You are on page 1of 49

R=19700033422 2018-03-16T23:53:24+00:00Z
- 1




by Paul A . Baker, Willium G. Schweikhard,
and William R. Young
Flight Research Center
Edwurds, Cub$ 93523

& B


1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. .."...r."..." --._=

NASA TN D-6053

NASA Flight Research Center
P. 0. Box 273 11:Contract or Grant No.

13. Type o f Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D. C. 20546 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

A constant-angle-of-attack-approachtechnique was used to measure
ground effect on several low -aspect-ratio aircraft. The flight results
w e r e compared with results from constant -altitude flybys, wind-tunnel
studies, and theoretical prediction data. It was found that the constant-
angle -of-attack technique provided data that were consistent with data
obtained from constant-altitude flybys and required fewer runs to obtain
the same amount of data.

The test results from an F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee wing,
a prototype F5D-1 airplane, two XB-70 airplanes, and an F-104A airplane
indicate that theory and wind-tunnel results adequately predict the trends
caused by ground effect a s a function of height and aspect ratio. However,
the magnitude of these predictions did not always agree with the flight-
measured results. In addition, there was consistent evidence that the
aircraft encountered ground effect at a height above one wing span.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s1 1 18. Distribution Statement

Ground effect Unclassified - Unlimited

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. NO. of Pages 22. Price'

Unclassified Unclassified 46 $3.00

'For sale b y the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 221 51



By Paul A. Baker, William G. Schweikhard, and William R. Young
Flight Research Center


When an airplane flies close to the ground, at a height of one o r two wing spans,
it experiences an increase in lift and significant changes in drag and pitching moment.
This phenomenon is known as ground effect. Interest in ground effect has recently
been renewed because of its significance for both V/STOL and conventional low-aspect-
ratio aircraft such as the supersonic transport. In wind-tunnel tests the effect of the
ground can be simulated by moving the aircraft model progressively closer to the
wind-tunnel floor o r ground board. In the limited flight measurements of ground effect
made in the study of reference 1, a flyby technique was used which required that an
airplane be flown at a constant altitude and airspeed. Both flight and wind-tunnel
methods require numerous passes o r runs to obtain data throughout the altitude and
angle -of -attack range.

A different flight-test method f o r analyzing ground effect was proposed in refer-
ence 2. With this method, a low approach is made in a test airplane while constant
angle of attack and power setting are maintained. The measurement of engine thrust,
which is difficult but necessary for most methods, is not required for this method
because the power setting remains fixed throughout the approach. This method was
used in a flight investigation at the NASA Flight Research Center in which ground effect
was evaluated on five low-aspect-ratio aircraft: an F5D-1 modified with an ogee wing
(ref. 3), a conventional F5D-1, two XB-70’s (XB-70-1, XB-70-2), and an F-104A.
These airplanes were selected because of their low aspect ratios and their similarity
to some supersonic -transport configurations and because the effect of the ground on
the modified F5D-1 had been measured previously using the constant-altitude-flyby
technique (ref. 1).

The results of this flight study with the five airplanes are presented in this report.
The measured changes in lift and pitching moment are presented as a function of the
height of the airplane above the ground. The results obtained from the modified F5D-1
with the flyby method and results obtained using the constant-angle-of-attack method
are compared. In addition, the data for all five airplanes are compared with wind-
tunnel studies and theoretical prediction data calculated from equations presented in
reference 4. A t the time the constant -angle -of -attack technique w a s validated, the
mathematical analysis associated with the theory was expanded. The expanded analysis
is included in appendix A.


A l l quantities in this report are presented in both U. S. Customary Units and the
International System of Units (SI).

wing span, ft (m)

drag coefficient , mag
drag-coefficient increment, CD - C D ~

lift coefficient, -
lift -coefficient increment , CL - CLo

change in lift coefficient with change in longitudinal control deflection,
per deg

pitching -moment coefficient

change in pitching -moment coefficient with change in longitudinal -
control deflection, per deg

wing mean aerodynamic chord, f t (m)

drag force, lb (N)

drag increment, D - Do, lb (N)

acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2 (m/secz)

height of quarter chord of wing mean aerodynamic chord above
ground, f t (m)

vertical velocity, ft/sec (m/sec)

v e r t ic a1 acceleration , ft/s ec2 (m/sec2

height of g e a r above the ground, ft (m)

lift force, lb (N)

lift increment, L - Lo, lb (N)

dynamic pressure, lb/ft2 (N/m2)

dynamic-pressure increment, q - q,, lb/ft2 (N/m2)


..70. deg longitudinal -control -surface-deflection increment. 5 and 6). . deg Subscript : 0 initial value TEST AIRCRAFT The airplanes used in the program were a Douglas prototype F5D-1 modified with an ogee wing. The pertinent dimensions for each airplane are given in table 1. Each of the XB-70 airplanes has an aspect ratio of 1. . 5). X horizontal acceleration. with an aspect ratio of 2. The F5D-1 and XB-70 airplanes have delta wings and elevons for their main control s u r - faces.- . lb (kg) X horizontal distance. It has an aspect ratio of 1.. . TEST PROCEDURE AND PILOT TECHNIQUE The technique proposed in reference 2 requires the pilot to fly the test aircraft at 3 . ft (m) i horizontal velocity. 6. a conventional Douglas prototype F5D-1.75. ft/sec2 (m/sec2) a angle of attack. deg longitudinal -control -surface deflection.0. . and a Lockheed F-104A.6. ft2 (m2) T aircraft net thrust.45. ft/sec (m/sec) . The modified F5D-1 airplane has a planform similar to that of the Concorde (ref.S wing area. with a size and weight similar t o the foreign and domestic supersonic transports (refs. deg flight -path angle .. The F-104A airplane. has a straight wing and a high horizontal stabilizer (T-tail) which is used as an elevator. and three-view drawings of the airplanes are shown in figures 1t o 4. deg 0 e pitch-attitude angle . the two North American XB-~O'S. ft/sec (m/sec) W aircraft weight. sec V t r u e velocity. whereas the conventional F5D-1 airplane has an aspect ratio of 2. l b (N) t time.

