You are on page 1of 28

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19980228064 2018-03-16T23:45:05+00:00Z

NASA TN D-970

I==
<
<

TECHNICAL NOTE
D-970

i
EFFECT OF GROUND PROXIMITY ON THE AERODYNAMIC

CHARAC TE RISTICS OF ASPE CT-RATIO- 1 AIRFOILS

WITH AND WITHOUT END PLATES

By Arthur W. Carter

l IF

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL NOTE D-970

EFFECT OF GROUND PROXIMITY ON THE AERODYNAMIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF ASPECT-RATIO-I AIRFOILS

WITH AND WITHOUT END PLATES

By Arthur W. Carter
L
i
6 SUMMARY
9
5
An investigation has been made to determine the effect of ground
proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of _spect-ratio-1 airfoils.
The investigation was made with the model moving over the water in a
towing tank in order to eliminate the effects of wind-tunnel walls and
of boundary layer on ground boards at small ground clearances.

The results indicated that, as the ground was approached, the air-
foils experienced an increase in lift-curve slope and a reduction in
induced drag; thus, lift-drag ratio was increased. As the ground was
approached, the profile drag remained essentially constant for each air-
foil. Near the ground, the addition of end plates to the airfoil
resulted in a large increase in lift-drag ratio. The lift character-
istics of the airfoils indicated stability of height at_positive angles
of attack and instability of height at negative angles; therefore, the
operating range of angles of attack would be limited to positive values.
At positive angles of attack, the static longitudinal stability was
increased as the height above the ground was reduced.

Comparison of the experimental data with Wieselsberger's ground-
effect theory (NACA Technical Memorandum 77) indicated generally good
agreement between experiment and theory for the airfoils without end
plates.

INTRODUCTION

The large thrust augmentation obtainable with annular-jet configura-
tions in ground proximity has promoted considerable interest in ground-
effect machines (GEM's) as possible transport vehicles. Although this
thrust augmentation can be obtained in ground proximity during hovering,
the inlet momentum drag of the air required to produce the jet results
in relatively high drag at forward speeds and relatively low lift-drag

This drag reduction may be accomplished by transferring some or all of the lift from the jet thrust and base lift to something approaching an airplane-type wing. In addition. drag./. A related investigation on wings in close proximity to the ground is presented in reference 3. -_ b airfoil span. i. and pitching-moment data were obtained on 22-percent- thick and ll-percent-thick airfoils. The inlet momentum drag will probably have k to be reduced if reasonably high speeds and long ranges are to be achieved. Lift. data were obtained' on the ll-percent-thick airfoil with vertical end plates attached below th_ lower surface. " • 2 ratios (see refs. L Cm pitching-moment coefficient. Inasmuch as most of the ground-effect 9 machines built or contemplated at present have aspect ratios of i or 3 less. 1 2 _ov s CL lift coefficient. My . SYMBOLS The positive directions of the forces and moments are shown in figure i. b2 A aspect ratio. The investigation vas made with L the model moving over the water in the tank in order to eliminate the i effects of wind-tunnel walls and boundary layer on ground boards at %he 6 small ground clearances desired. In order to obtain some data for use in predicting the performance of ground-effect machines at forward speeds with the annular jet and the inlet momentum drag completely eliminated. ft D CD drag coefficient. an investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils in close proximity to the ground has been made in Langley tank no. i and 2). the present investigation has been made on a_pect-ratio-i airfoils only. ft c airfoil chord.

ft-lb • • 6 9 S airfoil area. As shown in figure l. The end plates were changed for each angle of attack so that the bottom edges of the plates remained parallel to the water surface. the end plates were flush with the trailing edge and the bottom edges were parallel to the water surface. The 22-percent-thick airfoil is the Glenn Martin 21 section (ref. ft h' height of trailing edge of airfoil above ground plane. The ordinates of the ll-percent-thick airfoil were obtained by dividing the 22-percent ordinates by 2. Both airfoils had a 48-inch chord and an aspect ratio of i. slugs/cu ft (LID)= lift-drag ratio of airfoil out of ground effect Subscript: max max S_num MODEL ANDAPPARATUS The airfoil sections tested and ordinates are shown in figure i. ib h height of c/4 above ground plane. deg • ground-influence coefficient D mass density of air._i_'! __U_ _ _CD i change in induced drag coefficient D airfoil drag. 4) with the lower surface modified to have a flat bottom between the 30-percent-chord station and the trailing edge. ft • •• L My airfoil pitching moment. . These end plates were made of 1/16-inch-thick sheet metal. sq ft 3 V free-stream velocity. Vertical end plates were attached to the ll-percent-thick airfoil for some of the tests. ib L airfoil lift. ft/sec angle of attack.

