You are on page 1of 89

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

R=19770005052 2018-05-20T22:11:50+00:00Z

NASA TECHNICAL NOTE

- WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION
OF INTERNALLY BLOWN JET-FLAP
-
I STOL AIRPLANE MODEL
--

-5- Raymond De Vogler


__
-__ LaHgley Research Center
-

Hampton, Va* 23665

N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATI,, W HINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 1976


TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

- 0134059 -
1. Report No.
NASA TN D-8309
4. Title and Subtitle
I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date
November 1976
WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF INTERNALLY BLOWN
6. Performing Organization Code
JET-FLAP STOL AIRPLANE MODEL

7. Authods) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Raymond D. Vogler L-10887


- 10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addres 505-10-41-03
.~
NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.
Hampton, VA 23665
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
2 . Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note
~~

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code


Washington, DC 20546

5. Supplementary Notes

6 Abstract

An investigation was made to determine the low-speed longitudinal charac-


teristics of the jet-flap STOL model. The 17-percent-thick supercritical swept
wing had leading-edge slats and a full-span 0.30-chord plain flap with flaperons
0
divided into six equal spanwise segments. The angle-of-attack range was -4
to 24O, and the blowing momentum range was from 0 to 2.3. Flap deflections were
from Oo to 700. Most flap deflections were full span although there were some
tests of partial-span deflections and partial-span blowing.

17. Key-Words (Suggested by Authoris) 1 18. Distribution Statement

STOL transport Unclassified - Unlimited


Internally blown jet flap
Partial-span blowing
Subject Category 02

Unclassified Unclassified 86 $4.75


WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF INTERNALLY BLOWN
JET-FLAP STOL AIRPLANE MODEL

Raymond D. Vogler
Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

An investigation was made to determine the low-speed longitudinal aero-


dynamic characteristics of a model of an internally blown jet-flap STOL air-
plane. Jet momentum was obtained with compressed air. The supercritical
swept wing had leading-edge slats and a full-span 0.30-chord plain flap
divided into six equal spanwise segments. The flaps had 0.15-chord trailing-
edge flaperons. Data were obtained through an angle-of-attack range for
momentum coefficients from 0 to 2.3 and for flap deflections from 0' to 70'.

The wing leading-edge slats delayed the wing stall to higher angles of
attack and higher lift coefficients. The 0.25-chord slat was more effective
than the 0.15-chord slat at the higher flap deflections. The 0.15-chord
flaperons suffered flow separation at much lower deflections and produced
lower maximum lift than did the 0.30-chord flaps. For a given momentum coef-
ficient, higher lift coefficients are obtained by blowing over the entire
wing than can be obtained by blowing over partial spans.

INTRODUCTION

Recent activity concerned with developing short takeoff and landing


(STOL) transport airplanes using propulsive lift has received considerable
attention. In response to this interest, a comparison of several Configura-
tions which use different propulsive methods to produce high lift was under-
taken in the Langley V/STOL tunnel. Except for wing thickness, all the con-
figurations studied had the same wing-body-tail combination for cruise. The
propulsive-lift methods studied include externally blown flaps (ref. 1 1 ,
upper surface blown flaps (ref. 2 ) , and deflected thrust with mechanical
flaps (ref. 3). All these configurations use a 9.3-percent-thick super-
critical airfoil f o r the wing. An augmented flap and the internally blown
jet flap used in this study were tested with the use of a 17-percent-thick
supercritical airfoil for the wing. An initial comparison of the aerody-
namic characteristics of these configurations at low speeds is presented in
reference 4.

The present investigation dealt with the internally blown jet-flap con-
figuration. The model combined a swept wing (nominally 30' at the quarter
chord) with leading-edge slats and 0.30-chord blown flaps with 0.15-chord
flaperons. The slat was configured to delay stall to high angles of attack
at all conditions. The flap plus flaperon combination was designed to
improve flow turning with powered lift and to provide some high lift without
1I 111, 1
1
11
1 I 1111 II !!!l E

power. In addition, the wing had a 17-percent-thick supercritical airfoil 'I


which provided sufficient volume for the internal ducts required on this. $4
airplane concept. The model had no engine nacelles as would be required on P
the full-scale airplane. -i
1)
3
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the low-speed lon-
gitudinal characteristics of the internally blown jet-flap configuration.
Data were obtained through an angle-of-attack range for several flap and P
flaperon deflections at low and at high levels of blowing as well as with no
blowing. Effects of wing leading-edge slats and partial-span flap blowing
were also determined. Some runs were made to determine the effect of
horizontal-tail incidence and tail flap deflections.

SYMBOLS

Force and moment data are presented about stability axes and include
jet momentum effects. Measurements and calculations were made in U.S.
Customary Units and are presented in International System of Units (SI)
(ref. 5 ) .

b' exposed wing span, m

bf flap span, m
!
Drag
cD drag coefficient, - ' II

qms
I
Lift
CL lift coefficient, -
' ,9
Pitching moment
m
' pitching-moment coefficient about 0.40c,
qmsc
--

momentum coefficient,
q,s

C wing local chord, m


-
C wing mean aerodynamic chord, m

balance measured static axial force with flaps removed, N i

balance measured static normal force with flaps removed, N

tail incidence; positive when trailing edge is down, deg

free-stream dynamic pressure, N/m 2

S wing area, m2

2
Q a n g l e o f a t t a c k o f wing o r f u s e l a g e , d e g

6fl f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , measured w i t h r e s p e c t t o wing; p o s i t i v e when


t r a i l i n g edge i s down, d e g

6f2 f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n , measured w i t h r e s p e c t t o f l a p ; p o s i t i v e
when t r a i l i n g edge i s down, d e g

6S wing s l a t d e f l e c t i o n ; p o s i t i v e when l e a d i n g edge i s down, deg

tf t a i l f l a p d e f l e c t i o n ; p o s i t i v e when t r a i l i n g e d g e i s down, deg

ts t a i l s l a t d e f l e c t i o n ; p o s i t i v e when l e a d i n g edge i s down, deg

MODEL AND APPARATUS

A t h r e e - v i e w drawing of t h e model i s shown i n f i g u r e 1 , and f l a p and


s l a t d e t a i l s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 2. The wing o r d i n a t e s a r e g i v e n i n f i g -
u r e 3, and p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e model a r e g i v e n i n f i g u r e 4. The wing was
a 1 7 - p e r c e n t - t h i c k s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l , and t h e t a i l s u r f a c e s were
1 1 - p e r c e n t - t h i c k s y m m e t r i c a l s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l s . The f u l l - s p a n
0.30-chord p l a i n f l a p s were equipped w i t h 0.15-chord t r a i l i n g - e d g e f l a p -
e r o n s which c o u l d be d e f l e c t e d p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y . The f u l l - s p a n
f l a p s and f l a p e r o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o s i x e q u a l s p a n w i s e segments t h a t c o u l d
be d e f l e c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f e a c h o t h e r . These segments were numbered 1
t o 6 from l e f t t o r i g h t wing t i p s . D e f l e c t i o n a n g l e was v a r i e d by means of
f i x e d a n g l e p l a t e s . The removable l e a d i n g - e d g e s l a t s had a S t Cyr 178 a i r -
f o i l s e c t i o n o f 15- and 2 5 - p e r c e n t wing c h o r d . The h o r i z o n t a l t a i l a l s o had
a 0.15-chord s l a t and a f l a p w i t h a c o n s t a n t c h o r d t h a t was 20 p e r c e n t of
t h e t a i l mean aerodynamic c h o r d . A t r a n s i t i o n s t r i p o f No. 60 carborundum
g r a i n s was a p p l i e d t o t h e wing 3.2 cm behind t h e l e a d i n g e d g e .

