NASA Technical Memorandum 8 1 2 6 9

-

-

-

-

-

- -

- --

-

-

Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, and Stability of Hang Gliders Experimental Results

-

llan M. Kroo

(NASA-TB-81209) AEBOCYYAHICS, A E P O B L A S l I C I T i , A N D STAidlLITY OF UAIG GLlDE61S. E P P E B I d b Y T A L RESULTS (YASA) lug p HC A36/MP A 3 1 CSCL 0 1 A
G3/OL

ldl-24025

Unclas
ULU33
J

April 1981

National Aeronaut~cs and Space Admtn~stration

NASA Technical MmOrmhrn 81269

Aerodynamics, Aerodasticity, and Stability of Hang Gliders Experimental Results

1

-

llan M. Kroo, Stanford University, Stanford, California and Ames Research Center. Moffett Field, California

Nat~onz' Aerwauttcs and Space 4d~;rii>tra?10n

* -, .
*

. I "

_

.
_I___

.

.---

. . .-

.....--

.

-

. a

"%

.t

h

t;b

-- -_.-

.

___*.

. '0'.
I -

:-f

!f

'f 5 ;;
*
@

.[
%

LIST OF SYl4BOLS
A
AR

1:
ii
I
i

cross-sectional a r e a aspect r a t i o .

i

S
drag
qs

b

. .

.t

drag c o e f f i c i e n t ,

C~0

CD a t zero l i f t
l i f t coefficient , lift qs
i s miniwrm

CL
CL0

CL a t which CD

r o l l i n g moment qSb moment pitching-moment coef f ic!.ent , qs awing moment yawing-ment coefficient, qSb s i d e force side-f orce c o e f f i c i e n t , rolling-moment c o e f f i c i e n t ,

-

qs

mean geometric chord, root chord diameter Young' s modulus

S

equivalent f l a t - p l a t e drag a r e a constant in 3-parameter drag polar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c length
MAC

mean aerodynamic chord,

$ lobla c2dy
iii

s c a l e value leading edge model value c/4 f 1.ic pressure. h planform area tension tunnel airspeed @!i angle of a t t a c k (measured with respect to keel) angle of s i d e s l i p strain sweep angle taper r a t i o . 6 6 ) s t a b i l i t y a x i s system ( f i g .q dyn. 10) quarter-chord l i n e f u l l .. a i r density stress Subscripts: B S W & r body a x i s system ( f i g .e. m P a B r a t e of change with r o l l r a t e r a t e of change with r a t e of change with a $ . 6 5 ) wind a x i s system ( f i g . 3 PV' 1 RC ~apaolda e r .

by 3m (7.I l a n M. Drag data suggest t h a t lift-dependent viscous drag is a l a r g e p a r t of t h e g l i d e r ' s t o t a l drag a s i s expected f o r t h i n . and various s t a b i l i t y enhancement devises.0x106 to 5 . Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ms with technical a s s i s t a n c e from A e Research Center personnel and t h e Army Aeromechanics Laboratory.s c a l e values (1.t Modern g l i d e r configurations e x h i b i t much more s t a b l e and l i n e a r p i t c h i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than the e a r l y "Rogallo designs" which a r e shown t o have p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t low angles of a t t a c k .by 10-ft) wind tunnel a t h s Research Center.This work was supported by the NASA University Grants Program. 0 ~ 1 0 ~ ) . dihedral.s c a l e g l i d e r s and were t e s t e d a t Reynolds numbers c l o s c t o f u l l . L a t e r a l data i n d i c a t e t h a t e f f e c . **Research A s s i s t a n t .~ e dihedral is l o s t a t low angles of a t t a c k f o r nearly a l l of t h e configurations tested. moate7. NSG 2359.i . . *. Technical monitor: W Eonald Cif f one.Twenty-four minor modifications were made t o t h e b a s i c configuratirrns i n order t o evaluate t h e e f f e c t s of t w i s t . The appearance of l a t e r a l d a t a depends g r e a t l y on t h e chosen reference axis system f o r these g l i d e r s which operate a t unusuallv l a r g e angles of a t t a c k . The importance of v e r t i c a l center of gravity displacement i s discussed. Xroo** Ames Research Center One-f i f th-scale models of t h r e e b a s i c u l t r a l i g h t g l i d e r designs vere t e s t e d i n a 2. cambered s e c t i o n s at these r e l a t ively low Reynolds numbers. The models vere constructed t o simulate t h e elastic p r o p e r t i e s of f u l l . Stanford University. Large d e s t a b i l i z i n g moments a t negative angles of a t t a c k associated with low c e n t e r of gravity contribute t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t v of tumbling. f a c u l t y r advisor: Prof. Longitudinal and l a t e r a l data were obtained a t several speeds through an angle of a t t a c k range of -30° t o +4S0 with s i d e s l i p angles of up t o 20°. . hence demonstrating t h e need f o r a dynamic analysis. Holt Ashley. r e f l e x .

1-8) in the 1%0's could be used to obtain sooe idea of the characteristics of older hang glider designs. The results also make it possible to identify design variables which are effective in improving the controllability and performance of these gliders. The requirements associated with performance. 2) Development of analytical methods to predict the aerodynamic and structural properties of modern hang glider designs. Robert Jones. Uany useful sug~estionshave been provided by members of the project Advisory Committee. NASA-supported work (under grant NSG-2359) began on a program of research aimed at the development of quantitative tools to be used in predicting the aerodynamic characteristics of these ultralight gliders and assisting in their design (ref. and Dr. .by 10-ft Wind Tunnel No. In 1979. W. Only in the last 2 years have data from contenrporary d e s i ~ s becae available.000 rr (19. 9). Dr.In the laot 1 years hang glfding has evolved from an obscure aport to a 0 popular. Although the results of NASA wind-tmnel studies of the Rogallo wing (refs. Mr. Donald Ciffone (technical monitor). world-vide activity with sooe 40 glider manufacturing corporations and with participants nubering i the tens of thousands. whose help is also greatly appreciated: Dr. The data base remains extremely limited despite the need for a quantitative understanding of the properties of these aircraft to increase their performance and safety . Hewitt Phillips. Performance gains n have made possible 150-b (10hile) flights at altitudes up ta 6. most of the analytical work w N c h has been done on glider dynamics is based on unrepresentative data. Paul MacCready. 2 at Ames Research Center. This report details the first portion of this work which was conducted in the Army Aeromechanics Laboratory 7. . Gary Valle. Peter Lissaman. Dr. Robert Ormiston. These requirements have been met largely by a design evolution based on trial and error rather than conventional analytical and wind-tunnel work. The assistance of personnel associated with this facility is gratefully acknowledged. The empirical results will be used in verification and refinement of the analytical work to allow development of an analysis method with a broad range of applicability. Mr. relatively little accurate data exist on the aerodynamic properties of modern gliders w N c h bear little resemblance to the original Rogallo designs. and controllability have become more demanding as thermal soaring and limited acrobatic maneuvers have replaced the original short glides frola sand dunes. Bolt Ashley (faculty advisor). The investigation consists of two closely related phases: 1) Wind-tunnel studies of elastically-scaled models.000 it) and aultihour flight8 are now cwaon. stability. Dr. 2 I I . Hence. Dr.

The severe requirement on model construction is t o ensure that . Since a v a i l a b l e wind tunnels operate a t e s s e n t i a l l y sea-level condiF experienced by t h e g l i d e r t i o n s . it follows t h a t any r e s u l t a n t force . To properly d u p l i c a t e t h e aerodynamlc c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e f u l l .: cf t h e e l a s t i c p r o p e r t i e s I n addition t o ge-tric and aerodynamlc similarity .with EI t h e f a m i l i a r bending r i g i d i t y . w h ~ c h e c e s s i t a t e s accurate modelin. Force e q u a l i t y can be reasoned f r a a the f a c t t h a t where t h e product of speed and t y p i c a l length. 10-12) have demonstrated t h e importance of e l a s t i c scaling. i t i s necessary t h a t these models operate a t t h e same Reynolds number and r d n geanetrically s i m i l a r m d e r corresponding loads. apparent a t higher angles of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p . model must equal t h e corresponding Ff a t f u l l scale. This is caused by t h e f l e x i b i l i t y n of t h e frame and deformation of t h e f a b r i c sail. With a i r d e n s i t i e s and f o r c e s proportional t o pv2a2 then The combination of equal force and equal s t r a i n requirements leads t o d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h e construction of e l a s t i c a l l y scaled models.s c a l e a i r c r a f t . v t . Reynolds nunber equivalence is especially important i f t h e r a t h e r complex separated-flow e f f e c t s . I f t h e leading edges of both model and f u l l . a r e t o be sinulated. must be t h e same a t both scales. The f l i g h t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of tiris type of g l i d e r have been shovn t o vary conrliderably w i t h changes i n loading. These combined requirements place severe c o n s t r a i l d e on model construction. Recent experimental inveetigations ( r e f s .s c a l e g l i d e r s a r e constructed of tubes with c i r cular c r o s s s e c t i o n s of radius r propol-tional t o 1 f o r aerodynamic slmilari t y . t h e s t r a i n i n these tubes is proportional t o F r 2 / ~ 1 .TESTING PROCEDURE Model Construction SuizZing.Unavailability of large-ecale wind-tunnel f a c i l i t i e s d i c t a t e d t h e use of s c a l e models r a t h e r than a c t u a l production g l i d e r s .