Data were obtained through an angle-of-attack range from i -6 ° to 18 ° at heights of the trailing edge of the airfoil above the L water surface ranging from 0. the lift was increased as the ground was approached. i). which corresponded to a Reynolds number of 1.000. and pitching moment were measured by three external strain gages. These results suggest that the increase in lift at a given positive angle of attack. 9 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results showing the effect of the ground on the aerodynamic characteristics of the aspect-ratio-i airfoils are presented in fig- ures 3 and 4. The lift for both the ll-percent-thick and 22-percent-thick air- foils near an angle of attack of 0 ° was essentially invariant with height of the airfoil above the ground. and Cm with CL for the 22-percent-thick airfoil and for the ll-percent-thick airfoil with and without end plates are presented in figure 3 for a range of height-to- span ratios. As the ground was approached. The height varia. as the ground was approached. CD. All tests were made at a forward speed of 72 feet per second. Lift The data of figure 3 show that. Pressure-distribution data presented in reference 6 for a wing with an aspect ratio of 5 . Lines of constant height of the quarter- chord point are also shown in this figure. The pitching moment was measured about a pivot point on the gear above the airfoil and then transferred to the moment center at the quarter chord on the lower surface (fig. For these tests the airfoils were attached to the towing gear by a single streamline strut as shown in figure 2. at small angles of attack. the lift-curve slope increased as the ground was approached. whereas at negative angles of attack. At positive angles of attack.015 chord to 2 chords. The variation of CL. i. This increase in lift-curve slope was accompanied by a change in the angle of attack for zero llft. and Cm with height• of the trailing edge of the airfoil above the ground is presented in figure 4 for several angles of attack.840. _. the llft was decreased. may be due to the ram air on the lower surface which increased the positive pressure on that surface. Lift. drag. I • i_i _ The investigation was made in Langley tank no. A description of the tank and the apparatus used in the test is presented in refer- ence 5. the angle of attack for zero lift became progressively less negative. 1 tion was obtained by changing the water level in the towing tank as 6 well as by raising and lowering the airfoil through a limited range. The variations of CD.

A further reason for operating a ground-effect machine only at positive angles of attack can clearly be seen in figure 4. These low lift coefficients near an angle of attack of 0 ° and the fact that lift was essentially invariant with height at this attitude suggest the desir- ability of operating a ground-effect machine which has an airfoil- "shaped body at positive angles of attack so that a reasonably high Operating lift coefficient may be obtained. especially at heights very near the ground. The pressure-distribution data of reference 6 show the rapid increase in negative pressures on the lower surface near the airfoil leading edge L as the ground was approached.) The center of this lift increment was. the lift coefficient for the 22-percent-thick airfoil (fig. (This effect is shown in ref. } • • 5 indicate that the increase in lift at positive angles of attack was due to an increase in lower surface pressures_ the upper surface pressures were essentially unaffected as the distance above the ground was changed. For the ll-percent-thick airfoil. Pitching Moment The data of figure 3 show that the pitching moments became less negative at an angle of attack of 0 ° as the ground was approached. for positive angles of attack. 3(b)). This increase in stability apparently resulted from the ram pressure on the lower surface of the airfoil. The loss in lift as the ground was approached at a given negative angle of attack apparently was due to venturi action which increased the negative pressures on the lower surface as the ground was approached. These data graphically show that a reduc- tion in height caused a loss in lift at negative angles of attack and an increase in lift at positive angles of attack. 3(b) and 3(c)) apparently was due to the reduction of flow out at the tips of the airfoil. 3(a)) was approximately twice that for the ll-percent-thick airfoil (fig. 6 9 The additional lift obtained by the airfoil with end plates (com- 3 pare figs. 6. whereas. . therefore. As the ground was approached. the increase in lift due to the ram pressure was distributed more or less uniformly over the lower surface.15. This lift character- istic would provide stability of height at positive angles of attack and because of the venturi action at negative angles of attack would limit the operating range of angles of attack to positive values. again the upper surface pressures were essentially unaffected by changes in height above the ground at 1 these negative angles. the static longitudinal stability was increased as the height above the ground was reduced. The pitching-moment data also show that. Near an angle of attack of 0 °. which greatly increased the ram-pressure effect on the airfoil lower surface. the lift coefficient was only about 0.