Because of lack of space in the windshield a r e a . however. In the F5D-1 airplanes and the F-104A airplane. Method of Analysis In addition to the assumptions of constant angle of attack and power setting. Wind speed. f o r t h e larger and heavier XB-70 air- planes. and air temperature were also recorded by the Facility. the switch transmitted a 1000 -cycle-per-second tone over the U H F communication channel which was received by the tracking facility. Also. The Air Force Flight T e s t Center (AFFTC) tracking facility provides optimum data when an airplane is n e a r the midpoint on the runway. When on. While 4 . descending approach to the runway. Time correlation was attained by using a tone switch mounted on each of the pilot's control sticks o r columns. F o r the two F5D-1 airplanes and t h e F-104A airplane. one n e a r each end of the main runway. It was found that a glide- slope indicator light (fig. t h e angle-of-attack display was placed just inside the windshield directly in front of the pilot. The accuracies and ranges of t h e s e n s o r s installed in each airplane are listed in table 2. the constant-angle-of-attack technique assumes a shallow flight path ( y 2 3"). 5) aided the pilot in establishing t h e initial conditions of con- stant angle of attack and steady sink rate. It was found that pilot proficiency was v e r y important in flying approaches if useful data w e r e t o be obtained. flights w e r e scheduled in the e a r l y morning to take ad- vantage of calm wind conditions and the absence of turbulence due to differential s u r - face heating. The installa- tion is described in detail in reference 7. This location enabled the pilot t o determine his relationship t o the ground without interrupting his concentration on angle of attack. DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS Aircraft Instrumentation Each of the airplanes was instrumented to r e c o r d angle of attack and control- surface deflection. atmospheric conditions greatly affected the test results. the XB-70 a i r c r a f t w e r e instrumented to r e c o r d power- l e v e r position. usable data w e r e obtained with winds as high as 11knots. Tracking Facility The AFFTC Takeoff and Landing Facility provided t h e external tracking required for the program.a constant angle of attack and power setting during a shallow. Also listed are the ranges and resolutions of the cockpit angle- of-attack displays. wind direction. the normal loca- tion f o r t h e angle-of-attack display was used in the XB-70 airplanes. a maximum of 5 knots of surface wind was tolerated. Precision position data as a function of time w e r e obtained f r o m the Facility during each low approach. The indicator was used as a reference from which to initiate t h e airplane's descent so that it would be in the proximity of the ground n e a r the midpoint of t h e runway. The Facility maintains two Askania cinetheodolite stations. Consequently. In addition. as shown in figure 6 .

Repeating the procedure by plotting rate of sink and hori- zontal velocity versus time produced the required vertical and horizontal accelerations. The slopes of the resulting curve represented the rate of sink at each time interval. =40[(hcosy-~s~ytcosy g . Two methods were used to obtain h. x. causing the aircraft t o change both speed and sink rate. The 3" to 4" change in elevon deflection was required to maintain angle of attack. q (1) Data Reduction The Askania cinetheodolite c a m e r a system began tracking the test airplane's descent when it was approximately 200 feet (61 meters) above the ground. plotting the horizontal position v e r s u s time and taking slopes provided horizontal velocity. The parameters provided by the tracking facility and atmospheric pres - s u r e s obtained from the Edwards Air Force Base weather station were used as inputs to a computer program which calculated the aircraft's vertical and horizontal position and dynamic p r e s s u r e each one-fourth second during a run. and horizontal velocities and accelerations.-g sin yo + cos yo . 1 m/sec) in t r u e velocity is qualitative evidence of increased drag resulting from the nearness of the ground. Similarly.. the throttle angle was absolutely constant. but the increase in lift due to ground proximity still caused the airplane t o flare. -ACL C LO q g . One method was to plot the altitude versus time and then f i t a smooth curve to the points.approaching the runway. The angle of attack corresponds t o a particular speed and the power setting to a particular sink rate. The relationship between these accelerations and the normalized lift coefficient is given by the following equation: . The eventual decrease of 1 0 ft/sec ( 3 .. conclusive quantitative analysis of these data in t e r m s of drag increments was not possible.. The quantities h and 2 w e r e also obtained from the following relationships: 5 . and G. The time history in figure 7 of an approach made in an XB-70 airplane is typical of the data that can be obtained with the constant-angle -of-attack-approach technique. h.. however. Because the airplane was still out of ground effect. The angle of attack decreased slightly. The position data calculated by the computer were reduced to obtain the vertical . Corrections were applied for minor deviations from the reference angle of attack. ) -($os XO -yo . Ground effect also changed the pitching moment.. initial sink rates and approach speeds could be determined.I-. As required. the pilot establishes the initial conditions. These steady-state conditions are disturbed by ground effect.

obtained from references 8 and 9 and unpublished data. 1 m/sec) and &O. 7) t o be z t l . the variation in dynamic p r e s s u r e was calculated to be &O. F u r t h e r . respectively. 5 lb/ft2 (32. they w e r e used in equation (1)t o calculate'the normalized increase in lift coefficient. are presented in appendix B. Obtaining the vertical and horizontal accelerations by either of these methods was tedious. Consequently. the slopes of the curve of altitude v e r s u s hori- zontal velocity represent ~ dh Once the accelerations were obtained. Because 6 . the velocities and accelerations obtained from the hand reduction methods are accurate within 50. A comparison of onboard and Askania measurements indicated no perceptible change in upwash influence on the vane. The slopes from a curve of altitude v e r s u s rate of sink r e p r e - sent the quantity ~ Similarly. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the ground-effect t e s t s are shown as a function of quarter-chord height and angle of attack in figures 8 t o 20. 06 ft/sec2 (h0.02 m/sec2). Because lift v a r i e s sharply with angle of attack. F r o m these values. Hence.5 meter). any deviations which occurred were c o r r e c t e d by using wind-tunnel data from the sources listed in table 3. only the changes in the influence of upwash i n and out of ground effect on the angle-of-attack vane affected t h e data. deviations in this angle during an approach caused significant changes in the measured results.3 ft/sec (+O. The basic aerodynamic characteristics f o r each a i r c r a f t .4 N/m2). The lift increments are presented as percent increases in the lift coefficient. but none was able t o do a satisfactory job. s e v e r a l computer smoothing routines w e r e t r i e d to determine if they could fit the plotted c u r v e s . 5 feet (h0. PRECISION Accuracy of the Position Measurement The accuracy of the position data from the tracking facility was evaluated (ref. and the pitching-moment change is indicated by the deviation of the longihdinal-control input f r o m the out-of-ground-effect t r i m condition. The rate of sink and horizontal velocity w e r e obtained in the manner described in the preceding paragraph. They w e r e overly influenced by s t r a y points and calculated extraneous accelerations. Accuracy of the Angle -of -Attack Measurement Because the low approaches w e r e flown at constant angles of attack.

