Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
,
1
!
NATIONAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
ORIGINALLY
ISSUED
Memorandum. Report
AERODYN.AJt1IC'JESTS OF AN ANM65AZON RADIOCONTROLlED BOMB lOCOPOUND
June
1944 as
m
THE IMAL l6FOOT
HIGHSPEED
TUNNEL
By E. O. Pearson, Jr .
. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va.
\
I,
NAC·A
WASHINGTON
NACA WARTIMEREPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were pre~ viously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not tech~ nically edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.
;~ L  131
r ilill,ljliilml L;
I,
.
3 1176 01439 3244



FOR AERONAUTICS
NATIONAL
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Mm&ORANDUM
Army Air Forces, AERODYNAMIC
REPORT
Materiel Command 1000POUND
.' for the
TESTS OF AN ANM65AZON
HIGHSP.EED TUNNEL By E. O. Pearson.
Jr.
RADIOCONTROLLED
BOMB IN THE LMAL 16FOOT
SmlMARY
Tests were made in the IJ·,!AL 16foot highspeed tunnel to determine the aerodyna~ic characteristics of a 1000pound ANM65AZON radiocontrolled bomb at Mach numbers ranging fram 0.2 to 0.6. Over the Mach n~~bor range covered in the tests the hingemoment coefficients, yawingmoment coefficients, and lateralforce coefficients exhibited no important changes with increasing speed. The drag coefficients increased gradually with increasing Mach number but no sudden increases were observod. Th& effect on the bomb aerodynrunj c cha.racteristics or' antenna a tirutis mounted on the bomb tail was found to be small. The rudder and aileron operating mechanisms were found to be capable of supplying several times the required torques for maximum control d~flections at a Mach number of 0.6 at sea level. The operattng mechanism is also adequate for maximum control deflections at a Mach number of 1.0 provided that no appreciable increa~es in hingemoment coefficient occur between M 0.6 and M 1.0. However, because of uncertainty as to the value of the hingemoment coefficient at or near M = 1.0, the deslrabi1ity of providing more powerful control mechanisms was indicated.
=
=
INTRODUJ T ION
Tests have been conducted highspeed tunnel to determine in the LMAL 16foot the aerodynamic
2
oharaoteristios of a lOaDpound ANM65AZON radiocontrolled bomb. Measurement3 of rudder hinge moment, yawing moment, lateral force, and drag were made at a number of tunnel speeds up to a M~ch number of about 0.6 whioh oorresponds to a speed of 670 feet per second at sea level. Aerodynamic tests of a twothirds scale medel of a similar bomb we~e conducted rrevlously at t~e Daniel Gaggen..'lJ.elm Airship Institute at A1.rron,Ohio. These tests, howe ve r , Nel"emade at low af rspeeda and, therefore, uncerta.:tr.xtrapolations of the d'3.teto the hlghe speed operat:'..ngonditions Wd::'"e c necessa!"y in tr..e design of the control mechani3m anj in pe~formunce computations.
L"'l drop tes!is of the bombs it was found t.hat, wr..I1e some of the expe rtmen a L bombs pez... crmcd sati3factorlly, t f a large pe rcen age of the produc't.Lon version failed to t re3pond prop~rly ~o th~ control. The present in~atig~tion was undo rtia princIps.ll:v to determine if the kan Lack of cont .. :·olof the ~l'od.uctionbombs was due to adverse compressto:!.li ~., ffects. te It W<la a130 de9i~ed to obtain hi~specd test data u~on wh!ch to base perfornlance calculations and the design of the control mechanism.