Compressed a i r f o r blowing o v e r t h e n o s e o f t h e wing f l a p s was b r o u g h t


t h r o u g h a t u b e (3.17 c m i n d i a m e t e r ) i n t h e c e n t e r o f t h e s t i n g t o a mani-
f o l d i n t h e f u s e l a g e . A i r from t h e m a n i f o l d was c a r r i e d t h r o u g h wing d u c t s
(1.27 c m s q u a r e ) t o s i x i n d i v i d u a l plenums i n t h e rear o f t h e wing j u s t
ahead o f t h e f l a p n o s e . A i r from t h e s e plenums flowed o v e r t h e u p p e r s u r -
face o f t h e f l a p n o s e t h r o u g h h o l e s d r i l l e d i n t o t h e plenums p a r a l l e l t o t h e
wing c h o r d p l a n e and normal t o t h e f l a p h i n g e l i n e . T h e r e were 500 e x i t
h o l e s f o r each wing s e m i s p a n ; t h e s e e x i t h o l e s v a r i e d i n d i a m e t e r from
0.244 cm a t t h e f u s e l a g e t o 0.051 c m a t t h e wing t i p . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n
h o l e d i a m e t e r was n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e o f t a p e r i n wing t h i c k n e s s and was use-
f u l i n a t t a i n i n g n e a r l y c o n s t a n t w i n g - s e c t i o n momentum c o e f f i c i e n t . The
mass f l o w t h r o u g h t h e g r o u p o f e x i t h o l e s f o r a n y f l a p segment c o u l d b e con-
t r o l l e d by a v a l v e i n - t h e wing d u c t n e a r t h e f u s e l a g e m a n i f o l d .

The model was a t t a c h e d t o a six-component s t r a i n - g a g e b a l a n c e i n s i d e


t h e fuselage on t h e end o f t h e mounting s t i n g i n t h e L a n g l e y V/STOL t u n n e l .
The a i r s u p p l y l i n e coming t h r o u g h t h e s t i n g w a s a l s o a t t a c h e d t o t h e model

3
inside the fuselage. Tunnel variables and model forces, moments, and pres-
sures were recorded on magnetic tape.

TESTS AND CORRECTIONS

Tests were made at a tunnel dynamic pressure of 814 N/m2 at a Reynolds


number of 720 000 based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord of 28.99 cm. The
angle-of-attack range varied from -4' to 2 4 O , and the blowing-momentum coef-
ficient range varied from 0 to 2.3. Data were obtained with wing slats on
and off, with wing slats of different chords and deflections, with various
flap and flaperon deflections, with combinations of flap and flaperon
deflections, with various horizontal-tail incidences, with tail off, and
with tail flap on and off. Most flap deflections involved the full span,
although there were some tests of partial-span deflections and partial-span
blowing.

With the flaps removed, the balance-measured static jet force


/= was determined for a range of wing duct pressures. From this
calibration and the tunnel dynamic pressure, the momentum coefficient C,
was determined. The adjustable duct pressure for each flap segment in con-
junction with the different jet hole sizes provided a rather uniform momen-
tum coefficient for each spanwise wing element. The static jet force was
essentially the axial force because the normal force was very small, and the
side force was negligible since one wing panel nullified the side force of
the other. It is well to note that the momentum coefficient determined from
axial force on a swept-wing model is not a true indication of the quantity
of blowing air, and comparisons between complete models on the basis of
momentum coefficient may be misleading if the wing sweep angles are signifi-
cantly different. The momentum coefficients presented are about 5 percent
less than those for a wing with zero sweep of the jet thrust line.

Attachment of the air supply line to the model affects the sensitivity
of the strain-gage balance, and variations in air-line pressure produce
forces and moments on the balance. Calibrations were made to determine
these nonaerodynamic effects, and corrections to the data were made. Wind-
tunnel wall corrections to the data were made by the method of reference 6.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The early exploratory part of this investigation (figs. 5 to 9) deter-


mined the overall aerodynamic characteristics. Model longitudinal aerody-
namic characteristics were obtained for several flap deflections and a few
combinations of flap and flaperon deflections to establish a useful flap
deflection range for further testing. Several runs were made to determine
the wing-slat chord and slat deflection most desirable for this wing and its
range of flap deflections. Since attention was focused on developing the
high lift characteristics of the wing, much of the data was obtained with
the horizontal tail removed. The early part of the investigation showed
that the 0.25-chord wing slat was more effective than the 0.15-chord slat;

4
therefore, the longer chord slat only was used in the latter part of the
investigation (figs. 10 to 29). Some attention was also given to increasing
the lift effectiveness of the horizontal tail since blown flaps are noted
for large negative pitching moments.

Wing-Slat Effects

Figures 5 and 6 show the lift characteristics of the model with low
flap deflections ( O o , 1
5
'
) without wing slats, and with high flap deflections
with 0.15-chord wing slats. The 0.15-chord slats increase the stall angle
of the wing with flaps deflected except for some flap deflections with no
blowing, and the 50' slat deflection gives larger stall angles than the
40' deflection except at low (30') flap deflections with no blowing.
The effect of the slats is more clearly shown in figure 7 with the
flaps deflected 30°, in figure 8(a) with the flaps deflected 45O, and in
figure 10 with the flaps undeflected. The 0.15-chord slat is satisfactory
for a flap deflection of 30' without blowing (fig. 7(a)); the 0.25-chord
slat is more effective with higher flap deflections with blowing (figs. 7
and 8 ) . Figure 8 shows a direct comparison between the two slats and the
improvement in lift characteristics of the wing with slats as compared with
the wing without slats for flap deflections of 45' o r more. The angle of
attack at which the wing stalled varied with flap deflection and blowing
momentum coefficient. With no slats and flaps deflected, the stall angle
varied from about 6' to 15'
; with the 0.15-chord slats, the stall angle
varied from about 12' to 20' (figs. 7 and 8). The wing seldom stalled with
the 0.25-chord slats up to angles of attack of 20' to 23O, the maximum
angles of attack investigated (figs. 7 and 8).

With a flap deflection of 45O (fig. 8(a)), the 0.15-chord slats have
little effect on the drag and pitching moment of the unstalled model with
tail off, but the 0.25-chord slats reduce the nose-down pitching moments for
all the higher (45' to 7
0') flap deflections with blowing (fig. 8). Also
the drag of the model with the 0.25-chord slats is less than the drag of the
model with the 0.15-chord slats. There is.a small difference in C, for
the two slat configurations, but the difference in C, could produce only a
small part of the drag difference shown. Elimination of the Cu difference
would result in even larger differences in pitching moments than shown.