063-in.) cables a r e used. Preliminary .s c a l e model. t h e thickness required t o duplic a t e s t r e t c h i n g v a r i e s with t h e inverse of t h e s c a l e f a c t o r . which may be corrected accordingly. they would be 0. Further d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with e l a s t i c s c a l i n g include properly modeling the cable attachments and s a i l stretching.54 i s required.s c a l e cables a r e nominally 3. It requires s p e c i a l tightly-woven f a b r i c . This r e s c l t s i n a very t h i c k sail with larger-than-scale bending r i g i d i t y .6 rn (0. ) . To duplicate t h e s t r e t c h i n g of t h e cables.I f t h e same construction and material were employed on t h e model one would have This f a c t o r of 25 a t one-fifth s c a l e is q u i t e unacceptable. t h e requirement i s t h a t Since f u l l . It is believed t h a t the l a r g e r cables s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t only t h e drag measurements. Simultaneous s c a l i n g of s a i l t e n s i l e p r o p e r t i e s and bending r i g i d i t y r e q u i r e s t h e s e l e c t i o n of a material with proper values of Young's modulus and thickness. Models cons t r u c t e d of steel i n t h i s manner approach t h e desired s t i f f n e s s : e The requirement of equal s t r a i n s . I f the rod diameters a r e geometrically scaled. ) i n diameter. Exact modeling of s a i l s t r e t c h i n g i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t . whereas ( i f the Reynolds number were reduced a s above) t h e forces they experience would be lower by a f a c t o r of 3.6-mm (0.125 i n . adequate model s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h a s w e l l a s simulated cable s t r e t c h i n g w i l l be ensured i f 1. an a r t i f i c i a l l y high drag i s produced. therefore. Geometrically s i m i l a r model cables would have a cross-sectional a r e a 1/25 times t h a t of t h e f u l l . I f t h e cables were geometrically scaled. Small d i f f e r e n c e s i n attachment geometry (absence of s t a i n l e s s . s t i f f thread.2 mm (0. a reduction i n Reynolds number by approximately 0. Hence. can be m t by allowing largerthan-scale rod diameters o r by some relaxing of t h e Reynolds number requirement.s t e e l thimbles) lead t o some modeling discrepancies. Scaling of cables t o simulate aerodynamic and s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of the f u l l . Since weight is not believed t o be a very s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r .025 i n . I f s a i l material is used (fixed E). then.s c a l e g l i d e r is amre d i f f i c u l t .4. t h e s i t u a t i o n can be a l l e v i a t e d with t h e use of s o l i d rods of s t i f f e r material on the model. and scaled s t i t c h i n g .

41 f o r t h e low-billow models were predicted] 3. Further d e t a i l s of nodel cons t r u c t i o n a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 1-4. It i s no longer p o s s i b l e t o test a "standard" c o n f i g u r a t i o n and use the r e s u l t s t o predict universal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r these a i r c r a f t .8-oz. The t h i r d configuration was t e s t e d t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r i d e a of t h e e f f e c t s of sweep on hang g l i d e r designs. The model was supported i n t h r e e places: t h e p i l o t attachment point a t t h e apex of t h e t r i a n g u l a r c o n t r o l frame and a t each end of t h e h o r i z o n t a l segment of t h e frame ( c o n t r o l b a r ) . and a majority of t h e d a t a were obtained with t h i s model. The s t r u t r o t a t e d about its v e r t i c a l axis t o o b t a i n s i d e s l i p a n g l e s of 220'. d i h e d r a l . A t o t a l of 2 7 d i f f e r e n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were t e s t e d and a r e s u m a r i z e d i n t a b l e 1. Three b a s i c models were constructed w i t h p r o j e c t e d planforms shown i n f i g u r e s 2-4. P~wever. which complicated w a l l c o r r e c t i o n s but s u b s t a n t i a i t y reduced s t r u t i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s . and k e e l pockets ( f i g . Mode2 configurations.A wide v a r i e t y of hang g l i d e r designs a r e comnon today. Angle-of-attack changes were made by r o t a t i n g t h e model about an a x i s j u s t below t h e c o n t r o l bar. I n p a r t i c u l a r . represent a t i v e of t h e e a r l y hang g l i d e r designs. and sweep were i n v e s t i g a t e d . t h e predominant e l a s t i c deformations a s s o c i a t e d w i t h leading-edge bending were modeled c a r e f u l l y . 7) as w e l l a s t h e e f f e c t s of b a t t e n f l e x i b i l i t y . The second mo'el i s most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of present g l i d e r designs. No attempt was made t o simulate t h e mass p r o p e r t i e s of t h e s a i l material. s u f f i c i e n t s i m i l a r i t y does e x i s t s o t h a t c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may b e determined from t e s t s on a small group w i t h d i f f e r e n t b u t c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d geometries. and bending r i g i d i t y . l u f f l i n e s ( f i g . The f i r s t model i s a "standard Rogallo" configuration. t h e e f f e c t of v a r i o u s modifications including fixed-twist r i b s ( f i g .s c a l e d a t a which e x i s t f o r t h i s configuration. 8. 5 ) . - - Although some d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i e t e d i n modeling t h e e l a s t i c p r o p e r t i e s of t h e f u l l . . This model was s e l e c t e d p r i m a r i l y because of t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amount of f u l l . 6 ) . A summary of t h e b a s i c model geometric p r o p e r t i e s i s included i n f i g u r e s 2-4. Balance and Support System The model support system permitted an angle-of-attack range of +45" t o -30" ( s e e f i g s . Dacron s a i l c l o t h was s e l e c t e d f o r use on t h e g l i d e r models as a compromise based on required s t r e n g t h .a n a l y s i s shaved t h a t f o r t h e models t e s t e d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of sail s t r e t c h i n g 480 ~ / m * (10 l b / f t 2 ) elont o t h e o v e r a l l deformation would be mall [ a t q g a t i o n s of 0.4% f o r t h e standard and 1. e l a s t i c i t y . This placed t h e s a i l g e n e r a l l y a h v e t h e tunnel c e n t e r l i n e . 9).s c a l e g l i d e r . Results from t h e present i n v e s t i g a t i o n could be compared w i t h previous s t u d i e s t o v e r i f y t h e b a s i c techniques used i n t h e reduced-scale tests.

and subtracted from t h e data.00 i n .The 6-cmponznt balance system of t h e Army's 2. No other c o r r e c t i o n f o r s t r u t interference was made.12 f t / l b ) ( .14Nm r (0. t h e reference center about which moment.2 l b ) ( . photographs of wool t u f t p a t t e r n s were taken t o provide information on s t a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and b a s i c flow properties.8 were computed i s t h e p i l o t t e t h e r point near t h e apex of t h e c o n t r o l frame 12. 7 ) . and induced angle e f f e c t s according t o procedures described i n references 13-16 f o r these yawed. i n a l l cases. a s shown i n f i g u r e 9. !Mtml boundm)y oorrsotions. The following = a l e r e s o l u t i o n s were a v a i l a b l e and were e f f e c t 1 aly reduced by averaging: Lift Drag Side force pitching moment Rolling moment Yawing moment 20. A e m d y d c tares. Reference c e n t e r l o c a t i o n s a r e m shown f o r each model i n f i g u r e s 2-4. + ~ d n a l a t e r section. Angle of a t t a c k i s measured w i t h respect t o f!te kec. swept models. The output from t h i s servo was input d i r e c t l y t o t h e d i g i t a l deta a c q u i s i t i o n system. f i t t o a two-dimensional least-squares approximation. and ~lpan a s references.10 f t l l b ) (.on of these t a r e s was subtracted f rcm t h e data. Maximm model span was about 70% of t h e tunnel span. .Wind-off measurements of weight t a r e s with and without model were made f o r various angles of a t t a c k and s i d e s l i p .9 N . streamline curvature. off t h e tunnel c e n t e r l i n e . sides l i p .02 l b ) ( . Weight tares.by 10-ft) wind-tunnel f a c i l i t y at h e o Research Center waa u d . Except where otherwise noted.Longitudinal and l a t e r a l d a t a were corrected f o r blocking. Data AnalysCs Scale outputs were converted t o standard f o r c e s and moments i n nondimens i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t form using projected a r e a . 10) unless otherwise specified. ) below t h e k e e l ] . mean geometric chord. and dynamic pressure.09N + .16 Nm + .09N f .54 c (1. Photographs of t h e s a i l shape change with angle of a t t a c k were a l s o recorded f o r comparison with f u t u r e a n a l y t i c a l work.by 3-m (7.Model-off runs were made t o determine t h e aerodynamic f o r c e s exerted on t h e strut-mounting system a t various angles of a t t a c k . In addition t o t h e six-component force d a t a .02 l b ) ( . [Note t h a t the s a i l root chord i n some cases is not p a r a l l e l t o t h e keel ( f i g . Readings from a t r a i n gauge balances were averaged f o r each data point and recorded on a PDP-11 computer which a l s o provided on-line uncorrected d a t a reduction. A three-dimensional least-squares approximat!.lOft/lb) Angle-of-attack measurements were made with an Angle I n d i c a t i n g D i g i t a l Servo attached t o t h e support s t r u c t u r e . 1 Moments a r e presented with respect t o a windaxes system ( f i g . The importance of t h e choice i of reference axes and moment c e n t e r is d i s c u s .14 Nm r.