The investI.Jatlon was unde rbaken at the reqllest of the Army Air Fo:'ces, Mate::'ielCommand. dYMEOL3 LND DEE'INE'IONS V a M p q freestream veloei ty, .feet per second
speed of s oind in air, feet ,er second Mach n~ber
(Via)
maas density of air, slugs per cubic foot dynemlc pressure, pou~s ~er square foot (~pv2) hinge moue n t a.ctlng on one rudder, inchpounds Posi ti ve hinge momentis t snd to change the rudder ~~31e in u positive direction. (See sketch in fIgure I illustrating the slgn conventions. )
,
3
d S distance from rudder hinge axis to trailing edge _ of rudder, 4.8~ ,inche~" . area of one rudder, hingemoment 0.282 square foot (MH/qSd)
OR
N
coefficient
yawingmoment, poundfeet Positive yawing moments tend to change the angle of sideslip in a positive direotion. (See fig. 1.) area of maximum feet overall cross section of bomb,
F
t
1.918
square
length of bomb, coefficient
5.613
feet
Cn
yawingmoment lateral
(N/~Ft)
(Y/qF)
Y
Cy
force, pO~id3 coefficient
lateralforce drag, pounds
D
Cn
F
drag coefficient
(n/qF)
ansle of sldesliu, degrees F'or positive ang Le s the bomb nose is to the right of the line of flight. rudder angle wtth respect to the neutral position, degrees For positive angles the trailing ed~e is to the left. The dimensions given above, together with other dimensions which might prove useful, are ahown in figure 2.
DESCRIPTION OF BOi&B .aND
APPARATUS
The ANM6SAZON bomb consists of a standard M65 bomb case to which Is 'fitted a special tail unit equipped with movable control Burfaces and housing a control mechanism capable of being operated remotely
4
by radio. The bomb ean ~ oontrolled only in the l~ft and right or azimuth direotion, hence, the des!gnation AZON an abbreviation of "azbnnth only." A gYl.'·osoopiocontrol mechanism operates tne horizontal control surfaces differentially as ailerons to prevent the bomb froInrolling in flleht. For these testa part of the control apparatus was removed from the tail and stra:1.ngage equipment for measuring rudder htnge moments was installed. Since t~e ailerons and r~dcers were identical, hingomoment data apuly equally to both. For t~ls reason no provision was made ror measuring aileron hinge moments direotly and t.heailerons were Locked in tho neutral pos1 tion throughout the tests, In order to fac~.li tate installation and testing the bomb w~s mounted 1n ttle tlli~el in a positIon 900 in roll from its normal !light position so that rudders became alevators, yawing ~cments became pitching moments, etc. The re5'11ts thrOU~lOt:..t reT)ort, however, are the given in terms con9iste~t with the flight orientation. The bomb was aupporbe on the tunnel center Ll.ne d by means of a single ver";ical strut 8 inches in chord and of NACA section 16009. The strut was shielded by a fairing of the same sec+Lon to wI thin abcut 10 inches of the bomb caae. In a1dition, four a.OgOinch wires were attached to the bomb to provide lat:3rc..l auppor t , The wires and 8U:!=,PO:!"t ware .nouribed the balance st!'u+. on fr~ae and were included in th3 for~e measure~ents. A photogranh of the bOr.1b insta.lled in the tunnel ls shown in figure 3. The angle of atdeslip of t~e bomb was varjable from 200 to 200 thrOl.1gh fIxer:!. incr~ments by means of an internal indexing mechanism while ths rudder angle was continuously var1abl~ from 200 to 200 by means of a slotted plate arrangement. As received, the bomb tatl was ritt~d with four BtrutB wl"d , t.n addi tion to serving as brace s for the ob tail surface~ also served as the radio antenna. The struts may be seen in figure 3.