the reduction in induced drag of a monoplane in ground effect is given by the equation .. A reduction in thickness from 22-percent to ll-percent chord increased the value of L/D approximately 45 percent at _. Near the L ground. The effect of end plates became negligible when the trailing edge was 15 per- cent of the span above the ground or when the quarter chord was 2_ per- cent of the span above the ground. • '.= 2. This increase was largely due to the lower profile drag of the thinner airfoil. As the ground was approached. the addition of end plates to the ll-percent-thick airfoil 1 resulted in a large decrease in the induced drag. 3(c)). L • .00 b (no ground effect) and approximately 55 percent when the airfoil was in close proximity to the ground = O. The angle of attack for maximum L/D was about 2. According to reference 7. This effect was particularly noticeable for the airfoil with end plates (fig.O1 . The theoretical treatment of ground effect presented by Wieselsberger in reference 7 indicates a method for predicting the reduction in induced drag for a wing at various heights of the quarter chord of the wing above the ground. the induced drag was reduced although the profile drag remained essentially constant for each airfoil.) 9 3 Lift-Drag Ratio The" results showing the effect of the ground on lift-drag ratios of the airfoils are presented in figures 5 and 6._ _•_i_ '/_i _:_ _k •6 near the half-chord point and thus tended to move the center of total lift (aerodynamic center) aft and thereby increase the longitudinal stability. The addition of end plates to the ll-percent-thick airfoil resulted in a large increase in L/D when the airfoil was in close proximity to the ground because of the increase in lift caused by the increase in ram pressure. (Compare figs. Lift-drag ratios are plotted against lift coefficient in figure 5 for various heights of the trailing edge above the ground and in figure 6 for various heights of the quarter chord above the ground. Drag The data of figure 3 show the effects of the ground on drag. 3(b) 6 and 3(c). Maximum lift-drag ratios have been obtained from figures _ and 6 and are plotted against-height-to-span ratio in figure 7. • • " i¸ ' '• _I ••! ' •" .5 ° for both the 22-percent-thick and ll-percent-thick airfoils. The addition of end plates increased the angle of attack for maximum L/D to about 3°.

however. At values of h/b between 0. The dashed portion of the curve represents the range of values of h/b for which the author of refer- ence 7 considered the theory inapplicable 0. the theory of reference 7 reduces to the following formula (for finite aspect ratio): (L/D)max i (LID)o%max _- The theory is plotted as a solid line. At maximum values of the lift-drag ratio.4 h H i b 6 9 where h in the present investigation is equal to one-half the qu/ntity 3 h defined in reference 7. the effect of end plates on lift-drag ratio was considerably less than that of the model with end plates from the present investigation. The variation of _ with h/b (for h as defined in the present investigation) is shown in figure 8.05 + 7. • / • 7 where q is defined as the ground influence coefficient. g may be obtained from the following formula: i. t .033 and 0. 1. and the end plates were applied in a somewhat different manner. The reason for this lack of agreement between the two sets of data is not known. The agree- ment Between experiment and theory appears to be generally good for the airfoils without end plates. were obtained at a much lower Reynolds number than the present investigation. Although only limited data were available for the model with end plates from reference 3.32h b L 1. The wind-tunnel data of reference 3.033 < K < 0.25. The results of the present investigation are compared with theory in figure 9. where the ratio of maximum L/D in ground effect to maximum L/D out of ground effect is plotted against height-to-span ratio at the airfoil quarter chord. Data from the two investigations of aspect-ratio-1 airfoils without end plates appear to be in generally good agreement. Data for the aspect-ratio-i wing of reference 3 are shown in fig- ure 9 for comparison with data from the present investigation.2 .