a reduction in t r u e airspeed may be interpreted as a n increase in drag. These accelerations a r e easily lost among the inadvertent inputs associated with flying the airplane. however. A mathematical analysis of the d r a g change due t o ground effect is presented in appendix A. airspeed V. and an increase in t r u e airspeed. The untrimmed lift coefficient represents the lift which could be expected if t h e r e w e r e no t r i m change. With the exception of t h e XB-70. it allows direct com- parison with wind-tunnel and theoretical results. F5D-1 Airplane Modified With an Ogee Wing The effect of ground proximity on the lift and pitching moment of the modified F5D-1 airplane is shown in figure 8. On the other hand. A s can be seen. as a reduction in drag. Although the change in drag was not measured. General Comments and Observations In every approach the aircraft encountered increased t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift increments and an increased negative pitching moment as they approached the ground. Quantitatively. however.longitudinal-control inputs a l s o cause changes in lift. Moreover.3 m/sec) caused the F5D-1 airplanes t o touch down. and flight- path angle y f o r each of the data runs are tabulated in tables 4 t o 7. These lift increments generally preceded any measurable pitching-moment changes. significant effects w e r e not encountered until the airplane descended t o lower heights. attempts t o quantitatively measure the change in drag produced inconsistent results. it appears that the drag generally increased as the airplane encountered ground effect during the constant -angle -of -attack approaches.2 m/ s e c ) but did not touch down. There w e r e consistent comments on the strong flare and float characteristics of the F-104A airplane. the pitching moment due to 7 . where- as. the increase in the lift of the F-104 airplane due to ground effect reduced sink rates of 20 ft/sec ( 6 . A s an approximation. The pilots in the program made several qualitative observations about t h e extent of ground effect encountered. on one approach the XB-70 airplanes had an initial sink rate of 7. Similarly. 3 ft/sec (1. It should be pointed out that each set of symbols representing the data for one angle of attack w a s obtained f r o m one approach. the t r i m change is responsible for the difference between the percent increase in the t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift- coefficient increments shown. An initial sink r a t e as low as 4 . dynamic p r e s s u r e q . sink rate h. The initial and final values of the cmtrol-surface position. measurable lift increments w e r e experienced above the classic one wing span. Analytical methods and test tech- niques for extracting d r a g data due t o ground effect need further research. whereas the XB-70 airplanes were noted t o become m o r e stable laterally. On the b a s i s of the general reduction in speed (tables 4 to 7 ) . The problem is believed t o lie with the relatively small magni- tudes of the accelerations that must be measured.3 ft/sec (2. 1 m/sec) t o zero and caused the airplane t o stabilize a few feet above the runway for the r e s t of the approach. the flare and float characteristics can be related to the airplane's initial sink rate. the F5D-1 airplanes did not "float" as much as the XB-70 and F-104A airplanes. some deductions w e r e made by observing the change in t r u e airspeed during the low approaches.

This is especially t r u e of the full-scale tests in which the model is nearly in t h e center of the tunnel at the one-half span. The vertical line at each end of the horizontzl line symbolizes the width of the band. as indicated by the small change in elevon position (0" t o 2. Con- sequently. the t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift increments are approximately equal at 24 percent at touch- down. In the constant-altitude-flyby tests of reference 1. ground effect is s m a l l (less than I" change in elevon position). however. the flight data and the predicted data from reference 4 are in close agreement in both trend and magnitude. however. and. The NASA Ames Research Center's constant -altitude -flyby and wind- tunnel data and the data of reference 4 indicate a slightly decreasing incremental lift coefficient with increasing angle of attack.30 wing span. A s can be s e e n . both sets of flight r e s u l t s indicate a relatively constant t r i m change with angle of attack. Also. On the other hand. but the flight and analytical r e s u l t s show lift increments above one wing span. as expected.4"). The difference between 8 . A l l the wind-tunnel pitching-moment data show the s a m e increasing t r e n d with angle of attack. Basic F5D-1 Airplane Figure 12 shows the effect of ground proximity on the lift coefficient and elevon deflection f o r the basic F5D-1 airplane. consequently. Figure 10 is a comparison of wind-tunnel data and theoretical predictions with data f r o m a 10" constant-angle-of-attack approach. and its length covers the spread of the data within that band. These data are superimposed on the constant -angle-of -attack-approach data f r o m figure 8. measurements w e r e assigned altitude bands r a t h e r than discrete heights. i n this figure. the trimmed and untrimmed increases in lift coefficient a r e nearly the s a m e . the constant-angle-of- attack flight data and the NASA Langley Research Center and Lockheed wind-tunnel data indicate increasing incremental lift coefficient with increasing angle of attack. the constant -angle -of - attack data a r e more consistent than the constant-altitude -flyby data. Consequently. it should be noted that t h e constant -angle -of-attack data w e r e obtained during 5 r u n s . and theoretical ground-effect data for the modified F5D-1 a r e summarized in figure 11 as a function of angle of attack at 0. in that t h e r e is little change in pitching moment due t o enter- ing ground effect. The r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to those for the modified F5D-1 airplane. whereas the constant -altitude -flyby data required 44 runs. extrapolating the wind-tunnel results indicates a lift increment n e a r the ground substantially greater than either the flight o r reference 4 results. the ground effect measured in the tunnel is zero. T h e r e is some correlation of trends but little correlation of magnitudes between the various s o u r c e s of data. Although the lift- coefficient data show general agreement at the lower heights. On the other hand. it should be noted that the wind-tunnel data go t o z e r o below one wing span. the horizontal line is at the center of the original altitude band. A comparison of flight r e s u l t s obtained by two different flight-test techniques is shown in figure 9. increasing t o approximately 14 percent at touchdown. wind-tunnel. It s e e m s reasonable that the wind-tunnel incremental-lift r e s u l t s go to z e r o at lower heights be- cause of the negative effect produced by the ceiling of the tunnel. The individual measurements within each band are indicated by the tick m a r k s on the horizontal line. The disparity between the two sets of data increases with increasing airplane height above the ground. Flight.

The increase in lift coefficient predicted by reference 4 agrees well with the flight results. The t r i m changes shown by the reference 4 and wind-tunnel r e s u l t s were both substantially greater than the flight -measured change. The flight-measured t r i m changes a l s o indicate no functional dependence on angle of attack. respectively. the adequacy of the correction became v e r y sensitive to inaccuracies in the wind-tunnel data upon which the corrections were based. and reference 4 results indicate s i m i l a r trends in change in lift coefficient with angle of attack but differ with r e g a r d to the magnitude of the change. Significant changes begin below one wing span and increase to 3" o r 4" change in elevon deflection at touchdown. probably because the XB-70 elevons are l e s s effective than those of the F5D-1 airplane. Both the wind-tunnel and reference 4 data predict g r e a t e r lift in- crements in ground effect than w e r e measured in flight. Both the wind-tunnel and the reference 4 predictions follow the s a m e t r e n d s in the changes in lift with angle of attack. In figure 14 the flight.this lift increment and the 24-percent value for touchdown of the modified F5D-1 air- plane (fig. Because the only difference between the two aircraft is a positive 5" dihedral of the wing on the XB -70 -2 airplane. the reference 4 and wind-tunnel data suggest a greater t r i m change than was measured in flight. the results from approaches made by both a i r c r a f t a r e plotted in the s a m e figure. subsequent experience showed that the magnitudes of the corrections w e r e g r e a t e r than the ground effect being measured. as indicated in figure 16. The flight data diverge from these t r e n d s at the higher angles of attack. whereas the predicted and wind-tunnel data indicate an increasing t r i m change with increasing angle of attack. a typical midrange angle-of-attack approach f o r the basic F5D-1 air- plane is compared with corresponding reference 4 data and wind-tunnel results. Consequently. It appeared that the data used in those references met all the c r i t e r i a f o r the descent method described herein except for seemingly small variations of approximately 1" in angle of attack and 500 pounds (2224 newtons) to 1000 pounds (4448 newtons) in thrust. XB-70 Airplanes The effect of the ground on the lift and pitching moment of the XB-70 airplanes is shown in figure 15. however. The change in elevon deflection with angle of attack 9 . The elevon increment of the XB-70 is large compared with that for the F5D-1 airplane. Again the results show that the t r i m change and incremental lift coefficient increase as the airplane approaches the ground. but they are generally inter- s p e r s e d with the other data. In figure 13. however. wind-tunnel. It was thought that corrections could be made for these variations. Similarly. the wind-tunnel measurement is considerably higher than either the p r e - diction o r the flight data. The data from these references a r e from e a r l y flights that were not specifically flown to obtain ground-effect data. The greater s c a t t e r in the XB-70 untrimmed lift data a s compared with the F5D-1 data is probably due to a s t r o n g e r dependence of the XB-70 l i f t increment on angle of attack. A t touchdown the t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift coefficients increase t o approximately 18 percent and 24 percent. 8) shows the influence of the planform modifications. It may be noted that these results do not necessarily a g r e e with the XB-70 results in references 3 and 10. The most useful data a r e obtained when the magnitude of the correction is kept to a minimum.

