NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS

REPORT 1144

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A REFINED

DEEP-STEP PLANING-TAIL FLYING-BOAT HULL WITH
VARIOUS FOREBODY AND AFTERBODY SHAPES

By JOHN M. RIEBE and RODGER L. NAESETH

1953

For ",,}e br Ihe Superinlendenl or Documents. U. S. GoO'ernmenl Printing Office. W""hingloD 25. D. C. Yearly subscripllon. $10; foreign. $1l.2S:
ai-nile copy pcice varies according to ,"oze ................ -Price 25 cents
 REPORT 1144

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A REFINED

DEEP-STEP PLANING-TAIL FLYING-BOAT HULL WITH
VARIOUS FOREBODY AND AFTERBODY SHAPES

By JOHN M. RIEBE and RODGER L. NAESETH

Langl ey Aeronautical Laboratory

Langley Field, Va.
 National Advi sory Committee for Aeronautics
Headquarters, 1724 F Street NW., Washington 25, D. O.
Created by act of ongress approved March 3, 1915, for the supervision and direction of the scientific study
of the problems of flight (U. S. Cude, title 50, sec. 151). Its membership was increased from 12 to 15 by act
approved March 2,1929, and to 17 by act approved May 25 , 1948. The members are appointed by the President,
and serve as such without compensation.

JEROME C. HUNSAKER, Sc. D ., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chairman

DE'nEv W. BRONK, PH. D ., President, Rock efell er Institute for M ed ical R esea rch, Vice Chairman

HON . JOSEPH P. ADAMS, member, Civil Aeronautic Board. HON. ROBERT B. MURRAY, JR., nder ecretary of Commerce
ALLE:-< V. ASTIN, PH. D ., Director, National Bureau of Standard. for Transportation.
LEONARD CARMICilAEL, PlI. D., Secretary, Smith onian In titu- RALPH A. OFSTIE, Vice Admiral, Un ited tates Navy, D ep uty
tion. Chief of aval Operation s (A ir).
LAURENCE C. CRAIGIE, Lieutenant General, nited tates Air DO NALD L. PUTT, Lieutenant General, nited tates Air Force,
Force, D eputy Chief of Laff (D evelopment). Commander, Air Research and Developm ent Command .
J AMES I-I. DOOLITTLE, Sc. D. , Vice President, Shell Oil Co. ARTHUR E. RAYMOND, C. D. , Vice Presid ent-Engineering,
LLOYD HARRISON, R ear Admiral, nited States Navy, Depu ty Dougla Aircraft Co., In c.
and As istant Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics. FRANCIS W. REICHELDERFER, C. D. , Chief, nited tates
R. M. HAZEN, B. S ., Dir ctor of Engineering, Alii on Division, ' Veather Bureau.
General Motors Corp. THEODORE P. WRIGff'l', Sc. D. , Vice President for Research,
WILLIAM LITTLEWOOD, M. E., Vice Pre ident-Engineering, Cornell University.
American Airlines, Inc.

HUGH L. DRYDEN, PH. D., Director JOHN F. VICTORY, LL. D., Executive S ec7'etary

JOHN W. CROWLEY, JR., B. S., Associate Director for Research E. H. CHAMBERLIN, Executive Officer

HENRY J. E. R EID , D. Eng., Director, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.

MITll J. DEFRANCE, D. Eng., Director, Amcs A ronautical Laboratory, :\Ioffett Field, Calif.

EDWARD R . SUARP, Sc. D., Director, Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio

LANGLEY AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY, AMES AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY, LEWIS FLIGHT PROPULSION LABORATORY,
Langley Field, Va. :\1offett Field, Calif. Cleveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio
Conduct, under unified control, for all agencies, of scientific research on the fundamental problems of flight

II

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A REFINED DEEP- STEP PLANING-TAIL FLYING-BOAT
HULL WITH VARIOUS FOREBODY AND AFTERBODY SHAPES 1
By J OH:-1 ;\[ . RIEBE
SUMMARY
An inve tigation was made in the Lan gley 300 NIl II 7- by
10100t tunnel to determine the ael'oclynamic charact ri ·tics oj a
refined deep-step planing-tail hull with various jorebody and
afterbody hapes. For compari on, te ts were made on a
streamline body simulating the fus elage oj a modern tran 'port
airplane .
The 1'esult oj the t st , which includ the interference e.ffects oj
a 21-percent-thick support wing, indicated that for corre pond-
ing configurations the hull model incorporating a jorebody
with a length-beam ratio oj 7 had lower minimum drag coej-
ficient than the hull models incorporating a jorebody with a
length-beam '!'atio of 5. The lowest minimum elrag coe.fficient·,
0.0024 and 0.0023, which were considerably l thcLn that oj a
comparable conventional hull oj l ngth-beam ratio 9, were
obtained on the length-b am-ratio-7 jorebody, alone and with
round center boom, res pectively. The streamline body had a
minimum drag coefficient oj 0.0025; flying-boat hull can,
therejore, have drag valu comparabl to landplane juselages.
The hull angle oj attackjor minimum drag varied from 2° to 4° .
Longitudinal and lateral tability was generally ab out the
same jor all hull models tested and about the same as that oj a
conventional hull.
INTRODU CTION
B eclw e of the requil'emenLs for in cr ea eel range and peed
in flying boat , an inves tigalion of th e aerodynami c chft rac-
teri tics of flying-boat hull as afr ected b.\- hull ([imen ion
and bull h ape is beinO' co nducted at the L angley Ae['o-
nauLi al Laboratory. Th e l' ult of one pha e f lhi
inv e tiO'ation , pre ented in l'cfe['en e 1, h ave indicated th aL
hull cb.'ag can be reduced withou L cau ing large chan ges in
aerodynamic stabili Ly a ncl hydrodynamic performa nce I 'y
tb e use of hi gh length-b eam raLios. AnoLh er plHt e of Lh e
invesLigation, r efer ence 2, indicaLed thaL hulls of Lhe deep-
step planing-tail type hav e much lower ail' drag than th e
conventional type of hull and abou L the sam e aerodynamic
tability; tank te t , r efer ence 3, bave indicated th aL Lbi
type of hull also ha hydrodynamic performan ce equallo and
in some r e pects up erior Lo th e conventional type of hull.
In an attempt to improve the aerodynamic performance of
bulls still fUl'ther withou t cau inO' exce iv e penallie in
hydrodynamic performance, several r efined deep- tep planing-
tail bulls were de igned jointly by the H ydrodynami
I Su persedes ! AOA '.PN 2489, "Acrodyna mic haracre ristics of a R efin ed
and R odger L . Naeseth, 1952.
REPORT 1144
and ROD GE R L. KAE SE'['rI
Divi ion and the, tab ility R esearch Division of the Langley
Laboratory. It was believed that improved aerodynamic
performance co uld. be facilitated mainly by r efmement of the
for ebody plan form and by a redu ction in the volume and
urface area of the afLerbody. Thi report pre ent the
r e ult of th e te L of lhe e hulls.
In order Lo make a preliminary tu dy of overall flying-
boat configuration , le t were al 0 made on model in cor-
porating a Lypical engine nacelle and an engine nacelle
extended into a boom which is to fun ction a the afterbody
and r educe the size of a nd po sibly eliminate \ving-tip flo a ts ;
th e nacelle an d nacelle boom were also Lested wiLhou t th e
hull models. For comparing Lh e drag and LabiliLy, tests
wer e made Oll a sLl'eamllne body imulating the III elage of a
modern tran porL airplane.
Tank teuts (r ef. 4) h ave indicated that the hull model
pre ented in the pre en · r eport (with the po ible exception
of th forebo 1y alone for which data al'e not available) will
have accep Lable hydl'od:rnamic performance.
COEFFICIE TS A D SYMBOLS
The r e ulLs of ilie Le t are pI' ented a tandard NAOA
coefficients of force and moment. RolJing-, yawing-, and
piLching-momenL coefficienL are giv en about the location
(wing 30-per cenL-chord poinL) sholl'n in fig ure 1, 2, and 3.
rrtlC wing 11,1' a, m ean aerodynamic chord, and span u ed in
d Lermining the coefficienLs and R eynold number 11,1' tho e
of a hypoth etical fl ying boat (r ef. J). The hull, fuselage,
and nacelle coelli ient were derived by ubLracLion of data
for Lhe wing alone from daLa for Lhe II'inO' plu hull, fu s lage,
0[' nacelle. The \I-ing-alone daLa were deLermined by in-
hiding in Lhe Le ts Lhat parL of Lh wing which i enclosed in
lhe hull, fu selage, or nacelle_ The hull, fll elage, and nacelle
cocfficients therefore include the wing interference re ulting
from the interacLion of the vclo ity field of Lhe wing and
Lhe bodie and al 0 the negative wing interference cau d by
hieldino' from th e air tr am that part of the wing enclosed
within the hull, III olaO'e, or nacelle. The data are referred
to the stability axes, which are a system of axe having their
origin at the cenLer of moments shown in figures 1, 2, and 3
and in which the Z-axi is in the plan of ymmeLry and
perpendicular Lo Lhe relaLive wind, the X -axis is in the plane
of ymmetry and perpendi cular to Lhe Z-axi , and the Y-axis
D c~p- re p Planing-'.Pail F lying-Boat Hull Wi th Yarious "Forcbod y a nd Afterbody Shapes" hy John 1\L Riebc
1
2 HEPOH'J' II H - NA'J'IONA I, Ann OHY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

is pel'pencii 'u lal' to lhc plane of ymmeLI'Y. The po itive

direction of force and moments about Lhe Labil iLy axe
arc fl own in figure 4.
Th r coe ffi r ien Ls a nd ymbols arc defined a follows:
lif t coefficienL, Lift/q where' T~ ifL= -Z
Slatian 6 Statian 10 Stat ian 24 drag eoeifie ienL, D/q
laLeral-force coefficienl , J'/q
I " Maximum beam ,9.85"
1'01linO'-moment coeffie ienL, L/q b
t --~k--:....-----tf---J~:~r_;~~~~s /' : 4°,
(0.30 chard~ I p i Lching-moment coefficient, Jl/qSC
yawing-moment coefficien L, /q b
~r-+----~-+~~~--_ , dra~ , -X when {3 = 0
- __
13-,~7~~'"
__~r-: ==~-:- -~~ 237-58
________________ - --- -r---~~ - 237 -5P force along X -axi , lb
- Madel 237-5 j force along Y-ax i , Jb
t --...L~~::::';;;;=±=F==*~ . A. P. f01'ce along Z-ax is, Ib
Statia n 6.' '- Statian 10 Statian 24 -' rollin g moment, It-lb
47 .90" piLching moment, fL-lb
11665" yawing moment, fl-l b
F l G U RI': J .-Lines of Langley (ank model8 237- .5, 237-5 13 , and 237- .'\ 1' . f,.ee-sLl'eam dynami c pre lire, p 'P /2, lb/sq fL
\\"iIl O' area or 110 scale model of hypol il eLica l
fl ying boat, 1 .264 q fl
1
[ TO
-A- lt~ -~-
wing mean aerodynam ic ch ord cale
model of hypotheLical flying boat, 1.377 it

t---Ui---lfL------l-t
Stal'on 5
t
Stallon 10
t
Slat ion 24
b

r
wing span of 11 - calc model of hypoLhelical
0
flying boat, 13.971 iL
a ll' velocity, Ips

I r· MaX lmu: ~am, 77:' ~ _ _ I L p

a
mass density of it i,., lu gs/cu fL
anO'le of attack of huH ha e lin e. c1eg
t ~-----==1~---------- -~ {3 angle of ide lip , cleO'
- . _+-_-===---1I---,r-:,...:.
/ ",,'J.-
l.c_ e:ter of moments (030 chard)i I R R eynolds number, ha eel on ,,-ing mean ae ro-

I .95"~~:b-'40--- - - - -- -_~
1
~-- dynamic ch ord or 10- calc model o[
--
13.97"''1- .= ';odel23;=7
I
- -- --
__- ·-237-78
"'237-7P I
~
hypolh etical flying boat

Statian 24 --'

- - - - - - - - . . . . . . : . . . - 122.83" - - - - - - --J
FlGL' HI, 2. - L ille ~ of Lan gley (allk models 237- 7,237- 711, and 237- 71' ,

MODELS AND AP PARATUS

The hulliinl' w('1'e d elermined t hrou gh lh e joint eoop era-
~ion of Lbe IIydl'oclyn tLmic Di vi ion and the LahiliLy R e-
sea rch Di vis ion of Lb e Langley Lab oraLor y. T h e hull £ore-
Typical sec tion bodies were derived in plan form from modified N A
16- ('"('ies ymmeLJ'ical airfoil ection of Lhickne r alio 20
and 14 .3 percenL a irfoil chord, 1'e ulling in £ol'ehody length-
beam ratios of apPl'oximaLely 5 and 7, re peeLivel. The
I , Max imum beam, 12.96"
f.---- 44.79" ,<", center af mom ents (0.30 chard)
[orehody lengLh-b am ratio i equal Lo Lh e di tance [rom
Lhe forward perpendic ular (F. P. ) to Lhe Lep divided by the
1 ~---~4~.4S8~"~~~~~~--~4°o--- maximum beam of Lh e fOl'ebody (figs. 1 and 2 show maximum

I
===~t ~ beam of [o1'eDody). Dimension of the hull ar e given in
figures 1 and 2 and table I to IV. The lines of a tail float
.
1- - - - - -- - - - 117.05" - - - - - - - - --\ used Jor several of Lh e lests ar e given in figur 5; offset ar e
FIGl IRE 3.- LineR of the Rl rcam line fll selap;e. g iven in tahle V . T lw st.reaml in e hody, fin n e. ratio o f
 AERODYNAMI HARA TERI 'l'ICS OF REFINED DEEP- 'rEP PLANING-'!' AIL FLYING-BO A1' H ULLS 3
lank de ignation number ar e given in fio-lll" 7 . All mod el
and inl erchangeah le parl were con lruct d of lam inat d
mah ogany a nd nni bed wi lh pigmented varni h . Th e vol-
ume. urface ar eas, maximum cross- ecLional area, and
iele area for t he hull and [u clage are given in la.ble VII.
The hull was attach ed Lo a wing whi ch \Va mounted hori-
Relative wind zonLalh- in thc Lunnel a hown in fio-nre Th e wing was
the one used in t he inve tigal ion of r efer ence 1. I t wa et
at an inciclenc of 4° wi Lh r espect to th e ba c line on all
model and had a 20-in ch chord, a 94.2-inch pan, an d an
NACA 4321 airfoil ecL ion .
TESTS
\
TEST CONDITIO S

\ Tht' Lo ts were macle in th Langley 300 MPH 7- b y 10-foo t

t unnel at el.vnamic pre ures of approximately 25, 100, and
170 pounds per quare foo t, con e ponding to a ir p ed of
100, 20] , and 274 mil cs p er hom. R eynold numb er for
M
t he e air peed , ba ed on Lh e mean aerodynamic chord of
lbe hypothelical fl y in g boal , were approximately 1.30 X 106,
2.50 X 10 6 , and 3. 1OX 106 , r e pectively. Cone ponding Mach
numb er were 0.1 3, 0.26 , and 0.35.
CORRECTIO , S

Blocking co rrceLion h ave b een appli ed Lo th e wing and

Z wino'-plus-hull data. The drag coefficient of th e hulls and
FIGURE 4.- y tem of tabili ty axe. Po i t ive va l ues of f or c , m o- Ju elage h ave been COlTe Led for longitudinal buoyancy
ments, and angle. ar c indi cated by arrow. cfl'ect ca u cel by a tunnel tatic-pressure gradient. Angles
of attack h ave h een con ected for structural deflection caus d
h? aer odynami c force

lP- -$-
TEST PHO E O UH E

The aerodynam i characteristic of th e hull wiLh inter-

fer ence of th e upport wing wer determined by te ting th e
Typico I sections w ing alon.e and Lhe wing-and-hull combination under
identical concliLions . The hull aer o lynamic coefficients
__ Maximum beom of loil floot 4.94"
/ I . Nacelle offsets
~~ __~J,-----;-- Di stonce oft Nacelle ~ below

--j---~:~~~~I---
Stat ion stotion 0 radius thrust line
0 0 2.25 0
1.25 3 .1 3 0

I '-:'
1/2
I 2.50 3 .35 0
2 5.00 3 .35 .04
,, 0,Wo,,' 3.IB .14
3 7.50
4 10.00 2.B9 .32
5 12.5 0 2.53 .53
6 15.00 2.16 .73
7 17.5 0 1.67 .9B
19.BO" above hull bo se line and 16.50" laterally
,......:.~-...:.:..:::.:..:.....:=_ _ _ _ _ _ '96.23 .. _ _ _ _ _1/'-_ _ +i
FI GU H I; 5.- Lill m; f Lail float in co rp oraL d all hulls 237-5Fl and
237- 7Fl. ,_,Body of revolution wi l h stroight-line elements oft
..- of stat ion 2
abo ut 9, represenLs the Iu elage of a typical high- p eed land-
plane; dimen ions are given in figure 3 and table VI. Th
engine nac lle (fig. 6) \Va a cale model of th e engine nacelle
of Lhe XPBB- l flying boat (r ef. 1). The manner in whi h
tb e en o- ine-nacelle boom wa derived is al 0 hown in figure 6. Stotion __ j >' Wing chord line 4 0 to hull bose line

Ph oLographs of th e hulls with th e COlT poneling L angley FIG URE G.-Lines of engine nacelle and engine-nacel le boom.
4 REPORT 11 44- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO JAUTIC

were d etermined b y ubtraction of wing-alone coe fficient s

from wing and hull cocificienl after the data wer e plolleci
in order to account for s tru ctural eleflec tions. 237 -5
T ests wer e made at three Reynold numbers. Bee'au se of
structmal limi tation of Lh e s upport wing, it was 11ece ar.\"
to limit the data at t he hi gh er Rey nold s number Lo the
angle-of-at ta ck range shown.
In order to minimize poss ibl e e)Tor r es ulling rrom tran si- 237-5FI
tion lu ft on the wing, th e wing transition ,,"a fixed at lilt'
leading edge b y m ean of l"ou ghne trips of carborunclum
particles of approxima t ely 0.00 -inch diam eter. Th e par-
ticle wer e applied for a length of percent airfoil chord
m ea ured along th e airfoil conlOLlr from the leading edge on
both upper and low l' surfac e 237-58

Hull t ran ition for all Lest. was fLx ed by a ~-inC'h h ip of

0.00 -inch-diameter carborundum particles loca ted a pprox i-
mately 5 p er cent of th e hullleLlg th a[t of t.he bo"". All tes t
were made with th e Upp01't etup hown in figure
237- 5P
RESULT AND DISC 101

Th e aerodynami c characteris tics in pitch or t he r efin ed (0)

deep- tep planing-tail hulls \\"j th various afterbod .\' config u- L-56.321
rations are presented in fi gure 9 a nd 10 and the aerod)'nami c FI GU RE 7.- IItill mode l l eo Led in the Langley 300 l\ IPTI 7- by 10-foot
tunn el.
characLeristics in side lip, in figures 11 and 12. The aero-
dynamic characteristic of the Lreamline fu selage are in-
cluded in figur e 9 and] 1. The aerocl~" namie charac teri lics
in pitch of model incorporating th e engin nacell e and ill e
engin e-na celle boom arc pre ellted in fi gUl"e 13 and 14 and
the aerod:-namic characteri ti cs in iel eslip, ill fi glll"es 11 and
12. The aerodynami c chara cteri tic of the engine nacell e 237-7
and the engine-nacelle boom without th e hull nrc includ ed
in figure 1:3 (a) ; the coefficients arc plott ed aga in t hull angle
of nUack and lilerdore co rrespond to the increments tlwt
)"e ulL from lhe nflc clle or lhe nacell e boom ,,"hell the hull i
Ht a giv en aUiLucl e. ~ l inimum dra g coeffic ienL flnd s tllbilit.\, 237- 7 8
parameters, as determined from lhe figur es, arc prese nt ed in
lable VIII for compari Oil .
Th e followin g di s cu ~ ion of [h e longitudinal dHHad eri l i("s
i based on the r e ulls for R eynolcl s !lumber 2.5 X 10 6 . A
("om pari on o[ figure 9 ancllO indicates that for CO ITe poneling
configurations the hull model s incorporatin g a [orebocl.,' with a 237-7F I
length-beam ratio of 7 h ad 10\\"e[" minimum drag coefficients
than the hull models in corporating a forebody with a lengtll-
beam raLio of 5. The in eremcn Lal clifi"er ence in mi nimum drag
coeffi cien t between corre poneling configunttion s variecl from
0.0008 for the hull foreboclies alone (C Dm i ,,= 0.00 32 [or
237-7P
model 237- 5 and 0.0024 [or model 237- 7) to 0.000:3 for th e
deep-cent e)"-boom config uration (CD min = 0.0030 for model
237- 5P and 0.0027 fo)" model 2:37- 7P) .
According to r eference 5, the clifrerel1("e in 11lll1J1num
(b) L-56322
profile-drag coefficient bet Wee ll Hirfoil sec tions of tll ic kne
ratios 0.20 and 0.]43 i ahout 20Iper ecnt;lthe:diHel"encejn FI GU R E 7. -Continued.
 AERODY AMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REFINED DEEP-S'l'EP PLANI G-TAIL FLYING- BOAT H LLS 5
alone (fig. 16) a large amounL of eparaLion occurred on the
upper r ear of the forebody and rear of th e wing. Fairing
Lhe jun cture with the boom (fig. ] 5) re lu ced th e eparation
237-5P +
) engi ne nacel le
somewhat an 1 con eq uen Lly the hull draa coefficient. Little
or no separaLion occurred for the length-b eam-ratio-7 fore-
body configurations throu ghou t the angle-of-aLtack range
te ted (figs. 17 andl). Unpublished Le t of the bull alone
hav e indicated that the eparation wa cau ed primarily by
Lbe interfer ence efTecLof Lhe upport wing ; LufL studie of th e
hull alone at angles of aLtack corresponding to Lho e of the
237-5 + presen t r eport showed no occurrence of separaLion.
engine -nacelle
boom
The lowe t minimum drag coefficients, 0.0024 and 0.0023,
wer e obtained on hull models 237- 7 and 237- 7B , respec-
Lively. Althou gh Lhe kin area of model 237- 7B was larger
th an tbat of mod el 237- 7 (table VII) because of the addition
Stream line of the boom, th e drag incr ease corre ponding to the added
fu selage kin fri ction wa probably offset by th e boom' causing a
(c) L-56323 better flow condition at the wing-hull juncture.
As indicated by figures 9 and 10, the hull angle of attack
FIG U RE 7.- Concluded.
for minimum drag varied from 2° to 4°.
A comparison of th c lowe t minimum drag coeffi cient,
0.0023 for hull 237- 7B, with th at of a conven Lion al hull,
0.0066 for hull model 203 of length-b eam raLio 9 (r ef. I ),
indicated a minimum-draa-coeffi cient r educLion of 0.0043 or
6 - per cen t .
Th e minimum drag coefficient for t h e str eamline body was
0.0025 (fig. 9); Oy ing-boaL h nUs can, therefor, have drag
valu es eomparable to lhaL of a fuselage of a landplane
approximatel.," imilar in ize and gro weighL to a hypo-
Lhetieal fl}ing boat incorporating hull model 237- 7B . Tank
test (r ef. 4) have shown hat a fly ing boat inco rporating
hull 237- 7B and a gro weight. imilar 1,0 a landplan e in-
corporating th e streamline fu elage will take off from and
lnncl on waler if a mall verticnl chine trip is added to t h e
hull. Th er e arc se veral Ii advantage to Lhi Lype of hull,
however. Th e hull volume i less than th e fLl elage volume
(tahle VII ) and, beeau c of Lhe lo cation of Lhe major portion
of bull vo lume ,tlH'ad of LhC' win g whe1"e Li1 e pay load would
be ealTied, a balance problem would probably be encounLered
FlG HE S.- Langley tank model 237-5P mOLinLed ill t he Langley 300 on large flying-boa t de igns. Th e e disadvanLages are much
MPH 7- by lO-fooL Lu nne!.
less erious on mod I 237- 7P becau e of th e deep tail boom;
minimum drag coefficienLs beLween hull model 237- 7 and Lhe increa e in minimum drag coefficient, 0.0004, may be
237- 5 which were derived from airfoils of the e arne con e- worth the allev iation of Lhe volume and balance problem .
ponding Lhickne ratio agreed favorably with thi value. H ydrodynami c COD ider ation h ave inclicaLed that im-
AL negative angles of attack Lh e drag coefficien Ls for hull proved hydrodyn ami c performance on Lbe cl ep- tep hulls
wiLIt for ebod y length-b eam raLios of 5 were much larger th a n migh t be facilitaLed b y incorporaLing a tail float on th e
Lho e for hull wiLh length-b eam raLios of 7 (figs. 9 and 10). hull such as ho wn in ftgure 5. If tank Le Ls indicate that
The teep drag ri 'e at negativ e angles can be explain d by an a tail floa t is much de ired, a more refined £loat than that
examination of the tuft Ludie of hull models 237- 5B, hown in figw- 5 boulel be u ed. The minimum drag
237- 5, 237- 7B , and 237- 7 presented in figure 15, 16, 17, coefficient of t h hull models with tail float, models 237- 5Fl
and 18, r e pectively. For the length-b eam-ratio-5 forebody and 237- 7F1 , were 0.0043 and 0.003 , 1'e pectively. These
6 R E PORT 11 44- NATIO AL ADVISORY COMMITT EE FOR AERO AU'l' I CS
drag-coeffi cien t \7alu es w e1'e abou t 0.001 5 lar ge!" th an similar
configurations wilhou t t h e lail floa t .
Figm es 9 and] 0 sho" - n egali\7(' valu es of bull lift coeffi cicn t
thl"oughou t most of thc angle-of-aLLack range te ted; th c
valu cs arc especiall y morc negali\7c t h an t hose of co nventional
hulls (ref. 1) in th e minimum drag range . In order t o com-
p en atc for t h c e n ega tive v alu es, th e wing lift coefficicnt of
fl ying boats \\-ould h a\7c t o b e incrcascd ; this incr ea e would
r c ult in an in c1"case in indu cpd-drag cop fficient. H owever ,
th e incr ease in induced drag for the win g of th e hypo th etical
fl ying boa t, used as a ba i in th e prescn t invcstigation,
would b e sm all and would n ot scri ously alter t h e r elat ive
m eri t in p erformance of t h e hull of the pre en t in\7estiga-
lion O\7er con\7entional hulls.
In order lo mak e a prcliminm·~- stud y of ove rall flying-
boat configuration s. test s w(']"c also m ade on a typical engine
n acelle and an engine nacelle ext ended into a boom (fig . G)
which i Lo function as th e afterbody and r edu ce th e size
of, OJ" possibly eliminat e, wing-t ip floaLs . The drag coeffi-
cients for onc engine nacell e and one engine-nacelle boom
n eal' the angle of a t tack for minimum drag of t h e hulls
wi thou t n acelles wer e about equal , with a \7alu e of 0.0022
(fig. 13 (a)) . Thi drag coeffi cient agr eed favorably with
tb e in cremen t of drag coeffi cien t r esulting from t h e addition
of the engine n acelle 01' the engine-nac ellp boom to th e hull
mod els as detcrmined by a comparison of fi gures 13 and 14
with figm es 9 and 10. Th e drag coeffici ent for t h e n acelle
alone and n acelle boom alone decreased as t h hull angle of
a t tack b ecame less positive . A more rapid decr ease 0 cUlTed
for t h e n ac 11 > alon ; this effp ct pro bably accounts for the
n egative shif t in angle of att ack for minimum drag of th e
for ebody alone plus the engine n acelle.
Th e minimum drag coefficients for bo th comb inations
were abou t pqual so lha t a fl~-in g-boaL configurati on wilh twin
engine-nacell e boom probably has an ad vantage in a('1"O-
dyn ami c p erformance O\7er a (ly ing boat with a singlc round
boom and conventional nacelle r es ultin g from th e r edu cLion
in size of, 01" possible eliminat ion of, wing-Lip float. As
notcd previoLi sly , the length-b eam-ratio-5 fOl" eb ocly alonc had
a gr eatcr drag t han th e for ebod.v with around cent er boom,
mainly b eca use' of an advcl" e wing intel"fpr PllCe cffec t.
How cver , Lh c co nfig ura tion wi tlt naC' ellp booms till mig ht
b e bctter aerody namically , es pecially if lhc \\"ing-hull j un c-
t ure had a sui table fairing . These res ul ts show th e need for
investi ga tion of overall flying-boat hull config ura tions if fur-
t h er progr ess i to b e made in improving t he ac rody namic
performancc of flying boat .
The longi tlldinal sta bility f 0 1" tltc variol! hulls, as indicated
by the p arameter Om", i given in table VIII. The hull
models incorpora ting a forcbody wi th a length-b pam ratio
of 7 were generally less un table longitudinally than those
with a leng th-beam ra tio of 5. This increase in longit udinal
stability \\"itll leng th-b eam rat io is similar Lo th a t. repor ted
in refcren ce 1. As e)..,}) ec ted , b ecause of the large part of the
hull ahead of thc center of moments, the mos t longitudinally
un Lable hull models wer e forebody -alone config ura tion
237- 5 and 237- 7 which had Oma v alu e of 0.0028 and 0.0026 ,
rcsp ecti\7ely. The addi tion of af terbodies h ad only a small
effect on the stability which corre pond to a rearward
aerodynamic-center shif t of les than 1 p ercent m ean aero-
dyn amic chord on a fly ing boat. Of the models tc ted , the
choice of hulls probably hould b e determined m ainly from
hull drag, hull v olume, and balance considerations ; the in-
crea e in horizontal-tail area n ecessary to compen ate for
th e hulls with less tabili ty would give only a mall drag
increase which would b e blanketed by the reduction ob tain ed
by u ing the lower drag hulls. These factors should al 0 be
considered wh en compari on is made with the conven tional-
ty p e hulls of refer ence 1. The deep-step hulls were slightly
lc un table longitudinally for the present wing and centel'-
of-gravi ty po itions, which wer e located from hydrodynami c
considerations.
The directional stability as determ ined by O n(3 (table
VIII) was - 0.000 for hull model 237- 5 and -0.0009 for
mod I 237- 7. As exp ected, the addi tion of the afterbodies
reduced th e directional instability slightly, the amount
dep ending upon the amount of side area added and its loca-
tion af t of the center of moments. The least direc tionally
uns table configura tions tes ted "Were models 237- 5P and 237-
5F1 which bo th h ad a O n(3 value of - 0.0006. The increase
in direc tional in tabili ty wi th 1 ngth-beam ratio is al 0
similar to tha t r eported in r efer ence 1 and probably re ulted
from th e increase in side area ahead of Lhe center of moments
with leng th-b eam ratio .
The a Idi tion of the ellO"ine nacclle to model 237-5 and
237- 7B increa ed In" sligh tly bu t howed no chang in O n(3 .
The direc tional stability of the flying-boa t hulls of the present
invesLigalion wa s gPllerally about, the sam e a that of con-
ventional hulls. Thi rc ul t can largely be explained by the
fac L that the differen t center-of-gravit.f po itions compen-
satcd for the d ifrercnce in body shap c.
CON CLUSIO S
The rcsulLs of tc ts in Lhe Langlcy 300 MPH 7- by J O-foot
tunnel to determine the aerody namic charac teris tic of re-
fined dpcp-sLep planing-tail flying-boa t h ulls with v a rioLl s
forebody and afterbody shap es and a treamline fu selage
indicatc th e followin!)" conclusions:
1. For con·c ponding COllfiO"ura tions the hull model 111-
cOL'pora ting a forebody with a length-beam ratio of 7 had
lower minimum drag coefficient than the hull model in-
corpor ating a for-cbo 1y wi th a leng th-b eam r atio of 5.
2. The lowest minimum drag coefficient , 0.0024 and
0.0023, which wer e abou t 65 p ercen t less th an that of a
comp arable convenlional hull of a previous investigation ,
 AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REFINED DEEP- TE P PLAI I NG-'l'AIL FLYING-BOAT HULLS 7
\\" cl'e o bla.inecl on lhe lC' llg t h-berun-l'<l t io-7 /'0 1' ' bo l:v, alone R EFE R E CE
and with round cen tc r boom I'C p eclivcly. 1. Yates, Campbell C ., and Hi ebe, John AI. : E!i'ect of Lel1~th - Bealll
3. The minimum drag coeffi cient obLa,inecl for th e t l'earn- Ratio on the Aerodynalll ic Characteristic of F ly ing- Boat Hulls.
line body wa 0.0025; fly ing-b oat hull can , th erefol'C', h ave ;{ACA T1\ 1305, 1947.
2. Rieb e, J h n AL , and 1\ aes th, Rod"C1' L.: Aerodynamic Charac(er-
drag coC'ffic iC' nts comparable Lo la.ndpl a ne fu sdages. i tics of TIne D ep- (ep Planing-Tail F ly ing-B aL 11 \llIs.
4 . Th e hull a ngle of a t tac k for m inimum drag vari NI h om :"JACA RM L 127, 1948.
2° Lo a bouL 4° . 3, uydam , H nl'y B,: II ydrodynamic haracteri tic of a Low-Drag,
5. Longit udinal a nd laLeral sLab ili ty \V a gen crallyabo ut, P lan ing-Tail Flying-BoaL JIull. :"JACA TN 2-l81 , 1952. (u ] er-
t.h e arne fo[, all hull mod el tested and abo u t the sam e as a sedes 1\ ACA RM L71 10.)
4. Af cKann, Robert., and CofTee, Claude \Y. : Hydrodynamic haracter-
conven t ional hull of a prev iou aerodynami c inve t igation. i tic of Ae rodynamically Refined Planing-Tail H ull. ~ ACA
R:'II L9B04, 1949.
LANGL E Y AERONAU'l'ICAT" L ABORATORY ,
5. Jacobs, Eastman 1\., \Yard, Kenneth E., and Pinkerton, R obert :'II.:
NA'I'IO NAL \ DVI SORY CO MMI'l"r 8 1~ FOR \ ERONAU'1'IC Th e haracter istics of 7 Rc lated Airfoi l 'eclion. From T est. in
LA KG r"E Y FIELD , VA. , J une 30, 1918. (he Vari ahle-DensiLy " -ind Tunn el. ]\"ACA Rep. 460, 1933 .

.02
J /"'" 1'-.
./
~ /'
'u ./
:E 0 /

'"u
0
/V p=:: =-. l/
? /
c
'"
E
~ - .02
v ....
/~ ~~
~ -- -- --
"- ~ ::;;:/
.[;?>'
./
~.

Ii.'" ~ l.£: ~
....
~-
~
~ 032
~ /
// ,--- .
Cl: - .04
.~
028
1\\\
,I. \\\, 024
i\ - -- 237-5
Model
I--
\\
II \ 237-58 II \
- - - - 237-5P 020
I'. \
I'
- - - - - - 237-5FI
- - - Sireamline r--- \
\1 fuselage
\ 016 c-
~
\;, \ ~ \. '"
'w
;;::

\\~
Q;
\ \ 012 '"
8
\~ \. \ II. o
o
R-, 1\ \\ 008

'" "~ ~ ~~
/
//
1\"
'-.. '-...
~> -- .... ~ ~
/ ~

\3'
c 0
.1

~
...........
---- 1- - "'" ~ ;t'/
r--
i~ 1---
'"
""'- ,
'- -
~ 004

o
~ ~ --
/

'" I - -1---
r-- ~ ~\. ~- 1-- -~
'u
;;::
/--
{237-58
-......, t-:::- --
--- " :--
~ f- -=-' ~ ~ ....... ~- ---:-;: ----- 237- 5FI
o
u ~ c::::::...
.:: - .1
::J - ........

(0) (b)
- .2
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
Angle of ottack, 11, deg Angle of attock, 11, deg
(a ) R"", 2.5XI06. (b) R"",3. 1 X 106.
F Ie: lmE 9.- Acrod.vnami c chal'actcri. t ic in pitch of Langley lank model 237- 5 wi t h vari ous afte rbody con fi gurations an d streamlin e fuselage.

27681 7-54 - 2
8 REPORT 1144- NATIO AL ADVI SORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

.02

C
<l>
·u

--
;;:: 0 -
Q;
~
o ,:::::::- -
u ~/ r--- ./
C V
~~
~~
~
<l>
E ~
E -.02 ~/ f-- ~~
./

~ ~/
,
0'
C
y p-
.--:::
"E
.ld
0:: -.0 4

016

,
Model
- - - - - 237-7
-
237-78
- - - 237-7P -
\
t\ - - - 237-7 FI
\\
~ ~ ~.'---
~"~ ~
~ t--- / ~~ ~
004
f"::: ~ r-:::..:.- d -......:::::
~

o
I

C
<l>
·u
::=
'"o
u
0

I
·-12
(0)
~ r--.

-8 -4
-=- F- -
o
- 4
---...

- ',,-
8 12 -12
(b)
'""'-
-8
',--

-4
- r=-== 1- - -
o 4 8 12
Angle of attock, ex, deg Angle of attock, ex, deg
(a) R "" 2.5 X 106 • (b) 11''''' 3.1 X lOE.
FIGURE 10.- A erod y namic character istics in pitch of Langl ey tank model 237- 7 with var ious afterbody con figurations.
 AERODY AMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REFINED DEEP- STEP PLANI G-TAIL FLYING-ROAT HULLS 9

.2

I I I I
ccv V
.2
237 -5FI
nacelle boom
}
237- 5 plus engine- .... t--- '(3
;;:::
Q;
o
u
I

--I----- --- ---

237 -5 plus }
engine nacelle , k f??. e
cv

= f--
I-- f -

Q;
237-58
237-5
".

b&:= ~
~
237-5P .'

-- -- --
...
'
-¥ 0
l-- f--
. , r7-7
\
pi" 000'00-00"'" bo~
237-78 plus engine nacelle
~~
o ~
1--- --
u '" 237-7FI
~ 0 ---= b-::::-:: -- 237-7P
i-=-= I 237-78
.9, "' Streamline fuselage 237-7
~
.,
(;
..J _ .1
;

237-5P
- .2 237-5 FI
237-5 plus engine-
nacelle boom
237-5 plus {237-7P
engine nacelle
237-58
237-5

J -J 1- . - - ',- -- --
". t
" 237-78 pl us engine nacelle

37 7
-
\. 237-78
237-7Fi
237-7 plus engi ne-nacelle boom

Streamline fuselage ..

.02 237-5 plus }

engine nacelle ". ,02
237- 5 ~" {237-7P
c., ccv
' 237-7FI /
----t b:: t::-
237-5 plus engine -} ;::::::::::: ~
;g
Q;
.0 I nacelle boom
237 - 58 '
. '.

~ ~ ::::
!- -- ~
--=
' (3
~
.,o .0 I
~;::::::::--
137-7
o .;.-- .:--
u

- -
u
.,
C
V 237-5P" C pi" 000'00-000'''' boom
~~
~ ,
E
~ 0 p
237-5FI "- cv
E V"" ',,_ 237-78 plus engine nacelle
237-78
--- ----
~ ~ 0
b-
e
3
~ Streamline fuselage"
b-
e
V 1 37 7
- 1

~
3
-.0 I ~
4 o -4 -8 - 12 -16 -20 -.0 I
4 o -4 -8 -12 -16 -20
Anqle of sideslip, {3, deg Angle of sideslip, f3, deg
FIG URE ll.-Aerodynam ic characteri stics in sideslip of Langley tank FIGURE12,-Aeradynamic characteristics in sideslip of Langley tank
mod el 237-5 with various afterbod y configuration. R"" 1.3 X 106; model 237-7 wi th various afterbody configuration. R"" 1.3 X 106 ;
10 REPORT 1144- ATIO AL ADVISORY COMMIT'l' EE FOR AERO AU'l' ICS

.02
J' .1. I I II
f- Engine-nacelle baam· alane -
C
Q) Engine nacelle alane __-,r-'--r _"'"",,-
.....+ - + -
..=.
-+--+--+--l
·u
;;= - - - :.. :--'-I_~-,..I=-~,-
Q; 0
0
u ~~--~ V /~
c . / / ~
E
E, -D2 r-~---r~
--~~~~~
V:/
~1---+--1---+--~--+--1---+--~--~-1I~
/~~~rL~~---+--~__+-__~-4__~
VV:V/
,- . r ,, _,- . . .
g' I-- k -237-5 plus engine-nacelle baam 1-_1--Ir--'::C--l
, r...."..-·-- 237-5 plus engine-nacelle bra",ac:.:m'-l-_-I-_~
~ - -237-5 plus engine nacelle .:;..cc'--f----1 -- 237-5 plus engine nacelle
Q -D4 r--i---+--~--t-~---+--4---t-~---+--4---~~---+--4---~~---+--~--+-~~-+__~__+-~
r--+-~~--r-t--+-~--r--r--t--+--~--~-+--+--4--~--~-+--+-~--~--~-+--- 036

r--i--r-+--1-~-+--1--r-+--1--r-+--1--+-~-1---+--+--1~-+-4--~-+--~ __ 032
\
,\
r--+--~I\~i~~r--r--+--4--~--~-+--+--4--~--~-++++-~--~--~-+--+-~--~--+-~ 028
1\\
I \\ 1--1r--l--'
\'\_ \~'if-:c-.--- 237 - 5 plus engine - nacelle ;ba~a:.:m.~_--+_-l
\\ Y --- 237-5 plus engine nacel le
024
\
1\\ 020
\1 ~
\ C
Q)

016 ~
'"0
u

'"a
0
1---1--1--111--\- \\'.-!o.. -
237 - 5 plus engine - nacelle ba"a",m"--l-_I--1_-l_-+_-+_-l\_-+_+_+_+_+_-+-_-+--1 012
\ \ - 237-5 plus engine nacelle ~\

\
~~,~+-~---+--+-r~-+--~~--~~--~~--~~--1~~~~~~--~~ 008
1\
I ~t-L= J(/ " s. V
f---- I - - t - Engine-nacelle boom alone --;:,+--1--1--1--+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+ -+-+--+--+--1--1 .004
Engine nacelle alon e - __ ,~~,..,:
r-----t-- -_-
f-- . _ - - ----
I o
G'
__+--.-; Engine-nacelle 1-----1_-F~ _~...c:.: 237 -5 plus engine-nacelle b'l'a~
o!.!.
m'--l-_-+_~
cQ) ~'\ ,/ boom alone ~. __ -237-5 plus engine nacelle
. (3
;;= ' --+--1::=
Q; 0 ,...
"·~
~
~ l=:d==t~=f-=q~:..-=:-:::-+·
- - - Engine n_a-tce_,_,e-+_-+_ + _ + _~--I~
_---_=
-+
alone ~-+_-+_--+_--+_+_+_+_-I--~ - .004
0
' K- - _-- 237-5 plus engine-nacelle ~aom ~"
u

-
:::i
I-- f---
(a) 1~~~-1~~celle (b) "~r-~~:l-r--.--:!_::-::-::
~IL2--~--_L
8 --~--
_L4 --~--0
~~~~4--~--~
8---L--'~2--_~'2~-L--_~8'--~--_~4'--~--~0'--~---4'--~---8'--~--~' 2
Angle of attack , a., deg Angle af attack, a., deg
(a) R "" 2.5 X 10G. (b) R ",, 3.1 X I06.
13.- Aerodynamic characteristics in piLch of engine nacelle and engine-nacelle boom alone and with Langley ta nk mode l 237- 5. The
coe ffi cienL for t he nacelle alone a nd Lhe Ilacelle boorn a lane are given for co rresponding hull angles af attack.
 AERODY AMI C CH ARA 'fERISTI CS OF REFINED DEEP- STEP PLANIr G-TAI L FLYING- BOAT H ULLS 11

----'
•

~.
C!'c::."
... :>

~~ ~
.0 2 c: r.
ec:CcC:
c r-::
.~
~ 0 E cc.
/~
0;
o
u
C /'
/'
Q)
E
~ -.02
V;
~.
, l(: '. ' 237-7 plus engine - nacel le boom
:c'"
/"
-
c
~
a: - .04
- . 237 - 7 B plus engine na ce ll e
ex. = -8°
(
016 (
\
\
\
\
~
\
... ·· 2 37-7 plus engine- nacelle boom

•.. ·· 237 -7 B plus engine nacelle

0 12
-v

.. ~
",,"'"
-:;)
-'"
--:l
- ')
~
-..;

~ .J )
c I
Q) c::- c::.. c:- (
1'\' \
;g0;
008
~<::. ~ c ( \

c:. c:
'" .......
\
'
o
u

o'"
C C t

--
C
~ 1',
"'- .-/
o
cC C
004
e. C c. c

o
.2

I
c
Q) .' 237 - 7 plus engine - nacelle boom
:~
0; I 237 - 7 B pl us engine nacelle
o , .
-
u
0
,, .
'Y':'" .-/
-- I-- -- f--
.I
- 12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
Angle of attock, Cl , deg
F IGU R E l4.-Ae rod yn amic characteri ti c. in p itch of L ang le.v
La nk m odel 237- 7 wi t h engine n acelle and eno- in c-nacelle bo 111 ,
R "", 2.5 X I06.

ex. =- 4°
F IGURE 15.- T u fL -Lud ic of L angley tank mod 1 237-5B.
12 REPORT llH- NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI'I'TEE FOR AERONA 'rICS

.......
~
......._
~ ............ ~
............ ...:::::..
c::. C C.
c:- c::: c::-c: c: c..c r
~

c: c: cc Cc; ('"
~ c c c c.

c:: c:. c::::c c. c c:-

cc: c:c:: c:.C c::

cccccc. C"

C"c::

--- -......- ---

~ ~
- c.
<:::- c:.. c. c:.
c:- c:: c:-c:: c: c..C r
c: c: cc CC ql
C"t:c c c c. ~

C"

ex. =8°
FlGlJm: l5.-Co ntinu cd . FI GU RE l 5.-Conclud cd .
 AERODYNA1\lIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REF! ED DEEP-STEP PLANI G- TAIL FLYING-B OAT HULLS 13

c:: c::
c- c

CL :: -8°

c: c:: c:.

c: c;: c:: cc::.

0:. =-4°
FIG U RE 16. -Tuft studie of Langley tank model 237-5. FIGURE 16.-Continued.
14 REPORT ]144- A'l'IONAL ADVI.ORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO AU'l'IC8

C' c:: c::. c:.

c c c

eX. =- 8°

c c c C' c:: c c:...

C r:
c
c
cc. C c:. Cc

r:: c c:: c::: c::

FIGURE 17.- Tuft studies of Langley tank model 237-7B.

ex. = 8°
FIGURE 16.-Concluded.
AERODY Al\UC CHARACTERISTICS OF REFI TED DEEP- STEP PLA lN G-TA IL FLYI G- BOAT H LL 15

c
_ _ ___-e--eo- ~ -c.- C C
- CC-cC eeC c:::
c:::c:..c::.
c: c::: c: C. c C.
c c:: c:. C c:: C

c c::: c:. c c- c

• •

<:-
-.:::-<-
__ - __ c::: C
___ c:- -<-
,.-
~ ---~""'-~~
---c::.C'-c:.
". c: -...-c::.. e:::- - -c:.--C--cc ceC c:::
c:::~c:::::.
cce:::.. C. C (, ~ c: c:: c::: c. c:. C
c:.C C C c c:: c:. C c:: c.
cC::
c::.C CC C c c:::c.cc-c
c c:: C

-c:--- <..- - - C
7:~-- - c:- c.ee c::
c::. c:. cC
cc:..C-
--~~~:=::~
c::.c cc c.eC c;::..
c:cC: c. c C C:::,c:::::.
c c:: C.C c:: c c:: c:::- c::: c::.. c:: c..
c c:: c:. c: C" c:

c c::: c. c:: c- c

FIG U R E 17 .- Con tinu ed.

FIG U RE 17.-CoDcluded.
16 REPORT 1144- 1 ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONA TICS

c::- c::- c: c:
c c. c c: c ec c e
A
C
ccccc. c:..

c::- c::- c: c-
cccc::cc:c
ccccc. c

............. ...... -~
---
c::- c:-
cc
c-
,

<::::
c c. c c:: c: c: c:-

FIG URE J8.- TlIfL sLlIdie of Lang ley tank model 237-7.
 AERODY AMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REl!' INED DEEP-S'I'EP PLANI G-TAIL FLYI G-BOAT HULLS 17
TABLE I
OFFSETS FOR LA JGLEY TANK MODEL 237-5
[A ll dimensions are in inches1

He~rht Line of 7-in.

K ecl Chine H alf R ad iu cen te rs I-in. 2-in. 3-ill. 4-in. .1-i n. 6-in .
Distance above a bo ve beam a nd half J-in . 2-i n 3-in. 4-in. wator water water water water water water
lS tat ion to F . P . bull above bu ttock buttock buttock buttock
base base at m a~'(imum
at center base line line line line Hne line line
line line chine bea m Jme line
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -
F. 'p. 0 10. 30 -- --- 0 0 11.00 II. 00
1. 96 1. 96 14.29 12.33 5. 7 1.33 1. 9
t 2. 13 5.49 - - --. 0.40 2.05 2.66 2.70
I 4. 25 3.76 - -- -. 2.70 2.70 15.72 13.02 4.35 4.96
3.68 17.36 13.68 2.43 3.00 3.60 0.30 1.99 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
2 . 50 1. 83 3.99 3. 4.30 4.30 4. 30
2.93 4.30 4.30 IS.41 14. 11 1.28 1. 80 2.28 2.79 0.43 2.43 4.30 4.30
3 12.75 .SO 1. 0 4.25 4. 70 4. 70 4.70 4. 70 4.70
4 17. 00 . 27 2. 15 4.70 4.70 19.12 14.42 .67 1.09 1. 46 I.
4. 9 19.60 14.7 1 .42 . 77 1.1 3 1. 50 2.61 4. 9 4. S9 4. 9 4. 9 4. 9 4. 9
5 21. 25 .04 1.83 4. 9
4.925 4.925 4.925 4. 925
I. 0 4.925 4.925 19. 7S 14. 6 .36 .73 1.10 I. 45 2.75 4.925 4. 925
5+ 23.38 0 2.75 4. 90 4. 90 4.90 4. 90 4. 90 4. 90
25.50 0 1. 77 4.90 4.90 19. 90 15.00 .36 .73 1.10 I. 45
6
7 29.75 0 1. 68 4.67 4.67 19.9 15.31
it 31. 7 0 I. 62 4.45 4. 45 20.00 15.55
34. 00 0 1. 50 4. 15 4. 15 19.9S 15. 3
9 .25 0 I. 19 3.28 3.28 19.51 16.23
to 42.50 0 . 72 I. 98 1. 9 18. 88 16.90
II 46. 75 0 . 15 . 43 . 43 18.13 17.70
lIt 47.90 0 0 0 0 17.94 17.94

TABLE II
OFFSETS FOR LANGLEY TAN K MODEL 237-7
[A ll dimensions are in inches]

Distance K eel Ol'ine R adi us Height of I, ine of 3-in. I-in. wa- 2-in . \Va- :i-in. wa- ~-in.w a- 5-i n. wa- 6-in . w a·
I-in 2-in.
Station to station a bove asbeOvII.ene H:~fcl~~~1J a nd ha lf hull at ';b~;~' buttock buttock buttock tor line ter line ter line ter line ter line ter linc
o base line ba ma~~um center line base lin
1- - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F . P. __ 6.1 8 10.30 0 0 11.00 11.00
- 2 ___ _ I. 47 11.29 12.82 5.90 1.10
4. 05 5. 49 I. 47 I.S2
-1. __ _ 2.00 2.00 15.72 13.72 4.39 0. 40 2.00
J. 93 3.76 0.44 J. 9S 2. 35 2.35
0 ___ ___ 0 2. 72 2.35 2.35 16.59 14.24 3. 40 4.00
2.69 17.32 14 .63 2.54 3. 16 0.19 1. 73 2.69 2. ~9 2.69
~L- ----- 2.13 J. 9 3.62 2. 69 2.96 2. 96 2.96
__ ___ 3. 05 2.96 2.96 17.89 14. 93 1. 90 2. 46 1.19 2.90
4.25 1. 28 3.00 3. 40 3. 40 3.40
. 53 2.20 3. 40 3. 40 18_ 75 15.35 1. 03 I. 52 2.00 0.93 3. 00
2 .. . -- .50 .9 I. 3S 2.05 3.67 3.67 :\. 67 3. 67 3.67
3 --- - - 12.75 . 15 J. 67 3. 67 3.67 19.35 15.68 .55
3. I J9.77 J5.96 . 37 .75 J. 12 2.68 3.8 1 3.81 3.81 3.8 1 3. I
4 --- -- 17. 00 0 I. 43 3.81 3. 6 3. 6
3. 6 3.S6 19. 95 J6.09 . 35 .73 J. 09 2. 75 3. 6 3. 6 3. 6
5 21. 25 0 1. 42
at:::::
6 ___ ___
23.38
25. 50
0
0
J. 42
I. 40
3.83
3.77
3. 3
3. 77
20.00
20.00
16. 17
16.23
7 __ ____ 29. 75 0 I. 30 3.57 3.57 19. 16.31
7+ ___ 31. 7 0 J. 25 3. 40 3.40 19.76 16.36
8 ______ 34.00 0 1.1 3. I 3. I 19. fli! 16. 45
9 __ ____ 38.25 0 .93 2.47 2. 47 19.34 16.87
10 __ __ _ 42.50 0 .55 I. 45 I. 45 19.05 17.60
11. ____ 46. 75 0 . 12 . 32 .32 I .73 18.4 1
li t. ___ 47.90 0 0 0 0 18.69 1 . 69
18 REPORT 1 144-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI'l".rEE FOR AERO A 'I'ICS

TABLE III
OFFSET' FOR LAXCLEY :\ [QDEL. 237-5B Ai'\D 237-713
IOlTseLs for hull ahead of stations 9 and 7 arc given ill tablrs I and n, re pecth'ely . All dimensions arc ill inches.]

Station
DisLance to
Ie. P .. table 1.
or dislance to
station O.
J(('C'l above' 1 Chine above
base linc base line
II Ifalf hram
at ch ine
Radius
and half
maximum
1 rri!(ht of
hull 31
center line
Line of
('('nLeI'S
31ovc base
table II bC'nll1 line

237-5B

9 3 .25 0 I. 19 3.28 3.32 19. 5 16.53

10 42.50 0 .72 1. 98 3. 17 19.70 16.53
II 46.75 0 .15 .43 3.00 19.53 16.53
0
117.1' 47.90
13. 55
J 0

237- iD
0 2.9(; 19.49 16.53

7 29.7.1 0 1.30 3.57 3.62 20.00 16.38

71 ~ 31. 87 0 1. 25 3.40 3.54 19.97 16.43
8 34.00 0 1.18 3.18 3.4(j 19.9.) 1(1.49
\I 38.2.1 0 .93 2.47 3.32 19.8.5 16.53
10 42.50 0 . .';5 1. 4.1 3. 17 19.70 16.53
11 46.75 0 .12 .32 3. 00 19.53 16.53
117.1' 47.90 { 0
13.55 0 0 2.90 19. 49 16.53

237- 5B and 237- 7B

12 51. 00 13.67 2.86 19.39 16.53

13 .15.25 13.83 2.70 19.23 16.53
14 59. ,10 13.98 2.55 19.08 16.53
1.1 53.75 14.13 2. '10 18.93 16.53
16 .00 14.28 2.2.1 18.7 16..13
17 72.20 14.44 2.09 I .62 16.53
18 76.50 14 ..18 1. 9.5 16.53
19 18. "
80.75 14.73 1. 0 1 .33 16. 53
20 5.00 14.90 1. 53 IS.16 16.53
21 9.25 15.04 I. 49 I .02 16.53
22 93.50 15.20 I. 3:) 17.86 16.53
23 97.75 15.36 I.H 17. 70 16.53
24 102.00 15.51 1. 02 17.55 16.53
2fl 10<i. 2.1 15.65 .88 17.41 16.53
2fi 11 0.50 15.80 .73 17.26 16.53
27 114 .7.1 i.i. 9(i .57 17.10 16.53
.\ . P. 116.65 16.03 ..50 17.03 16.53

TABLE n '
OFF 'ETS FOR LAKGLEY TANK :\fODEL 237-5P AXD 237-7P
IOlTsets for hull a hean of stations 9 and 7 arc gh'en in tables I and II, respectivel)' . All dimensions are in inchrs]

Distance to
i'tll·
lion
F. P., table
I. or dis·
tance to
Krrl Chinr
above baso nhovC' base
line lin e
Iialf bealll
at chine
Maximum
hair b{,'ll11
II [eight of
cov<" :l l~ov('
I rri~hl of
hull aL
Line of
crnl('rs
wpof
Line of
C('nt(' I'S
bOllom
I-in.
bUllock
2-in.
bULLOCk
3-in .
bULLock
10·in.
water line
12·in.
water line
station 0, ~ base lmc center line
hull of hull
table LI

237-5P

!I
III
II
117.1'
:18.2.1
12. .'\0
4(}' is
47.90
II
o
II
9.65
I. 19

()
· i2
. Ia
r :1.28
I.

()
fl~
.4:)
-I :1.32
:).17
:3.00
2.96
12. :)7
111.:):1
n. 0
U. [i5
IH.
JU.
19.53
19.49
t.in' lfi.53
Hi . .';:)
If>. ,,3
16.53
12.82
12. 0
12.79
12.79
0.97
U.9'J
I

I 10.36
10.5"
10.59
11.80
12.7U 1.11
1.00
~. 28
:3.05
2. 9
2.

237-7P

29.75 o I 30 3..17 3.62 12.24 20.00 ]6.38 12. 4 3.57

31. ' 7 o I. 25 3.40 3.54 II. 3 19.97 16.4:3 12. 3 3.45
34.00 o I. 18 3.18 3.46 II. 43 19.95 Hi. 49 12. 3 3.36
9 38.25 o · II~ 2.47 3.32 10,(12 19.85 16.53 12. 2 11. 40 3.21
10 42 ..50 o · St) I. 45 3. 17 10.02 19.70 H1.53 12. 0 10.36 11. 80 3.05
II 46.7.5 o .12 .32 3.00 11.72 19.53 16.53 12.79 0.07 10. 55 ]2.79 1.11 2.89
llY, 47.90 9.65 o o 2.96 9.65 19.49 16.53 12.79 9.99 )0.59 1.00 2.85

237- 51' and 237-7P

13 55.25 9.91 2.70 19.23 16.53 12.77 10.27 10.96 0.25 2.57
15 63.75 10.21 2.40 18.93 16.53 12.75 10.57 II. 43 2.27
17 72.25 10.51 2.09 IS.62 16.53 12.72 10.91 12.14
1
1. 95
76.50 10.67 1. 95 18.4 16.53 12.7J 11. 07 1. 2
19 0.75 10.82 J. 0 180 33 16.53 II. 20 1. 70
20 5.00 10.97 1.53 18.16 16.53 11. 32 1.60
21 g9.25 11.12 I. 48 18.01 16.53 II. 46 1.48
22 93.50 11. 27 11. 75 I. 33 17. G 16.53 11.53 1.33
24 102.00 11. 58 11. 95 I. 02 17.55 16.53 11. 90 I. 02
26 110.50 II. 12.15 0.73 17.26 16.53
A.P. 116.65 12.10
.29
12.29 0.50 17.03 16.53
 AERODY AMI HARA 'l'EHI TICS OF REFI ED DEEP- STEP PLA I G-'l'AIL FLYING-BOAT HUIJLS 19
TABLE Y
OFF ETS FOR TAIL leLOAT I TC ORPOBATED WITH LANGLEY TANK l\IODELS 237-5Fl AKD 237- 7Fl
[A ll dimensions arc in inches;

Distn nce to
Lille or
W. P. , tab le Kcel Chine R adi us Flair max· IIei~ ht
or hull centcl's ),~ -in. I·in . J1 ~-i n. 2· in .
12· il1. 13·in. H·in.
water
J5-i n.
water
lfi·il1.
water
18·il1.
watel'
1. 0 1' dis· uhov(\ or tail illll1m wAter water
St:\t ion lance 1,0
aho vc at. center abo\'e butlock butlock buU,ock hUt-LOCk line linc line line line line
base line basc line boom beam line base line
sLation 0,
t'thl p II
--- --------------------------- - -------- --- - - -
I .01 16.53 15. 14 15.43 I. 39 0. 17
21 9.25 I S. 05 16. 53 1.4 1.4 1. 33
21).( 90.3 1 IS. 04 16. 50 I. 44 I. 45 17.9f) 16. 51 15. 17 15.49
1. 40 I. 46 Ii. 93 16.47 15.21 15.54 0.0 I. 30
2110 91.38 14.94 16.3!i .33 1. 45
I. 36 1.50 17. 90 16.40 15.H 15.57 16.03
21~ 92.44 14.70 16. 05
16. 30 14.i3 15.12 ],5.53 . 2
22 93.50 14.33 15. 59 I. 56 17. 6
1.64 17. I 16. 17 14 . 20 14.55 14.93 0.22 1.58
22).( 94. 56 13. 2 15. 04 1.06 I. 74
95.63 13. 28 14.46 1. 74 17.78 16.04 13. 62 13.95 14.30
22' ·) 13.36 13.66 0.42 1. 6 I. 6
22~ 96.69 12.74 13. 1. 6 17. 74 15. 13. 04
1.9 17.70 15.72 12.54 12. 2 13.09 1. 29 1.9 1.98
23 97.75 12.26 13. 35 2.24 2.24 2.24
11.56 12..56 2.24 17. 62 15.38 11. 0 12.01 12.24 12.46 0.95
23L~ 99. 2.00 2.41 2.41 2.41
II. 24 12.16 2. -1l 17.55 15.14 11. 43 11. 61 11. I 12.00
24 102.00 11. 57 11. 76 II. 94 2.17 2.44 2.44 2.44
24).( 103.06 II. 21 12. 10 2.44 17. 51 15.07 ll . 39
2.47 17. ·1 15. 01 II. 41 II. 60 II. 7 II. 96 2.10 2.46 2.46 2.46
241 2 104.13 11. 24 12. 13 2.43 2.43 2.43
11. 38 12.26 2.43 17. 41 14.98 11. 56 11.74 11. 92 12.10 I. 70
25 106.25 12.05 12.23 7 1. 93 1. 93 I. 93
26 110.50 II. 6 12.39 1. 94 17. 26 15.32 II. 6
12.23 .69 17.10 16. 41 12.16 .04 . 69 .69 .69
27 114.75 11. 9 0
12. 12 12. 12 0 17.03 17.03 0 0
A. P. !l6.65
-- ---

TABLE VI TABLE VII

ORDI.\T TE :BOR LANDPLANE FU"ELAGE VOLU:\IES, RFA E ARE AXD ;\fAXIMUM CROS-
SECTION AL AREA OF LANGLEY TANK MODEL
[AJI dimensions are gh' en in iJlchesj
237 A . D OF TREA:\1LINE F ELAGE
StaLion R adi us Station R adi u s
l\fax imum
Volum e, Surfaco Side area, cross-sec-
.50. 989 6. 440 Configuration cu in. ar ea, sQ in. sq in. lio nal area t
O. .1 58 0. 408
.527 .838 54.309 6. 420 Q in.
1. 054 I. 2(;3 5 . 14 3 6.354
2.10 1. 8i 62.2H i 6.254
3. an 2. 4(i2 66.37 6. 121 237-5 ___ ______ ___________ -- - ------
~ .5,649 2,095 8·11 176
5.059 3. Oil 69. 896 5.980 237-7.........•.................. 5,22 2,303 9&1 142
i.906 3. 64 72. 557 5. 4 237- 5B .......•.. ... ............•... G,519 2, ~ 4 1,090 176
8.432 3.9 9 76.404 5. 642 237-7B .......•.... . ................ 6, 174 3, 100 1.213 142
.10.804 4.496 79.84:l 5.420 237-5P ................. . .. 7,5i4 3, 427 1,359 176
.14 .124 5. 064 4.033 5. 103 237-7P .. . . ....... . .•............... 7, 2i6 3,645 1,482 .142
17. 45i 5.4 2 7.5 4.797 237-5FL ......................•.... 6, 869 3, 106 1,177 176
20.580 5. i90 91. 015 4.451 "37- 7Fl . .....•...............••.... 6,524 3, 321 1,300 14 2
23.584 6.003 94.494 4.0 StreamliJle bOdy . ...•.............. 10,270 3, 630 1, 162 132
26.483 6. 156 97.973 3.616 Engine nacellc .................... . 471 406 10 39
29.513 6. 274 JOI.451 3. II Engine·nacelle boom _............. . 1,419 1,220 363 39
33.031 6. 369 104 . 7 2. 573
36.91 6.436 JO . 144 l. 9i
40.1 5 6.467 111. 543 I. 293
43.716 6. 4 1 114.521 .624
45. 166 0. 4 2 117.050 0
47. 524 6.479

TABLE VIII
l\ II NJi\ruYf DRAC COEFFICIENT A ~ D S TAB I LIT Y
PARAMETER,' FOR LANGLEY TAr Ie l\fODEL,' 237
AND f)TREAl\ [LI NE BODY
['rhe drag coefficients aro givcn for a R eynolds number of abou t 2.5X10 based 011 wing
M.A.C.j

lodol CD mi" C m• Cnp Cl'p

237- 5 .•............ _............ . 0.0032 0.0028 - 0.0008 -0.00 11

237- 5 1' . ...........•........ - •.• .0030 .002(; - . 0006 - .0042
Z:li-5 B .•........•••..•..• " . .0028 .0025 -. 0008 - . 0042
237- 51' I. .. _ . . . . . . ... .004 ~ .0020 -. 000(; - .0042
237- 5 + engine-nacelle boom . . _. _ .0059 .0037 -.0008 -.0042
237-5 + engine naco lle ._ ........ . .0056 .0034
.0026
-.0008
-.0009
-.0042
-.0060
237- 7........................... . . 0024
237- 7]> .... _.......•............... .0027 .0024 - . 0008 - .0060
237-7B ............•............... .0023 .0025 -.0009 -.0060
237-7FL ..................... - .003 .0024 -.0008 -.0060
+
237- 7 cngine·nacelle boom ..... . .0036 .0037 -.0009 -.0060
237-7B + engine nacelle ........... .
treamline body ______________ . __
.0039
.0025
.0032
.0049
- . 0009
-.0005
- . 0060
-.00 15
Engine nacelle ____________________ _ -.0021 . 00 11
Engine·nacillle boom ............• -.0022 .0009

o A t a=3° (not minimum drag coefficient) .

U . S . GO VERNM ENT PRINTIN G OFFI C E : 1954