S k c o . Some previous i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ( r e f s . A t t h e higher CL an e f f e c t i v e decrease i n warhout i r induced.75. I n t h i s investigat' 3. 2) weight t a r e and aerodynamic t a r e f i t t e d curve e r r o r s . 8. some of t h e t e s t rune were made a t only one dynamic pressure and a r e intended t o demonstrate configuration-dependent trends r a t h e r than t o e s t a b l i s h a comprehensive data base on a very limited number of configurations. data were obtained a t dynamic pressures ranging from 240 N/m2 (5. 7) measurement accuracy of Angle Indicating D i g i t a l Servo. and 9) model centering.0 an e f f e c t i v e decrease i n washout of l e s s than O.) a i r c r a f t b o l t s used on f u l l s c a l e g l i d e r s and s a i l material was required t o withstand f u l l . A t CL of 1. The n e t u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e s i x components of forces and moments a r e approximately: Values i n parentheses i n d i c a t e u n c e r t a i n t i e s during yaw sweep i n which l a r g e weight t a r e s and h y s t e r e s i s e f f e c t s appeared during t u r n t a b l e rot--tion. 6) noise i n zero readings.b This resulted i n an induced upwaeh of about 0. 10-12 and 17. The Reynolds number corresponding t o the tunnel conditions a t 20 t o 40 m/sec (65 t o 130 f t / s e c ) i s 1 .s c a l e veioci t i e s of 7 t o 15 m/sec (24 t o 48 f t / s e c ) based on equivalent e l a s t i c def ormat f ons. 3) moment arm measurement u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Uncertainties a r e introduced i n t o t h e d a t a from s e v e r a l sources: 1 ) . 8) h y s t e r e s i s i n s c a l e balance system. The e f f e c t of increased upwarh a t the t i p s is negligible a t lowl i f t coefficiente.0 p s f ) o 963 N/m2 (20. 7 0 ~ 1 0 per m. 5) minimMl measurement accuracy of s c a l e s . Model s t r u c t u r a l considerations a l s o limited t e s t i n g a t t h e high dynamic pressures. The spanwise v a r i a t i o n of boundary-induced v e l o c i t i e s was small. 18) have shown t h a t r e s u l t s vary considerably with dynamic pressure.SO was induced.) high-strength b o l t s were required t o withstand s t r e s s e s s i m i l a r t o t h e 8 (5/16-in.s c a l e value. a t t h e root q u a r t e r chord of t h e model.6-mm (1116-in.--ale n o n l i n e a r i t i e s . q ) .er of 0 54 times the f u l l . t h e o ~ models were constructed f o r e l a s t i c s i m i l a r i t y a t a Reynolds nuqn!. 3 5 ~ 1 0t~ 2 .l u f f i n g . This is p a r t i a l l y compensated by t h e a e r o e l a r t i c respome ( g r e a t e r geometric washout). low . these conditions correspond t o f c l l . only s l i g h t l y a f f e c t i n g t h e g l i d e r s t a l l i n g behavior. 4) support system f l e x i b i l i t y . Because of t h e l a r g e amount of tunnel time required t o generate data on the number of configurations shown i n t a b l e 1 with a three-dimensional test matrix (a.0 p s f ) . The 1.

H.H. 2B. Measured aerodynamic characteristics of these configurations are outlined below and are presented in figures 14-64.N. Description Selected tuft photographs stall behavior Configurations Figures - 1. 3H Longitudinal characteristics of basic models variation with q and a Lift Drag Moment - Variation of C. 38.Q.N.C.G 1. 3B-E.L.L-P. with reference center location Pitching-moment variation with sideslip Lffect of modifications on longitudinal characteristics Lift Drag Moment Lateral characteristics of basic models vs a 1.H 2B-G. The latter two structural failures occurred at highly stresssd areas which were recagnieed during model construction as potential problems. 38. 2A. 2E 1.H. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Figures 11-13 are installation photographs of the three models tested.H.G 1. and safety wires at these joints prevented major damage to the models. 2A.2B-G.I 36-40 41-48 49-55 56-64 .E.angle-of-attack measurements at tunnel speeds up to 40 m/eec (130 ft/sec). These revere conditions reoulted in a sail failure at the trailing edge of the first model and two bolt failures with subsequent models. 31 1. 2A.PS 3B-E. 3B.I 2D-C.L-P. Table 1 describes the coqfigurations.

0055 P i l o t and harness: Estimates of p i l o t and h a r n e s s drag from r e f e r ences 10 and 12 vary from 0. The second model e x h i b i t s a very l i n e a r l i f t curve from CL 0 (where l u f f .0 per u n i t l e c g t h based on diameter appears reasonable. This i s probably a r e s u l t of higher s a i l t e n s i o n and a correspoildingly g r e a t e r deformation with loading.23 m2 ( 2 * 5 f t 2 ) . be cotr e c t e d t o account f o r t h e large-diameter c a b l e s as follows: Standard: Model 2: Model 3: -0. The highly r e f l e x e d a i r f o i l combined with an e a r l y r o o t s t a l l r e s u l t s i n a r e l a t i v e l y low CLma of 0. For conventional u l t r a l i g h t designs t h i s may be expressed approximately a s : of equivaient f l a t . A s mentioned previously. and 2 ) t h e absence of p i l o t drag.Figure 19 shows t h a t a l a r g e range of n e a r l y l i n e a r CL vs a e x i s t s even f o r t h e high-billow "standard" design. t h e r e f o r e .12 m2 (1. A f u l l s c a l e p i l o t drag a r e a of 0.l i n e tension diminishes r a p i d l y ) up t c bout CL = 0.:ontributions of v a r i o u s g l i d e r compon e n t s t o t h e t o t a l drag of t h e g l i d e r . When t h e d a t a f o r i s o l a t e d c a b l e s from r e f e r e n c e 19 a r e used.4 a t 37'. and a s h i f t i n t h e curve n e a r a = 0' when t h e s a i l c o l l a p s e s i n f r o n t of t h e c r o s s bar a r e a l l apparent i n t h e f i g u r e and agree well with previous r e s u l t s .86 f t 2 ) f o r a t y p i c a l 10-m (33-ft) span g l i d e r . 21). This t r e n d i s a l s o v i s i b l e i n t h e v a r i a t i o n w i t h dynamic pressure.0056 -0.0050 -0. a drag c o e f f i c i e n t of 1. o r about 0. The curve reaches a maximum of 0.08 m2 (0. drag r e s u l t s must be c o r r e c t e d f o r two e f f e c t s : 1) t h e use of larger-than-scale c a b l e s . t o g e t h e r with r e s u l t s i n r e f e r e n c e s 10-12 and 19-21 were used t o approximate t h e r e l a t i v e . Cables: It i s d i f f i c u l t t o e s t i m a t e t h e a c t u a l d r a g of c a b l e s in t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e g l i d e r . a break i n t h e l i n e a r curve a t about 10' due t o l u f f i n g .92 f o r t h e b a s i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n ( f i g .83 a t 24'.3 f t 2 ) l e a d s t o t h e iollowing c o r r e c t i o n & which must be added t o t h e model data: .Drag d a t a f o r t h e b a s i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e given in f i g u r e s 22-24. - Drag data.21 m2 (2.p l a t e drag a r e a .2/rad.DISCUSS ION OF RESULTS General R e s u l t s Lift curve.8. In c o n t r a s t t o t h e above. Data on o t h e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e presented i n f i g u r e s 41-48. t h e v a r i a t i o n of CL w i t h a f o r t h e t h i r d model is more nonlinear ( f i g . R e s u l t s from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The d a t a resented here must. A l i f t curve s l o p e of about 2. a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e CL of 1.3 f t 2 ) t o 0. 20).

28 .Standard: Wodel2: Xodel 3: 0. The curve i s c l e a r l y not l i n e a r and much g r e a t e r success w a s achieved ir.186 n2 (2. . 19). ~ Apparent i n these f i g u r e s i s t h e influence of twist on drag (see espe. and d a t a wer+ f i t t o t h e form CD CDdn + K (CL .0110 0. This is p a r t l y due t o the l a r g e amount of t w i s t i n these wings and p a r t l y t o t h e highly c d e r e d s e c t i o n s which achieve minimm drag a t a r e l a t i v e l y high CL. The drag data obtained here f o r the second amdel is p l o t t e d v s cL2 i n f i g u r e 44. 44).45 < < 1.0 f t 2 ) of p a r a s i t i c dray area is due t o t h e c o n t r o l bar and ldngpost ( r e f . S a i l drag: The remaining drag on the g l i d e r is the viscous and induced drag of t h e l i f t i n g surface. In addition t o an increment i n CD min rapid increase i n drag with l i f t f o r t h e configurations t e s t e d here. ) g 45-48).1 6 config.35 .8 and a r e susnsrarized below.0115 0.27 0.44 . t w i s t produces a more c i a l l y f i g .30 -28 . This l a r g e lift-dependent viscous drag makes the usual r e l a t i o n f o r drag: CD = C D + c L 2 / n ~unsuit~ ~ able over the large CL range i n which hang g l i d e r s operate.0118 Cross bar: The drag of t h e c r o s s b a r v a r i e s with its d i s t a n c e from t h e s a i l and with the l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t of t h e g l i d e r . E d n a t i o n of section c h a r a c t e l ~ s t i c sin the Reynolds nlrmber r m g e of 5x10' t o 1x10' ( r e f s . f i t t i n g data t o a three-paraaeter drag polar. A rough approxiaation t o its drag i r o n reference 19 i s Control frame: Approximately 0. (Note that C has not been corrected f o r p i l o t Dmin o r oversized cables.c ~ ( f i~ s .21 -25 .2 < CL < 0. Fcr convenience i n data i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the drag p o l a r s f o r many configurat i o n s were f i t t o a three-parameter drag polar in t h e range 0.) - Configuration C Dpia K CLo - Cornpent s 0. avg. 19-21) shows t h a t p r o f i l e drag v a r i e s rapidly with l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t (especially f o r t h i n sections).