Flap and Flaperon Characteristics

The flap characteristics of the model through a range of flap deflec-


tions are presented in figures 5 and 6 for the model with the 0.15-chord
wing slats, and data for combined flap and flaperon deflections are pre-
sented in figure 9. As noted earlier, the wing stalled at a lower angle of
attack with the 0.15-chord slats than with the 0.25-chord slats, and the
following discussion relates to the data obtained with the 0.25-chord slats
on the wing.

5
The l i f t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e model w i t h t h e f l a p s arid f l a p e r o n s
u n d e f l e c t e d are shown i n f i g u r e I O , and t h e e f f e c t o f d e f l e c t i n g t h e f l a p -
e r o n s o n l y is shown i n f i g u r e 11. Blowing w i t h t h e f l a p e r o n s d e f l e c t e d 30'
i n c r e a s e s t h e maximum l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t from 2.0 t o o v e r 7.0 ( f i g s . I l ( a )
and l l ( c ) ) . F l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n s o f 45Oshow some l i f t improvement o v e r 30°
w i t h low blowing momentums b u t show a l i f t l i t t l e g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t a t 0'
d e f l e c t i o n a t h i g h blowing momentums. T h i s l i f t breakdown a t h i g h blowing i

would i n d i c a t e c o m p l e t e s e p a r a t i o n o v e r t h e f l a p e r o n . The blowing e x i t s are z


0.15 chord ahead o f t h e f l a p e r o n s , and t h i s d i s t a n c e allows t h e j e t t o
i n c r e a s e i n t h i c k n e s s b e f o r e i t gets t o t h e nose o f t h e f l a p e r o n s . This
i n c r e a s e i n t h i c k n e s s , t h e h i g h j e t v e l o c i t y , and t h e small f l a p e r o n n o s e
r a d i u s cause t h e s e p a r a t i o n .

Data f o r combined f l a p and f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n s are p r e s e n t e d i n f i g -


u r e s 12 t o 16. The f l a p and f l a p e r o n s a r e s i m i l a r i n t h a t e a c h i s a p l a i n
t r a i l i n g - e d g e f l a p when d e f l e c t e d a l o n e . The f l a p and f l a p e r o n s d i f f e r i n
chord l e n g t h , n o s e r a d i u s , and f l a p n o s e l o c a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e j e t
e x i t s . Blowing w i t h t h e f l a p a l o n e d e f l e c t e d 60' i n c r e a s e s t h e maximum l i f t
c o e f f i c i e n t from 2.1 ( f i g . 1 5 ( a ) ) t o 9.6 ( f i g . 1 5 ( c ) ) . A t a d e f l e c t i o n of
TO0 ( f i g . 1 6 ) , t h e f l o w i s s t i l l a t t a c h e d t o t h e f l a p ; on t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
t h e f l o w o v e r t h e f l a p e r o n was s e p a r a t e d a t a d e f l e c t i o n o f 45'. Separation
on t h e f l a p e r o n r e s u l t s i n a r e d u c t i o n o f t h e magnitude o f t h e n e g a t i v e
p i t c h i n g moments and u s u a l l y r e s u l t s i n a n i n c r e a s e i n d r a g a t e q u i v a l e n t
l i f t coefficients (fig. 11).

C r o s s p l o t s of t h e l i f t d a t a a g a i n s t combined d e f l e c t i o n s o f t h e f l a p
and f l a p e r o n t a k e n from f i g u r e s 11 t o 16 are shown i n f i g u r e 17. The d a t a
i n d i c a t e t h a t d e f l e c t i o n s o f t h e f l a p a l o n e ( 6 f 2 = 0') g i v e l i f t c o e f f i -
c i e n t s as h i g h o r h i g h e r t h a n t h e combined d e f l e c t i o n s o f t h e f l a p and f l a p -
e r o n , e x c e p t a t a f l a p d e f l e c t i o n o f 60' combined w i t h a f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n !
of 15'. Higher f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n s c a u s e t h e f l a p s y s t e m t o l o s e effec-
t i v e n e s s w i t h blowing, e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e h i g h e r combined d e f l e c t i o n s b e c a u s e
of f l o w s e p a r a t i o n on t h e f l a p e r o n .

Partial-Span Flap Deflections

The l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e model w i t h p a r t i a l - s p a n f l a p
d e f l e c t i o n s compared w i t h f u l l - s p a n d e f l e c t i o n s a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 18
t o 23. I n a l l cases, t h e plenum p r e s s u r e s were e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same f o r
t h e t h r e e g r o u p s o f f l a p segments f o r t h e low and f o r t h e h i g h blowing. I n
o t h e r words, t h e p r e s s u r e r a t i o s a c r o s s t h e j e t e x i t s d i d n o t v a r y w i t h t h e
number o f f l a p segments d e f l e c t e d , b u t t h e t o t a l mass f l o w d i d , and t h e
momentum c o e f f i c i e n t v a r i e d because i t was based on t h e t o t a l wing area and
n o t on t h e area b e i n g blown. By v a r y i n g t h e number and diameter o f t h e e x i t
h o l e s , an a t t e m p t was made t o make t h e t o t a l e x i t - h o l e area o f any wing seg-
ment p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e blown ( e x p o s e d ) area o f t h e segment. For s u c h con-
d i t i o n s , t h e mass f l o w r a t e s and momentum c o e f f i c i e n t s would a l s o be approx-
i m a t e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e blown areas f o r e q u a l f l a p plenum p r e s s u r e s , and
c o n s t a n t C, f o r spanwise wing e l e m e n t s would be a t t a i n e d .

6
Figure 22 also shows the effect of deflecting the midspan flap seg-
ments without blowing and with blowing on the deflected inboard segments.
This combination in comparison with the results of the blown inboard seg-
ments alone reduces the angle of attack and, consequently, the drag for a
given lift coefficient. Deflecting the inboard and midspan flaps unequally
(fig. 23) gives little more benefit than deflecting them equally (fig. 20).
Deflections of 45',45' as opposed to unequal deflections of 3Oo,6O0 show
less drag at equivalent lift coefficients but larger negative pitching
moments.

Cross plots of the lift data against flap deflection taken from fig-
ures 1 1 to 16 and 18 to 22 are presented in figure 24 for the three spanwise
segments of the wing at zero angle of attack. The lift coefficients are for
equal momentum coefficients and approximately equal total.mass flows. The
lift coefficients show the advantage of distributing a given mass flow over
the entire wing area rather than over a part of the wing.

The lift variation with flap span is shown in figure 25 for four flap
deflections for a range of momentum coefficients at a model angle of attack
of zero. This figure was obtained by cross-plotting the lift (figs. 18
to 22) against momentum coefficient for the three flap spans and then by
cross-plotting the lift for each span against the ratio of flap span to
exposed wing span at constant momentum coefficients.