8 CONCLUSIONS The results of an investigation of the effect of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of aspect-ratio-1 airfoils led to the following conclusions: i. August ll. As the ground was approached. 1961. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The lift characteristics of the airfoils indicated stability of height at positive angles of attack and instability of height at nega- tive angles. . Near the ground. As the ground was approached_ the profile drag remained essen- tially constant for each airfoil. the airfoils experienced an increase in lift-curve slope and a reduction in induced drag_ thus. @ 3. the addition of end plates to the airfoil" 9 resulted in further increase in lift-curve slope and reduction in induced 3 drag which resulted in a large increase in lift-drag ratio. the static longitudinal stability was increased as the height above the ground was reduced. an increase in lift-drag ratio resulted. Va. Langley Air Force Base. These characteristics would limit the operating range of angles of attack to positive values. Langley Research Center. At positive angles of attack. 4.. 5. 1 6 2. The agreement between experiment and Wieselsberger's ground-effect theory appears to be generally good L for the airfoils without end plates.

Marvin P. pp. ...) 2. Tank. 1961. 6. Oct.IV.: Research Related to Ground Effect Machines. NACA Rep.A. Carter.A. 1960.. 1926. Symposium on Ground Effect Phenomena. Fink. and Some of Its Work. Kuhn. Sci. and Schade_ Robert 0. 4. Wieselsberger. Y. 23-43.. 244. : Wing Resistance Near the Ground. L Aero. C.) 5.C. A. and Carter. Richard E. 3 NASA TN D-926 . Serebrisky.. Truscott. NACA TM 918. Arthur W. S.: Aerodynamic Character- 9 istics of Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings in Close Proximity to the Ground. Kuhn_ Richard E. and Lastinger.S. Army TRECOM. (Sponsored by Dept. National Advisory Committee for A@ronautics: Aerodynamic Character- istics of Airfoils . : Over- Water Aspects of Ground-Effect Vehicles. 1959. and U. and Biachuev. 1946. Inst. Paper No. Eng. Starr: The Enlarged N.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the Horizontal Motionfof a Wing Near the Ground.I _ L I¸ x 9 REFERENCES i.. Aero. 1939. NACA TM 1095. Princeton Univ. 1922. (Reprinted 1928. 60-14. Arthur W. i 6 3. NACA TM 77. 21-23. James L.. M. Jan. 7.

10 5. Figure i. percent chord percent chord Upper Lover 0 8.25 6. percent chord percent chord Upper Lower 0 4.43 1.8 lO 9.86 1.13 21.. 2o i0.20 0 i 60 16. :k : i0 Airfoil ordinates CL !Station.5 6.36 . 0 V 19.5 15.65 2.29 ]2. Airfoil sections. . ordinates and principal dimensions..57 0 lO0 0 0 (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.92 1.81 4.50 o Woter surfoce-_ t 95 1.99 3.43 4.5 8.i_ 50 11.82 L ].03 2.35 9.79 15.46 .66 7.32 o 70 6.% o 50 9.72 0 # 9o 2.40 5 7.84 .55 i0 18.02 2.OO 0 95 2.28 o 100 0 0 (b) ll-percent-thick airfoil with end plates.68 0 8o 4.75 20 21.28 22.68 .43 0 0 _ 90 5.86 15 10.90 2.6o o 60 8.33 17.13 O.64 0 kO Woter $urfoce-____._ " 70 8o 15.!1%.98 3.72 .o6 o _o lO.86 8. Airfoil ordinates Station.21 6.72 15 20.

_ :_ • k p • ll (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil. Photographs of airfoils and setup on towing carriage in Langley tank no. / "I¸ .. . L-61-_064 Figure 2.. 1.i_ • •.... A" (b) ll-percent-thick airfoil with end plates..