Figure 25 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a negative p i t c h i n g mosent is present throughout t h e e n t i r e range of a tested. appearing a s high-f requency motion of the t r a i l i n g edge from midspan t o t i p s . During these t e s t s s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n s a i l shape were observed t o coincide with d i s c a n t i n u i t i e s i n t h e pitching-mament curve. corresponding t o a decrease i n the l o c a l l i f t . The l u f f i n g spread forward and a t about 16" lau-frequency "rippling" extended t o t h e c r o s s bar. B -2' i t had s t a b i l i z e d i n t h i s position. t h e g l i d e r becomes "stable" again near -25". A t about 2" t h e forward portion of t h e . forming a highly cambered surface between t h e leading edges and cross bar while t h e s a i l a f t of t h e c r o s s bar remained l u f f i n g .s a i l began t o i n f l a t e on t h e y opposite s i d e of t h e f r a a e i n t e r m i t t e n t l y . with subsequent reduct i o n i n longitudinal s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y .Pitching mmentStandard: The v a r i a t i o n of C. t h e s t i c k . v s a changes s e v e r a l times throughout t h e angle-of-attack range.f r e e analogy again holds and becomes positive. Thc . with a is shown i n f i g u r e 25. This corresponds t o a "stick-free" horizontal c o n t r o l surface i n t h e analogy. The r e a r portion of the s a i l may be regarded a s analogous t o a h o r i z o n t a l s t a b i l i z e r . From 10' t o 2' t h e s a i l was f u l l y l u f f i n g with l a r g e amplitudes. The i n l t i a l d e s t a b i l i z i n g break i n C due t o l u f f i n g occurs on many g l i d e r s 'Ra . a f t . Trailing-edge l u f f i n g began a t about 22". Cma becomes more nepative when t h e forvard s a i l a r e a begins . Thus. A s t h e e n t i r e r e a r portion of the s a i l begins l u f f i n g $ becomes more positive. A t about 10" t h e forward portion of t h e s a i l became s l a c k and a l s o experienced large-scale l u f f i n g . v s a increases a s t h e t r a i l i n g edge begins l u f f i n g . The r e a r portion of t h e s a i l continued t o l u f f extensively t o -25" where only highfrequency l u f f i n g of the t r a i l i n g edge persisted. the r e a r s a i l i s no longer more "free" than t h e forward sectio~~ since t h e s a i l i n f r o n t of the c r o s s bar a l s o changes i t s incidence with a. The slope of C. When the forward s a i l p a r t begins t o e n t e r global l u f f i n g . A s sail teqsion a t t u e t r a i l i n g edge increases and l u f f i n g subsides. The s a i l appeared t o l i e almost uniformly i n t h e plane of t h e frame. was observed w h i l e the forward s a i l portion r d n e d i n f l a t e d . This is i n agreement with results from references 1-7 and implies t h a t soclle *'bar pressure" corresponding t o a rearward center-of-gravity s h i f t is required t o trim this g l i d e r a t the desired CL. From 13' t o 10' t h e sail maintained t h i s general shape while t h e amplitude of t h e l u f f i n g increased. The pitching-moment: curve c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s these observed changes In s a i l shape. highly nonlinear character of t h e curve is a t t r i b u t e d primarily t o deformation of t h e f l e x i b l e sail. A t 13O large-scale motion of the s a i l from t h e c r o s s bar.c u r v e slope near t h e t r a i l i n g edge. i t becartes unloaded a t low-lift c o e f f i c i e n t s and is f r e e t o move downward. l u f f i n g ( a t -10'). A t 2 " . although "fixed1' under tension a t high CL. when t h e s a i l begins t o i n f l a t e negatively near t h e nose.. The slope of C. The physical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n cf t h e n o n l i n e a r i t i e s i n pitching moment a p p l i e s not only t o t h e standard configuration but t o many f l e x i b l e g l i d e r s i n whtch s u f f i c i e n t sail slackness e x i s t s f o r large-scale l u f f i n g .

6 i n . which was a s s m e d t o l i e 24. and fixed minim. a s seen i n pitching-mment d a t a f o r o t h e r models t e s t e d here. although considera b l e v a r i a t i o n s were produced with changes i n t w i s t and l u f f .l i n e arrangement.The b a s i c r e f e r e n c e c e n t e r s of about which moments a r e measured i n t h i s r e p o r t a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 2-4. s t a b i l i t y a t p o s i t i v e angles and c o n t r i b u t i n g l a r g e d e s t a b i l i z i n g nroments a t negative angles. r e f l e x . Tuft s t u d i e s I n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s is due t o leadingedge s e p a r a t i o n a t t h e higher CL w i t h s e c t i o n s j u s t inboard of midspan s t a l l i n g f i r s t ( f i g . In this case t h e reference c e n t e r is located below t h e keel. I n general. ( I n t h e s e f i g u r e s t h e reference p o i n t w a s f i x e d r e l a t i v e t o t h e g l i d e r a t t h e combined p i l o t l g l i d e r c e n t e r of g r a v i t y . (due t o drag). r o t a t i o n s occur about a point near t h e k e e l i f t h e p i l o t i s f r e e t o swing about t h e t e t h e r point. ?hat is. 14). C ~ Z C C mfemnce csnters/azes systems. The r a p i d nose-down . and 28 and c-tlly reported with e a r l y high-performance hang g l i d e r s . Lover sail f u l l ness.although t h e subsequent i n c r e a s e i n s t a b i l i t y is o f t e n prevented w i t h t h e usa of b a t t e n s and r o o t c a r which prevent forward a d 1 l u f f i n g . This p o i n t has been chosen h e r e and i n many previous s t u d i e s ( r e f s . t h e use of b a t t e n s . 28) s i n c e it corresponds a p p r o x h a t e l y t o t h e g l i d e r ' s c e n t e r of r o t a t i o n when no p i l o t c o n t r o l f o r c e is present. Models 2 and 3: Features of t h e pitching-moment curves f e r models 2 and 3 w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n t h e following s e c t i o n s i n terms of t h e e f f e c t s of c o n f i g u r a t i o n changes. c o r r e c t i v e measures have v i r t u a l l y eliminated t h i s probleae I n c u r r e n t designs. 10-12. 22. t h e v a r i a t i o n of & with a d i f f e r s g r e a t l y from t h e o r i g i n a l standard configuration. Host of t h e s e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were found t o be s t a b l e and trimmed "hands-off" i n t h e d e s i r e d CL range. corresponding t o t h e c a s e in which the p i l o t ' s p o s i t i o n is f i x e d with r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n t r o l b a r . This i n c r e a s e in s t a b i l i t y a t about 10' on t h e "etandard" i n t h e f u l l . - Simple geometric c o n s i d e r a t i o n s show t h a t t h e v e r t i c a l 1 displaced c e n t e r of g r a v i t y i n t r o d u c e s a p i t c h i n g moment which v a r i e s w i t h a1 i n c r e a s i n g t h e . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s e f f e c t is a major c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e "tmibling" phenoaenon discussed i n r e f e r e n c e s 12. 27. 3) decreased s t a b i l i t y a t negative 0 angles of a t t a c k . is obtained from a p l o t of % about t h e combined p i l o t and g l i d e r c e n t e r of g r a v i t y . These c e n t e r s correspond t o p i l o t t e t h e r p o s i t i o n s . the point a t which t h e p i l o t ' s harness i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e g l i d e r .t w i s t produce a much more l i n e a r pitching-moment curve. although t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y of t h e ->ilot-plus-glider system is located below t h e k e e l .4 cm (3.l u f f i n g c o n d i t i o n may r e s u l t i n a s t a b l e trim point a t law CL f o r s u f f i c l e n t l y a f t center-ofg r a v i t y p o s i t i o n s . As can be seen from f i g u r e s 22 and 23 t h e two curves a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t .l u f f dives" Prate reported w i t h t h e s e e a r l y designs ( r e f s . 22-26) and. Also apparent i n t h e pitching-aoment d a t a f o r t h e "standard" i s a l a r g e nose-dawn moment a t stall. ) The e f f e c t s of t h e low-center-of-gravity p o s i t i o n a r e (1) increased s t a b i l i t y a t high CL. ) v e r t i c a l l y below t h e models' k e e l a t an angle of a t t a c k of 2 S 0 . although t h e m e c h m i m was not f u l l y understood. 2) somewhat l a r g e r C. A measure of "hands-on" s t a b i l i t y . Such s t a b l e " f u l l .

shown i n f i g u r e 10.. higher a n g l e s of a t t a c k . The importance of v e r t i c a l center-of-gravity l o c a t i o n t h e pitchingmoment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e g l i d e r and t h e e f f e c t of r e f e r e n c e c e n t e r locat i o n on t h e appearance of moment d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t c a r e should be taken i n drawing conclusions about s t a b i l i t y without c a r r y i n g out a dynamic analysis. a l s o indic a t e s t h a t another e f f e c t rnay be important. I n t h e symmetric f l i g h t cond i t i o n i B = 0) no d i f f e r e n c e between these systems e x i s t s f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l data. shown i n f i g u r e s 65 and 66. I n r e f e r e n c e 12 the cause of t h i s phenoaena i e described a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a e r o e l a s t i c &format i o n s of t h e s a i l vhich result i n l a r g e . . R e s u l t s of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n show t h a t t h e n e g a t i v e value of t h e p i t c h i n g moment down t o -30° is comparable t o t h a t i n t h e normal f l y i n g regime.a t t a c k c c n d i t i o n s ( a s was once the requirement) is not s u f f i c i e n t t o ensure l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y . ) Similar considerat ions apply t o t h e choice of r e f e r e n c e a x e s sys. a s i n r e f e r e n c e s 2 and 5. The United S t a t e s Hang Gliding Association has developed pitching-moment requirements f o r g l i d e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n an apparently s u c c e s s f u l s e l f r e g u l a t i o n program. i s demonstrated i n f i g u r e s 56 and 57. C appears t o "0 increase w i i h a. however. however. Among t h e s e e m p i r i c a l l y determined requirements is a minimm pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t a t zero l i f t of 0. r e s p e c t i v e l y .05 based on M C and measured about t h e p i l o t t e t h e r point. as. Conclusions concerning the d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y of t h e s e g l i d e r s without a study of t h e dynamics cannot be made with c e r t a i n t y . The f a c t t h a t many of t h e hang g l i d e r s which have reported t rnsbling problems used r e l a t i v e l y t i g h t sails. which would not produce sudden nose-down moments a t negative a n g l e s of a t t a c k .p i t c h i n g v e l o c i t y which may continue f o r s e v e r a l r o t a t i o n 8 begin8 v f t h an encounter w i t h h negative v e r t i c s l gust o r gradient. Variation i n t h e appearance of l a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s v s angle of a t t a c k . The transformations between t h e t h r e e systems f o r use i n comparing t h e s e d a t a w i t h r e s u l t s of o t h e r s t u d i e s and i n f u t u r e dynamics work a r e included i n t h e appendix. e s p e c i a l l y a t high angles of a t t a c k o r s i d e s l i p . ~ 1 . . l b o o t h e r r e f e r e n c e systems. A wind-axes system. In g e n e r a l . When yawing--moment d a t a a r e expressed i n body axes. was used t o d e f i n e t h e moments and f o r c e s i n t h e report. major d i f f e r e n c e s appear f o r l a t e r a l c o e f f i c i e n t s . o f t e n used i n tbe present a t i a n of wind-tunnel d a t a andlor dynamic a n a l y s e s . negative p i t c h i n g moments when t h e forward s a i l p o r t i o n collapses. most g l i d e r s e x h i b i t negative v a l u e s of CnB (usually i n d i c a t i v e of d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y ) a t I n s t a b i l i t y and wind axes. a r e t h e s t a b i l i t y . i n whlch l a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s a r e expressed in wind axes and body axes.and body-axes systems. The above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n d i c a t e why such a l a r g e p i t c h i n g moment a t zero l i f t i s a reasonable requirement and why demonstrated a b i l i t y t o recover from near-zero angle-of . Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s t h e f a c t t h a t wind axes and s t a b i l i t y axes produce t h e same value of yawing-moment c o e f f i c i e n t while body axes and s t a b i l i t y axes provide ident i c a l measurements of p i t c h i n g amment and s i d e force. depending on t h e axes system chosen. I n t h e observed c a s e s of tmmbling with hang g l i d e r s " p i l o t s have maintained t h e i r g r i p on t h e c o n t r o l bar" ( r e f . reference 22 v h i c h e x h i b i t e d t m b l i n g had a c e n t e r of g r a v i t y fixed a t a point 25% of t h e k e e l l e n g t h below t h e keel. 28) and t h e v e h i c l e i.