5
TEST PROCEDURE
The test procedure consisted of measuring rudder hinge moment, yawing moment, lateral force, and drag at a number of speeds up to a MaCh number of approximately 0.6 for each combination of rudder angle and angle of sideslip. In determining the bomb characteristics only the nagatl ve range of sideslip angles (00 to 200) was in~stigated in order to keep the bomb tail outside the wake of the su~port strut and its fairing. The angular range of 00 to 200 was employed in determining the supportstrut tares. The range of rudder angles tested \1as from 150 to 200• Most of the test ~uns were made with the antenna tail struts installed but a few runs were made with the struts removed for purposes of comparison. This information on the effect of the antenna struts was specifically requosted by the Army. The results throughout the report are given for the strutsinstalled configuration unless otherwise specifically noted. During the tests deflections of the bomb in the direction of the air flow were measured and corrections to the yawing moment applied to account for the change in position. In addition, a calibration was later made to determine the angular deflections of bomb and rudders under the influence of the aerodynamic loads. strut tare forces were measured wlth the aid of an image strut mounted a3 shown in figure 4. Wire tare forces were determined simply by making measurements with the wires removed. Yawing moment, lateral force, and drag data have been corrected both for tares and for the angular deflections of bomb and rudders under aerodynamic loads. Corrections for the deflections have not been applied to the hingemoment data. As presented the hingemoment coefficient is aoout 9 percent too low at the greatest negative bomb and rudder angle and at the highest tunnel speed1which is the extreme case. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Curves of yawingmoment coeffiCient, lateralforce coefficient, ~d drag coefficient versus Mach number are p~esented in figures 5 through 18. It should be pointed
6 out that the lit 0.50 and OR 00 curves shown in figures 5, 11, and J.7 are·believed· to be slightly in error due to friction in the balance system d'J.ring that particular test run. This is indicated by the scatter of the test points particularly at the lower speeds. Derived curves of yawing moment, lateral foroe, and drag coeffici~nts versus sideslip angle are given in figures 19, 20, und 21. Figure 22 shows the lateral force and drag coefficients at trim as a funot~on of the rudder angle. The effect of centerofgravity location on the stability and trim angles of the bomb is shown in figure 23. Hingemoment data are presented in figures 24 through 31. Figure 32 ~.sa photograph. of a rudder after structural fa!lure has occurred. ¥aWinj moment. Yawingmoment coefficient data are presented n f!gures 5 through 10. During the tests yawing moments were measured about a point 22.38 inches from the bomb nose. In the data presented in the roport the moments were t~ansferred to a point 28.60 inches from the nose of the bomb, which was the centerofgravity location of sandfilled bombs used in the drop tests, mentioned earlier in the report. The figures show that the variation of the yawingmoment coefficient with Mach number is small for all the rudder ~lgles and angles cf sideslip over the range of speeds covered in t~is investigation. Fieures 9 and 10 show the variation of yaWingmoment coe~fici3nt with Mach number with the antenna struts removed. From a comparison of these figures with figures 5 and 7 it will be Been that the struts have practically no effect on the yaWingmoment coe£ficient. Lateral forca. Curves of lateralforce coefficient versus Mach n'lDl'ber the various rudder angles and for angles of sideslip are pne aerrbed in figures 11 through 16. In general, the coefficient increases negatively with Lncre aeIng Mach number. The change 1s slig..",t, however. Figures 15 and 16 srew the variation of lateralforce coefficient with Mach number with the antenna struto removed. As in the case of the yawinglnoment coefficients the effect of the strut3 on the lateral£orce coefficient is small. Drig. The var:!.ation drag coef'fic1.ent of with Mach number s shown in figure 17 for various angles of sideslip and rudder angles. No sudden increases illthe drag
=
=
7
coefficient occurred in the speed r~lge of the tests. Curves for a few of tl£e slCes11p and rudder angles have not been plotted in ~igure 17 to avoid excessive congestion and overlapping. Curves of the drag coefficient versus Maoh number with the antenna tail struts removed are given in figure 18. A oomparison of this figure with figure 17 shows that for a sideslip angle of 0.50 and a rudder angle of 00 removal of hl~ struts results in a deorease in t~e drag ooefficient of 0.009 or about 5 percent of the minimum drag. Bomb charaoteristics as a funotion of sideslip angle. Curves of yawIngmoment ooeffioIent, lateralforoe ooeffioient, and drag ooefr1oient versus the angle of sideslip are presented in figures 19, 20, and 21, respeotive1y. These ourves are cross plots of the faired yawingmoment, 1eteraJ_rorce, and drag ooeffioient ourves