covered, the error appears sufficiently small to be neglected for practical purposes. Although figures 30 to 33 are accurate only for determining the relativo tekke-off runs of airplanes with various wing and power loadings and arrangements of the Fowler flap, itis believed that they may be applied within reasonable limits to actual cases. i good piloting technique, and using an automatic propeller, the date represent the minimum run that ‘an airplane might be expected to need to clear a 50-foot obstacle with e reasonable margin of speed. It is to be noted that the foregoing statement applies to cases in which the ground is at least as smooth and hard as tho average aizport ‘The computations appear, in general, to justify the conclusion that, within the normal range of wing and power loadings, a wing with a Fowler flap can produce considerable improvement in take-off as compared with o plain wing. REFERENCES 1. Fowler, Harlan D.: Variablo Litt, 1031, pp. 81-83. 2. Wolek, Fred H., and Platt, Robert C WindTunnel Tests of the Fowler Variable-Area Wing. T.N. No. 419, N. A. 1932, , Thomas A.: The 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel of the National Advisory Committeo for Aeronautics. T. R. No. 412, N. A. C. A, 1981. 4, Wonainger, Gari J: WindTunnel Moasuremonts of Air \ _ Loads on Split Flaps. 'T. N. No. 498, N. A. C. Aw, 1934. 5. Theodorsen, Theodore, and Silverstein, Abe: Experimental ‘Vorifcation of the Theory of Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference. ‘T. R. No. 478, N. A.C. A., 1084. 6. Wotmore, J. W.: Caloulated Eifect of Various Types of ‘Flap on Take-Off over Obstacles. (To be published at later dato.) ‘Western Flying, Nov. ‘TABLET AIRFOIL ORDINATES CLARK ¥ (4 testa peat lal era) ARLE Tt PLAIN WING ny 2) 8 TABLE OL DATA FOR THE MAXIMUM-LIFT CONDITION (ea ap tative, 1.0%; rasta, 108 angle 3 Ea | cog | Se SESBRRUEUREDS ee TABLE V DATA FOR THE MAXIMUM-LIPT CONDITION (lea fap tate, 1.0 rt — URS ane, A) oratato| Orsi] stause states | pga) wa ‘copa | ower ‘Bkbabaas Taadlopwy ears, eeSee BEEDEREEESESEE492 ‘TABLE VI DATA FOR THE OPTIMUM TAKEOFF CONDITION (Gane; op rain, LO erat 0025; ene 3) eee | 28 FOR THE OPTIMUM TAKE-OFF NDITION ebb neabenee E TABLE VIIL—DATA FOR THE PARTLY RETRACTED CONDITION (0s fap ap satin, Oe etna, Oe ana 1) “E78 8 28:8 | BSE ig || =e = ano | 14 a j= es TABLE IX—DATA FOR THE PARTLY RETRACTED ‘CONDITION (020 fap: ap tation, 0805 ent, 005 sag 2°) 2 |e | 23 8 | OB )=8 8/2/22] 2) 2/28 2 )22 le | 2/28 HB 8 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITEE YOR AERONAUTICS ‘TABLE X DATA FOR THE PARTLY RETRACTED CONDITION (0402 ta; tap ton, 0s ott, Ok ange 3 spkbpbbebeaee ‘TABLE XI DATA FOR THE PARTLY RETRACTED CONDITION (loony Bap ans, terete, Oe ge 3°) BBSDERRREIAIGE ape xn AIRPLANE OEARACTERISTICS yon TAKE-OF? EUROS om | 35 | Seo.) el -[> Te | FH |%~ | BS d : ra eles ice x AR493, AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS ‘TABLE XII COMPUTED TAKE-OFF RUNS IN FEET 2) | a] | meee [a | = | meseaaes | [| & | seeeeges a i BREE & i SHSEERCE re] | meenaaae | [e| | aaaseeas | | See S| | aaauaggs | ta Ecad afali aa Sd)“: ff [| 8 ee 3 a oefe| | svmae 2) (Mise |] 5 Ee) [meen gaa | yy fm || & | Sseragee 2° 8 [a] 3 | sewaures a | Ea [ g [=| | sazasaes s] [Fameae|] 3 [e| [umes [|g |e |” |g | meseaga | {=| yr EE a] [Rame|? [|| rremnags : ‘ii | laa || o[E [pe 3 | PEE 3 | PEPE