spreading more rspldly toward t h e t i p s a s a was increased. This is expected because of t h e r e l a t i v e l y f l e . Although much can be s a i d from such d a t a . The process is shown i n figure 15.InfZwmce of changes h d e pmsarre..ective. Sepa*. S i r i l a r e f f e c t s a r e observed with t h e second rodel. Separation occurs f i r t : t a t a sectioi-. fixed load. L i f t and drag c o e f f i c i e n t s do not ap?ear t o be :f fected g r e a t l y i n the range of speeds employed here. with lift low This The t h i r d model exhibited l a r g e r v a r i a t i o n s i n aerodynamic p r o p e r t i e s dyr. Runs with and without t u f t s indicated t h a t o e t h e i r presence had a n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t on c o e f f i c i e n t data. but a steady decrease i n the magnitude of Cm is observed f o r a l l a .s c a l e r e s u l t s . spreading outward quickly. e i S m t a t i o n from t h e second b a s i c configuration with a minimum of 24' of n e g a t i v e t i p incidence (with respect t o t h e keel) begins a t t h e root chord and slc. Since "speed s t a b i l i t y " and "angle-of-attack s t a b i l i t y " a r e both d e s i r a b l e .C h t q e s In a a i l shape due t o s t r u c t u r a l e l a s t i c i t y together with Reynolds-nubardependent flaw c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e expected t o produce c h a q e s i n aerodynaric c o e f f i c i e n t s with dynamic pressure. i t is not possible t o i n f e r longitudinal s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by inspection of a s i n g l e p l o t of C.l i n e s a r e i n tension.t of washout (>30°) a t t h e extreme angles of a t t a c k . v s a a t fixed q o r C.e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e lower angles where luf f . t h e importance of a dynamic a n a l y s i s is again demonstrated. S t a l l behavior of the first model i s s\rmprarized i n f i g u r e s 14(a)-14(g). This is primarily due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t i p s Arc allowed t o t w i s t under the applied loads and assuned a shape with a l a r g e amciur. The root sezt ion r m f s \ s attached t o very high angles. In a g r e e ~ e n t tests. separation occurred f i r s t a t the r o o t . even when the washout w e b fixed a t 12'.~b$erved with t h e use of wool t u f t s attached t o t h e s a i l upper surface (and lower surface i n s m cases).s c a l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of models t e s t e d here. However. v s CL a t . Larger v a r i a t i o n s i n aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with q appear in t h e d a t a a t lw angles of a t t a c k . pitchingPoaaent c o e f f i c i e n t does not vary g r e a t l y with q. a keel incidence of 39'.The appearance of separated f l w on the models was ~.' b l e b a t t e n s wkase shapes vary g r e a t l y with loading a t t h e angles where l u f r l i n e s a r e ef*.amic pressure throughout t h e range of angle of a t t a c k tested. p i t c h i n w e n t c o e f f i c i e n t appears t o b e most atrongly a f f e c t e d by . Figures 19-29 i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t s of airspeed on t h e with previous f u l l . general trend a l s o appears in f u l l . which a r e traced from photographs of the t u f t e d model. near the midspan. A t those angles tested. Lower c o e f f i c i e n t s a t given a and smaller pitching-moraent c o e f f i c i e n t s a t CL were obtained a t higher tunnel speeds. I n these runs. a s shown i n f i g u r e s 21 and 28. Monotonicity of p i tching-mment c o e f f i c i e n t changes v s q was investigated and presented i n f i g u r e 29. $ion phenomena. a v a r i e t y of dynamic pressures was used while the model a t t i t u d e was fixed. The flow a t t h e wingtips remains attached up t .hanges I n dynamic pressure. Also apparent from these s t u d i e s is t h e e f f e c t of s i d e s l i p on .1~ spreads toward t h e t i p s .

producing. The t h i r d model demonstrated s i m i l a r s t a l l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with a r o o t s t a l l occurring a t 29'. the yawing-mueent coeffi- In t h e . expected dependence on sweep angle. B . a s a function of incidence angle. an adverse r o l l due t o s i d e s l i p .s t a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s t i f f .hat t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s were l i n e a r i n 0 up t o t h i s angle. The l o s s of e f f e c t i y e d i h e d r a l a t l o w . The flow p a t t e r n i n f e r r e d from t u f t observations is shown i n f i g u r e 18. Eppler ( r e f . The s o l u t i o n seems t o r e q u i r e t h e use of s e c t i o n s w i t h g r e a t e r thickness. low-pitching moment. although t h e e f f e c t on the lateral deriva t i v e s does not appear s i g n i f i c a n t . ~hese curves were obtained from tests a t a f i x e d yaw angle of 20" a f t e r yaw runs showed .l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s may be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e l a c k of geometric d i h e d r a l combined w i t h the high t w i s t of t h e s e wings. A s expected. t h e lower s u r f a c e of the s a i l was a l s o t u f t e d during one of t h e tests. r e f l e c t i n g Ra th. according t o sweep theory. and low-sec t i o n drags. 21) d i s c u s s e s th!s problem i n t h e design of a i r f o i l s f o r use on u l t r a l i g h t g l i d e r s . In o r d e r t o obtain low-section drag a t high CL and l a r g e maxifaun-lift c o e f f i c i e n t s . highly cambered b a t t e n / r i b s which extended t o t h e leading edge of t h i s model produced an a i r f o i l shape with pronounced lower-surface s e p a r a t i o n a t a n g l e s of a t t a c k up t o 20°. Many r e c e n t g l i d e r designs employ double-surface a i r f o i l s and may overcame t h e observed d i f f i c u l t i e s i n obtainin. (At low angle of a t t a c k t h e s e c t i o n CL near t h e t i p s i s negative. The appearance of lower-surface s e p a r a t i o n suggests that s u t tantial performance l o s s e s may be a s s o c i a t e d with the use of p r o f i l e s s i m i l a r t o those t e s t e d . the t r a i l i n g . LutemZ data. y e t t h i s L o l a r g e nose camber r e s u l t s i n poor low-lift d r a g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .w i n g s t a l l occurs at a much lower a n g l e than t h a t of t h e leading wing. n e g a t i v e . A l l g l i d e r s t e s t e d showed a decrease in C with SL as expected from simple sweep theory with C b e c m i n g posiaB t~ t i v e a t low angles of a t t a c k . a i r f o i l s w i t h l a r g e nose camber and r e f l e x appear d e s i r a b l e . Host of t h e lover-surface flow remains separated up t o 5" where flow begins t o r e a t t a c h some d i s t a n c e a f t of t h e l e a d i n g edge. Reattachment l o c a t i o n moves toward t h e leading edge as incidence is increased with lower s u r f a c e s near t h e wingtips remaining separated up t o 20° (due t o lower l o c a l incidence with washout). observed behavior i n t h e s i d e s l ! -ping condition was s i m i l a r t o t h a t of model 2. Since camber g e n e r a l l y c r e a t e s a l a r g e . t h e required maximum l i f t .The v a r i a t i o n of C a t t a c k is shown i n f i g u r e s 56-64. Despite t h e l o v e r sweep angle. ) This behavior has been reported i n r e f e r e n c e 12 and appears t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a majority of hang-glider designs. Figure 16 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e eta11 behavior a t a s i d e s l i p a n g l e of 20'. Figures 56-64 a l s o show t h e behavior of afl ( e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l ) with angle of Cn c i e n t due t o s i d e s l i p d e r i v a t i v e . a l a r g e amount of camber i s required on these t h i n s e c t i o n s . On t h e t h i r d model. I n c r e a s i n g t i p washout w i t h a n g l e of a t t a c k prevented t i p s t a l l up t o 40". The magnitude of C a t a given Ct is g r e a t e s t f o r model 1 and least f o r model 3.