prev10usly presented. Since the v9.riation of the coefficients with Mach number was not appreciable except for the drag coefficient only th9 curves for a Mach number of 0.6 are sr.own. It will be noted from figure 19 that the bomb stability decreases slightly as the angle of sideslip approaches zero. At the larger negative sideslip angles and positive rudder angles there is also some decrease in stability with increasing angle of sidesJ_ip. Trim conditio~s. Figure 22 shows the lateralforce and drag coefficients obtajnl~g at trim for various rudder deflections. It will be SGen that for the maximum nudde r deflection of 200 and a.t a l.iach number of 0.6 the bomb trims in an ~ttiturle ~or which the lateralforce coefficiant is 0.422 and the drag coefficient is 0.360. Reference to figure 19 shows tn~t the corresponding angle of sideslip for trim js 10.50• Bomb maneuverabill~The following table is presented to Illustrate rc 1y t~e magnf.trude of the lateral deviations possible when the bomb is dropped from different altitudes. It is assumed that the bombing airplane is flying at a constant ind10ated airspeed of 175 miles per hour and that the maximum bomb rudder deflection of 200 is maintained over the entire f11ght path. The lefthand colunm gives the height above sea level whi~ is also considered to be ground level and the righthand C01wml gives the approximate value of the maximum lateral deviation possible when the bomb is re+eased at the corrAsponding altitude.
8
Altitude of release (ft)
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Ap~roxtmate maximum lateral deviatlon (ft)
600 1600 12800 4200 5800
Effect of cr.angee in the centerof'gravl!l location. FIgure Z; shows cseeiT""ect upon trIm angle and stability of'a change in the cAnte~ofgravity location 2 increa backward or forwarc from t~e 28.6inch pcf.nb , A more rearward location of the center of gI'avlty results ir ..a reduct.ion f n st:a.billtyand an increase in the angle of sideslip for trim with a consequent increase in the lateralforce coefficient. A location forward of the 23.6inch polnt results, of co~so, in the OPPOSite effect. Wi th the data pre senbed ;yaWingmoment coefficients may be transferred f'rom the 2B.6inch point to any new point by the relation
where x is the d'ste.~lce from the 28.6inch point to the new point meast~ed along the bomb longitudinal axis. The value of x La "['losi if the new point is to the tl ve rear of the 28.6inoh t::loint negative if to the front. and Hinge moment. Rudder hingemoment data are presented in figures 24 ~rough 31. Figures 24 through 27 show the variation of rudder hingemoment coefficient with Mach number for vario·.ls ruddor angles and angles of sideslip. It may be saen t~at for the smaller angles of sideslip and rudder angles there :J.s littl9 v&.riation of th9 hingemoment coefficient with "ach number. The ch~ge becomes more pronounced for the larger &.ngles but is not important In any case over the range of speeds covered in the tests. It is clear that any 103s of cont~ol of the bomb at ~ach numbers of 0.6 and below cannot be &.ttributed to radical changes in hinge ~arnents due to compressibility effects. Figure 28 shows the variation of hingemoment coefficient with rudder angle for various angles of sideslip anp.
9
P(ach ntunbers. Figures 29 and 30 show the variation of hingemoment coefficient with Maoh number with the antenna struts removed. Figure 31 shows the variation ofhinge moment coefficient with rudder mlg1e for the same configuration. A comparison of these figures with figures 24, 26, and 25 shows that the struts have no aopreciab1e effect on the rudder hingemoment coefficient. Fram tests in the LMAL Instrument Researoh Division on the rudder and aileron operating meohanisms it has been determined that the maximum torque available for holding the rudde~s in a givan position is 200 inchpounds. For a rudder deflection of 200 and the corresponding angle of sideslip for trim of 10.50 the total hinge moment acting on both rudders at a Mach number of 0.6 at sea level is 52 inchpounds. If it is assumed that no ch~lge in the hinge~oment coefficient occurs between M 0.6 and M 1.0, the torque required at a Mach number of 1.0 is 145 inchpounds. Such an assumption is somewhat doubtful, however, and if appreciable increases in the hlngemument coefficient do occur, then at or near a Mach number of 1.0 at sea level the torque may be insufficient to ~aintain the maximum rudder deflection of 200•
=
=
For the maximum aileron deflection of ±6° and an angle of sideslip of 0.50 thE;) torque required for one aileron at a r,!ach numbo r of 0.6 at sea level is 11 inchpounds. Assuming as before that no change in the hingemoment coefficient occurs between M 0.6 ~nd M 1.0 the torque re ud red at !If q 1.0 is 30 inchpounds. The maximum aileron torque available at the 60 deflection was determined to be 40 inchpounds. although the assumption of no change in the hinJemoment coefficient between M 0.6 and M = 1.0 is more reasonable for the case of the small aileron deflectlon than for the larger rudder deflection, the margin of torque available over torque required at the higher speeds is not large in any case.
=
=
=
=
It would thus appear desirable from the foregoing considerations to employ both aile~on and rudder operating mechanisms more conservative with regard to torque available. Rudder failure. During a routine inspection of the bomb upon completIon of a test run it was found that failure of one of the rudders had occurred along the
 
   , ._
10 spotwelded skln jolnt at the hlnge axls. Up to the time tho failure was discovsred 33 test runs, each of about 45 minutes d,~atlon, had been completed. The failure apP9ared to be due to fatigue. Figure 32 is a Photograph of the broken rudder. COnCLD'SION3 Aerodynamic tests of a 1000pound AZON bomb at Mach numbers rang1.ng i'l"om 0.2 to 0.6 have tndicated the folJowtne conclusions:
1. ~ere we~e no appreciable compressi~ility effects o~ the rudder hl~gemoment coefficients, the yawingmomerm Q05f~iciel1ts, or on tt~e lateralforce coefficients. The dr£..g coef'fic':'Ants illcraased gradually but no sudden increases occurred. 2. Re:ulovel()~ thl9 antl9nna struts from the tail had only a slight effect on the aerodynamic characteriBtics.
3. The torq·.lt:'s supplied by the rudder and aileron operating mechanie~s wore round to be several times the to:o'c.uea required at a Mc.ch number of 0.6 at SGa level f'ormaxi'1l'..lM c ontao L riE:lflecl;:!.ons. no appre c Lab.Le If Lncrease s in t:3e ht ngoe.ornenti oeri'lclent occur between c M = 0.6 alm M 1.0, the available torque will be adequn+e at a Mach nlll!1l,er 1.0. of BeoQl'se of some uncerJ~:_~.!lty reg9.rding the ht.ngeenorrenf coe ffi cient at M 1.0, however, it would appear desirable to employ rudder and aileron opare.tingme chnnd ems havIng greater available torque.
=
=
Langlev Me~orial Aeronautical Laboratory Natiollt:l.l "lisorv Committee fer Aeronautics Ad L&lelo~ Ftald, Va., June 16, 1944
c"~
Approved: John Stack Chief of Compressibility Reaearch Division E3
v.~"'»)
Ernest O. Pearson, Jr. Aeronautical Engineer
FIGURE L'E!:GENDS Figure   . Figure Figure Figure 1. Sketch showing sign conventions .t:oroesand momeIl.ts. ., dimensions for angles, bomb.
2. Sketch showing
of A~M65AZON
3.
ANM65AZON 100G~ound bomb installed 16foot highspeed t~el.
in the
4.
Setup employed for deter.mining sup~ortstrut ta.res.
Figure 5. Variation of yawingmoment coefficient with Mach number i'or several rudder ID61es 111 .5°.
=
Fio,~e G. Variation of ~wingmo~ent coerficient with Mach number for several ruuder ~~gles 111 = 10.50. Figure 7. Val'iat",oT' yu.wln::5Jrlo,n",nt of coefi'iclent wi th Mach m.1JI1b'3r ae vera rudder angles for L 111 15.5°.
=
Flg1~e 8. Variation of yawingmo~ent coei'flcient with r~ach m.nr.berl'or several rudder angle s \jI 20.5°.