-Aerodynamic characteristics of aspect-ratio-i airfoil at various height-to-span ratios. Figure 3. • _691-_ . . H _0 0 • " (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

05 -.2 . Figure 3. k. Continued. F-.15 •i o.I .deg cm (b) ll-percent-thick airfoil.n .3 -5 0 5 I0 15 20 0 -.L • L-1693 L8 16 0 :2 0 .. : .

n'_]:. .-.H- / . L-1693 I "paPUlZOUOD -'_ a._' (o) 0 .

_i._ii: _ _ 17 :. • . .i.8 lO L2 14 L6 L8 20 " (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil. Variation of aerodynamic characteristics with height-to-span ratio for aspect-ratio-i airfoil. • 0 O_ kO rH 0 8 2 A.6 .. Figure 4. 0 •4 .

05 0 LO A" .6 . Continued.4 (b) ll-percent-thick airfoil.8 lO L2 1. . 16 • : 0 ! (_ .. Figure 4.

i _ii _ i¸k_ 'ii 1T L Cm prc_ 15 o_ ko 0 . .4 . Concluded. .B lO L2 L4 L6 L8 (c) ll-percent-thlck airfoil with end plates.2 .6 .. Figure 4.

Figure 5..8 I0 12 /. 18 18 16 t_ I _C xj. L/D lO 8 6 4 2 O0 . . Variation of lift-drag ratio with lift coefficient for aspect- ratio-i airfoil at various heights of the airfoil trailing edge above the ground.4 .6 .2 .4 CL (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