It should be noted t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e increments i n C.s c a l e applications.8 and maintains t ha value of f o r the f i r a t model increases w i t h CL C. d a t a on configurations 2A-P may be compared t o obtain an idea of the e f f e c t s of t w i s t on l i f t . of course. with 0.s c a l e vehicle. a s suggested by t h e change i n C. while the pitching moment of the t h i r d model appears s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e d a t 20" of s i d e s l i p . E f f e c t s of Configuration Changes A major goal of t h i s experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t h e a n a l y s i s of e f f e c t s on the aerodynamic p r o p e r t i e s of u l t r a l i g h t g l i d e r s of various design modifications. on pitching moment. due t o s i d e s l i p f o r t h e f i r s t model appear a s negative increments a t t h e higher angles of a t t a c k when expressed i n body axes. Results from s i m i l a r t e s t s with the second model i n d i c a t e a l e s s important e f f e c t . with a a t 20° of s i d e s l i p is compared with t h e The e f f e c t is model dependent and no general syumetric data i n f i g u r e s 32-35. &gain i n d i c a t i n g t h e necessity of more thorough a n a l y s i s t o a s s e s s t h e importance of these r e s u l t s . 6 f o r m d e l 1 i n t h e body-axes system a r e given in cna The v a r i a t i o n of C. is nonzero a t this a t t i t u d e and a corr e c t i v e yawing moment w i l l tend t o reduce 0 and hence increase k. up wlth demonstrates'similar behavior with a roughly parabolic v a r i a t i o n of through s t a l l but w i t h a generally lower value of Cn 8 up t o 45'. The t h i r d model "8 than model 1. A primary e f f e c t of washout on t h i s swept wing i a . to a CL CL of 0. Coupling of longitudinal and l a t e r a l motion. and moment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a t y p i c a l contemporary g l i d e r . Values of Cn f i g u r e 56. conclusions a r e apparent from t h e d a t a expressed i n t h i s form. Washout. = 0 point appears a t t h i s condition. Conclusions drawn from comparative s t u d i e s of modifications t o a b a s i c configuration a r e less a f f e c t e d by such d i f f i c u l t i e s . leadingedge s t i f f n e s s . drag. The point is not a c t u a l l y a t r i m point s i n c e C . a s t a b l e ( i n a) C. Reference 1 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n same cases a l a r g e nose-down pitching moment i s produced. and i t is believed t h a t general r e s u l t s obtained from these model t e s t s w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y useful i n f u l l . C. When the minimtun washout of t h e t i p is constrained by a r j b fixed . e t c . I n f a c t . small v a r i a t i o n s i n s a i l shape. increasing t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of p i t c h divergence a t l o v CL.chosen reference axes syrtem. Full-scale t e s t s have shown t h a t r a t h e r l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n d a t a obtained from g l i d e r s with very s i m i l a r geometries due t o d i f ferences i n s a i l and c a b l e tension. is a r e s u l t of a e r o e l a s t i c d i s t o r t i o n of the s a i l which changes t h e l i f t d i s t r i b u t i o n of the wing i n such a way a s t o produce a (sometimes large) pitching moment. C B The second model's yaw s t i f f n e s s does not change monotonically with CL but out t o s t a l l a s indicated in figmaintains a small p o s i t i v e value of ure 5 9 . D i f f i c u l t i e s associated v i t h e l a s t i c s c a l i n g of small models may a l s o lead t o sod d i f f e r e n c e s between these r e s u l t s and t h e prope r t i e s of a p a r t i c u l a r f u l l . I n these f i g u r e s .Figures 36-55 i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t s of various modifications on t h e longitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of models 2 and 3.

t h e magnitude of Cm produced. Their e f f e c t s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e s 36-55. preventing f u r t h e r displacement of t h e t r a i l i n g edge. as is accomplished by t h e " f l o a t i n g t i p " arrangement of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s 2A-D.. t o some e x t e n t .. impact of b a t t e n f l e x i b i l i t y i s t1. 1 t o +0. Lu. I f t h e b a t t e n s a r e f l e x i b l e . Luff-line l e n g t h determines t h e angle a t which t h e i r e f f e c t s become important and. l u f f l i n e s l o c a t e d ne:r the r o o t of a highly swept wing with r e l a t i v e l y s t i f f b a t t e n s nay reduce t h e washout by holding t h e r o o t chord a t a more negative incidence w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f i x e d t i p a n g l e . A t normal f l y i n g a t t i t u d e s t h e t r a i l i n g edge of t h e s a i l l i e s above t h e plane of t h e frame and l u f f l i n e s remain slack. t h e s a i l t r a i l i n g edge moves toward -he frame plane and l u f f l i n e s t i g h t e n .2. A s t h e angle of a t t a c k i s decreased t o very low and negative angles. a l s o Increases t h e g l i d e r ' s l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y i n t h i s range.t o t h e leading edge ( f i g . I n g e n e r a l . Batten s t i f f n e s s a l s o i n f l u e n c e s s e c t i o n camber ' i n t h e absence of l u f f l i n e s . Thus. A t higher a n g l e s of a t t a c k t h e l o c a l t i p incidence i n c r e a s e s t o approximately 30' w i t h respect t o t h e k e e l on t h i s model. S t i f f e r ( s t r a i g h t ) b a t t e n s reduce s a i l camber and subsequent v a r i a t i a n s i n C. 6). H-Q.f lines. n g . S). and CL v s a a r e apparent i n f i g u r e s 37(b) and 51. . and decreases C The e f f e c t s of wing t w i s t Lmax' on l a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s were not evaluated s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n t h e present study but a l e believed t o be responsible f o r t h e l o s s of e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l d i s cur. however. 3) spanwise l o c a t i o n of l u f f l i n e s and model sweep .at a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l u f f l i n e s d i s cussed above.l u f f l i n e s which a r e located some d i s t a n c e fram t h e r o o t chord on swept wings may increase t h e wing washout i n a d d i t i o n t o i n c r e a s i n g t h e These f a c t o r s must be considered simultaneously i n t h e local section's evaluation of l u f f .d previously.l i n e b a t t e n s t i f f n e s s . c o n f i g u r a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o those conanonly flown employ l u f f l i n e s v'lich a r e capable of generating C. while producing l i t t l e r e f l e x change. 2) chord of b a t t e n t o which l u f f l i n e s a r e s t t a c h e d 0 - l a r g e r chord l e a d s t o i a r g e r camber change f o r given b a t t e n s t i f f n e s s as w e l l a s g r e a t e r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o g l i d e r C. of approximately +O. Bat &enf l d b i l i t y . a l a r g e amount of r e f l e x o r negative camb e r i s produced along with a s t r o n g l y s t a b i l i z i n g (nose-up) p i t c h i n & moment. t h e p i t c h i n g moment a t low a n g l e s of a t t a c k i s increased g r e a t l y . i n c r e a s e s t h e drag.l i n e e f f e c t i v e n e s s .g l i d e r s with l u f f l i n e s a t t a c h e d t o i n f l e x i b l e b a t t e n s r e q u i r e l a r g e dynamic p r e s s u r e s t o produce r e f l e x and seem l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n generating C. Luff l i n e s a r e now incorporated on nearly a l l flexible-wing hang g l i d e r s and play a l a r g e r o l e i n t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e (once common) tumbling and high-speed s t a b i l i t y problems. This condition prevents t h e t i p from s t a l l + .Luff l i n e s o r r e f l e x b r i d l e s a r e l i 5 e s connected t o a p o i n t on t h r upper-wing s t r u c t u r e ( u s u a l l y t h e upper wires near t h e kingpost) and t o t h e ends of one o r more p a i r s of b a t t e n s near t h e t r a i l i n g edge ( s e e f i g . For example. Fixing t h e incidence of t h e t i p a t a n g l e s below 20°.The e f f e c t of b a t t e n f l e x i b i l i t y 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 t h e second model a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 37(b) and 51. Other f a c t o r s which appear t o a f f e c t t h e i n f l u e n c e of l u f f l i n e s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e f i g u r e s and include: 1) luf £ . a very l a r g e Cm a t low and n e g a t i v e angles of a t t a c k i s achieved w i t h 0 a very small performance l o s s i n t h e normal f l i g h t regime. Runs a t high speeds w i t h t h e most f l e x i b l e b a t t e n s produced large-amplitude f l u t t e r . The primar. .s.

Low leading-edge sweep a l s o reduces t h e e f f e c t i v e t o r s i o n a l r i g i d i t y of t h e wing and without some leading-edge r e s t r a i n t . Ref Zex and r i b camber.) r i b s with various anaunts of r e f l e x and camber were s u b s t i t u t e d f o r f l e x i b l e b a t t e n s i n s e v e r a l runs with Plodel 3. This i s a t t r i b uted t o two f a c t o r s . produce C . while g l i d e r s with very low sweep must employ s e c t i o n s which a r e highly reflexed a t low angles of attack. Results a r e presented i n f i g u r e s 40.S t e e l music wire (1/8-in. Basic d i f f e r e n c e s l i e i n t h e method by which t h e l a r g e C. Data f o r models with highly cambered s e c t i o n s show an increase i n drag a t low CL associated 'with lower surf ace separation discussed previously. however. Resulting lower surface separation increased the p r o f i l e drag of t h i s design r e l a t i v e t o t h a t of t h e f l a t t e r s a i l of model 2. A s no r e s t r a i n t fixed t o t h e leading edge was employed here. t i o n between sweep and p o t e n t i a l performance. 43. P a r t of t h e motivation f o r designs with r e l a t i v e l y low sweep includes: 1) more d e s i r a b l e s t a l l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . mo . these d a t a should not be used d i r e c t l y t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a C h X . a r e s u l t i n g nonopt imal twist d i s t r i b u t i o n produced high induced drag and premature root s t a l l with correspondingly low Therefore. decreasing washout a t high speeds. Comparison of r e s u l t s from t h e standard configuration and t h e second model i n d i c a t e t h a t much of t h e n o n l i n e a r i t y i n the aerodynamic . Tests with r i b s having g r e a t e r nose camber and increased with an a d d i t i o n a l trailing-edge r e f l e x show t h e expected increase i n C low-angle-of-attack drag penalty. Highly swept g l i d e r s m y r e l y on t h e pitching moment produced by t w i s t . 3) p l a s t i c deformation of t h e t i p s . 2) lower t w i s t drag. and improve spanwise l i f t d i s t r i b u t i o n . Higher sweep designs e x h i b i t g r e a t e r d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and some washout may be used t o simultaneously reduce t i p . f o r t h e higher sweep model.%eep.A comparison of t h e r e s u l t s from models 2 and 3 demonstrates t h e general e f f e c t of sweep on t h e s t a t i c longitudinal and l a t e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these designs. i f required C can mo be achieved without large washout. and 53. and increasing wa: ~ u a t high angles of t a t t a c k w i l l not r e s u l t i n such d e s t a b i l i z i n g changes Ln pitching moment.N t e s t s were run i n which billow was systematio c a l l y varied. Results of present t e s t s i n d i c a t e generally l a r g e r values of C n . It i s shown. The a i r f o i l shape of t h e basic low-sweep configuration was highly reflexed and cambered. o S a i l fuZZnea8 ( b i Z h ) . that i t i e not d i f f i c u l t t o obtain t h e required C. very l a r g e s a i l tension i s required t o a t t a i n a " f l a t " s a i l . and 1't1~1e second Performance comparisons show t h a t h mo8el exceeded t h e maximum L/D of t h e lower sweep design. however. through t h e use of r e f l e x r a t h e r than t w i s t .l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s is obtained with this configuc ~ x r a t i o n .s t a l l tendencies.( d i s t i n c t from t h e aerodynamic l u f f i n g observed on t h e f i r s t model) and proh i b i t e d tests of t h i s configuration a t a l l but t h e l a r g e r angles of a t t a c k . required a t zero l i f t i s obtained. 4) lower e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l a t high CL may improve l a t e r a l control. A higher and lower drag a t h i g h .

