copy 226.

#
RM A51ml~ -
m

,.—
RESEARCHMEMORANDUM
.

AER6D?/NAMICCHARACTERISTICSOF THE NACA RM-10RESEARCH

r
MISSILEIN THE AMES 1- BY 3-FOOT SUPERSONICWINDTUNNEL

NO. 2- PRESSUREAND FORCEMEASUREMENTS

AT MACH NUMBERSOF 1.52AND L 98 .
.
By EdwardW. Perkins, Forrest E. Gowen,
and LelandH. Jorgsnsen

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory

Moffett Field, Calif.

N EE
FOR AERONAUTICS
WASHINGTON
September19, 1951
1 NACARM l151G13
.
ATIONALADVISORY
COMMITTEE
FORAERONAUTICS
4
MEMORANDUM
RESEARCH

AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
OF TEENACARM-10R3XMRCHMISSILE
IN THEAME31-BY ~OOT SUPERSONIC
WINDTUNNELN0.2-
PRESUREANDFORCEMEAS~ AT MACH
OF l.% AND 1.98
NuMBERS
By EdwardW. Perkins,
ForrestE. Gowen,
andLelandH. Jorgensen

An eqerimentaltivestigationof theaerodynamiccharacteristic
cs of
a fir+etabilized
bodyof revolution, designatedas theRM-10,wasmade
In theNACAAmes1– by +foot supersonic windtunnelNo.2. Pressure
distributions
andforcecharacteristics weredeterminedforthebody
aloneat Machmuibersof 1.52and1.98. Forcecharacteristics of the
body-tiilccmibination
weredetermined at a Machnumberof 1.98. Dataare
presentedforReynolds of 8.6 and17.4millions,
nunibers basedon body
length.
Of thethreetheoretical methods usedforprediction of thezer~
liftpressure distributionforthebodyalone,thelinearized theoryof
JonesandMargolis (NACATN 108I.)was in bestagreementwiththeexpe~
imental Ustribution overtheforebody.Oyertheafterbody, themagni–
tudesof theexperimental pressurecoefficientswerein general lessthan
preticted by theory.Ezceptfortheaftleeward regionsof thebody
whereflowseparation occurredat highanglesof attack, thedistribution
of lifting pressure
was adequatelypretictedby inviscidtheory,(See,for
example, NACATN P044.) Thevariation withangleof attackof thelift,
foredrag increment,and cente=f—pressure position
weremuchmme
accurately predictedby themethodof Allen(NACAmA9r26) thanby
potential theory.
Comparisonof theexperimental lift,foretiag,
andpitc~ng~ent
characteristics
of thebodyalonewiththeresults of a similar
inves-
tigationin theLewis8-by &foot supersonic windtunnel(NACARME5OD1O
andNACAKM E50D28) shuwsthatforMachnumbersof 1.52and1.98thereis
littleeffectofReynolds nuniberon thesecharacteristics
withinthe
Reynolds
nuniberrangeof 8.6 to 30millions.Similarcomparisonsforthe
2 NACAFM A51G13

body-tail
combinationfora M&ohnumberof 1.98showthat,withthe
exception
of theminimumforedrag, theeffeoton theforoeandmoment
oharacteristios
of theincreasein Reynolds
numberfrom8.6 millionto
30millionis Hmll. Themindmumfo
redrag inoreases approximately
16 percent
withan inoreasein Reynoldsnumberfrom17.4millionto
30million.

INTRODUCTION

As a _gart
of an integratedprogz%mto assesstheeffects of Reynolds
nuniberon aerodynamicoharaoteristics
at supersonicspeeds,testsare
beingconducted atvariousNAOAflightandwind-tunnel facilities on a
fi=tabilizedbodyof revolution, as theI3L1O. Thefirst
designated
published resultsofwind-tunnel testsof anRM-10modelwereobtained
in the8-by 6-footsupersonlo windtunnelat theLewisLaboratoqat a
Reynolds of 30million
nuniber andforahlaahnumbermnge of 1.49to
1.98 (references1and2). Thepresent investigation
was oonduoted in
theAmesl-by 3+?ootsupersonhwindtunnelNo.2 withan RM-10model
at Reynoldsnumbers of 8.6 and17.4millionsandforMachnunibers of
1.52and1.98forthebodyaloneand1.g8forthebody-tail combination.
Thepurposeof thisinvestigation
wasto detemnine
theaerodynadc
characteristics
of theR&10 conflgumtion
withintheMaohnumberand
Reynolds
nuniber
-e available andto oomparetheseexpertiental
results
withtheoryandwithotherexperimental
results.

NCYIUTION

A maximumcross+ectioml
areaof thebody,squareinches
Ap bOdy pmn-fom ==, square~*es

c
()
a constant ~R

Cdc section
dragcoefficient
of a circular
cylinder
in terms
of thediameter

total drag-base dra

foredrag
coefficient q. A ‘) r
% (

f
..
-..4
 3

u
c%
eo
foredrag
coefficient
at 0° angleof attack

increment
of foredrag
coefficient
[~- f$!a]

liftcoefficientlift
()~
pitchi~+omentcoefficient
aboutthestation
ofmax-
bodydiameter( pitching
mqnent
)
\

pressure
()
coefficientP-PO
~

pressure
coefficient
at 0° angleof attack

Ufting-yressuze
coefficient
[ c,- @)G-.]
lengthof thebody,inches
axialdistance
fromthebodynoseto themaximum
body
diameter
station,
inches
free+treamMachrnniber
localstaticpressure,
poundspersquareinch
free-stream
staticpressure,
poundspersquareinch

free-stream
dynemlc
pressure
squareinch ($PO ~’)~ ‘0- ‘r
localbodyradiusat a stationx distance
fromthenose,
inches
maximum
bodyradius,
inches
:---
..
4 NACAR4 A31G13
.
Re —.
free-stream nmiberhased on bodylength
Reynolds
s~ cross+ectio~lareaof thebaseof thebody,squareinches

x distance
fromthenosemeasured
alongthelongitudinal
body
axis,inches

% distance
fromthenoseto thecenterofmomsnts,
inohes

‘P distance
fromthenoseto thecentroid
of thePlan+orm
area,inches
Vol totalvolumeof thebody,cubicinches
a angleof attack,
degrees
7 ratioof thespecific
heatsof air,tskenas 1.40
v ratioof thedragcoefficientof a circular
cy~nderof
finitelengthto thatof a cylinderof infinite
length
e bodycylindrical
coordinate,
degrees