Only slight reductions in lift increment with increasing angle of attack are indicated by the predicted and the wind-tunnel results. 10 . there is considerable disparity in the magnitudes of the results. A pos- sible reason for the low lift increment predicted by reference 4 could be the negative dihedral angle of the F-104A airplane which places the wing tips closer t o the ground than the projection of the quarter chord on the wing root that was used as the basis of the prediction. Although this observation is not readily rationalized on the basis of the data pre- sented in figure 18. This is attributed t o the fact that the high horizontal stabilizer on the F-104A airplane is outside the flow field of the wing and is never close enough t o the ground t o experience ground effect. the trim change meas- u r e d on the F-104A airplane was less than 1" of stabilizer. agrees well with the NASA Langley Research Center wind-tunnel results above a. and predicted ground-effect data f o r an angle of attack of 6. The pitching-moment changes with angle of attack shown by the flight and the wind-tunnel r e s u l t s agree. the flight data lift and pitching-moment r e s u l t s lie between the r e s u l t s of the two wind-tunnel measurements. the flight and reference 4 results indicate ground effect up through one wing span. The 7. where both the trimmed and untrimmed lift coefficients indicate increases near 20 percent. Sufficient flight data were not available near touchdown for a meaningful comparison because the pilots found it difficult t o touch down while holding constant angle of attack. In addition. wind-tunnel. t h e trends are similar f o r both wind-tunnel and reference 4 predictions at these higher angles.n angle of attack of 8".03-scale model at the NASA Langley Research 10 -foot wind-tunnel data are unpublished r e s u l t s obtained from tests on a 0. but the predicted data do not. but the pitching moment is higher. F-104A Airplane A s shown in figure 18. 6 wing span. wind-tunnel data (see appendix B) indicate that the lift increase is greater than 25 percent of the free-air value. Figure 19 compares flight. Although the general trend f o r the increase in lift and the trim change is the same f o r all t h r e e sets of data. the wind-tunnel ground-effect data go t o z e r o prematurely. g r e a t e r than 24. Similar to the F5D-1 airplanes.9". Below 0. wind-tunnel. Touch- down was experienced only when the initial rates of descent were v e r y high. the wind-tunnel and predicted pitching moments agree well with the flight data.0 ft/sec (7. and predicted ground-effect data for the XB-70 airplanes f o r an angle of attack of 9. As shown previously f o r the modified F5D-1 airplane. Flight data were difficult t o obtain in this region because the pilot felt that the nosewheel would contact the ground first at these high sink rates. whereas the flight r e s u l t s indicate an increasing trend.3". how- e v e r . A t touchdown. the influence of the ground on the F-104A airplane was found t o begin at a height well above one wing span but did not reach a significant magnitude until the airplane was below a height of 0 . Figure 17 compares flight. Figure 20 shows the variation of lift and pitching moment with angle of attack at touchdown heights for which wind-tunnel data were available.6 wing span. whereas. The lift increment predicted by reference 4 is lower than that shown by the flight data.3 m/sec). Although the incremental lift predicted from reference 4 data is slightly low when compared with the flight r e s u l t s . the effect increases quite rapidly to a maximum near touchdown.

The test r e s u l t s indicated that the constant-angle-of-attack technique provided data consistent with those obtained from the constant -altitude-flyby method and required fewer r u n s to obtain the s a m e amount of data. The predicted lift increments are iower than those measured in flight f o r all the low -aspect-ratio configurations tested. The consistent evidence of ground effect above one wing span and the qualitative pilot comments on the improvement in handling qualities of the XB-70 and F-104A airplanes while in ground effect w e r e unexpected. and pitching moment. The measured lift increments were consistently higher than t h e theoretical prediction. at the higher heights wind-tunnel measurements underpredicted the lift increment due t o ground effect. Similarly. CONCLUDING REMARKS A constant -angle -of -attack-approach technique was used t o obtain ground-effect data on s e v e r a l low-aspect-ratio aircraft. how- e v e r . Improved prediction methods are required to determine t h e magnitudes of the lift and pitching- moment changes. an attempt was made t o correlate the flight r e s u l t s at 0. when the test aircraft approached the ground. Because the a i r c r a f t tested represent a c r o s s section of planform. Although the trends of these changes agreed with the theoretical and wind-tunnel predictions . These flight r e s u l t s w e r e compared with results obtained from constant -altitude -flybys . The lift increments shown by the flight data are consistently higher than predicted at all heights f o r all the a i r c r a f t tested. possibly due to the effects of the tunnel ceiling as the model approached the centerline of the tunnel. the magnitudes did not. however. 0 . 11 . and theoretical prediction data.20. drag. Pitching-moment changes due to ground effect predicted by reference 4 w e r e consistently high at all heights f o r all delta-wing configurations tested. 3 0 . Figure 2 1 compares flight data with t h e prediction f o r a conventional airplane with a horizontal stabilizer and a delta- wing airplane. ground effect caused significant changes in lift. the magnitudes of the data do not. m o r e data on higher-aspect- ratio a i r c r a f t are needed before aspect -ratio effects can be established conclusively.40 wing span with the results predicted by reference 4 at corresponding conditions. Summary of Results Trends predicted by using the data of reference 4 agree with flight results. the F-104 flight r e s u l t s were predicted correctly. and 0. The figure shows the increased lift increment that should be expected for the lower-aspect-ratio planforms. wind-tunnel studies . A l - though the flight r e s u l t s tend t o follow the same t r e n d s . A s was expected. One important point concerning predictions of lift increment due to ground effect is that the t r i m change always results i n reduction of the trimmed lift increments that will be ex- perienced in flight such that in extreme instances in which the untrimmed lift increment is small and the pitching-moment change is large it is possible to experience negative trimmed lift increments in flight. whereas the measured pitching moment was generally less.