19 O_ kO 8 A" 0o 2 4 lO (b) ll-percent-thick airfoil. Continued. . Figure 5..

_.11 1 ii1%111 t I I II1#11ZI I !1/1.III r f I III 11 IIXI III I I I I I I t I I!.llll:llllllllll[llllllllllllllllll"_.I I IIt I'I_ I I I I_I_11 t I I 1_4. 0 IIt I I I II II I_ t.._IIl III II 1fill III I 11III :'_'.i.^.'.iIIIItI NI I I Ill/l I ]11 I t I I11 I I I I I I ILl I I I I I I I i'_iLI Ill IIL#rt I I I I 11t I I t I I I I I I I I I I tl_llllllllllll III_I i IIIII II_IIN _1 IIIIZlIIIIIIIIIIIIIItI_IIIIIIII_I_'II_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III_4111111111111111111111111111. . .i. I I II II IIII I../1tlIIII._._." Ilillllllllllllll _I'_LIII.111111111111 ]il[ll]lltlllllll 111111111t1111111 IIIIIIIIII11111IIII IIIIIIII111111111 I iiiiiiiiiiitl IIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllJlllllltllllllllll _- . llllllllllllllllllllltlllllit._. .ll'_'_t_''""ll:"ll:llll'llll_llIIiilllll.. _..._'_. IIIIIiiiiiiiiiiii IIIIIIIIit1111111 I 1IIII 1II II 1II 1II ill 1I 1l'._-. I _<.1 _. . . .._. ...-_ .... i . I I Ill#11tllll I 11 I I I I I / I I_11 11 I t I I I I 1_! I f_-#l ILI l#'l 1 t_LL _._._-. I I I I IIIII II I II II II II I I I I IIIIlllllliliiiii I I I_f'..' . I I I I I I I I%J I I I I d III I]11r_'_t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I ! IIllllllllllllIil llllllllllll_'_'_"_'"l_l'"_'IlllllllIllllllIlllllllllllll..4 I_1 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I II1111 I 1 ...)ll_.._.ft._ I I IIII 0 DO_ _vV IIIIIIIIII_/I ._. .....ii._Gllllllllllll_llllllllllllllllllllllllll illl[iltlltllltll III'I_"IIIIIIIIII'_"IIIIIIII:IIII'"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.J lllllllllllllllllll_.. _....._. kX.II.. t _.t.._/I IIIlllllll I I I I I I I III I!!!IIIIIIIIIIIII'_ 1 IIIItllllllllll'llltl '.--t IIIIIIit1111111tl [llllllllllIlll'.ll I I YI III tl II II tl II II II tl 1111I/I I II II I I II II i i I i II I II I I1#11 I'1 I #t I I I t I 1t II II II II i II II il II li II II II II 11II III II tt " ._..11 I_t_J..¢"111111 i _11111t1111lt1111#1111] tl II IIIIIItllt111_1111tl IIIIIlilll Illlllllll I IIIIIIIIil III1111111 IItlIIIIIL'_IIIIIItlII I¥1111111t11111111111111 711111i1111111111111 IIItlIIII IIII I III11111111 Illlll IIIItl I I I ItlIIIIM"llEIIIII] •r4 _J ' ll'_'_ltiliitlIll ._tlt II IIll I I L_.. .i :.. _..II 11 I I 111 I f IIt I I Itl I III I I III III III i F_lle_ll I III I I t I I I I III I I III I I III I I I 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIit111 I I IIIIIIit111111111111 IIIII II11111". ._-. .-_ IIIIIIIII'<"IIIIIIIIIIIIII._711111'_'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '_..IIIIIIIIIIIIII""II !!ti ii11 I/I i.._..lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll t I Itll IIt I I 11 I I I I IA._I'_11 I I I I III I I IIt I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I11 I I I _1 I tTTIllFIIlIIFT]7- tllllllllllllllll llllll-_rllllllllllll_.!!!]!!_billll IIIIIII IIIItllllillllltllllllllllllllllllllllllil I.. iiiiiiiii!!!!!!iiiiiiiiii ' 11 lllllll!!lllliiiiiiiilliilill: llllllllllll !!!i!!!lilll....IL_I_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I11_11 I II tt I II I I I II I I 1_ I I I I II I I I#11#l lillITII I I111 I II I I I I I I I I II I I I lllilllll_lll llllklllllllllllllllllllllllllllAIMl_I/llllllllllllllllllllllll I -_ -.I IJl I I I I I II II I1{ IIII I II IIII I.N_lilllillllt[lll II ItlItlIItlAIIIIIIIII IIIIIIt/IIIIIIIIZIII Illlllllll IIIIIII111 I1 I I/I lxl II ...1"11111111111 IIII1111111111tl IIII1. 0 . _.....l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: _ _ li_i_ i_ el _ _ _ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I t tr_-4-. 1 llllJilliil l I)111]11[...1it-tlll . IIIIIIII]III'_'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII]-.._. (D lllllilllllllll_ " I _ l.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ o ..._.'.+-_r_._ ..-4 [llllllllIIIIl"_-lt I III I_ill II tl I Itli IIi I I IIII I I I I I I_ IZt I/1/I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I11 I I _bi@ llllllllllllIIIl? _ I I I I I I_LI I I I I I I I i I I I I I IIIt t l I I I I!'11/I t. yl I iI II II I! II II II II I! II tI II iI 11 I 1 I/I l_f I I1 t I I I I I Ift I/I IJll I 11 I I1_[7 II tI II II 11 I I II II tI II II iI tI II II II II Jt II i1 jiiilll Itill i IIIII'"IIIIIi_ _.+.._I"TI IIt I III t I I I I I I I I11 I III I I I I I I I III I I III I I I I © II llllllllll"""-_'llllll'_"lllllllllillllllllllllllllll_.I _Li)I"t-.._.. .ii...LI I'_'%.

: I .1 .:. Figure 6.j:. Variation of lift-drag ratio with lift coefficient for aspect- ratio-1 airfoil at various heights of the airfoil quarter-chord line above the ground. • • •• • . ii i l _l._/ '-. _ !_: . .: 21 14 L/D lO 8 4 (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.....

+. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIl IIllllllllllllllllllllIlllIl IIII I[lYlIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII VtlIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII.. 7 I[t111i111111 IIII. I II .l_l I P'/'_L I I I 'llllllllllllllllillllllllllll IIIII_'-. .. ...IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi . ..2 4 ....._1 I I I Illlllllllllllll[llllllllllll llll]llllllllllllllllllllllll 6 llllllllllllllllllllIIlllllll I "NIMJ "_. I]fllllllllllllfttJlllllltll llllllJlllllllllIIllllllJlll 1_1111112_ .. llll"_llrlll. IIII VIIIILIII llllllllllIlllIllllllllIllll I[IIAIIIIIlll IIIIIIIIIIllllltllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllIlll II1_'IIIIIII1. Figure 6..kTlglllll IIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8 / 'llflllLIIllll IXIIIIILIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII YIIIIIII]IIII ql14111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH IIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIlIIIIIIIPII[I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIlIIII lllllllllllllllIllIllllIIllll ! I I I I I ]'_.LIIIT"_'J _! llllllllllllllllll_llllllllll lllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIII ...-......b_ .lll._1 | ] I ] I Illllllll]l[lllllllllllllllll I I l*4J...._._IJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIll _KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIilllllll _.50 Ill Iiiii !!F.k&IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIII llllllll[r"_. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII IAIIII_IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIII Xll]. ._ IFtlIIIIIIIII lllllllll"I".vii ...6 .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIfIII IrllllllllltF IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII /4 IIIIIIII1[111 I IIIIIII1[1111 llllllllllllIlllllllllllllll lllllll[llllllltllllllllll]l IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII1111111111111111111111 IIIIIIit11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIII '.0 JI" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiIIIIIIIiIIr IIIIIIIIl[lll lllllllllll.!!ill I i !!o ..09 lllrli[iJlJll :::::::::if:" IIIIIli[lllll III1111111111 IIIIIIIIIF[FI _ Iiii .llllllIllllllllllll IIIllllllllll lllll1111llllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIllllll IllIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIllIIllII Illilllilllll IIIIIrlllllll llIlllllllIllllIlllllllIlllIl IIIIIllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1[11111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 IIIllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1111 + 2 IIIIIIIIII!11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!]llllllllfll L" IIIIIIIIlllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIt11111111111111111111IIIII IIIIIitliii[I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIj111 0 IIIII!11[1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIII1111 0 . _-P'_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIllll " III l_IIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIllll 4 IIIIIIIIIIIII " IIIII*_.a .lllIllllIlllllill /2 IIIlIIlIIIIIL_ llll[llllllllllllllIllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIll!J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIl'llllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIII IIil111111 _1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIII I1[1111111_11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIII IIIIIII'"III.8 lO 12 /4 " (b) ll-percent-thlek airfoil. .." fly .i lllIIllIl"l.Continued._--.. Irlllllllllll IIIIIIIII" Itll[ rlo o..05 IIIit11][1111 /8 IIIIIIIIIIIII ./z IIII l!l' _ 2. 22 IIIIIIIIIIIII I " .Ill.00 Illlllllilllt Illllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIII .'' . Jllllltill_f] llllllflllflt . h/A llIllIIIl"l.

III 2 II.1111 .17_ Liiilll i Ill]tit lll III J. I I IIII _..'.. 1111 lljll!!Sillllllll 11111 Jill[Ill ' Illlli Ili11111111111111 lillllllll It o o. IIII 111111 g_lllllllllllll _1 IIIIIII I I r'_kl iii i i t _1111111111111111.'11 III! i IIIllllllll 111111111111 Illlllllllll IIIIIIIII1111111 llllllllllilll IIIIIIIIIIIIII]1 [lllllllllllllll ilII1.00 __ 11111111111111111 ._/l_t"(.1.11 llllllll'_'llilli.i.I11_I1t.1K_ I I I I I I I I I r-_M::_J_ I I F". Figure 6.. IIIIIIIIIIII IIII11ilIIIIIIII IIIII'.I IIIIIIIII IIIIIli1111_ Illi111111Z11iIll III11 I I I II II I..ill .L IvT'. I I IW'I_--.llllll' J.I'11.. .... .lllll'..1111[111il liliiii!!!!! - 0o 2 .i._ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII] lllill jlliiii17 Ill III. ....IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII F_-_... -i1111111ilL III 8 '41111111111.'I1 .'11'..1 III _--_..11111 I 1_1"90_ IIIIIIIIIIIII O_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I IlIItlIIIIIIIIA I lil II I'll '.8 10 12 14 - q (c) ll-percent-thlck airfoil _ith end plates. IIII 111111111111 ItlE iiii IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIllllllll i/ I[llllllJ-_'qlllll _" IIIIIIIIIIlllll Ill iliillib4-1! IltlIII ll.--t.1 IIII'. . II II II II IA. < ._.. iiilili. ill I IIIllllll_ IIIIIII IIIIIIII I IIAIIIylIIIIIIII IIIll IIIII1 i Illllltllll Ill I/ll_llllllllll IIllllll'l III _ . '. '. I 11 T_b IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111'11 IIIIIIIIII1"%.lJ.IIIIlllI"I--'I3-T"_-.'111._I_.1...:.4 . I .-t_I I I I I I I L..i.4q_._L_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIT. II_. IIl[llllgllll II1_11111111"1 IJ. I... IIIII II IIIIIIII111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIII III 1_111111111111 M"I lkl I 11111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111111 L_.I lllllllEillll IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIi]IIIIIYIIIII IIII/11111Iy11111 IIIIIIIIIIII II1%11111y1111111 II _ 111'/1111111 i'...III1I'. 14 III 111.I'.F. lllllllilllll IIIIII I II II IIIIIIIllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII IIIlll :! Iiili IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII iii!i'.I-_ I"IIIIII '_1.. illll! lllll I.25 I 11111111111111111 ' IIlllllllllllllll v . llllllllllllll IIIIIIIIll1111111 1 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII llll"llill"-_'1. !.."AIIIIILI]III III .'.'. .JIIIII111111 I vl.i..1 1..ii[i llillllllll...I_L I 11 I I I Ill lii IIII1..1111 il II II III I IIIIIIIIIIII IIII111111111111_ _ IIIIIIIIIIII 4 IIII!IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIII I "11'"in! ..ff"l IIL..: :- 23 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIfll IIIIIjlllllllllll I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII lllllllllllllll ..1'..i'. IIil1 0 ..11 IIIIII. IIIIIllfllllllll 11111111111 ._ IIIIIIIIjlllllll] IIIIIIIIIIII 6 I .t1_..09 Iiiiiiiiii II III/Iiliii illlll li IIIIIIIIIIII11111 _'..1111111!1 IIIIIIII11.IIIIIIIIIII 111111111111 i1111111111i1111 IIIIIIIIIII1-11111 LIIIIIIIIIII lllIlillllllllll i.111. id I I "I. I!111111"II...11'.o6 I_EE /8 n ..IIII .G .... ILII '1 IIIIlIttll1111 ' II II111111 11_1111111111111 Illllllllll I . I.._7.50 /6 IIIIIIIIZlBillitl iiiiiil]lii][il!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /.t'ffllll.lllliiliill.1!!!!!..11. i iI'.. Concluded.'._/_ _] _11"11.. IIIIIIIIII A ..'_111111111111111 I I I I L I IIIIillli1111 '11i1111111111 IIIIIIIIAIIIIIIII /2 IIIIIIIVII1111111 IIIIIIIAIIIIIIIII illllllllllll III1111111111 IIIII'" IIIIIVII .11. II1111111111 I I I I I I I I ]<3L-._r" II11._iill_llllt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIt1[ IIII'.1111'.1. i.1.11 IIIIIII[IIII IIIIIIIIIIII III_...

_ . . L-1693 "TTo_Te T-oT_-_o_ds_ _o soT_ _P-_TT ummTx_ uo sa_Td pua pu_ gsau_oT_ _ do _oa_ -'Z _zu_T_ v t • a_pa _uTTT_% ITo_T_ $_ oT%_ T. Z I 9 zF Z" I" IO" 0 B .i. . .._ds-o%-%T_Ta H (_) ¢/ql OI 9 ¢.

a_ ct/ .

° 9 •puuoa_ oq$ aAoq_ %_TO_ q%T_ $uoToTj_ooa oauouTsuT-puruo_ $o UOT%_T_A -'_ o_ru_T_ % gZ" .

.04 I0" Ol gl _row'_(O/ 7) Ox 4 _69I_ I . '.