ATPARATUS
i
ThisI?rvestigationwas conducted
in theAms 1-by 3-footsupe~ k
sonicwindtunnelNo.2,whichisan intermittent-operation, nonreturn,
variable~ressure windtunnel.Thehigh-pressure airis obtainedfrom
theAmB 12-foot windtunnelat a pressure of aboutsixatmospheresand
is expandedthrough thenozzleto theatmosphere. A changeinReynolds
numberis obtained by varying thetotalpressureby meemsof a butterfly
valvebetween thetwotunnels.Thenozzleis equipped withflexible top
andbottomplateswhichcanbe shapedto givetest-section Machnu@ers
in therangeof 1.2to 4.0. Thestrain-age balanceandothertunnel
instrumentatictn
usedin thisinvestigation aredescribedindetailin
reference3. Huwever, forthisinvestigation thepitchingmomentswere
measuredby meansof a straingagemounted on thesupportingstingrather
thanby thsmethoddescribed inreference3.
A sketchof thel/12-scale
RM-10missile,givingtheimportant
modeldimmwionsandtheequation fortheparabolic-arcprofile,is shuwn —
in figure1. Thefinenessratioof theclosedbodyof revolutionis 15;
hawever,to providefortherocketjetin thefree-flightmodelsand
stingmountingof thewind-tunnel
models,thebasewas cutoffat the ●
 A51G13
NACAIll! 5

81.~rcent+lengthstation,
whichresulted
ina finenessratioof 12.2.
Thetwomodelconfigurations
testedwerethebodyaloneandthebody–
tailconibination
shownin figure1.

TESTS

Thetesting
program
wasdivided intothreeparts,andthetest
conditions
foreachof thesepartsarelistedin thefollowing
table:

AverageRe
Test % (millions
) &
Pressuredistribution, 1.52 8.6 oto15
?mdyalone 1.52 17.4
1.98 8.6 0: >1/2
Forcetests,bodyalone‘ 1.52 8.6~ 17.4 0 to 14
1~98 . oto14
Foroetests,body-tail 1.98 8.6and17.4 oto6
conibination
Thestatic-pressuredistributions
weremeasuredat 30°increments
in
circtierentialanglewitha singlelongitudinal
rowof orifioes
on the
modelby rotatingthemodelaboutitsaxis. Foro+testresultsforthe
body-tailcoribination
at a Machnuniber
of 1.52havenotbeenpresented
becauseof unknowninterference
effects
on thetailstiacesdueto the
shockwavefromthestingsupport andthereflected bowwave.

REDUCTION
OF DATA
Corrections
to Experimental
Results

Allof theexperimentaldatahavebeenreduoed to coefficientform

andhavebeenciorreoted fortheeffects of thenonuniformflowconditions
existingin thewindtunnel.Thefree+treamstatic-pressure variations
in theemptytunnelhavebeenapplied as corrections
to thebodypressurb
distributiondataby simplelinearsuperposition.Correctionsto
pressure+listribution
datadueto theeffectof stre~le variation
werewithinthelimitsof aocuraoy of thedataandhavetherefore teen
negleoted.

—
6 NACARM A51G13
.
Thecorrectionsto theforcetestshavebeencalculated
by the
methodof reference
4, inwhichthestreamangleandpressuredistribu-
tioninthevertical planeof symmtryoftheemptytunnelareused. 1

Theaveragemagnitudesof thetotalcorrections
to ~, Cm,and~ due
to streamfluwnonuniformities
aretabulated
as follows:

Mach Body=tail
nuniber Coefficient Bodyalone conibination
0.02 ---
.002 ---
.007 ---
1.98 CL .02 0.03
Cm .002 ,01
% .009 .003

Precision
ofResults

The~ecisionof theexperi~ntal datawascalculated fromesti-

ma.tes
of theuncertainty
or possible
errorin theindividualmasure-
?n?mts
whichenteredintothedeterminationof theangleof attack,
the
streamcharacteristics,
andthe‘aerodynamiccoefficients.Theprobable
uncertaintyinthefinalresultswasdeterminedby themsthodgivenin
reference5. Theuncertainties
inthelift,pitc~ nt,foredrag,
andpressure coefficients
aretabulatedas follows:
Body=tail
Coefficient Bcxiyalone codxlnation
CL M. 018 M.030
Cm *.010 *.012
%? k.00(5 *.006
Cp *.CQ5 ---
Theerrorin theangle-ofattackmasuremsmtsisnotgreater than
w.15°. Thefree-stream Machnumber,
~, is knownaccurately
within
+0.05 at a givenpointin thestream;
however,
thevariationof l&ch
nuniber
alongthebodyaxtswasas muchas &O.02.Dueto thefairlyhigh
rateof decreaseinwind-tunnelstagnation
temperature
withtunneloperet-
ingtipe,thevariation inReynoMsnuniber
duringeachrunwasapproxi- .
mately@.7 X 106at bothMachnu)xibers.
 IUCARMA51G13 7