This results in thrust r e - maining constant throughout the approach because there is no change in the inlet recovery as long as angle of attack is constant. W cos y = -(h w * * cos y + x sin y ) g Solving f o r the lift. Weight may also be assumed to be constant (W M Wo). + xo sin yo) + Wo cos yo ... the change in thrust due to a change in density is v e r y small because the altitude range is small. L + T sin a .To sin a g A s indicated in reference 2 . the constant -angle -of-attack-approach technique r e - quires that angle of attack and throttle be held constant. APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF GROUND-EFFECT EQUATION The forces acting on an airplane during a shallow. cos yo . since the run is of short duration (less than 12 . summing the forces perpendicular to the flight path. constant-angle-of-attack approach are shown i n the following sketch: \ L h Instantaneous flight path Ground plane F i r s t . Also. w L=-(hcosy+xsiny)+Wcosy-Tsina g The initial lift is given by Lo = wo -(ho .

the equation becomes .. s i n yo+ cos yo W !z !z For y I 3” Lo = Lo cos yo = wo “w or Lo =w and ..sin y + cos y .cos y y+ X g ) O +-XO s i n y o + cos g ) yo (A2) It is also t r u e that AL = L .. “=(:cos LO . thrust. . Thus. 0 Since q = Aq + q. and angle of attack are treated as constants in this analysis.Lo = CLqS .. APPENDIX A 30 seconds) and the power setting is low.. . then canceling S and substituting CL = ACL + CL . -AL . weight.CLoqoS Dividing by Lo = CLoqoS. AcLq - ..cos y+ s i n y + cos cos yo+. XO -AL =(.& Lo CLoq0 qo 13 . . .. Therefore..

CD0qoS and so Then. .s i n yo - ) s i n yo . h0 cos yo . AD = D . XO c o s yo + .h. T cos a . h g X .. .sin yo g + cos This.. normalizing with respect to the initial lift. ($cosy h -- g siny+ siny LO g Likewise.D + W s i n y = -(x w . AD..s i n y + cos y g . is the final equation for analyzing the lift increment due to ground effect.-c o s y . because 14 .. summing the forces tangential to the flight path..s i n y) g Solving f o r D and following the s a m e procedure as was used to obtain equation (A2). Now. APPENDIX A or Substituting f r o m equation (A2) yields the following expression (eq.. (1)): AcL - cLO 40 q =-E. . cos y + . then..Do = CDqS .

..s i n y o - g (A5) CD0 However. . (E cos h y . 15 . .-sin y g .s i n yo . "D -go h0 cLO q [: cos yo -. ... s i n yo) ..... . CT L Therefore. which may be obtained from wind-tunnel data. equation (A5) becomes .. sin which is the final equation f o r the analysis of the d r a g increment due to ground effect.. gives Substituting f r o m equation (A4).. APPENDIX A and which. AcD C LO -0 ' 4 [(> o g h0 cos y . upon rearrangement. .

16 . Wind-tunnel data f r o m reference 8 for the basic F5D-1 airplane are presented in figure 10 -foot wind tunnel with a moving-belt ground plane are shown for the XB-70 airplane. The wind-tunnel comparison data are presented in more complete f o r m in figures 22 t o 25. Lockheed wind-tunnel data on t h e F-104A airplane were obtained from s e v e r a l unpublished reports and are shown in figure 25. Figure 22 presents data f r o m reference 1 on the F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee wing. comparisons have been made between the flight results and wind-tunnel r e s u l t s obtained from both published and unpublished sources. In figure 24 unpublished data obtained i n the Langley 7 . APPENDIX B WIND-TUNNEL DATA Throughout this r e p o r t .

. Rolls. 1966. Apr. Memo. J. Winston. 1958. Inc. Aviation Week & Space Technology. and Drinkwater. 4 . March 18. Stewart. pp. NASA TN D-3071. 8. 5. . 2. 17 . Albert E. FTFF-TM-58-12. 6. NASA SP-124. North American Aviation. 4. : Aeroflot Accelerates Plans t o Place SST into Commercial Service. L. 204. : Aerodynamic Data f o r Model F5D-1 Operational Flight Trainer. 24. NASA TN D-3431. U. 1956. S. Bowman. 1968). Aviation Week & Space Technology. REFERENCES 1. W. 3. C. Radoll. R. 1965. F r e d J. David G. Oct. 111: Flight Investi- gation of t h e Aerodynamic Properties of a n Ogee Wing. Thomas. L. 2. . Rolls. . 1965. 7. William: A Method f o r In-Flight Measurement of Ground Effect on Fixed-Wing A i r c r a f t . Wright-Patterson A i r F o r c e Base. N O a ( s ) 54-321). March-April 1967. Aug. Tech. 1968. Anon. Taylor. July 29. July 26. . David G. Rep. no. 2. pp. 9. Inc. Snyder. Apr. Schweikhard. 285-295. William G. 10. and Koenig. Stewart. 1960 (rev. 1966. vol. and Schweikhard. Confer- ence on Aircraft Aerodynamics. Anon. : Flight-Measured Ground Effect on a Low -Aspect -Ratio Ogee Wing Including a Comparison With Wind-Tunnel Results. pp. Donald C. : Evaluation of Take-off and Landing Facility. NA-65-661. ES 26257 (Contract No. A i r Force Flight Dynamics Lab. No. 192. : Estimated Performance Report for the XB-70A A i r Vehicle No. L. 26. A i r c r a f t . 1968. Douglas Aircraft Co. pp. 25. : USAF Stability and Control Datcom. Koenig. : Flight Studies of Ground Effects on Airplanes With Low -Aspect-Ratio Wings. A i r F o r c e Flight T e s t Center. 101- 104. Paul V. Stewart. Rolls. : Specifications.

6 (6.0365 at h/b > 0.9) 9.0162 0. XB-70-2 185.3 (2. ft2 (m2) 661.8) 6296.5 51.15 -0.6) 78.0 52.45 1 Elevon a r e a .0310 at h/b = 0.4) Aspect ratio 1.5) 17 (5.62) -10 52.0) h at touchdolvn.0 (51.0155 0.4 (16.700 (6.000) {13.00945 ~ 'e 0.2) b.0 (61.75 (56. lb (kg) 19.220) ~ C 0.5 (10. XB-70-1 5 .9) 18. TABLE 1.5 (23.2) 4.3 -0.080) 264.8 18.9) 5 . f t (m) 22.3 (5.4) 48.0 1.75 2.0270 1 .800 (8.9) Leading-edge sweep.013 at 6e =8" C 'e I -0.000 (8. deg Fuselage length.8 (14. 70 2.6 (1.5 (10.1 Dihedral.0 (2.2 -0.3) 26. .3) 0 . G (2.0) 196. ft (m) 33.1 (18.01025 at 6.9 ( 6 .2 (4. ft2 ( m2 ) 24.000 (120 .4) 557.7 (18. deg 77.0 (585.5) Dry weight. ft ( m ) 6.620) 17.1 (1.0340 at h/b = 0.4) 197.3) lo 46.2) 105 (32) 21. 7 ) E .8 (14.DIMENSIONAL AND AERODYNAMIC DATA FOR THE TEST AIRPLANES - Modified F5 D-1 I Basic F5D-1 XB-70 - F-104A S. = 4" 0.2) 33. ft ( m ) 0 46. 0 (1.