Horizontal-Tail Characteristics

Figures 26 to 29 show the effects of the horizontal tail on the aero-


dynamic characteristics of the model with various wing-flap deflections and
wing blowing momentums. The negative moments produced by the wing flaps
required a download on the tail to balance the model, which resulted in a
considerable reduction in model lift for some conditions. The tail with
leading-edge slats and a flap which increased the tail area was more than
adequate to trim the model for all conditions except when the tail stalled.
Large wing-flap deflections and high blowing momentums produce large down-
wash angles which, combined with a tail incidence of - 1 5 O , result in a
stalled tail at low model angles of attack for some conditions (fig. 28).
Otherwise, the tail-on model is stable in attitude until the wing stalls.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
A wind-tunnel investigation was made to determine the longitudinal
aerodynamic characteristics of a model of an internally blown jet-flap STOL
airplane. Jet momentum coefficients as high as 2.3 were obtained with com-
pressed air. The supercritical swept wing had leading-edge slats and a
full-span 0.30-chord plain flap divided into six equal spanwise segments.
The flaps had 0.15-chord trailing-edge flaperons which were deflected with
respect to the flap. Data were obtained through an angle-of-attack range
for various flap deflections and momentum coefficients.

L
Some of the results follow:

1. The leading-edge wing slats improved the lift characteristics of the


wing by delaying wing stall to much higher angles of attack and higher lift
coefficients. The 0.25-chord slat was more effective than the 0.15-chord
slat at the higher flap deflections.

2. The shorter-chord flaperon suffered flow separation at much lower


deflections and produced much lower maximum lift than did the longer chord
flaps.

3. For a given momentum coefficient, higher lift coefficients are


obtained by blowing over the entire wing than by blowing over partial spans,

Langley Research Center


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, VA 23665
September 23, 1976

REFERENCES

1 . Johnson, William G., Jr.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Powered,


Externally Blown Flap STOL Transport Model With Two Engine Simulator
Sizes. NASA TN D-8057, 1975.

2. Sleeman, William C., Jr.; and Hohlweg, William C.: Low-Speed Wind-Tunnel
Investigation of a Four-Engine Upper Surface Blown Model Having a Swept
Wing and Rectangular and D-Shaped Exhaust Nozzles. NASA TN D-8061,
1975.

3. Hoad, Danny R.: Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Deflected-


Thrust Propulsive-Lift Transport Model. NASA TM X-3234, 1975.

4. Hoad, Danny R.: Comparison of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several


STOL Concepts. NASA SP-320, 1972, pp. 111-119.
5. Mechtly, E. A,: The International System of Units - Physical Constants
and Conversion Factors (Second Revision). NASA SP-7012, 1973.

6. Heyson, Harry H.: Linearized Theory of Wind-Tunnel Jet-Boundary Correc-


tions and Ground Effect for VTOL-STOL Aircraft. NASA TR R-124, 1962.

8
r
Wing:
Airfoil section,'l7% thick supercriticol
Area, m' 0.483
Mean aerodynamic chord, cm 28.99
Aspect ratio 7.48
Horizontal tail:
Airfoil section, 11 % thick supercritical
Area, m' 0.1 56
Mean aerodynamic chord, cm 21.31
Aspect ratio 4.05
Vertical tail:
Airfoil section, 11 % thick supercriticol
Area, m' 0.138
Mean aerodynamic chord, cm 29.38

Figure 1.- Three-view drawing of model. A l l dimensions are in centimeters.

W
.003c .7oc
Wing
/
.85c

II 7/4/ I

\
Horizontal tail
h

F i g u r e 2.- S k e t c h o f wing and h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l s e c t i o n s showing f l a p and s l a t d e t a i l s .

c
X> ZU 3 z19

percent percent percent


chord chord chord

0.00 0.00 0.00


.75 2.70 -2.70
1.25 3.40 -3.40
1.62 3.79 -3.62
2.50 4.47 -4.48
5.00 5.65 -5.70
7.50 6.38 -6.47
10.00 6.91 -7.02
12.50 7.31 -7.42
15.00 7.62 -7.74
17.50 7.86 -7.97
20.00 8.05 -8.16
25.00 8.31 -8.39
30.00 8.45 -8.49
32.00 8.48 -8.50
35.00 8.50 -8.48
40.00 8.47 -8.39
45.00 8.36 -8.19
50.00 8.19 -7.88
55.00 7.94 -7.38
60.00 7.62 -6.56
62.50 7.43 -5.97
65.00 7.22 -5.21
66 .OO 7.13 -4.85
67.50 6.99 -4.28
70.00 6.74 -3.40
72.50 6.46 -2.58
75.00 6.15 -1.83
77.50 5.82 -1.14
80.00 5.46 - .53
82.50 5.06 .01
85.00 4.63 .46
87.50 4.15 .80
90.00 3.63 1.02
92.50 3.05 1.10
95.00 . 2.42 .98
-97.50 1.73 .63
100.00 .97 0

F i g u r e 3 . - Wing ordinates.

11
L-72-2162
-
(a) Three-quarter front view.

Figure 4.- Photographs of model.


Figure 4.- Concluded.
Cm

Ldeg
Slat ofi
Slat o f
40
50
50
50

2.5 :::

1 .
CL
1.0 . . . x

0 c
-. 5
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I.o
CD

(a) C, = 0.

Figure 5.- Effect of flap deflection on longitudinal characteristics


of model. Tail off; 6f2 = O o ; slat chord, 0.15~.

14
I
1Ill
m
iliii
1
Ill
0
15
85 ,deg
S t a t off
Slat off
//
30 40
- 2.CI 45 50
60 50
70 50
7

4
CL llll
3
I_
I

2
I
I
I
r
I

I
I
0'
Ii
--I'
-5 0 5 15 20 25 -I 0 I 2

c.
L~ = 0.61.

5. - Continued.

15
1.0

0
Cm
-.5

- 1.0

-1.5 0 0 Slot off


0 15 Slat off
0 30 40
A 45 50
- 20 h 60 50
B 70 50

CL
3

-I
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -I 0 I
CD

(c> c, = 1.11.

Figure 5.- Continued.

16
sFl,d@ 85,deg
0 0 S l o t off
a 15 S l o t of
0 30 40
A 45 50
n 60 50
n 70 50

5 IO 20 25 - I 0 I 2 3

c, = 2.20.

Figure 5.- Concluded.

17
it

15 S l a t o f f Slatoff 0
30 40 S l a t off 0
45
.- 50 -40 -5
60 50 -40 -5
70 50 -40 -5

2.0 ,

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 ..5 0 .5 1.0
CD

F i g u r e 6.- E f f e c t of f l a p d e f l e c t i o n on l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of model. T a i l on; t a i l f l a p o f f ; 8 f 2 = O o ; s l a t Chord, 0 . 1 5 ~ .

18
J
15 Slat o f f Slat o f f 0
30 40 slat o f f 0
45 50 - 40 -5
60 50 - 40 -5
70 50 - 40 - 5

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 I 2
CD
C, = 0.60.
F i g u r e 6.- Continued.

19
I.c

.C
Ill
Ill
c
Cm
-C

IIlll
.L

- 1.c

6,, del
-If
15 Slat o Slat off 0
0 30 40 Slat off 0
A 45 50 - 40 -5
- 2.C b 60 50 - 40 -5
b 70 -40 -5

4
CL
a
c

-I
-5 0 5 20 25 -I 0

= 1.11.