RESULTS
AEDDISCUSSION
RessureDistributions

Thetheoretical andexperimwxtal longitudinaldistributions uf ~es-

surecoefficient forthebodyaloneat zeroangleof attackareshownin
figure2. Theexperimmtal datafromreference 1 areincluded forCO*
parison.Threetheoretical curvesbasedon thelinearized theoryof
reference6, thesecondmrder theoryof reference 7, andthemethodof
characteristics(see,e.g.,reference 8) arealsoshownforcomparison.
It wasnotedin reference 1 thatthee~rimentalresultsobtained in
that investigationwerein goodagreemmtwiththedistribution predicted
by thetheoretical expression developedin thereport.= For thepresent
investigation,thedistribution predictedby thelinearized theory
(reference6) is inbestagreemmtwiththee~rimntal distribution
fortheforward 50 percentof thebodylength.Overtheafterbody the
magnitudesof theexperimmtal pressurecoefficientsare,in general,
lessthanpredicted-by snyof thetheories.Dueto inherent exp3rim3ntal
uncertaintiesinvolved in thedatafroxn bothsources(thepresentinves-
tigationandreference 1),andbecause thedifferences in thetheoretical
resultsaresmall,no statemntcanbe madeas to whichof thetheories
is thebestforallof thetestconditions.
As predictedby theory,an increase
in Machnumberresults in a
decreasein pressurecoefficientovertheforward30 percentof thebody
length.Aft of the30-percentpoint,although theorypredictsa decrease
in themagnitudeof thepressure coefficient
withincreasein Machnuriber>
no conclusioncanbe drawnfromtheeqerimntaldatainthisregion
becauseof theuncertaintyintheindividual pressuremeasurements.
Thetheoretical
emdexperimental circumferential
distributionsof
Iift-essure coefficient forthreeanglesof attackandsixaxial
lengthstationsarepresentedin figure3. Thetheoretical curvesshown
in thisfigurearebasedon thesecond+mder theoryof reference 7.2
For stations
forwardof themaximum thickness,andat an angleof attack
of 5.5°,thetheoreticalpressurerecoveryovertheleesideof thebody
is small,andtheagreementbetween theoryandexperi~ntis gocd.As
theangleof attackis increasedto ll”or to 150,thetheoretical pres-
surerecoveryincreases,atithee~rimmtal datashowa pressure
recoverysomwhatlessthsmtheory, indicatinga lage regionof
%he expression forthezero-liftpressure
distributiondevelopdinde-
pendentlyby LuidensandSimoninreference1 is identical
withthe
~ resultpresented 7.
in reference
2Theequations forlifti~ressuredistribution obtainedfromrefep
ences1, 7, sad9 areidenticalto theorder a2.
8 IUCARMA51G13
.
separatedflowon theleesideof thebc@Y. Tor stations aftof the
=imum thickness, thetheoreticalpress&erecovery on theleesideof n
thebodyis largeandthee~rimentaldataindicate thepresence of a
separatedregionevenat an angleof attackof 5.5°. Thisseparated
regionbecomsprogressively largerwithincreasein angleof attackand —
distanceaftofthe~imum thickness point.At thenmstrearward posi-
tion,theseparated regionexterdsevenpastthe90°pointto thewind-
wardsideof themodel. (Seefig.3(f). )
Thelifting-pressure distribution
results of reference1 arein
goodagree~ntwiththoseof thepresent investigation;hawever,noneof
thedatafromreference 1 havebeenincluded in figure3 as thosedata
wereobtained at slightly different~les of attackanddifferentx/L
stations.Sincethetestsof thatreference weremadeforthesameMach
nuxriber
rsmge,butfora Reynolds numberof approximately30 millionas
compared to 8.6 million forthedataof thisinvestigation, it maybe
concluded thatanyeffects ofReynoldsnuniberon thelifting pressures
sresxmllwi~hinthe9° angl~f-attack rangeforwhichcomparisons csn
be made. It hes‘been ’shownin reference
2 thatthereis an incregme in
liftwithincrease inkch ndber;huwever, thepress~istribution
dataof reference 1 andthepresent investigationdo notshuwaqyc-
sistent changein lifteessure coefficients withlkh nuniber. This
anomaly probably results fromthefactthatwithinthislawangle-of-
attackrangetheincrease in liftis small,andconsequently theaccom-
=g~nge in local pressurecoefficientiswithintheuncertainty .
. However, it cannotbe concludedfromthesecomparisons
thatthereareno appreciable Machnwibereffects on locallifti~
pressure coefficient at anglesof attackabove9° because, as willbe v
shuwnlater,theeffectofMachnmiberon liftincreased markedlyabove
an angleof attackof 10°or 12°forthetestconditions of thepresent
investigation.

Body+ilone
ForceTests

Thevariations oftheaerd.ynamiccoefficients
andcentemf–
pressurepositionwithangleof attackforthebodyalonearepresented
in figures4 through8. For comparison
withthesee~rimmtal results,
theoreticalcurvesbasedon thelinearized
potentialtbory of refep
ence10 andthetheoryof reference11 areshown.
Thelinearized tbsoryneglectsanyeffects ofviscosity andcon-
sidersonlythepotential flaw. Thetheoryof reference11 hasbeen
developdconsidering theleffectsofviscosityon thecrossflowfor .
inclinedbodiesof revolution,andtheresulting equationsfortheaerc-
-c cOeffiCiOntsat moderateanglesof attackareas follows:
.
NACARMA51G13 9

(1)

(2)