7 Instrument range (trailing edge up.03 Moving belt wind tunnel ~~ F-104 Manufacturer Lockheed Aerody.17 Fixed namics Laboratory 8 x 12 foot wind P W tunnel .-SOURCES OF WIND-TUNNEL DATA FOR THE AIRPLANES TESTED ' Airplane Source Facility Scale of model Ground plane Ames 40. TABLE 2.50 -1. .25 Instrument accuracy 0. 0.15 Fixed F5D-1 foot tunnel F5D-1 Technology 10-foot low speed wind tun- nel (GALCIT) by 11-foot low- XB-70 Reference 9 speed wind tunnel Langley 7 . positive) TABLE 10 -foot 1 .ACCURACLES OF AIRCRAFT SENSORS AND RANGE AND RESOLUTION OF COCKPIT DISPLAYS I Tzil 1- Modified Basic XB-70 F5D-1 F5D-1 ~ I I Sensor accuracy Indicator range -10 to 30 5 to 19 Indicator resolution 80-foot Full scale Fixed wind tunnel Modified Reference 1 Lockheed 8 . 12.

3 (83.8 (2.2 5 I 16.4 .7 1.8 .5 (3.8 (3870) 77.7) v.4) 1.9 330.4 (95.1) 12.8 (3.2 4.4) 111. 3 (123.5 (100.7 (94.3 1 TABLE 5.1 (121.1) 299.7) 257. 1) 1 .6) 313. 5 (.9 3.8 (78.1) 248.0) 243.2 104.9 317.2 4.8 (8670) (5020) (5260) g.5 2.8) 0 .2 (4460) .7 303. lb/ft2 (N/m2) 176.6 6.0 (96.5 (102.4 (75.0) 4 .9) (2.4 (3800) 1. 7 ) 328.6 (3910) 2.5) (92.0 (1.9 4.1 (3640) 3. 1 (4.4 15.2 .5 6.8 (3680) 76.3 1. deg 1 Final I 2.7) 314.5) 124.4 4.7 (3.0 (5270) 2.0 (95. 8 (-.9) 1 . 4 ) i 73.2 7.2 .7) 1 3 . - Initial Final In it ial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final 3. 6 ) 77.8 (74. 1 (75.6 .9 (91.1) 264.2) 6.3 (93.7 4.3 (3700) 1.4 293.8) I I 8. TABLE 4.2 0.7 5 .9) 14.5) 1 .2 (5320) 108.7 (4.5 (82.4) (94. 3 (1.0 1.7 (76.1 14.7 (3720) 79.3) 10. Dosition. 3 ( 1 .4 4 0 4 .3) -.0 5.1 8. -INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE APPROACHES MADE IN THE F5D-1 AIRPLANE MODIFIED WITH AN OGEE WING Control.7 6 17.1 (87.8 2.9 108.0 (100.2 O N 1.4 (5770) 118.2 14.2 4 16.4) 3 .0 (103.8 101.2 .3) 13.2 (5560) 2.6 2.5 (2.0 (5650) 110.3 ( .1 2 4 6 .0 13. 1 269.6 254.9 (426) 1. 3 ) 80.2) 307. 3 ) 76.6 4.7 (3530) I 72.7 1. 6 ( 2 .1 285. 4 (.3 7 ' 17.9 (4730) 93.4 (3470) .6 (5680) 1.9 (77..5) 5. I I U.6) 286.7 (449) 88.0) 335.8 Control - surface [nitial 2.2) 93. 1 (. 3.1) 98.5 5.9 4.4) 4.7 8 .8 (96. 5 ' 340.2 ( . -INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE APPROACHES MADE IN THE BASIC F5D-1 AIRPLANE 7- Run 1 2 3 .9 109.2) 11.0 5.5 338.7 (1.5) 6.5 Final 0. 5.3 5.0 311..1) 274. 4 (.4 .. deg 11.8 (87.8 .6 (4.1 (80. 8 .9 .6 249.4) I Final 1 .2 ( 1 0 3 .3) 120.2) 4 .8 (89.6) 317. 5.5) (2.1 .1 ( . 7 . 6 (0.8) 1.6 (4240) 81. I .3 4.6) 10. ft/sec ( m / s e c ) Initial Final 398.2 . 3) 88.6) 118. 3 ( 1 .2 Final (8470) (4880) (5180) Initial 1.0 ft/sec (m/sec) Initial 9.1 .6) . 6 (1. 8 (0.4 I 4. 3 ) 5 .7 (5200) 1.7 (5970) 116.8 (1.2 308.5) 2 . 4 ) I I Initial 181. a.