Figure 6 .- Continued.
20
.5
m ml
Cm o 1 ml
1 ml
-.5 Ill mF

-1.0

I
40 Slat off 0
50 -40 -5
@, 60 50 -40 -5
-1.5 l 70 50 -40 -5
ii
ai:
- 2.0

m n
11

n
9.0

m Hii
8.0

m 1
I!

I
n
7.0

m n/I
II
6.0

5.0 m
I 1n
CL
4.0

m II
3.0

2.0 m i
t
I

I .o li
0

- 1.0
-5 0 5 IO 20

c,
1 25

= 2.20.
-1.0
n 1.0
CD
2.0 3.0

Figure 6.- Concluded.

21
CI

Wing slat,
il Cp &,deg percent chord sts $de9
! 0 0 Slotoff - S l a t off
jo 0 40 15 S l a t off

CL
1.0

.5
i::
It!

-.5
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o
CD

Figure 7.- Effect of wing slats on longitudinal characteristics of


model. Tail on; tail flap off; .Sfl = 30'; 6 f 2 = 0'; it = 0'.

22
I .o

.5

Crn o

-.5

-1.0

-1.5
Wing slat,
&, deg percent chord
8.0 0.60 lot off -
.60 40 15
.73 5 0 25
7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL
3.0

2.0 I j
1

-5 0 15 20 25 1.0 2.0

F i g u r e 7.- Continued.

23
I .v

.5

Cm o

-.5

-1.0

-1.5
Wing slat,
c, &,de9 percent chord &,de9 8
0 1.1 I Slatoff - Slatoff
8.0 15 - 40
IJ 1.1 I 40
A 1.27 50 25 - 40
7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0
I

I .o

0
i

t
-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 -1.0 0 2.0
CD

F i g u r e 7.- Continued. I

24
I
?
Cm
.5

-.5

-1.0
I :i Iittl
A
0
Cp &,deg
2.17 Slotoff
2.13
2.30 50
40
Wing slat,
percent chord
-
15
25
&,,deg
Slat off
- 40
- 40

-1.5 II
- 2.0
I
- 2.5
I
81)

7.0 Ii
j
6.0
I1
5.0 I
i
i
CL
4.0
iI
3.0
I
2.0

I .o

0 1
1
i
- 1.0-5 0 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

CD

Figure 7 . - Concluded.

25
4

.2

Cm

-.2

Wing slat,
8s ,de percent c ho rc
0 Slat off
50
-.6 n 50

3 .1: j

3.0 w.
+ ,.

. !

0 5 25 -.5 0 .5 I.o

F i g u r e 8.- E f f e c t o f w i n g - s l a t c h o r d on l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f model. T a i l o f f ; 6f2 = O o .

26
I .O

.5

Cm o

-.5

- I .o

-I .5
Wing slat,
Ss,deg percent chor
Slat off -
8.0 50 I
t 50 i

7.0

I
1
6.0
i

5.0

4.0
CL
3.0
!

2.0

1.0

...
-1.0 ~

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -1.0 1.0 2.0

(a> Continued.

F i g u r e 8.- Continued.

27
C

Wing slat,
Lp&,deg percent chord
0 2.17 Slat off -
1
CI 2.17 50 15
CL A 229 50 25

-5 0 5 I5 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0


a ,de9 CD

( a > Concluded.

Figure 8.- Continued.

28
0 50
0 50

2.5

20

I .5
CL
I.o

.5

- .5
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o
a ,de9 CD
(b) 6fl = 60°.
F i g u r e 8.- Continued.

29
I .o

.5

-.5

- I .o

-1.5
c, & ,deg
0.60 50
8.0
73 50

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0

I.o

0 i

- 1.0 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0


-- 5 0 20 25

CD

(b) Continued.

F i g u r e 8.- Continued.
.5

Cm o

-.5
.-
Wing
-1.0 - C
, &,de9 percen
'
.-
0 2.18 50 15
A 2.29 50 25
-I .5

- 2.0
-
P
- 2.5 I

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0
1

I .o
I.
I
j: I!
:I
0
I
t

- 1.0
-5 5 IO 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
GO

(b) Concluded.

Figure 8.- Continued.

31
C

Wing slat,
&,deg percent choi
0 0 50 15
A 0 50 25

CL

I:
,
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o
CD
(c) bf, = 700.
F i g u r e 8.- Continued.

32
I .o
[
.5 ,
i
Cm o j/
-.5

- I .o

-1.5
:
i i
itil
Wing slat,
CP percent chord
8.0 I
15
1 0.6C
i 0.73 25
7.0 ~

I
1
6.0 !
I
I
5.0 I
i

i
4.0 I
CL
3.0
!

2.0 /It i

-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0
CD
( c) Continued.

F i g u r e 8.- Continued.

33
.5 I
I
iI
Cm o I
I
I

I
-.5

Wing slat,
-1.0
8,,deg percent chord
0 2.18 50 15
-1.5 A 2.30 50 25

- 2.0

- 2.5

8.0

7.0

6.0 ,

5.0

4.0
CL
3.0

2.0

I .o

- 1.0
5 IO 15 20 25 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

a .deg GO

(c ) Concluded.

F i g u r e 8.- Concluded.

34
6 f l ,deg 8f2,deg
I 45 15
45 30
. 70 15

CL

-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0

F i g u r e 9.- Effect o f combined d e f l e c t i o n s o f f l a p and f l a p e r o n on l o n g i -


t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f model. T a i l f l a p o f f ; i t = -50;
&ts= -40'; 6s = 50'; s l a t chord, 0 . 1 5 ~ .

35
Il
Il
Il
Il
L

Ill
3
0 45 15
0 45 30
A 70 15

15 20 25 -I 0 2

(b) C, = 0.61.

F i g u r e 9.- Continued.

36
.5

Cm 0

-.5

-1.0
t

-1.5

- 2.0 ,I
I
I

I
- 2:

8.C -1
I t-

7.(
i-i -L
I
I

9
.A

1
.-I
!

1=r
!
I' ' I ' I 1
1 !I

3.0 4.0
0 5 IO 15 20 25 0 1.0 2.0
a ,deq CD
(c) cp = 1.11.

Figure 9.- Concluded.

37
I .5

I .o

.5

Cm o Y

- .5

- 1.0

Ldeg C,
- I .5 Slat off 0
S l a t o f f .74
S l a t off 2.28
50 0
7.0 50 .73
io 2.28

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

5 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0

Figure 10.- Effect of 0.25-chord wing slats on longitudinal characteristics


of model. Tail off; 6fl = 0'; 6f2 = 0'.

38
i
4
I1
I
I
.2
i
Cm o I
i
I
-2 I
I
-4

3.5

3 .O

2.5

2 .o

1.5
CL
I .o

.5

-_
5
-
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -.5 0

Figure 1 1 .-
Effect of flaperon deflection on longitudinal characteristics
of model with flaps undeflected. Tail off; 6 , 50° (0.25~).

39
I .5

I .o

.5

n O P

- .5

- 1.0

-1.5

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

I .o

I
0
1

n
-1.0
-5 0 IO 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

Figure 11.- Continued.

40
2 ,c
0
15
30
45

IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

CD
C,, = 2 . 2 9 .