Thefirsttermin eachequation is thelinearized potentialtheory

result,andthesecondtermis thecrossforceresulting froma consider-
ationof theeffects of viscosity on theflowperpendicular to thebody
axis. In theseequations, thenumricalvalueof q depends pri~rily
on thelengt&tMiamter ratioof thebodyandwasessentially constsmt
(TI= 0.7)forthetestconditions of thepresent investigation. The
valueof c~ depends on theReynolds nuniber
andMachnunbernor~l to
thesxisof thebodyof revolution; therefore,thedependence of cdcon
free+!treamReynolds numberand%ch numberis throughRe sincc and
MO sincc.For theReynolds nunibersof thisinvestigation,no effectof
Reynolds ntier on thecross-flow dragcoefficient hasbeenconsidered.
For thetestsat a Machnuniber of 1.52,theMachnmriber normalto the
axisof revolution wasalwayslessthan0.4;hence,in thecalculations
c was consideredconstant andequalto 1.2throughout theangleof
at
9 ackrsnge.However, forthetestat a Machnumberof 1.98,thenormal
Machnuniber (% sina) exceeded 0.4at an angleof attackof approxi-
mately12°. Therefore, thevalueof O& usedin thecalculations
increased froml.2at 12°to 1.35at 15°. (Seereference 11.) Within
thisangle~f%ttack r~e, 12°to 15°,thedifference in the VdW of
c% forthetwodifferent free+tream Machnunibersresultsin thedive~
genceof theforcecharacteristics shownbythetheoretical curvesin
figures4, 5, 6, and8.
Lift.-Theexperimental liftresults(fig.4) forthebdy alone
show~onable agreenent withthecurvepredicted by thetheoryof
reference 11. However, throughoutmostof theangl~~ttack rangethe
mgnitudeof thee~rhental.liftis greater thanpredicted. At 12°
angleof attack, theliftis 8 percent and13 ~rcentgreater thanthe
theoretical valuesat Machnumbers of 1.52and1.g8,respectively. At
thisangleof attack, potential theo~ underestimatetheliftby approxi-
~tely 70 percent.For snglesof attackgreater than12°at a Machnum-
ber of 1.98,thee~rirentaldatashuwan increase in liftwithincrease
in MO sincc as predicted by thetheory,althoughthemgnitudeof the
increase is greaterthempredicted.
A compmisonof thedatafromreference2 withthatof thepresent
investigation
indicatesthatat a Machnuhiber
of 1.98thereis no
—
10 IUCARMA51G13

Reynoldstier effectintherangeof 8.6 million to 31.1million.

However,fora Machnuniberof 1.5,thereis a decreasein liftwith
increaseinReynolds nunberfrom8.6 millionto17.4million butno &
therchange withintheReynolds muiberrangeof 17.4millionto 29.1mil-
lion. In thehigherangl=fattackrange,above12°,the&ch nuniber 1.5
resultsof thspresent investigation
indicatean effeckoppositeto that
notedin thelawerangle-f-attack range,thatis,an increase in lift
withaa increaseinReynolds nuniber
from8.6millionto17.4million.
Pitchingmcmnt.-Contrary
to theresultsobtainedby comparison
of
thetheoreticalandexperimental
liftcharacteristics,
potentialtheory
yieldsa pitchimmnt curvewhichis in closeragree~ntwithexperi- —.
mentalresultsthanisthecurveforthetheoryof reference 11. (See
fig.5.) Eowever,sinceboththeliftand,as willbe shuwnlater,the
centerof pressure
areunsatisfactorily
predicted
by potentialtheory,
it is apparent
thattheagreemmtof thepitching
moments mustbe cow
sidered fortuitous.
Thedataof reference 2 wereobtainedfora Machnuniberrang&of
1.49to 1.98at a Reynolds numberof 30.million.Forthoseteststhe —
criticalcross%low Reynoldsnumberbasedon themaximum bodydiameter
wasexceeded at an angleof attackof about4°. Thecritical cross-low
Machnumberwasnotexceeded sincetheangl=fattackrangewaslimit=d
to 9° and ~ sins wastherefore lessthanO.h. Thee~rimentaldata
obtainedfor thesetestconditions didnotshowsmyoftheunusual varia-
tionsin theaerodynamic forceswhichmighthavebeenexpected as a v
resultof exceeding thecritical cross-luwReynoldsnumber.Thedata
of thepresent investigationwereobtainedfora rangeof testconditions k
whereinboththecritical cross<low Reynoldsnumberandcritical cros6-
fluwkch nunberwereexceeded.Sincethetheoryof reference 11 pre-
dictsvariations in pitchingmomsntdueto eitherof theseeffects, it
mightbe exgected thatcertain unusualvariationsfnpitching mommt
couldresultwhenbothwereexceeded.Thsexperimental. trendsshownin
figure5 cannot be explainedon thebasisof thesimpleeffects of either
cross~low Reynolds nuniber
or cross+lowhch nuniber. It shouldbe Mn-
tionedthata combination of MachnumberandReynolds nunibereffects
appearto havean influence differentfrom-thatpredictedby theory
(referenceI-2).
In contrast
to theresults
fromreference
2, experimxxtal
results
from the testsof thisinvestigationshowan increasein pitching
moment
withincrease inMxh nuniberat angles of attackaboveabout4 . At
anglesof attackbelow4° a~ effects
dueto Wch nunlber
arewithinthe
experimmtaluncertainty.
.
Centerof pressureo-
Thsvariation
of theposition
of thecenterof
withangleof attackforthebodyaloneis shownin figure6.
pressure
Comparison
betweentheoryandexperi~ntindicates
thatthecenterof f.
NACARM A51G13 11