2 (.1 ti 8. 3 (0.0 -.7 5.260) 1.7) 13.4 (9. 0 (.03) 156.7 (119.7 449.8 (9660) 1.1 4.3) 340. 3 (2. 8 (-.0 412.7 (117.220) 1.1 (145. deg -7.8 (11. v.8 (11.1 7 9. 9 ) 147.7 (147. 3 (2.0 (5.8 (103. 1) 7.0 .2 (136.510) 2.4 (9930) 198.1 345.2 11.8 .9 (3.7 (6.4) 16.280) 3.4 (9500) 1.4) 448.8 (104. 1 (.8 (3.4) 263..\BLE 6.320) 1.0 6.3 384.1) 360.7) 7.2 (2.a) '200. e 392. 1 (124.2 ( . 3 (1. 2 (.2) 328.8 404. 3 (0. h.0 (117.5 4.0) 6.8) -414.1 .5 386.2) . 3 ( .1(4740) 89.5) 14.1 (102. 6 (117.3 (1.8 341.3) 1.4 5 4.0 .0 (6.4) 1 3 . 7 ( . 6 (99.9 (7.9) 1 .INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE APPROACHES MADE IN THE F-104A AIRPLANE I I I Control.INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEXSPRED ON THE APPROACHES MADE IN THE XB-70 AIRPLANES - Control.7 (112.4 (5G20) 1.1 (9010) 177.100) 1. cl9 ft/sec (in/sec) ft/sec (m/sec lb/ft2 (N/m2) y.4 (117.6 (6690) 1.0 (113.6 4.9) 1 .2 (103.6) 0 (0) 139.1) 337.2 ( 3 .6 (8.9) 299.2 (8.6) 174.2 (8.0 6.8 .3) 392.6 0 - 10 9.1 483.8 (114. deg ft/sec (m/sec) ft/sec (m/sec) j Ib/ft2 (N/m2) I ~ Initial 7 Final 7 Initial ~~ Final ~ Initial ~ Final I Initial Final Initial - Final 1 3.9) 0 (0) 133.4) 477.0 (2.270) 130.4) 2 .0 314.2) 340. 2 4 7. 1 (4.3 (5.8 0 5 8. ' I surface v.5 (6.2) 9.370) 132.0 5.9) 158.0) 2 .8 3.9 0.6 (119.0 ( .0 412. 5) 5.1 (4.8 (100.2 .5 .2) 320.4 3 4.8 (3.0) 9 .9 (108.9 325.8) 14.9 .7 4. G ) 383.4 341.5 4.3 (5620) 1.4) 191.5 (118.310) 190.0 0 8 7.3 4 4.700) 115.7) 386. 4 ) 12ti.5 7 6.020) 2.7 (109. 3 ) 1tiO.1) -.8 (102.0) 1 .0) 238.a) 207.6 (9610) 201. 7 ) 99.230) 2.0 (126. 9) 407.560) 151.340) 171.9) 194.6 9 8.1 (3.1 (6.9 (9190) 167.3) 2.9 393.4 (2.2) 12. 1 (-.0 (12. . 6 ) 3.9) 20.7 .1) 5 .2 2 6.0 (6.7 4.7) 6.0 338.150) 167. 8 (.8 (7080) 121.5 (95.6 (5770) 117.5 3 7.4) 12.5 . 3 ) 188.0 (7.4 (126.1 (9. 5) 2.4 TABLE 7.4 (5.9 (5840) . 3 (104. 7 ) -.1 (7280) 1.4) 1 .3 (136.2) 374.8) 9.0 3.8 367.0 (4260) .0) 336.4) 170.4 (125.6 (105.5 (.4 (103.3 .2) . Initial hi it i a1 Final 1 6.5 4.0 (97. 5 ) 119.4 .1 (5.2 8 9.9) 411.2 (1.1 (12.1 (4.0 (125.7) 383.0) 1 .2 (7670) 152. 1 (7480) 139.1 389.8 (6. 1) 120.3 (8490) 1.9) 131.8 (104.9 4.6 4.690) 135.1 (6.8 6. .8 (125.9 (.1 341.9) .2 (126.600) 256.8 3.2 (8010) 0.6) 19.2 6 5.9 4. h.1 (116.500) 2.5 416.2 1.5 (123.8) 11.2 2 3.0 0 10 10.7 .390) 2.9) 11.4 (1.0 (119.4 (4.3 5.7 (6070) 117.0 (91. 6 (.5 5. 2) 7 . Run (y' deg position.8) 372.430) 237. 'T.2 9 9.9 0.7) 355. 0 (1.6 416.5 (8.9) 3 .

Dimensions in feet (meters).8 I a (14.3) Figure 1. I L b 46. Three-view drawing of the F5D-1 airplane modified with a n ogee wing. 22 .

F i g u r e 2. 23 i . Three-view drawing of the basic F5D-1 airplane. Dimensions i n feet (meters).

Figure 3. Three-view drawing of the XB-70 airplane. . Dimensions in feet (meters).

Dimensions in feet (meters). 25 . Three-view drawing of the F-104A airplane.0) -4 Figure 4.4 (16. I n I I 52.

rGIide-scope indicator Iight __-_-- Top view Flashing white light. on glide path Red light. above glide path White light. Two-view sketch of the glide-slope indicator light. -. below glide path Glide-slope indicator Side view Figure 5. . West tower East tower --.

2807 (855. Dimensions in feet (meters).1) 1 i-4- I 5164 I (1573. d .5) \ / \ \ / \ / I 1 t .317- I West tower 8691 (2648. . + Figure 6. Sketch of the A i r Force Flight Test Center runway tracking system.

.I1llI1111111l11l11~11111l1111 Throttle angle. T i m e h i s t o r y of a constant-angle -of-attack approach i n the XB-70 -1 airplane. 380 mlsec 370 _I 120 80 240 r I 60 hR. sec F i g u r e 7. 30 I deg 28 1 Trailing edge 10 8 6 - 4 - 2 I I I I 1 ! 1 I 130 390 r I I v. 40 m 20 0 t.

29 . a. Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the F5D-1 airplane modified with a n ogee wing.8 .0 A 11.0 1. deg Q 9. deg down Figure 8. 1.6 h .4 I I I 0 8 16 24 2 0 -2 0 8 16 24 Percent increase in C Trailing Percent increase in CL Ltrim edge Ab.4 0 10.4 u 14.2 b ..4 2.9 0 13.

2 h at touchdown 1 ~~ 1. 1) 1.4 u 14.4 .6 - b .2 1. deg Constant -an g Ie- of-attack approach A 13.8 h . 30 . Comparison of constant -angle -of -attack and constant -altitude -flyby flight data for the modified F5D-1 airplane.4 1-1 Constant-altitude flyby (ref. a.0 . _1 0 8 16 24 32 Percent increase in CL Trailing edge A6 e t deg down Figure 9.

31 .by 80-foot wind tunnel (ref. and theoretical g r o u n d e f f e c t data for the modified F5D-1 airplane at 10" angle of attack.6 - L\ \ .8 h b . 1) 1. Ames 40. 1) ---. 10-foot wind tunnel (ref. 49 ---.0 . Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunnel (ref.2 0 Figure 10.I o Constant-angle-of-attack approach Prediction (ref. Comparison of flight.2 1. 1) --.4 . Langley 7.

Ames 40. 1) . and theoretical ground-effect data on the modified F5D-1 airplane at h/b = 0.11. 32 . Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with * angle of attack for 80-foot wind tunnel (ref. 4) ---.1 o Constant-angle-of-attack approach 0 Constant-altitude flyby (ref.II 11111111-111111111111. deg 10 0 O 1I i \ I 4 L 0 8 16 24 32 2 Percent increase in CL Trailing edge down Figure 11. 1) 10-foot wind tunnel (ref.Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunne! Ired. wind-tunnel.Langley 7.Prediction (ref.. 1) 16 I O \ 12 "i I OI i a. I1 ---.30.