F i g u r e 11 .- Concluded.
41
I I 1 1 1 1
I l I l 1 1
I ~ I I ~
I I I I.ll
I I I L ~
11 I111
I I l I 1 1
111.111
I l l 1 1 1
I I I L I J
111111
111111
111111
IIIIII
I I I I I I
11.1 I I 1
I I I I I I
IIIIII
I I I I I I
I I I I I J
III111
I I I I l 1
IIIIII
IIIII4
I I I I l 1
IIII1'1
IIIIII

IIIIII
IIIIIJ
111111
IIIIII
I I l l l l
II1111
IIIIII
111111
IIIIII
111111
IIIIII
111111
I I I I I I
111111
I I I I I I
111111
I11111
IIIIII
I I I I I I
111111
I I I I I I
1IIIII
I I I I I I
IIIIII
IIlli
11111
11111
IIIII
IIIII
1 1 1 1 1
11111
IIIII
I1111
11111
11111
IIIII
11111
IIIII
IIIII

IIIII
11111
I 11 1 11 1
IIIII
IIIII
11111
I1 Il II lI lI

II I I1 I1 I1
/j/jj
IIIII
IIIII
II II Il lI lI

IIII!
IIIII
IIIII
I1111
I I I I II

u
11111
IIIII
11111
1IIII
I I I I J
IIIII
1I 1I 1I 1I 1I

IIIII
-5 5 IO 15 20 25 -. 5 .5 I .o I'

Figure 12.- Effect of flaDeron deflection on longitudinal


- characteristics
of model with flaps deflected 15O. Tail off; 6 s = 50' (0.25~).

42
I.5

I .o.

.5

Cm o

- .5

- 1.0
0 0
0 15
-1.5 0 30
45
7.0

6.0

f
1
F
c
I
r
!

!
j
,.
I
.I .!
j i

;I
ii i
i I
-
I
I
!
I i
0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
CD
(b) C, 0.73.
F i g u r e 12.- Continued.

43
.5

Cm o

-.5

-1.0
0
0
-1.5 0
A

- 2.0

80

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
GL
ti
3.0

2.0
il
ti
1
I.o
I!
0

-1.0
~

-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0


CD
(c) C, = 2.29.
F i g u r e 12.- Concluded.

44
4

.2

Cm o

-. 2

-4

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.o

1.5

CL
I .o

.5

-. 5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -. 5 0 .5 I .o

CD
0.

Figure 13.- Effect of flaperon deflection on longitudinal characteristics


of model with flaps deflected 30°. Tail off; 6 s = 50° (0.25~).

45
I .5
I Ii
I .o
ill
Ill
.5
Ill
/I]
Cm o
ijl
Ill
- .5
Ill
- 1.0

- 1.5

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
GL

3.0

2.0

I .o

-1.0
-5 0 IC 15 25 -1.0 0 I .o 2.0

(b) C, = 0.73.

Figure 13.- Continued.

46
Cm
.5

-.5
i
~

i
I

i
n
'iI
-1.0

-I .5 i m
i
I:
i
1
{I'

I 0
15
30
45

Ill

5 IO 15 20 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

C, = 2.29.
F i g u r e 13.- Concluded.
4

.2

Gm 0

-2

3.5

3 .O

2.5

2.O

1.5
CL
I .o

.5

-. 5
-5 0 5 0 .5 I .o
CD

F i g u r e 14.- Effect of f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n on l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of model w i t h f l a p s d e f l e c t e d 45O. Tail o f f ; 6, = 50' (0.25~).

48
I .5

I.o

.5

Cm o

- .5

- 1.0

-1.5

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0

I .o

-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
CO

(b) C, = 0.73.

Figure 14.- Continued.

49
.5

Cm o

-.5

-1.0

-1.5

- 2.0

- 2.5 2 ,deg
0
15
30
45

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

GL
6.0

5.0

4.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Q ,deg CD

( c > C, = 2.29.

F i g u r e 14.- Concluded.

50
.4

.2

Cm o

- .2
0
u 15
-.4
0 30
n --20
3.5

3.0

2.5

2 .o

1.5
CL
I.o

.5

0 5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o

= 0.

Figure 15.- Effect of flaperon deflection on longitudinal characteristics


of model with flaps deflected 60°. Tail off; 6, = 50° (0.25~).

51
I.5

I.o

.5

Cm o

- .5

- 1.0

- 1.5

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0

I.o

-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 1.0 2.0

0.73.

F i g u r e 15.- Continued.

52
I .o
I
/I
!I
.5
1/ I
Cm 0
n
I'

-.5
iiI
/II!
- I .o
//
I/
-1.5 li

- 2.0

- 2.5
0
0.
0
h

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0
CL

6.0

5.0

4.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
CD

C,, = 2.29.
Figure 5.- Concluded.

53
4 I I I I I
I I I I I
11111
I L L 1 1
I I I I I
IIIII
11111
III11
I1 I1 J1 1I 1I

.2 i#f
IIIII
I 1 11 I
11 I 1 1
I 1I I 1I 1I

ltll:
Cm 0 lfltt
I I I I I
Ii lLl l1l 1l

-.2
0
15
30
45
-20

3.5
[/H
1111

_I I1 1 1

3 .O
i tii
1111
I l l
iiii
1111
11
11I 1
1
Ill1
2.5 1111
Tiii
Ill1

2.o

1.5
&t
CL
#)
I .o
iill
iii]
.5
llij1
I1 I 1
I

0
!h
-. 5
-.5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -. 5 0 .5 I .o

F i g u r e 16.- Effect of f l a p e r o n d e f l e c t i o n s on l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f model w i t h f l a p s d e f l e c t e d 70°. Tail o f f ; 6 s = 50' (0.25~).

54
I.5

I.o I/ / I
:5 I l IIllI
il 11"I
Cm o

- .5

- 1.0
1 lil
4
I il 0
0
- 1.5 0

i/ l/ I A

7.0

6.0 :1 : 1
'I
CL
5.0

4.0 1 F
:IllI1 il
3.0

Il
2.0

I .o 1Ili I:liI
0

-1.0
-5 0
Il i l
5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
CD

(b) C, = 0.73.
F i g u r e 16.- Continued.

55
I .o

.5

n O

-.5

- I .o

-I .5

- 2.0 8f
0
0
- 2.5 3
A
h
- 3.0

- 3.5

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.
0
.-
-5 0 5 0 I 3.0 4.0

(c> C,, = 2.29.

Figure 16.- Concluded.

56
9

3
CL

3
CL
2

'L

0
0 10 20

Figure 17.- L i f t c o e f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h combined f l a p and


flaperon deflections. Q OO.

57
4

.2

Cm 0

- .2
Flap segments
-4 CP
deflected
0 0 I * 21 J 4 1 5J6
0 0 2J 31415
3.5 0 0 3J4

3.O

2.5

2.0

1.5

CL
I .o

.5

-. 5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o
CD

Figure 18.- Effect of partial-span flap deflection of 15' on longitudinal


characteristics of model. Tail off; Bf2 = 0'; 6, = 50' (0.25~).

58
I .5

I.o 1il I l j/l/ I


cm 0
.5 ‘il i i
lil i l 1
- .5

- 1.0

- 1.5
1
Il il
[
i
lil
il
I

C
CP
.7 3
CI .5 6
F I a p segments
deflected

. . .

7.0 Il II‘IIll/ 0 .32

6.0 Il Ill
5.0 I l IIlll
4.0 Il /I/
CL

3.0 il Il
2.0

I.o
[ i1%1l
li
I II I Ii

Il 1
0 Ill
-1.0 / I I I Ill -
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
CD
Figure 18.- Continued.

59
Q

I
Il
Il
1I11I
til
F

2.29
I.84
I. I 2

8.0

7.0

6.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

I .o

-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

F i g u r e 18.- Concluded.

60
5
4

.2

Cm o

-2

-9
CP
0
3.5 0
0

3 .O

2.5

2.o

1.5
CL
I .o

.5

-. 5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I.o

CD
Figure 19.- Effect of partial-span flap deflection of 300 on longitudinal
characteristics of model. Tail off; 6f2 = O o ; 6, = 50' (0.25~).

61
3 segments
f l ec t ed
,3,4,5,6

3,4

. I

..

4.0 1 .
t +

:j
CL 4:

t I .

E
3.0

2.0
3
I .

I
:I
1.0 t
7
.
f
.,
I

-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

CD

F i g u r e 19.- Continued.

62
Cm o
.5

m
-.5 Il
-

- I .o
Il l
Flap segmen!s
cp deflected
0 2.29
-1.5 I .86
I. I 2

- 2.0

8.0

7.0

6.0 !
?
I

L !
L
1
I
I
11
t
i
i
1
4
1 i
I

i
j 1
!
i
i
I
1
I
i
1i i
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

F i g u r e 19 .- Concluded.

63
A

.2

C'In 0

-.2

a p segments
-4 C
0 0
0 0
3.5 0 0

3.O

2.5

2 .o

1.5
CL
I .o

.5

-.5
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -. 5 0 .5 I .o

CD
F i g u r e 20.- Effect o f p a r t i a l - s p a n f l a p d e f l e c t i o n of 45' on l o n g i t u d i n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f model. T a i l o f f ; 6 f 2 = 0'; 6 s = 50' (0.25~).

64
I .5
//I/
I .o lI/I
iiil
.5 I1
1/11
cm 0 i!i
Ill!
- .5 lili
/Ill
- 1.0 ///I
- 1.5 0
0 .55
0 .32
7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0

I .o

- 1.0
-5 0 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

CD

F i g u r e 20.- Continued.

65
.5

Cm o

-.5
Flop segments
deflected
- I .o 0 2.29 1,2,314,516

-1.5

- 2.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL

3.0

2.0

I .o

-1.0
- 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 2.0

CD
20.- Concluded.

66
a
!
.2 Ii
Cm o i
kF
1
-.2 c
I
-4 I Flop segments
deflected
I 0
3.5 I 0
0
!
3 .O I
I
2.5 I
1
2.o
iI
1.5 I
CL i
I .o
I
1I

'1
I
.5

0 I
II
-. 5 I01 5 IO 15 20 0 .5 I.o
-5 25 -.5
CD
F i g u r e 21.- Effect o f p a r t i a l - s p a n f l a p d e f l e c t i o n of 60' on l o n g i t u d i n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f model. T a i l o f f ; fjf2 = 0'; 6, = 50' (0.25~).

67
I.5
Ill
I .o
I;‘l l Iil
Ill
.5 Il ill
ili
Illil
Cm o

- .5 IIi
IllI i l
I
Ill/ I /
- 1.0 ‘lap segments
deflected
0 a: 112,3,4,5,6
- 1.5 u .5( 2,33485
0 .32 3,4

7.0
iii
6.0 Ill
Ill
5.0 ill
Ill
4.0 Ill
CL

3.0 Il
2.0 Il
I .o Il
0 IIlll
-1.0 I!I
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

CD
Figure 21 .- Continued.

68
.5
Ill
Cm o I//
Ill
-.5
Ill
F1a.p segments
CP def I ec-t ed
0 2.29
-1.0 1.85
0 1.13 384
-1.5
I
- 2.0 1
1
1

80 1

7.0 i
6x3
i
I
I
I
5.0
1
C l
4.0
i
j
I
3.0

1
2.0 !
//
I1 !
I .o I,
I

- 1.0-5 I!! !
/
/ I
I

5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0


CD
Figure 21 .- Concluded.

69
4

.2

Y
Cm o i
9I

I
- .2 I
I
I
I
I Flap segments
-4 deflected
I
0 1,2,3,4,5,6:
0 2,3,4,5 :
3.5 0 3,4
0 +(2,5)
3#,4 :
iI
3 .0
I
I
I
2.5 t

2 .o
1
I
CL I
1.5
1
I
I
I
I .o t

.5 I
FI
F
1
0
rt:
1

5 IO 15 20 25 -.5 0 .5 I .o
CD
F i g u r e 22.- E f f e c t o f p a r t i a l - s p a n f l a p d e f l e c t i o n of 70 on l o n-g i t u d i n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f model. T a i l o f f ; 6 f 2 = O o ; 6 s = 50’ (0.25~).
I .5

I .o l i!
.5 iIIll1l
Cm o I1
- .5 l
- 1.0 ip segment
CtL d ef I ec ted
3 74 112,3,4,5,6
-1.5 .56 2,3,4,5 ..
3 .3-
n .3
3,4
3,4+(2,5 not blowing) '#
7.0

6.0 :i
CL
5.0

4.0

3.0
1
lil
jl
2.0 Il
I .o Il
0 i//Il
-1.0 Ill
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 1.0 2.0
CD

F i g u r e 22. - Continued.

71
I .o

.5

1 0

-.5 Flap segments


deflected
0 2.30
-1.0 0 1.85
0 1.1 3
A I. I 3 3,4+(2,5not blowing) 1
-1.5

- 2.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

50

40

3.0

2.0

I.o

-1.0-
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 0 I .o 2.0 3.0 4D

CD

F i g u r e 22.- Concluded.

72
iI iI iI
/I/
Ill
/Ill
m
IIll m
4
j//
1 1 1
1 1 1

fi
m m
mm
III
/m/ I
jjj
i ii
s
Ill
III
!/I

1
1
lil
1
iii ill
‘lap segments
Ill cu

I 0 .56
deflected

(22 60
Tailoff a
ICI
0 .56 -10 lil
I// 30

I
IIll/
I
1
E
&
m
Ill
mm
Ill
m
Ill 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
20

CO

Figure 23.- Effect of partial-span flap deflections of 30’ and 60’ on


longitudinal characteristics of model. Tail flap and slat on when
tail is on; 6f2 = 0 0 ; 6 s = 50’ (0.254.

73
.5

Cm 0

-.5

-1.0

-I .5 Flap segments
=I1
deflected
60
-.2.0 0 1.85 30
60 -10
0 1.85 30

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
GL
3.0

2.0

I.o

- 1.0- 5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

Q ,deg

F i g u r e 23.- Concluded.

74
3

5
CL

0
0 1
0 20 30 40 50 60 70
6 , , ,deg
F i g u r e 24.- Variation of l i f t coefficient with f l a p deflection f o r
three f l a p segments. 6 f 2 = 0’; a = 0’.

75

1
6
ii
5

4
1
I
I !

!!
'f
!!

3
CL
2 I1
!I

4
i
I

3 II
I/

1
CL 5
2 I/

1
!
I
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
bf/b bdb

F i g u r e 25.- V a r i a t i o n of l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h f l a p s p a n .
a = 00; 6f2 = oo.

76
4

.2

Cm 0

- .2

-4
t ,deg

3.5 'ailoff
0
-5
3 .O

2.5

2.o

1.5
CL

I .o

.5

-. 5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 -. 5 0 .5 I.o
CD

Figure 26.- Effect of horizontal-tail incidence on longitudinal


characteristics of model with flaps deflected 15O. 6f2 = O o ;
6s 50' ( 0 . 2 5 ~ ) ; 6ts = -40'.

77
I .5

I .o

.5

m O

-.5

- 1.0

t ,de9 Str ,deg


- 1.5 -
0 rail off
0 0 Flapoff
7.0 0 -5 Flap off
A -10 F l a p off

6.0
II
4 1

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

I.o

I ..
-1.0
-5 0 5 20 25 -1.0 1.0 2.0

= 0.73.
F i g u r e 26.- Concluded.

78
,-

Btf ,deg
-
F l a p off
Flap off
Flap o f f
- 40
-40
- 40

I
I
I
"1
I
-1.0
-5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0

(a) C, = 0.73.
Figure 27.- Effect -
horizontal-tail incidence on lonnitudinal
characteristics of model with flaps deflected 30°. 6f2 =;'0
6 , = 50' (0.25~); 6ts = -40'.

79
I .5
I
I
I .o

.5 I/I1
cm 0 II
I
- .5 I
,
1
' i
i t ,deg 611
1
,deg
- 1.0
Flap off
1 0 -5 Flap off
Flap off
- 1.5
-40
0 -5
a -I O
7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
GL *,..
....
....
1 . 4 ,
I . . ,

3.0 -
.. .. .. .,.
.. ,. . ,.
.. .*..,.
. a , .

2.0 4
....
......
..,.,.
. . .,.
I .
. . / *

. .,
.... ...
I .o I I .

... ... ...


.. .. . .
. .. .
I

I ., ... ...
.. ... .. . . , . .
- . . . . .. .. .. .-/ .
. I .

. I . .

0 .... - - 1 .

.., ... ... .,, . . . . . ,


, I .

... . .
. . . ..
1 .
1 . I

-1.0
-5 0 5 IO 20 25 -1.0 0 2.0

(b) C, = 1.27.

Figure 27.- Continued.

80

.'
;:I
!I!
. I t ,:'

0 5 IO 15 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0


CD

( e > C, = 2.29.

F i g u r e 27.- Concluded.

81
I .5

I .o

.5

Cn1 0

- .5

- 1.0

- 1.5 A

0
-IO
-15
-10
Flap off
Flap off
Flap off
- 40
4
1-:

.! // IL

b -15 -40
ZO

6.0

5.0

4.0
GL

3.0

2.0

1.o

-1.0
-.5 0 5 IO 15 20 -1.0 0 1.0
CD

(a) C, = 0.73.

-
Figure 28.- Effect of horizontal-tail incidence on longitudinal
characteristics of model with flaps deflected 60°. 6f2 = O o ;
6 s = 50' (0.25~); 6ts -'-IO0.

82
1.5

I .o

.5

Cm o
I t ,deg

-.5 0 -5
P
A -10
I I
I -15
D -IO
- I .o
b -15

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
CL
3.0

2.0

1.0

0
i

15 20 25 I .o 2.0 30
CD

F i g u r e 28.- Continued.

83
.5

Cm o

-.5

-1.0

-I .5

- 2.0

i t ,deg
- 2.5 -
0 -5 Flapoff
A -10 F l a p off
n -15 Flapoff
I3 -15 -40

10.0

9.0

8.0
GL
7.0

6.0

5.0

4.-0
-5 0 5 20 25 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0
CD
c, = 2.29.
F i g u r e 28.- Concluded.

84
I .5

I .o

.5 1im
!I
Cm o

-.5 m/I
- I .o
0 T a i l off -
0 -5 Flapoff
-1.5 A -10 Flopoff
n -15 Flap off
-10 -40
z0

m
6.0

m
5.0

4.0 m
H1
CL

3.0

2.0

I .o

I
0 1
-1.0
-5 0 5 15 20 25 2.0 3.0

( a > C, = 0.73.
Figure 29.- Effect of horizontal-tail incidence on longitudinal
characteristics of model with flaps deflected 70°. 6f2 00;
6 s = 50' (0.25~); 6ts = -'-IO0.

85
I .o

.5

Cm o

-.5

- I .o

-1.5

- 2.0 i t ,deg
0 Toil o f f
- 2.5 0 -5
-10
-15
n -IO
i
3 -I 5

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0
CL

6.0

5.0

4.0
-5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 0 I .o 2.0 3.0 4.0

CD

(b) C, = 2.29.
Figure 29.- Concluded.

86 NASA-Langley, 1976 L- 10887


.. .. ~~

I .
.c
I
.-. .
'

(S)
/ .

' 7

N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADM INlSTRATlON r :


W A S H I N G T O N , D.C. 2 0 5 4 6 a:$;, r. * ' POSTAGE A N D FEES P A I D

PENALTY
~~

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
FOR PRIVATE U S E 1300 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE
J!'
.*,.' '

.
..
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND
S P A C E AOM I N l S T R A T l O N
451
,. USMAIL
BOOK
I:. ;

874 001 C l U A 7 6 1 0 2 9 SOOS03DS


DEPT OF THE A I F . FORCE
A F WEAPONS LABORATORY
ATTN: TECHNXCAL L I B R A R Y ( S U L )
KIRTLAND A F B NM 87117

POSTMAST~R If Undeliverable (.eeetion 158

- ..
I ...
. *.
'
'
.
Post;ll Rlnnilnl) Do Not Return
-
*' ..
c .
.
"The aeronautical .and space actjwit-es of the United States shall be
conducted so as to contcibzite . . i-t.0 the expansion of human knowl-
edge of phenomena i n the atmospherb and space. T h e Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable. &d appropriate disseminatioft
. of information concerning its activit(e!,'lend the results thereof."
'.:..., .
.. -NATIONALAERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 .

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND


. .
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
. .
TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: 1;lformation
technical information considered important, Gblished in a foreign language considered
complete, and a lasting contribution to existing to merit NASA'distribution in English.
knowledge.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a derived from or of value to NASA activities.
contribution to existing knowledge. Publications include final reports of major
projects, monographs, data compilations,
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS :
handbooks, sourcebooks, and special
Information receiving limited distribution bibliographies.
because of preliminary data, security classifica-
tion, or other reasons. Also includes conference TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
proceedings with either limited or unlimited PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
distribution. used by NASA that may be of particular
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and interest in commercial and other-non-aerospace
technical information generated under a NASA applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
contract or grant and considered an important Technology Utilization Reports and
contribution to existing knowledge. Technology Surveys.

Details on the availability of these publications m a y b e obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE


NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Washington, D.C. 20546