pressurepredicted
by potentialtheoryis obviouslyin errorat all
anglesof attack.Muchbetteragreemntwithexper-nt is obtained
fromthetheoryof reference 11. Thecenterof pressure predictedby
thislattertheoryis abouttwobodydiamtersaheadof thee~rimental
centerof pressureoveran angle-of%ttackrangeof 3° to 14°,whereas
potentialtheorypredictsa qenterof pressure
whichdoesnotvarywith
angleof attackandis 13~odydiamtersaheadof thee~ri~ntal posi–
tionat 14°angleof attack.Thee~rimentaldatashowno discernible
M&h nunbereffectbutdo,however, showa forwardshiftof thecenter-
of-pressureposition
withincrease in Reynolds
nuniberin thelowangle-
of-attackrange.
Theeqerinxmtaldatafromreference2 axein goodagreemntwith
thecente~f-pressuredatafromthisinvestigation,
buttheresults of
thatreference
indicatea smallrearward
shiftof centerof pressure
withincreasing
&oh nsuiber.
Foredrag.–Theforedrag resultsforthebodyarepresentedin
figur~_rim3ntal valuesof minimum~essuredragandskin<riction
dragat 0° engleof attackarepresentedin thefolluwing
tableforcow
parisonwithcorrespondingtheoretical
resultscalculatedly
several
differentmthcds.
Minimumforedraz
results
Machnuniber 1.52 1.52 1.98
Reynoldsnumber-mi~ions 8.6 17.4 8.6
1.Exprimentalmininmm ~ .115 .126 ●115
Pressuredragcoefficients
2. Lineartheory .051 .051 d;
3. Methodof &acteristics .045 .045
4. Experinwnt .050 .Oxl .043
SkirMriction dragcoefficients
5. Laminarincompressible .016 .012 .016
6. ‘l?urbulerdj
c~ressible
(vonlWrman, reference13) .084 .074 .065
7. Turbulentcqessible
(Wilson,reference14) .096 ●
o@ .087
8.E~rimnt [(1)-(4)] .o& .076 .072
A comparison
of theexperimentalandtheoretical
pressuredragson
thebodyshuwsthattheexperimental valuesof thepressuredragagree
withlineartheoryat a Machnumberof 1.52. However,
at a Mch nmiber
of 1.98thepressuredragcalculatedfromlineartheoryis about10 pep
centtoohigh.
Thetheoreticals~iction dragcoefficients
shownin theabove
tablewerebasedon flat-lateskin~riction
coefficients
andwere
-.
.—J
12 NACARMA51G13

calculatedwiththeassumption thatcompletely Iaminer or completely

turbulentboundary-layerfluwexisted on thebody. Theexperi~ntal
skin-frictioncoefficientwas obtained as thedifference between the
experimentalforedragandpressure-drag coefficients. Forthelower
Reynoldsnunibertestsat a Machnumberof 1.52,it is apparent thata
I.aminar
boundary layerexistedoveran appreciable portion of thebody
surfacesincethemostoptimistic theoretical estimate of theturbulent
skin-frictiondragcoefficient (referance 13)wascmsiderably greater
thamtheexperirmntal result.An increase inRepoldsnuniber at this
&ch nuniberwasaccompanied by an increase in theskin-friction drag
coefficient. Hadtheboundary layerbeencompletely turbulent at the
lowerRemoldsnubiber, theskin-friction dragcoefficient wouldhave
decreasedwithincreasing Reynolds nuniber. Hence,theincrease in skin-
frictiondragcoefficient thatwas observed musthaveresulted from
upstreammovewmtof thetransition point,withtheresultthatat
higherReyuolds numbersa largerportion of.thebodysurface wassubject
to turbulentboundary-layerflow. No conclusion canbe statedwith
regardto thecorrect theoretical valuefortheskfn+t’riction dragcoef-
ficientnortheReynolds numberof transition because of theunknown
effectsof thefre~treamturbulence levelemdthenonuniformities of
theairstream.Sinceit isbelieved thatan appreciable amountof
laminar-boundary-layer
flowexisted on themodelforthehigherReynolds
nuniber
testsat a Machnumberof 1.52,theagreement of von?&m&ts
turbulent,compressibleskin-%riction coefficients withexperiment is
consideredfortuitous. Otherinvestigators (e.g., Wilsonin reference 14)
havefoundthatthevaluesof skin%riction coefficient obtained from .—
vonK&rm&n~s turbulentco~essibleflowequation arelowerthanexp8ri-
mentalvalues. .
Thee~erimental resultsof thepresentinvestigation
showno per- —
ceptiblechangein minimum foredragcoefficient
withincrease in kch
nuuiber,
butas wouldbe expected withpertlylamina~fbwconditions
therewasu increase in minimumforedragcoefficient
withincrease in
Reynoldsnumberfrom8.6 to 17.4millions. Compariscm
of theseresults
withtheresults frcmreference 2 fora Reynolds
nuniber
of 30 mil.lfon
showsno differencein minimumforedragcoefficient
atReynolds muibers
of 17.4and30 Id~iO?lS.
Thetheoretical
andexperimental
resultsfortheincrementof fore-
dragdueto angleof attackarepresented
in figure8. As ex~cted,the
agreemntbetweenthetheoreticalad experi-ntaldragrisewas similar
to thatobtained
fortheliftin figure4. Theseresults arealsoin
agreemmtwiththeforedrag-riseresults
fromreference2.

r
NACARM A51G13 13

Body-Tail
Co?ibination
ForceTests

Lift.-Theexperimentalandtheoretical liftcharacteristicsfor
this~iguration areshownin figure9. Thetheoretical liftof the
bo&tail cotiination was calculatedly addingtheliftdueto thebody
aloneto thatdueto thetailalonewithno consideration beinggivento
interferenceeffects.Theliftdueto thebodyaloneandthetailalone
was calculated
by -themethods of references
11 and15,respectively.
Twotheoreticalcurvesareshown.l’he curvewhichpredicts thehigher
liftwasobtained by assuming tlwareaof thetailenclosed withinthe
bodyto be fullyeffective in lift,~ thesecondtheoretical curve
resultsfromassuming onlytheexposed surfacesto be effective.The
dataof figure9 showthatneither assumption
is correct;however,the
experimentaldataisbracketed by thesetheoreticalcurves.
Theoryindicatesa sma~ increasein lift<urveslopewithincrease
in angleof attack,butthee~imntal lift-urveslopewasessentially
constantthroughouttheangle-of~ttack range.Theseliftresults for
testReynoldsntiersof 8.6 million and17.4million arein agree~nt
withtheresults fromreference2 at a Reynolds
nuniberof 30 million,
withtheexception thatthedataof thatreportdo shuwa sma~ increase
in lift-curveslopewithincreasingangleof attacksimilarto thatpre-
dictedby theory.
Pitching
momnt andcenterof pressure.–Thevariationsof pitching
moment centerof pressure withangleod attackareshownin figures
10 and11~ Theoretical
valuesof thepitching momnt werenotcalculated
becauseof theuncertainty
of thecenternf-pressurepositionforthe
tailsurfacesinthepresence of the body.
Theslopeof thepitchemnt curveof figure10 is constant
throughoutthesngl~f-attack range.Thecenter+f-pressure position
(fig.11)is constant forallanglesof attackandis located10.3diam-
etersbehindthenoseof themissile.Theseresults arein goodagree-
mentwiththedatafromreference 2, andanydeviations in pitching
momentor centerof pressure
aresmallandwithintheuncertainty of the
data.
Froma comparison
of theresultsof thisinvestigation
withthose
fromreference
2 it my be ccmcluded
thatenyeffects ofReynoldsnuniber
aresmallwithintherangeofReynolds nunibers
from8.6 mii.lion
to
30 million.
Foredrag.–
Thevariationsin foredrag
coefficient
and incremmtof
foredragcoefficient
dueto angleof attackareshownin figures12 and
13. Thetheoretical
risein foredragcoefficient
dueto liftwascalcu-
latedin thesam manneras thetheoretical
lift-that is,by addiqgthe
14 IUCARMA51G13