2 0 17.8 A 16.5 0 19. Effect of ground proximity on lift coefficient and elevon deflection of t h e basic F5D-1 airplane. 9 deg 0 11.4 L 0 8 16 2 0 -2 -4 I Percent increase in Tra iIing Percent increase in edge Ab.8 .5 2.0 1.6 1. t 33 .6 D 17. 2 k h - b .0 0 19..4 0 15. deg CL %rim down T Figure 12.0 b 16.1 o 14.

h - b i. wind-tunnel. 1. o Con sta n t -a n gIe-of -attack approach . . Comparison of flight.8" angle of attack. 1. 8) 2. t h at toychdowll_l3 I 1 0 8 16 24 32 2 -2 -4 -6 -8 Percent increase in CL Tra i Ii n g edge down Figure 13. and theoretical ground-ffect data f o r the basic F5D-1 airplane at 15. 34 . Prediction (ref. 4) o GALCIT 10-foot low-speed wind t u n n e l (ref.

. and theoretical ground-effect data on the basic F5D-1 airplane at h/b = 0. w en . wind-tunnel. 4 o Con sta nt -a ngIe-of -a ttack approach . 4) _--. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with angle of attack for flight.16. 8) 22 -I - I \ / \ / \ 0 / \ 0 I 18 .GALCIT 10-foot low-speed wind t u n n e l (ref.Prediction (ref. \ c I \ 0 / 0 I / 0 0 I / I / 0 I - 0 / 14 I I 12 10 14 18 22 26 Percent increase in CL Trailing edge down Figure 14.

0 b .2 o 6.6 b .9 h 8.0 i 0 6.4 h - I (3 10.4 - - . U L 'A -8 0 8 16 24 0 -2 -4 0 8 16 24 32 Percent increase in C L ~ ~ ~ ~ Trai I ing Percent increase in CL deg edge UP Figure 15.0 D 8. .3 0 9. Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the XB-70 airplanes. a.2 0 7.2 0 9.8 A 7.1 0 9. deg 1. 2 *- A 0 I h at touchdown1 0 . W Q.

and theoretical ground-effect d a t a on the XB-70 airplanes at h/b = 0. North American 7. * 37 .---. - h = 0. 91. wind-tunnel. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with angle of attack f o r 11-foot low-speed wind t u n n e l (ref.20.16 b I I / O/I P 8 16 24 32 Percent increase in CL Trailing Abe. deg edge UP Figure 16. Langley 10-foot wind tunnel --. o Con sta nt -a ng le-of -attack approach d Extrapolated Prediction (ref. 4) .75.

Langley 7. \ 11-foot low-speed wind tunnel ( 10-foot wind t u n n e l 0 North American 7. 4) ---. deg edge UP F i g u r e 17. 38 . Comparison of flight. 3" angle of attack. 9) 0 8 16 24 32 0 -2 -4 -6 Percent increase in C L Tra iIi n g Abe. 0 Constant-angle-of -attack approach Prediction (ref. and theoretical ground-effect data for the XB-'io airplanes at 9.

Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the F-104A airplane.3 0 8 16 24 2 0 -2 0 8 16 24 Percent increase in C L ~ Trailing ~ ~ ~ Percent increase in CL edge A6e. 2. w W .5 0 8.0 1. deg down Figure 18.0 0 3.7 0 5.0 A 4. 6 9.8 0 4.5 1.4 r 0 3.9 0 7.6 2.7 h 4. n 6.

4) o Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind t u n n e l 1. Comparison of flight. deg down Figure 19.9” angle of attack.4 0 0 -2 Percent increase in CL Trai Iin g edge Ade. 1. o Constant-angle-of -attack approach Prediction (ref. .2 b . and theoretical ground-effect data for the F-104A airplane at 6.8 . wind-tunnel.6 h .

22. wind-tunnel. deg down Figure 20. 4) --. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with angle of attack f o r flight. 41 .3 o CY Extrapolated flight data . Constant-angle-of-attack approach. hlb = 0.Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunnel I ! \ / \ I o\ \ a. deg 8 I I 0- I I I 4 I -1 J 8 16 24 32 0 -2 Percent increase in CL Trai Iing edge A6e.Prediction (ref. and theoretical ground-effect data on the F-104A airplane at h/b = 0.

Flight Predicted 0 Delta wing (no horizontal stabilizer) 0 -.40 Percent increa se in CL 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Aspect ratio Aspect ratio Aspect ratio Figure 21.-. Variation of lift coefficient with aspect ratio f o r flight and theoretical ground-effect data. Conventional wing (with horizontal stabilizer) 1 1 h l b = 0.30 h l b = 0. .

UP deg Figure 22.4 0 Tra iIing edge Equivalent be. 1). Basic ivind-tuimel data for the F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee wing (ref. . -12 -8 .

0 / / / . 1 1.6 .10 Cm Figure 23.8 cL . . 8).4 . Basic wind-tunnel data for the basic F5D-1 airplane (ref. 1. 0 -.2 - / / / .05 -.2 -.

0 .266 --.160 1.938 ---.04 .8 . . . h lb 0.06 Cm Figure 24. . Basic wind-tunnel data (unpublished) for the XB-70 airplane.02 .

2 / / 1. deg CD Cm c 10 2: I N Figure 25.0 . Out of ground effect ---. c . Basic wind-tunnel data (unpublished) f o r t h e F-104A airplane.12 -.4 -.2 .8 cL .2 0 5 10 15 20 0 . In ground effect 1.16 a.08 -. L 1 -.- .6 - .4 .

technical information generated under a NASA Technology Utilization Reports and Notes. D. T h e Adiizim3ration shall provide for t h e widest practicable aizd appropriate dissenziimtioia of iizf oriuntioiz coizcerniizg its actizjities aizd the reszilts thereof. If Undeliverable (Section 158 Postal Manual) Do Not Return - "The aeronaiitical and space activities of the Uiaited States shall be coizdircted so as to coiztribute . .bf pheiaoiiiena in t h e at?ilosphere and space.'' -NATIONALAERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ACT OF 1958 NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: In format ion technical information considered important. t o the expamioft of hziiiian knowl- edge . contribution to existing knowledge.C. in scope but nevertheless of importance as a Publications include conference proceedings. contract or grant and considered an important and Technology Surveys. contribution ro existing knowledge. sourcebooks. and a lasting contribution to existing to merit NASA distribution in English. X. . monographs. PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology tion. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS : Information receiving limited distribution TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION because of preliminary data. data compilations. and special bibliographies.' . security classifica. published in a foreign language considered / . Publications include Tech Briefs. D. complete. knowledge. handbooks. Details on the availability of ihese publications may be obtained from: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION NATIONAL AERO NAUTICS AND SPACE ADM I N ISTRATI0 N Washington. . 20546 OFFICIAL BUSlNESS FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE AND FEES PAID NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 0 4 U 001 27 51 3DS 70286 00903 A I R F O R C E WEAPONS L A B O R A T O R Y / k i L O L / K I R T L A N D A F B T NEW M E X I C O 87117 A T T E. used by NASA that may be of particular interest in commercial and other non-aerospace CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and applications. or other reasons.NATIONAL AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. LOU B O W M A N T CHIEFVTECH. L I B R A R Y . 20546 . A. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad derived from or of value to NASA activities. C.