NASA TECHNICAL NOTE
N A S A TN D5335  
c ,/
i.OAN COPY: RETURN TO AFWL (WLIL2)
KIRTLAND AFB, N MEX
A FINITESTEP METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ARBITRARY LIFTINGSURFACE ARRANGEMENTS A T SUBSONIC SPEEDS
by James A. Blackwell, Jr.
Lungley Research Center Langley Station, Hampton, Va.
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 N , D. C.
JULY 1 9 6 9
I
'
TECH LIBRARY KAFB. N M
1.
4.
Report No.
2.
Government A c c e s s i o n No.
3.
Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA TN D5335
T i t l e and Subtitle
5. Report Date
A FINITESTEP METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ARBITRARY LIFTINGSURFACE ARRANGEMENTS AT SUBSONIC SPEEDS
7.
9.
Author(s)
J u l y 1969
6. 8.
Performing Orgonization Code
Performing Organization Report No.
James A. Blackwell, Jr.
Performing Organization Nome and Address
L5724
IO. Work Unit No.
NASA Langley Research Center Langley Station Hampton, Va. 23365
2.
Sponsoring Agency Name ond Address
12613012923
11. Contract or Grant No.
13.
T y p e o f Report and P e r i o d Covered
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546
Technical Note
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
5. Supplementary N o t e s
6 . Abstract
A simple theoretical method has been developed to compute t h e load distribution in subsonic compressible flow of arbitrary wings a n d liftingsurface arrangements. A finitestep method was used in the analysis. The results of the theoretical method have been compared w i t h experiment a n d show good agreement.
7.
K e y Words
Suggested by A u t h o r k ) Liftingsurface theory
.
18.
D i s t r i b u t i o n Statement
Nonplanar wings
Unclassified Unlimited
Pylons, e n d plates, fences Span load distribution
9.
Security C l a s s i f . ( o f t h i s repart)
20.
Security C l a s s i f . ( o f t h i s page)
Unclassified
Unclassified
A FINITESTEP METHOD FOR CALCULATION O F THEORETICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ARBITRARY LIFTINGSURFACE ARRANGEMENTS AT SUBSONIC SPEEDS By J a m e s A. Blackwell, Jr. Langley Research Center SUMMARY This report presents a simple theoretical finitestep method f o r calculating the subsonic aerodynamic load distributions f o r arbitrary liftingsurface arrangements. The method may be applied to a wide variety of aerodynamic problems involving nonplanar wings, wing and pylons o r end plates, wing and empennage, and biplanes, The results of the theoretical method have been compared with experiment and show good agreement in all cases. Applications of the method have been made for a series of illustrative examples. INTRODUCTION Much research is presently being devoted to increasing the range factors of subsonic cruise airplanes. In o r d e r to achieve better range factors through increased aerodynamic efficiency of the airplane design, wings of thinner sections and of increased sweep are being used which generally result in additional structural considerations. T o produce an efficient aerodynamic and structural airplane design, an accurate prediction of the aerodynamic f o r c e s and their distribution over the wing and other lifting surfaces
‘I .
is desirable.
The results of a n accurate theoretical calculation of the l i f t distribution f o r a wing alone (e.g., ref. 1) are partially invalidated by the presence of a fuselage, pylons, o r nacelles. The experimental results given in references 2 and 3 indicate the magnitude of the interference effect of a vertical surface such as a fence o r end plate on the span load distribution of a wing. It is shown in these references that the interference effect is substantial and should be taken into account. In the airplane design, when the structural stresses are required, approximate methods have generally been used to determine the lift distributions f o r interference problems. References 4 and 5 give examples of such procedures. Generally, interference solutions are mathematically complex, are restricted t o particular configurations, and involve much computational labor to obtain an answer of
satisfactory accuracy. (See, for instance, refs. 6 and 7 in which the calculated interference loads due to end plates and tip tanks, respectively, are shown.)