componentdueto thebodyaloneto thatdueto thetallalone.As

before,thecomponentswereobtained by thezsthcds of references11 aud
15withthesameass-ions regarding theeffective tailareabeing
mda. In thisinstance, theassu@im thatonlytheexposed tailsur-
facesereeffective in liftfieldsa goodapproximation forthedrag
rise. Thedataof figures 12 and13 indicate thatanyeffects of
Re~oldsnuniberwithintherangeof 8.6million to 17.4million are
smallandwithintheuncertainty of thedata. However, comparisonof
thedragdataof thisreportwiththatof reference 2 indicatesthat
thereis a Reynolds
nunbereffecton minimum foredrag in therangeof
Reynoldsnuuibers
from17.4million to 30 million, sincetheminimum fore-
dragcoefficientobtainedinthatreference wasabout16~rcenthigher
themwas obtainedin thepresentinvestigation. It hasbeenpreviously
shownthatthereis no apparerdReynolds nuniber
effecton thebody-alone
minimumforedragcoefficientin thisrange;therefore, the increasein
minimumforedragcoefficientmustresultfroma Reynolds numbereffect
on thetailfinse@/or thezer-lif t interferencedrag. Theincrease
intheskin-friction dragwhichwouldaccompany a changefromlaminar to
turbulentflowon thetailfinealoneis ofthesameorderof magnitude
as themasuredclifferenceinminimum foredrag.

SUMMARY
cm RESULTS

An investigate
Ionofthepressure
distribution
overtheRI$%1O
body ,
md theaerodyn&icforcecoefficients
forthebodyalonesadthebody=
tailcombination
wasmadeatRemoldsnunibers,
basedon.bodylength,
of
c
8.6millionand17.4million.TIMtestMachmnibers
were1.52and1.98
forthebodyaloneand1.98forthebo~ail conibinat
ion.
Thetestsforthebcdyaloneindicate
thefollowimg
results:
1. At zeroangleofattack, thelineartheoryof NACATN 1081
showedgoodagreementwiththeexperimental
pressure distribution
over
thefirst50 percentof thebmlylength.Overthereminderof thebody
thema~itudesof thepressurecoefficients
were,in general, lessthan-
predicted
by anyof thetheories.
2. Exceptfortheaftleeward regionsof thebodywhereseparation
effectsareimportantat highanglesof attack,inviscid
theory(see
y
e.g.,NACATN Z@&) was in goodagreemntwiththeexperimentalIiftiw
pressuredistributions.
3. For anglesof attacklessthan9°,a comparison of thelifti~ *
pressure
distribution
results of NACARM E~10 withtheresults of this
invest
igat
ionindicated thattherewereno appreciable.
Machnumiber
or
Reynolds
numbereffects dueto em increasein MachnuMberfrom1.52to r
NACARM A51G13 15

1.98 or an increase
inReynolds
nuniber
from8.6million
to 30 million.
4. For theforcetestson thebodyalone,thetheoryof NACA
RMA9126showedbetteragreementwiththeexperimentalresults thandid
linearized theory.Thesetheoretical
potential results(lWCARMAPI%)
agreedwellwiththeexperimentalliftandforedrag incrementat a Mach
nuder of 1.52,butunderestimated
bothat a Machntier of 1.98. This
theoryoverestimated
thepitchingmo~nt at bothMachnunibers
butpre-
dictedthelocationandaftmovement of thecentemf-pressure position
withangleof attackmuchbetterthandidpotential theory.
5. For anglesof attacklessthan9°,a comparisonof forcedata
fromNACARME50D28withforcedatafromthisinvestigation indicated
thatanyeffectson forcecharacteristics
dueto a changeinRe~olds
numberfrom8.6million to 30 million
weresmall.
The%estsforthebody-tail
cofiination
indicate
thefollawing
results:
1. For theangl=fattack rangeof thistest,theliftandpitch-
ingmomentwerelinearfunctions of theangleof attack;
hence,the
center
of pressure
remainedat a ftiedposition.
2. Comparison
of theresults of thisinvestigationwiththeresults
of NACARME50D28indicatesthat,withtheexception of minimum foredrag,
theeffectofReynolds nunberon forceandmomentcharacteristics was
smallin therangeofReynolds ntirs from8.6million to 30 million.
Theminimumforedragincreasedapproximately16 ~rcentwithan increase
ofReyuoldsnumberfrom17.4million to 30 million.

A.nEs
Aeronautical
Laboratom
National
Advisory
Com&tteeforAeronautics
Moffett
Field,Calif.

REFERENCES

1. Luidens,RogerW., andSimon,PaulC.: Aerodynamic

Characteristics
of It!lCA
RW1O Missilein8-by 6-footSupersonic
WindTimnelat
MachNudersfroml.&9to 1.98. I-l%esentationandAnalysisof
WessureMeasurements(Stabilizing
finsremoved).NACARME7OD1O,
1973.
16 NACARM A51G13
.
2. Esenwein,
FredT.,Obery,Leonard J.,andSchueller,
CarlF,:
Aerodynamic
Characteristics
of NACARM-10Missile
in 8- by 6-foot >
Supersonic
WindTunnelat kch Numbersfrom1.49to 1.98.
11-IYesentatLon
andAnalysis
ofForceMeasurements. NACA
RM E50D28,1950. .—

3. VanDyke,MiltonD: Aerodynamic Characteristics

Including
Scale
Effectof SeveralWingsandBodiesAloneandin Co&ination
at a
MachRmber of 1.53. NACARM A&22, 1946.
4. Nielsen,JackI?.,
Khtzen,Elliott
D.,andTang,Kbnneth K.: Lift
andPitchin@!omnt Interference
Between
a X’ointed
Cylindrical
BodyandTrianguhrWingsofVarious AspectRatiosat MachNumbers
of 1.50and2.02. NAcARMAmo6, 1950.
WalterC.: Advanced
5. Michels, ElectricalWasuremnts,ch.I, 2d cd.,
D. VanNostraud
CompanyInc.,N. Y., 1943.
6. Jones,RobertT., andMargolis,
Kenneth:FlowOvera Slender”
Bo3yof
Revolutionat Supersonic
Velocities.
NACATN 1081,1945.
M. J.: Supersonic
7. Lighthill, FlowPastSlenderPointed.Bodies
of
RevolutionatYaw. Quart.Jour.of Mch. andAppl.Math.,vol.1,
pt.1, Mar.lg48,pP.76-89.
*
8. Sauer,
Robert:Mb.mduction GasDynamics.Trans.by
to Theoretical
FreemmK. HillandRalphA. Alpher.J.W. Edwards
Bros.,
AnnArbor,Wch., 1947.
Distribution
9. Allen,H. Julian:fiessure andSOM EffectsofViscos-
ityon Slender
Inclined NACATN
BodiesofRevolution. 2044,1950.
10. Tsien,Hsue-Shen:Supersonic
FlowOveran Inclined
BodyofRevolu-
tion. Jour.Aero.Sci.,vol.5, no.12,Oct.1938,pp.48o-483.
11. Allen,H. Julian:Estimation
of theForcesandMommtsActingon
InclinedBodiesofRevolution
ofHighFinenessRatio.NACARM
A9126,1949.
12.Allen,H. Julian,
andPerkins,
EdwardW.: ‘Characteristics
ofI?low
OverInclined
BodiesofRevolution.NACARMA50L07,1951.
13:vonR&a&n,Th.: On Laminar
andTurbulent
l?rictions.
NACATM 1092,
1946.
.
NACARM A51G13 17

14. Wilson,R. E.: TurbulentBoundary

LayerCharacteristics
at Supe*
sonicS~eds - TheoryandExperimnt.Univ.of Texas,Ikfense
ResearchLab.,CM 569,Nov.1949. (Alsoavailable
in Jour.Aero.
Sci.,Sept.1950,pp.58=94)
15. Cohen,Doris: TheTheoretical
Liftof FlatSweptack Wingsat
SupersonicSpeeds.NACA~ 1555,1948.

-..
.

P
 , . . ,

.
ILRwvba4cm @vf%?: 0.756
r.y:~q (2076 .95$R
[2
% -’-w
I

RIsek7ge
W witi IV OH.
hd9 h Sthgsu&yxwt

/.- One-twelfth
Figure sculeRM-10mtkdle,
 .10

.08

.08

-.02

-,04

0 J 2 .3 .4 ‘.3 .6 .7 .8 .9 10
lxnlzmehmnosq+
v
(a) AkcA twmbq #o =152.
R@we2 —Lta@diml ~ d pwsi.ue Coef= * * b@ of 0° angle of dtack,

. . .
,
 * .

.Ja

.06

.;\
(20tw
.06 o

&

1!
Ii
‘ .04

D2 E . /%
180
-120
-60
JTi?=zt?oxtd

1:0

i!
to 1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
,
1.

‘i

-,02

-.04 —

I I I I I I I I

ixsmn?eh
tMfm?/ws6,f
(b) M7chiwm~ & =R9,
=E$z=
Figure 2.- Concluded
22

.08

\
\ ~ ./p
o \
\ / (
\ M* 5-”
* -.m
q
**
.s”
1
5 A

.16‘-w-
- .
‘\ (7
\“ *
II <
.08 \
k
4 \
\ Q ./.
0 \
\ 4
\ /
\@ / ()
-.08 \ /‘
\ ./-~
\
-./6 \ (1 ,/ cy
(‘/’
\ /
-- -- ~
-.240
20 40 60 /40 160 160
~dd c~hd%b COO1%%?, b:”dg
(a)
Longitudhal
stitbq ~=0. /64. .
~ure 3. -VHnVbn of cfhumfirwtbl A7t%g-presswe
coefWc&nt
h the body
ut three unglesof oftuck.
NACARM A51G13 23

.08
‘:g!!jzte .

0 ‘ .--

-.08 T

J
.08 “– -.\
\ f.
j’
\, Qm//”
o \, / ~
\ ./
<\ 0~j
-.08 /0
w \
E?
.,.* --
.24

.f6
\
\
.08 a
\“
\
\ aa~s”
o \
\ / 0-
\ / ()
...08 \~
- v / Y
./
\ /
. B.16
\ cf./
\ /
--
‘.240
20 40 60 80 100 /20 140 160 180
Modelcy4ndricuJcoordhate,$, o!eg
(b)Longituolhdstation,~xO.328.
Figure 3.- Continued.
—.._
..= .-. ._
 NACARM A51G13

-.08

-./6

-.24
(

Y
NACARM A51G13

—+wcvy of r&&wce 7
0 &=152 Re=8.6x106
❑ &=198
q: Abte:Ff~ged sy&ls &tie
.08 negutivevohesof 6? —.

-.08

‘I II JNIIIIIIIIIJ” I I 1. /
111” +
I I I I N
\l
I I I I I A
A-
I A,I I I
 .
26 -------- . NACARM A51G13

le) LongituohdsMhbq+0. 73Z

Figure 3.- Continued.
w
 NACARM A51G13 27

– –Zbeoryof refwence7
o ~=L52 ~=8.6xflG
El ~ =H8
* Note:F&ged &s denote
negativevohs of 6?
.08

o ●

-.08

*.
.24-

./6
.A
0
.08 /
/
@/50 /
/
o ~- ,
\ /
(Y ,/ ()
6
-.08 H’\. [) /
\
\ //
\ ‘~ ,
-.16
(h
- ./ - / T
-.24-
0 20 40 /40 160 180
Mot.%cyho%l co%nok?,‘%: deg
(f) Longitudiml
stotion,~= 0.904
Figure 3.- Concluded
 — .—

I
Theory:
-- —Pot6nHa/ theory, r#brence 10
--T’ewy of reference 1~A@ !.52
--7hecwy of reference 1~Mo=1.98
Experiment:
Present tests
w i?e
o i. 52 8.6XI06
El 1.52 17.4x/06
o 1.98 8.6 XIH
Reference 2
F /.49 29..fx106
r /.98 31.1xlo6

0 2 4 6 8 /0 /2 /4
i
Angle of ottock, a, tteg
5
Figure 4.- Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack for the body. ~
G
.

. > .
, ● ,

.40
n)eqy:
--— Bten#/ai Meacy, retimnce /0
-— Theory of referwnce 1+ &=l.5&
.32 ---— T%oqY of rw%ence 11, &=i.98
Experiment
$
?resent tests
M* Re ● ,/
a 1.52 8.6xi@ .4 -,
El 1.52 lz4xitP .
@ i.98 8.6xh#
Reference 2 / 6
A
b /.49 29.1x lo=

# , , r I 1
I

o 2 4 6 8 /0 t2 i4
AnghcftmWck, a,d9g
Figure 5.- Vorh?tion of pitching-moment coefficient with angie of attack for the body,
e
 .

. .— .— —
‘8
E%perhent:
\ Present tests
M. Re
\ o 1.52 8.6X106
A El 1.52 /7. 4XI06
\, 0 1.98 8. 6x10e
Reference P
3~ \ b L49 P9.lxfo6
\
7 i V 1.98 3/. fxfo6
h ,
H A.
,.
{.
—x --
-—
. . . .

~eoq:
—-— Potential theory, reference 10
—--Thetwy of reference 14MoS}.5~
Moment center ---~eory of reference Id Mo=l. 98
I i
●

1 I
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angle of attack, a, deg
F{gure 6.- Variation of center-of-pressure position with angle of attack for the body.

, t
 . L
.4

A *,
v

1 I

2 4 6 8 10 12 M
AI@ of ottd, a, ~
Figure 7.- Variation of foredrog coefficient with angie of attack for the body.
(AJ
P
 ..

.5
Theoty
—-—Fb@mlbi theq~ reference 10
–––7%eqY of ret%woel~ A$=I.52
.-.—- of &mm 1~ & =kw

Ex@nWent:
resent tests
MO a?
o l.= i16x@
El L52 lz4x#%
o 1.88 t16x@
Reference Z
b /.49 29.1XIO=
V L98 3iJxlo6

r , , , m m
I
,
1
,
I
.
0-
d 1 1

I I I 1

--- -— _.
o 2 4 6 8 10 /e /4
Angh of offoct, a, &g ~
Figure 8.- Vuriation of increment of foredrug coefficient with angle of attack for the body. ~

,
t, . , 4
en

Theory of references /1 and 15:

— — Exposed tall area effective /
.’
—.- - Total tt711area effective
,/’”
Ewr4ment: ,
S%@sent Al?sti /
& // ‘“ /
. 0
/ 0
0 8.6x I@ /
,’ .OH
❑ )Z4X io6 ,0
/ /
Reference 2 /-
r 31*IX 10= /’”
4“
4 /

/
.
.

I 1
2 3 4 5 6-
AngA? of attack, e, deg

f~ 9 +4riotkm of Jift cmfficient with angb of attock fbr the body-tiil combhotion
at a Mach number of 1.98.
w
 -.40 1 1 1

Experiment:
I+esent ha’s
m
Q 8.6xtoe
ElIZ4XI08
Reference ~
v 31.1X108

#-

-.06

( I I
o I 2 3 4 5 6

~ iO. —ktmfatbn of pltdnhg-manent coefficient wfth angle of attuok tiw the k%?tlrtail combination
at u Mach number of 1.98

, ,
1
 . ,

o
~~’
Rn9sent tests
R&l
4 o 8.6xfo6
a 17!4XIO$
Refin?nce 2
vafxlo~
?-
8

\
l\ I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 2 3 4 5 6

A@? of attack, u , &g

i7@m9 If. – kviotim of center-+nessthre padtion with angle of attack fcr the &o@-tail combinatio~
at a Mach number of i.98.
 .-

.4

o
0 / 2 3 4 5
Angle of oftmt, u, deg &
*
Figure 12. –Variation of foredrog -~eti wiM tmgk of attack”
tir the bo@-toYi combinatkw ~
of a Mach number of 1.98. !D

, , .
 . 4 , . 4

4
Theory ofreferences hand 15: 111111
— — Exposed tail area effective
—-- — Total tail area effective
.3 Experhent:
Pnwent tests
Re
Q 8.6 XI06
❑ /z4xlo=
.2 Reference 2
r 3/Jx 10= .

/ 2 3 4 5 6
Angle of attack, u, deg

Figure 13, - bbr~im of ihcrement of foredrog coefflcht with angle of attack tbr the bo@-tad
combination at a Mach number of i 98.
3