=
Fi':5ure9. VFl.r::iation ~wingmOlnF)Ilt coefficient with of Mach mrnbe n i'or several rudder ang.l.e e \jI .50; ar.tenna struts removed.
=
F1~ure 10. V!lr1a.t~on of' ;,''B.w"!.ngmoment coefficient with r!ac~ number for se ve ra L rudder ang.Les 111 15.50 i an tierinastruts removed.
=
Fi3,~e 11. Variation of lat~ralforce coefficient with Mach number for several rudder angles W .5°.
= =
=
Figure 12. Variation of lateralforce coefficient with Mach ntwber for several rudder angles \jI 10.5°.
=
Figure 13. Variation of lateralforce coefficient with Mach number for several rudder angles W 15.5°. Figure 14. Variation or latera1~orce coeffioient with Mach number i'or several rudder angles 111 20.5°. Figure 15. Val'iation of lateralforce coefficient with Mach number for several ~~dder angles W .5°; antenna struts removed.
=
Figure 16. Variation of lateralforce coefficient with Mach number for several rudder angles \jI = 15.50; antenna struts ~emoved.
FIGURE LEGENDS  Conoluded
Figure 17. Variation for se~~ral angles Figure of drag ooefficient with Maah number of sideslip and rudder angles. . with ~ach number;
18.
Variation of drag coefficient antenna struts re~ov3d.
Figure 19. Variation of yawlng~om.ent coefficient angle of sideslip for severa.l rudder angles M Figure 20. Variation o~ lateral~orce coefficient angle of side slip for se veral rudder a.nglea !wY
= 0.6. = 0.6.
with
with
Figure 21. Variation of drag coeffici~nt with ~ngle of sideslip :'or several rudder angf.e e ~~ =0.6. Figure 22. Dra.g and lateralforce coaffici~nts at trim ve!'S11Sbhe rudc'l.E>r !in~le for several Mach numbars , !i'ir;ure 3. Variation of yawingmoJ"!ent coeff~.cient with 2 angle of sideslip for th::'eecenterofgravity locations
PI.
=
0.6.
Pigure 24. Va.riat~on o~ rudder hinge~ornent coefficient with 1.!aC~1 number for several rudder angles '" = 0.50. Figure 25. ?ariation of ru:3.derhingeTllornentcoefficient with Pach numbe r for aevera.l rll.dderbongles W = 10.50• Fi~ure 2t. Vkriatlon of r~dder hlnge~omen: coefficient .with l.:achnunber for se ve ra l, rudder angles \lr 15.50.
=
Figure 27. Var!ation of ru~oer hiLgemoment coefficient with ~.'achnumber for several rudder ang'Le s "I!I = 20.50. Figure 28. Variation of rudQer hinge~arnent coefficient with rudder angle :or several b.nglea of sideslip and ¥:ach numbe r a , Figure 29. Variation of rudder h~.Ilgemor::ent coefficient with Yach number for sever~l ru6der angles ~ 0.50; anto~Tl.astruts removed.
=
FiGur~ 30. Varl~tion of rudder h~ngemoment coef~icient with Mach nu~ber for sever~l rudder angles w = 15.5°; antenna struts removed. Figure 31. Variation of rudder hingemoment coefficient wi th rudde ang'l j a.ntenna struts reTYJ.oved. r e Figure 32. Rudder failure.
y
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
I7gt/re 1. SkeTch showing slq/7 cO/lven!7ol7$ Tor Qnqks.
mrces, and 17X}meI7Ts.
\\
••
11__
1
•••
_
1
••
,_.
_
.. __
•• __
.
•••••
~67a5,~ ~2B60~
r22. 38+I
strut
til/lin,?
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
All dlmel7siOns tim lillnches
fiqule 2. Sketch showing dimensions of ANM6SAZON Bomb.
Figure 3. ANM65AZON lOOOpound bomb installed in the I6foot highspeed tunnel.