Major changes i n t h e g l i d e r geometry w i t h the a d d i t i o n of a keel pocket a f f e c t s t a t i c r e s u l t s a s follows: By reducing the incidence of the root s e c t i c a with r e s p e c t t o the k e e l ( t o which a n g l e of a t t a c k is r e f e r r e d ) the z e r o . The k e e l pocket provides a means of a t t a c h i n g t h e s a i l a t t h e keel i n such a way t h a t i t is f r e e t o s l i d e l a t e r a l l y as loading changes. ~ l t & o u i th is intended t o change d q i n g d e r i v a t i v e s . The k e e l pocket a l s o adds some l a t e r a l a r e a a f t of t h e reference c e n t e r and thus a f f e c t s directional stability. The r o o t chord is r a i s e d o u t of t h e plane of the frame which introduces approximately 2 * of anhedral. Figure 42 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e k e e l pocket on p i t c h i n g moment vs CL. a s can be seen frocn f i g u r e s 45 and 46. Figures 34. Because of the reduced r o o t incidence. The increment i n pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t a t low t h e f l e x i b l e r i b s e c t i o n and trailing-edge support wire ( f i g . The s h i f t i n Cm curve a t t h e l a r g e r values of CL and t h e higher CL due t o reduced t w i s t a r e apparent max i n f i g u r e 50. i t s e f f e c t on s t a t i c d e r i v a t i v e s was evaluated here ( s e e f i g . The general conclusion from these d a t a is t h a t t h i s amount of geometric d i h e d r a l i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e i t h e r 8 In C1fi Or t h e d e s i r e d range of l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s .c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s e a i r c r a f t i s a r e s u l t of larae sail f u l l n e s s . CQn. . L a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s vary i n t h e manner shown i n f i g u r e 65. These ~ s s e r t i o n s were t e s t e d by introducing 3. and t o ~ i n c r e a s e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e "weight-shift" c o n t r o l method.'I s h a m i n f i g u r e 7. again.The l o s s of e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l a t low angles of a t t a c k (CLg > 0) suggests t h a t t h e incorporation of geometric d i h e d r a l might improve t h e l a t e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of g l i d e r s a t high speeds. 35. KeeZ pocketa. A small e f f e c t on t h e p i t c h i n g moment c o e f f i c i e n t a t 20' of s i d e s l i p i s i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e s 34 and 35 b u t . The value i s not measurably changed. Figure 53 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e inclusion of t h i s amount of d i h e d r a l does decrease t h e angle a t which C becomes 20 p o s i t i v e (by approximately 5') but t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e curve remains unaltered. the t w i s t (washout) i s reduced a s t i p washout c o n s t r a i n t r i b s were not a l t e r e d . Higher sail tension allows t h e g l i d e r t o approach more c l o a e l y an optimal apanwise load d i s t r i b u t i o n and reduces t h e drag s u b s t a n t i a l l y a t low a n g l e s of a t t a c k . and 61--4 surm~arlzet h e r e s u l t s . 7 which a c t i n is due a manner s i m i l a r t o l u f f l i n e s . t h e e f f e c t is small. This technique i s used t o decrease t h e r o l l damping. A l a r g e amount of r e f l e x i s produced a t t h e root chord a s t h e t r a i l i n g edge i s held f i x e d and t h e (negative) camber of t h e f l e x i b l e r i b i n c r e a s e s under negative load. Included i n t h i s d a t a i s a small i n c r e a s e i n C due t o anhedral. T h e o r e t i c a l considerat i o n s a l s o suggest t h a t t h e low values of C might be increased with "6 d i h e d r a l . Of CnB Dihedral.The second model was t e s t e d with and without a "keel pocket .5" of d i h e d r a l (per s i d e ) t o t h e second and t h i r d models.l i f t incidence is increased. 52).

x the data i n references 10 and 11. some r e s u l t s f o r more contemporary designs a r e a v a i l a b l e (refs. 3. although t h e data a t negative angles of a t t a c k d i f f e r . i s observed between t h e present t e s t s and c~. Such imperfections may lead t o e a r l y separation. Differences a r e due p a r t l y t o small differences i n reference center location with i n s u f f i c i e n t information a v a i l a b l e t o r e l a t e a l l data t o t h e same reference a s w e l l a s d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e individual model geometries (see f i g . values of Lmax second and t h i r d models appear lower than expected. and 12 f o r t h e standard configuration i n d i c a t e t h e same general behavior with angle of attack. This d i f f e r e n c e i s probably due t o t h e influence of the large keel pocket with f l e x i b l e root batten of configuration 2E which increases t h e root r e f l e x a t low CL." Gliders a r e mounted on automotiSes or on c a r r i a g e s i n f r o n t of t h e c a r and simple balances used t o determine t h e pitching moment a t a given angle of incidence. . f o r mcdel I l i e w e l l within t h e range of values Values of C and CL Lpax u obtained i n these investigatione. The b a s i c behavior of C. 10-12). former president of t h e Hang Glider Manufacturers Association. Although t h e value of for the f i r s t Some disagreement i n model i s i n good agreement with previous d a t a . Differences i n moment reference center a l s o contribute t o this discrepancy.r c a l e wind-tunnel t e a t s of varlouo configurations reported i n references 1-12 and 17 agree well with tho. t h i s was not incorporated i n t h e configuration of f i g u r e 55. v s a a s a f f e c t e d by l u f f l i n e s and fixed t i p s a l s o appears i n t h e wind-tunnel tests of f i g u r e 49(a). The somewhat lower Reynolds number involved i n these t e s t s might be expected t o reduce C while values i n reference 10 may be overestimated due t o l a r g e blocking Lmx effects.Comparison with Previouo Work Results of f u l l . A sample of such d a t a is shown i n f i g u r e 35. kindly provided by M r . The general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of pitching moment v s angle of attack-are observed i n each of t h e s t u d i e s I n t h e range in which d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e . 56). The discrepancy i s part i a l l y due t o the d i f f i c u l t y of producing "clean. C -~ C x f o r the A comparison of l a t e r a l d e r i v a t i v e s measured here and i n references 2 . T m P r i c e ." r i p p l e s s s a i l s a t these small scales.prenented here. i n p a r t i c u l a r model construction methods. 8. although some d i f f e r e n c e s art expected i n l i g h t of d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s . Although most of t h e data a v a i l a b l e f o r comparison are found i n NASA r e p o r t s on designs s i m i l a r t o t h e standard configuration. The e f f e c t s of l u f f l i n e s and fixed t w i s t r i b s have been investigated previously i n tests of production g l i d e r s using "t e s t vehicles.

l u f f l i n e s . and d i h e d r a l a r e discussed a s they r e l a t e t o t h e d a t a obtained here. Fixing t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y v e r t i c a l l y below t h e keel may produce l n r g e d e s t a b i l i z i n g moments a t negative angles of a t t a c k and may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of tumbling. V a r i a t i o n s of yitchi n g moment w i t h s i d e s l i p and dynamic pressure complicate t h e a n a l y s i s of l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y but a r e important f o r some of t h e s e configurations. The importance of sweep.S t a t i c l o n g i t u d l n o l and l a t e r a l aerodynem?~c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 27 v a r i a t i o n s of 3 b a s i c u l t r a l i g h t g l i d e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s v e r e determined from windtunnel t e s t s of 115-size. k e e l pockets. b a t t e n f l e x i b i l i t y . r e f l e x . t w i s t . This i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e B i n f l u e n c e of sweep and t w i s t on C and t h e l a c k of geometric d i h e d r a l . A l l g l i d e r s t e s t e d demonstrated a l o s s of e f f e c t i v e d i h e d r a l (associated w i t h p o s i t i v e values of Cg ) a t low a n g l e s of a t t a c k . Modern g l i d e r configurat i o n s e x h i b i t much more s t a b l e and l i n e a r pitching-moment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than o l d e r Rogallo designs which a r e shown t o have p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous charact e r i s t i c s a t low angles of a t t a c k . necessary f o r a c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e d a t a . e l a s t i c a l l y s c a l e d models. . Differences i n t h e appearance of l a t e r a l d e c i v a t i v e s depending on choice of r e f e r e n c e axes system a r e important f o r t h e s e gliders which f r y at unusually l a r g e angles of a t t a c k . planned f o r f u t u r e publicat i o n . Results form a base of empirical d a t a from which a n a l y t i c a l work on s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l . thus demonstrating t h e need f o r a f u l l dynamic a n a l y s i s i n t h e assessment of g l i d e r ~ t a b i l i t y . may proceed. The d a t a presented here a r e intended t o provide s o w b a s i c information on t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of modern hang g l i d e r s and t h e e f f e c t s of v a r i r u s design modifications. involves t h e development of more r e f i n e d performance and s t a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n methods i n a form which may be used i n the design of s a f e r and more e f f i c i e n t ultralight gliders. Such work.

NW sin + NW cos a -% sin 0 sin a Ls ' LW Ds = l'w YS = YW COB 0 .APP WDIX TRANSFORMATIONS BETWEW AXES SYSTgEiS The following relations may be uaed to transform the data (expressed i n t h i s report i n wind axes) t o s t a b i l i t y or body axes. (Note that b$ = Ms while NS = Nw. + s i n f3 sin % = % cos 6 + gw B as = -% s i n 0 Ns ' NW cos B .I+.41 s i n B + % sin 0 0 cos a + % cos + % cos 0 cos n 0 sin a MB = k+ tB = NB = 0 -MW s i n .) LB = 4J D~ ' 45 YB - YW cos 0 COB .

REFERENCES
1.