It is the purpose of the present report to describe a simple method of liftdistribution calculation that is mathematically less complex than existing methods and can be applied to arbitrary wings and liftingsurface arrangements (i.e., wing and end plates, biplanes, wing and pylons, etc.). The method that is used for this analysis follows closely the finitestep method used by Campbell (ref. 8) f o r calculating wingalone spanwise lift distributions. This concept involves using 2N rectangular horseshoe vortices placed along the quarterchord lines of the lifting surfaces and equating the velocity from the total vortex system at the threequarterchord line to the component of freestream velocity normal to the lifting surface to form 2N equations in 2N unknowns.
The method is developed in detail and formulas facilitating solution for the span load distribution and various other aerodynamic parameters are presented. Applications of the method have been made to various liftingsurface combinations with particular configuration. Comparison of emphasis placed on a horizontalwingverticalsurface the results obtained by the present method with experimental data a r e made. SYMBOLS
A
b bH 'Di
aspect ratio,
b2 S
wing span, feet (meters) horizontal tail span, feet (meters) total induced drag coefficient, Di 1 2
zpvms
CL
horizontalsurface lift coefficient,
L 1 2
zpvms
cL, CY
horizontalsurface liftcurve slope p e r radian, verticalsurface sideforce coefficient,
FT T  1
aCL aa
Zpvmsvs verticalsurface sideforcecurve slope p e r radian, aCY 
a@
C
local streamwise chord, feet (meters)
2
Cav
average chord. Di e
FU
217 
vc&
total induced drag. Area of surface feet (meters) Span of surface ' horizontalsurface section lift coefficient.
iiI 
c2
vmc
horizontalsurface section liftcurve slope p e r radian.
aC1
a@
verticalsurface section sideforce coefficient. pounds (newtons) efficiency factor backwash influence function. footdefined by equation (8) downwash influence function. footdefined by equation (6) sidewash influence function. radians unless otherwise indicated horizontalsurface lift. foot' defined by equation (11) (meterl) (meterl) (meter1)
FY
i
verticalsurface side force. pounds (newtons) local deflection at control point in PQplane. feet (meters) onehalf of number of rectangular horseshoe vortices spread over horizontal lifting'surface freestream Mach number
L
2
M
3
. pounds (newtons) verticalsurface height.
feet (meters)
%
Pn pv p.Q. in qdirection. in pdirection. feet2 (meters%)
a r e a of vertical surface.Y. feet (meters) backwash velocity. feet/second downwash velocity. in rdirection.q. feet/second (meters/second) sidewash velocity. Q
4
.
VI
(meters/second)
velocity from vortex system normal to lifting surface at control point. p
X. feet/second (meters/second)
P
S
svs
S
U
v.r
p' =
/zmarea of horizontal lifting surface.R axis system.N
onehalf of total number of rectangular horseshoe vortices spread over entire airplane configuration coordinate of a particular horseshoe vortex coordinate of a particular control point coordinates of point on lifting surface in P. feet (meters)
X
V
(meters/second) (meters/second)
W
x.Z axis system (see eq. feet2 ( m e t e d ) semiwidth of horseshoe vortex. feet/second longitudinal reference axes coordinates of point on lifting surface with respect to given horseshoe vortex in X. (3)).Z
x'
=
J1M2m
lateral reference axes
Y.Y. feet/second freestream velocity.
radians unless otherwise indicated circulation strength. feet (meters) mass density of air. Tip chord Root chord
r
A
x
5
longitudinal location of lifting. measured from origin in pdirection.chord line.surface root quarter. slugs/foot3 (kilograms/meter3)
P
(P
Subscripts :
H
angle of lifting surface in QRplane.R
C Y
vertical reference axes local angle of attack at control point in PRplane. feet (meters) sweep angle of quarterchord line. feet (meters) spanwise location of vertical surface.chord line. degrees taper ratio. degrees
horizontal tail number designating a particular horseshoe vortex vertical surface wing number designating a particular control point
n vs
W
V
5
.Z. feet2/second (meters2/second)
r
P
vertical location of lifting.surface root quarter. measured from origin. measured from origin in rdirection.
Derivation of Method Backwash.s cos $12 + (z . An equal number of control points a r e located along the threequarterchord lines. one horseshoe vortex along the chord is used. by a singular rectangular horseshoe vortex (fig. The velocity from the total vortex system is equated t o the component of frees t r e a m velocity normal to the lifting surface chord at each control point. Solution of this set of equations provides the loading distributions over the lifting surfaces.Y.By utilizing the fundamental laws of induced velocity given in reference 9 for calculating the induced velocities from a line vortex. 1) on a lifting surface of dihedral angle @ may be derived and is given by the expression U(P. the midpoints of the vortices a r e placed only at points along the quarterchord lines. 1).s sin +)sin @ [(x7)2 + (y . That is..s sin 4123
(y
and x' = p'
Y = gv
z = r.qy.s COS @)COS c$ + (z . the lifting surfaces a r e represented by a system of rectangular horseshoe vortices (fig..'.S. For the present analysis.z.

qn
rn
6
.) where
=
r
Fu(x'.@)
. Application of this tangentflow boundary condition for a symmetrical loading provides a set of N simultaneous equations in the N unknown circulation strengths.ANALYSIS Basic Concepts In o r d e r to calculate the subsonic span loading of an arbitrary arrangement of lifting surfaces. the backwash velocity induced at a control point P.
The PrandtlGlauert correction factor is applied to the p. the sidewash velocity of any of the control points Py which results from the 2N horseshoe vortices is
with the function Fi. the backwash velocity at any of the control points P.and xcoordinates to account f o r compressibility effects. becomes
where the function FL. that i s .
Sidewash. l). which results from the 2N horseshoe vortices is
F o r symmetrical geometry with respect t o the PRplane.. By distributing 2N horseshoe vortices having 2N control points over the lifting surfaces (fig.n is obtained by summing the influence of the vortices on the left side of the PRplane and the influence of the vortices on the right side of the PRplane.. the backwash velocity at any of the control points P.vn given by
7
.F o r symmetrical geometry with respect t o the PRplane.
s..rv)
=
1
1
n= 1
N
r n Fk.y sin
$)2
(y
+s
COS
@)cos@ + (z
cos
+ (y + s
+ s s i n $)sin @ 1/2 +)2 + (z + s s i n
$123
(y

s
COS @)COS
kxy)2
+ (y 
s cos
+ (z .For symmetrical geometry with respect to the PRplane.z.vn given by
8
..n
(10)
with the function
Fk.q.and
x' s i n $
@
Fv(x'. which results from the 2N horseshoe vortices is W(P.s s i n @)sin ( ~ ) + (z .. the downwash velocity at any of the control points P.$) (XI)2 =
+ (z cos
..Y.s sin 2
@
$123
Downwash.
= V. 2(a)) may
be expressed as
V. 2(b)) may be expressed as V..
and combining equations (7). cos ~p.s cos +)2 + (z

s sin
+)q
To satisfy the tangentflow boundary conditions. and
(14)
as rn/4aV.
(14) yields
Similarly f o r a verticalsurface deflection i. the velocity from the vortex system normal to the vertical surface (fig. the velocity from the total vortex system normal to the lifting surface is equated t o the component of freestream velocity normal to the lifting surface at each control point such that there is no flow through the wing at the control points. s i n
a.. = v sin Cp
+w
cos Cp
(13)
For small angles of attack.
=voOaV ~p.qv. cos
(lo).= v cos i
+u
sin i
(16)
9
. the tangentflow boundary condition may be expressed
as vL(p.rv) Defining
I?. This boundary condition for a wing at dihedral Cp at angle of attack (fig.. (13).where
(y

s cos @)cos@
+ (z 
s sin @)sin@
kx*)2 + (y ..
as an illustration.. (7). cos a.q.
(17)
Combining equations (4).1111..r.11111111.11111111111111.
For a wing with dihedral to be solved is
@ and a pylon with incidence i. = v. the formulas for calculation of the loading parameters for a horizontal wing and vertical surface (one on each wing halfspan) are presented.1..)
= V.. However.
111.For small deflections and angles of attack.1111
11111111 . and (17) yields
N
To determine the unknown circulation strengths r h on a combination of lifting surfaces. Out of N control points on the wing halfspan and vertical surface. the system of equations
Calculation of Loading P a r a m e t e r s The formulas for calculating the airplane loading parameters vary with each airplane configuration.By defining the wing span loading coefficient as CiC/CLCav and using the relation
~~
the span loading coefficient on the wing may be obtained from the relation
10
. Span loading coefficient.1111111111
111111111
1111 111 I 111
I I l l II I I 1111111 111
111 Ill I
I 11111 II II I
I
. the first M of these points a r e specified to be on the wing halfspan and the remainder to be on the vertical surface.i. sin i. (16). a set of N simultaneous equations in N unknown circulation strengths as given by equations (15) and (18) must be solved. the tangentflow boundary condition may be expressed as
VL(p.
Lift and sideforce coefficients.The l i f t of the wing may be expressed as
~~~~~
L=2
s. the span loading coefficient on the vertical surfaces may be obtained from the relation
It should be noted that the circulation or span loading on the vertical surface at the verticalsurfacewing juncture may be determined from the boundary condition that specifies the circulation at the verticalsurface root to be equal to the difference between the circulation at stations inboard and outboard of the juncture.
and changing the integral to a summation results in
M
n= 1 Similarly.Similarly. the side force of the vertical surface may be expressed as
or. in coefficient form.
b/2
PVwr(Y)dY
Expressing the lift in coefficient form and simplifying gives
Introducing I?. as
N
..
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF METHOD Using the finitestep method. the spanwise load distribution as calculated for the wing alone is compared in figure 3 with the spanwise load distribution of a wing with a vertical surface attached t o the wing lower surface at the 60percent wing semispan. if there are regions of r which gradients in the span load diagram. T o indicate the capability of the present method for predicting accurately the interference effects of arbitrary arrangements of lifting surfaces. a vortex semiwidth of 0. several examples are presented to illustrate the range of applicability of the method. the S use of equal span vortices of semiwidth generally a satisfactory b/2. In all the following examples. The fence was located at 0.0. As indicated in figure 4. In o r d e r to assess the interference effects of an arbitrary arrangement of lifting surfaces. it has been found that a closer uniform spacing of b vortices should be used.0250 interest f oprovidedthere are large loading distribution. The calculations show that the addition of the vertical surface t o the wing has a substantial effect on the wing spanwise loading. 4 to indicate distribution).42b. A wingalone comparison is also made in figure 5@). Distribution of Vortices The effect of the distribution of vortices spanwise over an arrangement of lifting surfaces on the aerodynamic loads as calculated by the present method is shown in figu r e 4 (symbols are used in fig. The agreement is shown t o be good. comparisons are made with experimental data. Good agreement is shown with and without end plates. About 1 minute of computing time on the Control Data 6600 computer system (Langley program A1505) is generally required t o obtain a solution when 50 vortices (2N) are used to describe the configuration.
12
. The magnitude of the interference effects of lifting surfaces is dependent upon the geometry of the interfering lifting surfaces.12b above and 2 2 below the'wing.0250.with a height of 0. In addition. Comparison of Theory With Experiment A comparison of the calculated results for a 40° sweptback wing of AW = 4. However.0 with and without a fence are compared with the experimental results of reference 3 in figure 6 f o r constant total lift coefficients. equation (19) may be utilized. The calculated results f o r a 45O sweptback wing of Aw = 2.5 having a circular end plate with the experimental results as presented in reference 2 is shown in figure 5(a).is 2 used unless otherwise stated.
the magnitude of the drop in wing spanwise loading increases which in turn increases the loading on the vertical surface (fig. The magnitude of the reduction in lift coefficient of the horizontal tail due to the interference
13
. 9).
m
By using the PrandtlGlauert transformation. and wing and canard combination a r e examples of parallel lifting surfaces. wing and horizontal tail. For the surface arrangement shown (tail with wing). and AW = 6. The drop and magnitude of the wing spanwise loading at the location of the vertical surfaces does not appear to be substantially altered by the number of vertical surfaces. For verticalsurface heights of of the wing span load distribution appears to be generally proportional to the height of the vertical surface. A s an example of the interference effect of parallel lifting surfaces.rr
2)
In figure 8. The loading for the sweptforward vertical surface rapidly drops off proceeding toward the tip of the vertical surface.
The effect of verticalsurface location on the wing spanwise loading is presented in figure 7(a). the magnitude presented in figure 10. Since the chords for the vertical surfaces at various spanwise locations vary in figures 7 and 8. The sweep of the vertical surface primarily alters the verticalsurface loading (fig.
= 8. unless otherwise stated. and height of the vertical surfaces.
(. and vertical tails perpendicular to wings.2. The effect of verticalsurface height on the wing and verticalsurface loading is = 0. number.Examples of vertical s u r faces perpendicular to horizontal surfaces include pylons. in addition to Mach number and verticalsurface cant angle all affect the spanwise loading of a given wing.67. the wing is flat with Aw = 3 ° Xw = 0. fences. . the vertical surface is at z e r o incidence with 0. end plates.0 to 0.33. 7(b)). respect to the flight path and on the wing lower surface. The location. the lift distribution for a horizontal tail alone and a horizontal tail in the wake of a wing is presented. the parameter Fh is presented instead of cy to indicate the loading should be noted that on the vertical surface. This is a result of the sweep removing the tip of the vertical surface from the region of the wing influence. Similarly the loading on the vertical surfaces remain essentially unchanged. the effect of a wing on the lift of a horizontal tail is shown in figures 12 and 13.Biplanes.Examples
~Vertical surfaces perpendicular to horizontal surf aces. the chords of the vertical surface are equal to the local wing chord. the horizontaltail lift coefficient is substantially reduced. In the following illustrations. sweep. the effect of Mach number on the wing and verticalsurface load distributions is determined and presented in figure 11. The l i f t coefficient of the horizontal tail is based on the horizontaltail surface area. the effect of the number of vertical surfaces on the wing is shown. Parallel lifting surfaces.. In figure 12. A s the vertical surface is moved outboard.
the differential twist required to attain an elliptical load distribution on the vertical surface can be seen to be substantial (fig. 15(b)) . A wide
14
. and located b at 2 = 0. 5). This is probably due to the vertical surface acting as an end plate. probably very little differential twist would be required since the induced load is already very nearly elliptical (i. see fig. and 13 that efficiency factors greater than 1 may be obtained and the optimum span load distribution is not necessarily elliptical.step method for calculating the subsonic aerodynamic load distributions for arbitrary liftingsurface arrangements has been developed.of the wing agrees with the reduction expected due to the change in tail angle of attack resulting from the downwash of the wing (see ref. Optimum surfaces.2. Moving the tail vertically o r further aft of the wing increases the horizontaltail loading. height = 0. however. the optimum wing span loading as given in reference 5 f o r a 30° sweptback wing with a sweptforward vertical surface having 75' of sweep. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A simple theoretical finite. In figure 15. 11.00. the induced drag of the monoplane wing will be a minimum.It is well known that if the span load distribution of a monoplane wing is elliptical.5 a r e presented.6 is presented in figure 14(a). For the horizontaltail locations shown. 14(b)) should be nearly elliptical (ref. there was negligible effect of the horizontal tail on the wing. e = 1.e. the effect of horizontaltail location behind a wing on the lift distribution of the horizontal tail is presented. For sweptforward vertical surfaces. The optimum verticalsurface loading for this b/2 configuration (fig. with the result that the a r e a inboard of the vertical surface is more nearly two dimensional in character. Theoretically. that is CL2 (28) 'Di = neA with e = 1. For liftingsurface arrangements other than the monoplane. the approximate wing incidence and verticalsurface deflection as determined from the present method which would be required to achieve the optimum load distribution at a CL = 0.025 for this configuration with optimum loading. 9(b)). 10 for empirical formulas f o r calculating the downwash angle at the wingwake center line). For example. for unswept vertical surfaces... It is interesting to note that for this configuration the differential twist outboard of the wing root and just inboard of the vertical surface is negligible. 12. In figure 13. Shown also in figure 14 for comparison is the span and verticalsurface loading calculated by using the present method for the same wing at angle of attack with no twist and the same verticalsurface arrangement with z e r o deflection. it has been theoretically shown in references 5.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.. wing and pylons o r end plates. 12613012923. wing and empennage. Hampton. Va. 1969. Langley Research Center. Applications of the method have been made for a series of illustrative examples and good results a r e obtained.
15
I
. and biplanes can be solved. The results of the theoretical method have been compared with experiment and show good agreement for the cases considered. Langley Station. May 22.variety of aerodynamic problems involving nonplanar wings.
1962. IngelmannSundberg. Von K&rm&n.. Schrenk. 1957.: Theoretical Load Distribution on a Wing With Vertical Plates. H. Inst. 1949.C. No. 1937.
16
. 1940. 1 of Aerodynamic Theory.. Brit. Multhopp. Div. & M. J...
R..
9. & M.
2. 2342. Daniel 0.
7. R.: The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. 2889. Weber.: A Simple Approximation Method f o r Obtaining the Spanwise Lift Distribution. 5. KTHAERO TN 8. Brit. Technol. Weber. J.. 12. R. W. J. 1943). & M. A. Thomas F.: Theoretical Load Distribution on a Wing With a Cylindrical Body a t One End.. and the Corresponding Loading. 1935 (reprinted by Durand Reprinting Comm.
3. 13. No. Aeronaut. Second ed.. & M. 1950.: A FiniteStep Method for the Calculation of Span Loadings of Unusual Plan Forms. R. p.. 1956. George S. Vol. M. and Connolly.R. (Stockholm). 1950. A.. Robinson.Perfect 1 Fluids. ed.: Airplane Aerodynamics. Corp. div. J. Julius Springer (Berlin). of Nonplanar Wings. Weber. Glauert. Press. Clarence D. Sherby.: General Aerodynamic Theory . Campbell. J.C. Pitman Pub. Brit. 415.C. NASA T R R139. and Lawford. and Burgers.: The Aerodynamic Loading of Wings With Endplates. pp.Th.R.R. 2884. Sydney S.. F. 6. 1956. Martin M. A. Roy.
10.R. 1957. A.C. No.C. E. 125160.: Methods f o r Calculating the Lift Distribution of Wings (Subsonic LiftingSurface Theory). 2960.REFERENCES
1. A. Brit. NACA TM 948. A. Jan. Cambridge Univ. A. 11.: A Numerical Solution for the Minimum Induced Drag. Lundry. 0. Cone. NASA CR1218.. Durand. 1951.R. 4.: The Reflection Effect of Fences at Low Speeds. & M. J.: The Theory of Induced Lift and Minimum Induced Drag of Nonplanar Lifting Systems. NACA RM L50L13... Brit. Dommasch. No. A.. L. 1968. R.: Experimental Determination of P r e s s u r e Distributions on a Plane Wing With 40° Sweepback at Low Speed.
8. H. Jr. 2977. No.
.Distribution of vortices over combination of lifting surfaces.Horizonta I Iifting surface
Vertical surface
1 Figure 1. N = 1 ..
i
(b) Deflected vertical surface.)
V. Figure 2.Illustration of tangentflow boundary condition.
R
s i n a c o s fl
1
2
‘V
(a) Horizontal lifting surface.
18
.
3
1.I
0
.2
.25
\
1.67. 7
y CLCav
.o
Figure 3.I
.2
c
_ _
Vertical surface Off On
QCl
4. . AW = 6. r l = 0.
19
I
. h w = 0.a
.2
. AVs = 0".0..1.1
I .o .4
. 5
. AW = 30°. 6
.4
.2$.8
.Effect of vertical surface on spanwise loading of horizontal wing.68 M = 0.22 4. 6
. 9
. s = 0. 1 = 0.3
.9
I .3
.33.0250$.
Y
.2
. Avs = 00.2).8
.o
2
=
o.I
.4
b/2 J / l
Figure 4.33.0250 4. 7
.25 . A W = 0.24 0.&.72 . 2 M = 0. .
a = 1 radian.S b/2
R
‘La
‘Ya
t
O
0
0.6
.
.67.5
.3
.0 125 4.. Aw = 300: AW = 6.76
6
5
4
2
I
0
.Effect of distribution of vortices.9
I. 1 = 0.0.
2
4~ I I
51
I I l 1
. s = 0. .I
. AW = 400.Effect of end plate on section liftcurve slope as calculated by present method and as indicated by experimental data of reference 2.a
.4
0
Present method Experiment (ref. AW = 0.1. Figure 5.R
I L cL 3t I I / 21 I I I l 1 1 1 I .5.7
. M zz 0.
21
.3
+
. end plate c i r c u l a r with diameter equal to tip chord. AW = 4.2)
0
.02502.o
(a) Wing and end plate.9
I .5.
Figure 5.
.Concluded..Y 
b/2
(b) Wing alone.

Effect of fence on section lift coefficient as calculated by present method and as indicated by experimental data of reference 3.3
.?
. b b AW = 45O. q = 0.3)
R
0
. 6
. AW = 2.42?. 8
. M = 0.I
.
2
W
N
.9
I.Present method Experiment (ref.2
.
.5 Y
(a) Wing and fence.0. 1 = 0. s = 0.4
.0207 .1.o
Figure 6.lZb (above and below the wing).
3
.6
.
Figure 6.I
.4
.2
.8
.9
I .0
Present method Experiment (ref.
.o
Concluded.3)
0
.5 Y b/2
(b) Wing alone.7
.
.
.8
.6 .
2
2 ‘
25
. .3
.I
R
0
IIIII
. .o
Figure 7..
. .
I. 7
y
CLCCI”
.A .
Effect of verticalsurface location o n wing and verticalsurface loading.9
I .8 I .4
Y b/2
(a) Wing.4 .7
. .3
/
.2
\. I = 0.
hW = 0. I
I . AW = 300.I. M = 0.67.2
. .4
.o
4.33.39
\
1 .
\
__
~
0.6
.9
\
_ \
\
3
.24 4.2
~
.2b.5
.2 5 4. AW = 6.0.5
.
=
00. s = 0. ‘ .0250b .
\
1
.27 4.?
1. 6
. .o
.
6
..7
. a = 1 radian.24
.o
(b) Vertical surfaces.8
.
Concluded.
.
.08
.16
.2
.20
\+
I
.I
.I 2
.32
\
.04
0
.3
$4
4 5
z/l
..9
1 .28
rl
b/2
cya
.
Figure 7. I
r.
2
.8
.8
4. = 0.6
.67.4 and0. 7
.2
. AW = 30°.
. AW = 0. =0 .'
Z = 0. 3
.0250b
2'
2 '
27
. AW = 6.3
.
cLa

?1 b/2 0.9
10 . M.
.28
I.0.4
.I
..
I.13 .4
.o
.8
I.33.2b. 9
. 2
. I
.
(a) Wing. s = 0.4
.Effect of number of vertical surfaces on wing and verticalsurface loading.I
0
. 5
. Figure 8. 7
. A.
.
Figure 8..
.Concluded.N
03
(b) Vertical surfaces. a = 1 radian.
9
.33. 7
.3
.24
I . s = 0.o
(a) Wing.2
.
12 .
4. M = 0.6
. 2 r l = 0.I
C
I
. Figure 9. AW = 300.I
I
11
. 5
.6b.2b.25 4.3
. 2 2
29
I
. 8
.
.4
.5
Y b/2
..o
.Effect of verticalsurface sweep on wing and verticalsurface loading.I. 2 = 0.2

c
.3
. AW = 6.67.0.4
.9
I .0250b . h w = 0.
7
.2
*3
.4
.8
.9
I .o
(bl Vertical surfaces. a = 1 radian.5
z/l
.76 .I
.w
0
0
0.
Figure 9.6
.26
I
\
0
.Concluded.
.
25
I. b .67. 4
y
b/2
. . 0
\
\
.33. Figure 10. hW = 0.3
.9 .2
.
cLa
I.I
.7
clc
CLCav
. 2 =
00. 6
.6.I
0
.23 4.22 4. M = 0.o
(a) Wing.A .6
.3
. s = 0.
.8
\
. AW = 6. 2
4.5
. = 0.2
R
. 7
.8
. hW = 30°..0.3
.
.1.5
.
31
.4
. I
1 .Effect of verticalsurface height on w i n g a n d verticalsurface loading.9
.0250:.
Figure 10.Concluded..
.. a = 1 radian.2
I!
0
Z
b/2
(b) Vertical surfaces.
2
.6$ s = 0.3
..2q.33.5
.5
. AW = 30°. q = 0.Effect of Mach number on wing and verticalsurface loading.I
0
. 8
4.3
.
I. 2
= Oo. AW = 6. i
.
_
0 .4
.I

1.
33
.8
.
.02504.c
. A W = 0.2
I!lI
. 8
. I
1.2
R
s.o
Ma3
.6
.9
3
Figure 11.25 5.
.I
. 7
.4
\
.9
.52
cLa
1. A.. 1 = 0.
.67. 6
.7
9
CL%"
.
0 . Figure 11.76 I .oo
(b) Vertical surfaces.Concluded.. a = 1 radian.
.
Mal 0. 8
0.
4. s = 0. AW = 6.I
.5
Y
. bH/b = 0.I
rQ


Without wing With wing
3.o
bH/2
w
Figure 12. A< = 0. a = 1 radian.b .75
2 04
cLu
el
2
I
0
.9
1.33. M = 0.67.3
.2
. AH = 4. A H = 0. AW = 0.0250.0.6
.33.. AW = 30°. 2'
cn
. AH = 30°.26. 7
.4
.0.8
.Effect of wing wake on horizontaltail lift distribution. A 6 = b/2.
AW = 30°..0.
.0250) 2’
AH = 4. a = 1 radian.
4
3
c1
2
I
0
Figure 13.Effect of horizontaltail location behind wing on l i f t distribution of horizontal tail.33. M.67.w
Q. AW = 6. bH/b = 0.4.
hH = 0.33. AH = 30°. = 0. s = 0. AW = 0.26.
Load distribution Optimum (ref.4
. A W = 0.02504 2'
37
.
."
c
. .69: M = 0. ..5) Present method
I
. ..I
.0.67..2$ r l = 0.2
R
t
*I
0
.
AW = 6. 8
(a) Wing.2
. Figure 14.\
1.I \
\
.3
.3
.Comparison of wing and verticalsurface loadings calculated by u s i n g present method w i t h optimum loading of reference 5.33. 6
I
. 2
s = 0. .1
.4

.
t
\
\
. AVS = 75':
1 = 0.
AW = 30'.
tl t: ._
I
I.
5.I2
.Present met hod
..
Figure 14.08
c
Y
.06
.5) .I
W
03
Load distribution Optimum (ref.o 2
0
(b) Vertical surface.
.io
. CL = 0.04
.Concluded.
5 Y
(a) Wing.0.7
. A W = 0. AW = 30°.o
Figure 15.3
*4
. AW = 6.2
.33.0250) 2'
.
s = 0.2).Approximate wing incidence and verticalsurface deflection required to achieve optimum load distribution.5.67.9
I . .0
.
Z = 0..I
. CL = 0. AVS = 75'.2
= 0.
.6
.8
.6$
M = 0.
)
Figure 15.I
.cp
0
6
4
2
i.
.Concluded.o
(b) Vertical surface.3
.9
1 .4
. (ti indicates leading edge of vertical surface canted outboard.7
.deg 0
2
4
6
0
..6
.5
Z/l
.
complete. CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and technical information generated under a NASA .
~
~
Details on the availability of these publications may b e obtained from:
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Washington. T h e Administration sha21 provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemkaarion of information concerning its activities and the resdts thereof.C.~utilization R~~~~~~ and Technology Surveys. sourcebooks. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: I n f o r m a t i o n derived from or of value to N A S A activides.
~ ~
. ."
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS SPACE ACT OF 1958 AND
NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered important. Publications include conference proceedings. . monographs. and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge. . 20546 D. T ~ I and N ~ ~ ~~ ~ . TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless of importance as a contribution to existing knowledge.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
FIRST CLASS M A I L
P O S T A G E AND FEES PAID N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND ^. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distribution because of preliminary data. and special bibliographies. security classification. data compilations. C. t o the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. 20546
.
D.1
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. TION
POSTMASTER:
If Undeliverable ( Section 15 S Postal Manual) D o Not Return
'"The aeronai&cal and space activities of the United Stater shall be conducted so 2s t o contribute . TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology used by NASA that may be of particular interest in commercial and other nonaerospace applications. contract or grant and considered an important contribution to existing knowledge. handbooks. Publications include Tech Briefs. TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: I n f o r m a tion published in a foreign language considered to merit NASA distribution i n English. or other reasons.