Figure 4. Setup employed for determining strut tares.
support
.... ..
,
I.
on
+::
rr r .,
~W:·
H
,',
+: .:+ "
!
t,'
r=i ,:[
i '' [" ;':
~:':~~ ;=it1t
1
:,~;.~:;_.~~_. i~ 1 r~r' 'f~ H! ~h,f'... I
HI ,1,
c'!'
•
t.~:~' ' l> r, r'
:'i f'·j.;
\4
, rHic4
III
If
j:i::
I,
:i'ff!
;
~~2
;/
r",
;:3t:; 1:f;;~;Cf1' L, i~lH':'~ W
!H
'F
fh.
,
;.\+
~!:'
c.~
±·ht
,',+
F
'rj 'j~
; i.' ,~:i "
:1
~l
:',: ""p. 8:
1+
1·11
UI"
i'. :Cj:
~T:l':± ,~:;:~;
"
:t±:
''Ie
fH+
,}
r,
~?
~:i
,j'
l~Ji,: ,~. =t
: ~,;
h~~l ::~f
::!t1
~TG":
n: !'ltt rd:;:);
~;
:' ,
"
" n~;~; '
'r
~i:l~~ :ltt;:Ti
::;:\1 ,:c'
f.:i ~[i ~=i=1"(:J~:l >;+ ~28 'iBJi:j r2ifl~ ~; ~,HF !+H
I
I
!:;j'
CCLj
~t:!:W:
H:i,,~~ '" "
, t+'
[;,1:
,
ii,
,
,
,.
,~
,
tt
8:
, ,
FFi
=F~I
~.
'.
~'
:J:j:j
i:.t
,
,
m.tt
i:!iI:t:l
,
: ,. ' 'tt
E~
p.
,.
ElHtI
m
+tt ~
m
rm:
'1+,
R:
"
I
:mJtJil.n
;
r±
, ,
=FE
,
tH
ffi
6:
I
[t ::w:r: i::t
+H
Imm
:j:j~*
:):t:;:,
I
~
,
U
;~
~ ~
I::!:
,
~
!
m:J:m
,
~
!i fI ,
i=FFtfR
mm
EE
..
,
~,
i=r i± ,
,.
"
~
~ .f~
i
ft
[:j:
t;t
"
~
l#i#: rr ~
,ti~, f:;:;:
~
,
,.
E
a mf'
m~
"
,
t.t
I
:
'<Ii: ,
~~
·t: . tt
,
i
~.,
5:
M
m+~
,
r
t:I:J:j
1+1
r:q
"
t,
ttl
iffi§t
1+1
:l:I:I\+t
:o:E!f£
I
I
,:i
'I
I
l.t.·
:1
, f.+, : Ih
, h+
,Lj
,: !i ~!,
"
~I
" "
1,:+
,I
,I'.
I
;,' .
'e,· "
' ft· '~~:
: :t
R'
i='T
I
.,;,
I
~,:·t
~*
:\::
~,q r~4
ee,:
I
I~:i,'
:
I'
t=!jli
t;
b~,,~" " H
lt+
f+
I·;
++,
Ij:
!ii
I;:=FF
rt
,
,
,
I
'H' "",
,
L,.,
:
!..
"I" ,;
,
i"
.
ft. :,
:1,
.
,
;
.
!:;±!:[:'_Fc_f!=':::';t;, ':: i r:::~ ~~. I+;:J
.'
"
;:
't.
r:
,.hf++" .. ; tHih:,'
,;C:~
~j~*~t.
';'
== ~~
.
lr! f+J.
"
,, __ .l_ '
;.
i:': l+rr+ rr+r L_,. . . :c'iI~'4 i'.i±
,,
::c;:;
'~_._
:, :;::.::P :~~:
'~"i~ :'::[ :.L~C'r::,
'rr: .
;
. fCc: cHt+
'H,
;~~H;.+"
I
'tt
,
 I_
J'.! l+l
I,
iHt
iir
Hi'
IH
,
Hi 
+
ill
,  it
,'i+
j ',_  •
tt ,'''+ :r
iT
,:1
. J.
i
tL.
+
+
_ rj
+lT
~~
I
ttl ,, c~:~
.
=i:t
.td
I:
@if flit
:t,
#t
I:l
tth EIfIm
,~ll'
~.
liij 1+ R
t~+j
+t+
Hi
~e
.: ~7itlliJ
tttt
. ,;i
I
H I':
I
mmR
i
!
I±i
'p:
1$;
H
I
E
I· ,
BfEEl
I
,~ , p: ' :r:
;..t
'~
,
,,
•
I!!
wmmmm
t:::J:tt:m
m
w
.:;
~
= ,~,
~.
~
Iff1iH g~
+R
=
li§
:ttl
jjj
,
~:tm_
tt
aa
±t±
±Ii'
EI33333:I±f.EEH
1m!
,
H±J:
+t1
:t:tffm
I
,
:tl:i:I+lI E
£1m
~mmtB
~ ~
,
~
,
,
f!'
.,
.,
r:
m
m
F
E±~
tam
tffi
.~',;" ~r~~~~'
E+.
Ef :i·
~~.
1
f:t:
,1+
B"
..
.
',iFH~~ ~ ~;ii
" ,
Fffi
. III IT'En"!:
.
~'
[.I
'f"
t;f',
e=
"" ~fi. '..
" JJ:ii:~4
1:;
~
'
""
..
4"+ '
,'"
fj.
'.
"C
c~c,.
. 'r['+
.: r= .
[,,:,
Perl ' I:!:
ij
ul~
~J
Ij:i
E
f:i:~ ~
~~~t'~lmiW!:tI=H+tt+$EfEftt
,
:
:
§ F ~:,~
"
,,;:' ·:..Jl
~
'i:.:.l!.l±
',i:;:t "
Et
§'
~. ,
2:
:+;. 'ES
.~t
,
I:E
"
ri'
8.
';:;
'EE'
i
:It!:t:I
i=i=
ti1
tt
.,
ill
"
,
E±l±
a
, H ,
:
~
I:±±±±±f
..
8:
Ei'
,
Li
,
j:I
:
I
13;,
lti;~
"
t •
ill
, llfr 1+
,JtIili
mm
,
~.
E
..
1 IIIIL
,
_
, rrrt
ti:
1= , ii.,
'+r_
I,
(
II.
'
•
,'
,,
EEl
+
'I
j:
II'
,I
,±
1'1+
,
I
,
,
i±
, "
":t,, ,:~ , l.!
,~,
"
,I
'.
,1!
,!
Figure ./7.
Variation of" dra.B coerrlcjent wifh Mach number Tor ..:ssveral angles ar": sideslip and rudder angle.s;
/V1
\
'11..
_
;
!
~~:r;;
:JlJ"c>
lilh"
" ~,~~" .::r:
\
."
,
,
,
,
,
,·::ti~f;' "
,Ii'· '
IT Ii
.
~
,
, :i~I. t+t
,
I
•
~UJt
'~~
;
u.,:,
.f
+7
~~;::
~f~!f
i
,
I,~
i:;
1':\
~:~
"
M:~jFf:!
tnt
,
:
!',
I~~J: In;::
:
I
"
(:,
"
i':,e"
i
':t
I
~r ::;1;
i=1
:,'
"
1
:
"
i,~
,i':
:
1
"
!,
m
H
,
i::j:
.. I J
.
, I..
P".l
I' .
"
.l.J: :,'
~;:1t
~::~:~f .i
,_ LLE '.',
ii:+
.: ,;'t::,
••
,"
\1.
11:;:;
rtl:+
!~ I:};;J J~
t~\::
rt
.,.
I
I
;1
,4:
'i
"
'
"
'.
I
... , I
i" '
H!
:
"
HH
~
•
~
.
i
Figure 32. Rudder failure.
~.~
111111~1~llllr~lllnllll~1111 j 3 1176014393244
!
i ._. __ ~_ ..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?