Polhamus, E. C.; and Naeseth, R. L.: Experimental and T h e o r e t i c a l S t u d i e s of t h e E f f e c t s of Careber and Twist on t h e Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Parawings Having Nominal Aspect R a t i o s of 3 and 6. N S 'IN 11-972, AA 1963. E f f e c t s of Aspect Ratio and Canopy Shape on Low-Speed AeroBugg, F. M.: dynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 50 Swept Parawings. N S TN D-2922, 1965. AA Naeseth, R. L.; and Gainer, T. G.. Low-Speed I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e E f f e c t s of Wing Sweep on t h e Aerodynamic C h a r a r r ~ r i s t i c sof Parawings Having Equal Length Leading Edges and Keel. N S TN D-1957, 1963. AA Johnson, J. L., J r . , and Hassel, J.: Full-Scale Wind Tunnel InvestigaAA t i o n o f a Flexible-Wing Manned Test Vehicle. N S "iN D-1046, 1963. Job ?on, J. L . , J r . : Low-Speed Wind Tunnel I n v e s t i g a t i o n t o D e t e m i x e t h e F l i g h t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Model of a Parawing U t i l i t y 7ehicle. N S TN D-1255, 1362. AA Johnson, J. L., Jr.: Low-Speed Force and F l i g h t I n v e s t i g a t i o n s cf a AA Model of a Modified Psrawing U t i l i t y Vehicle. N S TN D-2492, 1965. T u r n e l l , J. A , ; and Nielsen, J. N . : Aerodynamics of F l e x i b l e Wings a t Low Speeds, P a r t IV - E ~ ~ e r i m e n t Pr-gram and Comparison w i t h Theory. al VIDYA Report No. 172, Feb. 1965. Chambers, J.; and Iioisseau, P.: A a e o r e t i c a l Analysis of t h e Dynamic AA L a t e r a l S t a b i l i t y and Control of a Parawing Vehicle. N S TN 0-3461, 1966. Kroo, I. ; and Chang, L. : A n a l y t i c a l and Scale-Model Research Aimed a t Improved Hang Glider Design. Proc. of t h e Third I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on t h e Technology and Science of Low-Speed and Motorless F l i g h t . N S CP-2085, 1979. AA Ormiston, R.: Wind Tunnel Tebts of Four F l e x i b l e Wing U l t r a l i g h t Gliders. N S CP-2085, 1979. AA Experimental Study of t h e k l i g h t Envelope and Research of LaBurthe, C.: S a f e t y Requirements f o r Hang Gliders. N S CP-2085, 1979. AA LaBurthe, C.; and Walden, S.: l e g e r s de formule R G L O O AL ONERA RT 815134 SY, 1978.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

1

1:.
12.

- Aeroilynamigue

Etude d e s e c u r i t e s u r des planeurs u l t r a e t mecanique du v o l .

13,

G i l l i s , C.; Polhamus, E.; and Gray, J.: C h a r t s f o r Determining JetBoundary Corrections f o r Complete Models i n 7-by-10 Foot Closed Rectangular Wind Tunnels. NACA ARR L5G31, 1945.

b t t o f f , S.; and Rannah, H: Calculation of Tunnel-Induced Upwash Veloc. t t i e a f o r Sktcpt and Y d Wings. NACA 'LN-1748, 1948. Weinberg, . . Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections i n the h e r 7-by-10 Foot Wind I: Tunnels. km f o r P i l e s , NACA h e s Aeroruutlcal Laboratory, 1950. Pope, A.; and Harper, J.: Inc., 1966. Lou-Speed W i n d Tunnel Testing. Wiley and Sons,

i n * ~ e e t i g a t i o a t h e Steady-State cf R i g m a t i , N.; and Pflugehaupt, H.: Behavior of l k o Delta-Wing Hang Gliders. NASA TT F-17394, 1977. Theoretical and Rxperimental Aerodynarics of an E l a s t i c Ormiston, R.: Sailwing. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Aerospace and Xechanical Sciences, Princeton Univ. , I%?. Hoerner, S.: Fluid Dpnaric Drag, Pub. by Author, 1965. P a r t I, A i r f o i l

Schmitz, F.: Aerodynaaics of t h e Xodel Airplane. Measurements. Berlin, 1942.

Eppler, K.: Same New A i r f o i l s . In: Tech. and Science of Low Speed and Hotorless Flight. NASA CP-2085, 1979. Libby, C.; and Johnson, J.: Parawing Airplane Model. S t a l l i n g and Tumbling of a Radio-Controlled
NASA TN D-2291.

. P h i l l i p s , W. H : Recovery from a V e r t i c a l Dive. Hang Gliding), Aug. 1975.
P h i l l i p s , U H: . . N o v . 1975.

Ground S u e r (now Ground S k i m e r ,

More on Dive Recovery o r Lack Thereof.

S t a b i l i t y and Control of Hang Gliders. Paper presented P h i l l i p s , W. H.: a t Society of Automotive Engineers Meeting, Sept. 1976. Jones, R. T.: Dynamics of U l t r a l i g h t A i r c r a f t - Dive Recovery of Hang Gliders. NASA 2M(-73229, 1977. Valle, G.: Flight Testing f o r HGIYA C e r t i f i c a t i o n and HGHA Specification and Compliance Program. Hang Gliding, Jan. 1977.
A Preliminary Analysis of t h e Longitudinal Dynamics of UltraValle, G.: l i g h t Gliders. Hang Gliding, March 1979.

TABLE 1.- DESCRIPTION OF CONFIGURATIONS
Conf iguration planform B.sic Standard. ( f i g . 2)

I

geometry Tip

1
2 A 2B

1
i
1

I

Bat t e n s
None

I

Luff lines
None To f i r s t b a t t e n set To f i r s t b a t t e n set None

Ipocltet Dihedral

Kee 1
N o

N o
N o

30° sweep 21° min t i p (fig. 3) washout

1

i

Spruce

Yes

24' min t i p washout

2C 2D

i

2E
2F
2G

i
.
9

21" min t i p washout N fixed o twist t i p s To f i r s t b a t t e n set Shortened luff lines 24' min t i p washout Cambered r i b s replace batten set 2 F l e x i b l e plast i c b a t t e n s !.n s e t s 1, 2, 3 Plastic battens i n set 1; spruce i n sets 2 and 3 Rigid cambered r i b s sets 1 , 2 . 3 Spruce Plastic battens
set 1

I

2H

To f i r s t b a t t e n set

I

21

I
I
I
i
I

I

I

2J

2K
2L

t
No

I

2M

2N

Spruce

I

To 2nd b a t t e n set

I

t

N T S: OE 1. Batten sets a r e numbered from t h e root with the p a i r of b a t t e n s c l o s e s t t o the root labeled B e t 1.t t h e keel reference. .r. t h e l a r g e keel pocket produces a 9' angle between root chord and keel. Since dihedral w a s added by simply lengthening t h e lower wires and o e tightening t h e upper wires. s m a d d i t i o n a l billow was introduced. 3. This is r e f l e c t e d i n t h e drag data. 2. Tip t w i s t is measured w.

.

WING: ft) Figure 2 . conf .Model 1 "rtandard fguration" planfonn and geoaatr ' c characterieticr..

. . ....Model 2 planfonn and geometric characterletice. . nn* Figure 3. .. . ' . '... .'* ' I . .

.

.

Luff l i n e geometry.l u f f line8 s a i l shape a t p o ~ i t i v e angler of attack luff lines : with l u f f lGI. . Figure 6 . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

i'. .. A ~m P : .'- tb(klR I?.'d:3..UP .

t ..d : L ~ I ~i p l r .1) - . - >. 1 1 1 ~ 1 .is.-.s :.1.. rt t L i .F.~ f t p . ~ L ~ B ~ I I s.. 1 ~o n . t t .. \ i.

.

.

Cnntinucd.14 ." F i g n r t ..(d) 1 = 35. .

.

. .(0 = 3S.b Figure 1 4 .C o n t inucd .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

-8. 4 ? 3 2 C cl 0 C t. a +x n %a v ... $* .. . Cr.W C r am 51 0 . a 0 4 i m . *' r r *. . - . 8 4... c 1 L. . v* -. t 1 U 1 I : . 1 4 *e . 2. U q b 8 2 0 0 . E M' ~ a ) f i h r n i .u u . 8 P 4 1 1 * -.. C '0 tu 'b r-l 0 0 U U aJ I (c. [O Q) $ . . a I ' Ln 4' 0 4 I - a U ii *.. O N 0 "-cOddN II . % o m m m s N * U m m C O O d c 0 r( . 4 . 0 Id aJ . u W 4 b F: I 4 0\ aJ Id rl % * R 1 .r - U? d . (d LC 1 M r ( I1 II I1 It tu c 0 cl a .

.-). ' ' .i 1c* .! ...' * f Conf ig.I. h t t' i' #4. a: .: psf C 4 .Y& #. 6 4 b . . a .! ' I ' tie.6. . .t. I i .2 a.b-. :.: 1.. .L ' I e M-- -.. I / . /" :I'b a -10 -. a. ' .*..I . .2 .Effect of dynamic pressure on CL 56 vs a. i 4 -. Figure 20. . .. + !... . I * $ M 40 -.. configurstion 2H.: 4' .I -. i 74 . . . t:i '&' . : / .. : t I .8 N/mL 3 . ::'I : ' a/. 2H ' J ..t :r t t*. B ' . . ' #'/. I r:t: ' .' .k .' ./? I . h 4 0.

.

configuration 1.Effect of q on drag. .psf x/mL Config. 1 Figure 22..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

8 4 REFe 12 X THIS REWRT 1C 20 a 3 40 5 8 Figure 56. W A R ISON OF LATERAL MTA W I T H PREVIOUS WORK REF. 2 0 REF.Pig.Cornpariron of lateral data with previous work.. 58 . 3 + REF. 9L .

.

.

.

.

+
C

Config. 2N WITHOUT DIHUlRAL
WITH DIHEDRAL Config. 24

"6

X
4- -

f-

-

+

+ -

- - a .

-t

x

Figure 61.- Effect of dihedral on lateral derivatives.

99

Symbol

+
0

Conf ig. 2K
2N

q(psf)

10.
5.

vith pocket

(

A

i

Figure 62.- Effect of keel pocket on lateral characterietics. from yaw sweepa.)

(Derivatives

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful