NASA TECHNICAL NOTE

-
NASA TN D-40­
- c _ _
13
c., 1

M
c­
0
P
n Ki
z
c
4
c/I
4
z

STATIC STABILITY INVESTIGATION OF

A SINGLE-STAGE SOUNDING ROCKET
AT MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.60 TO 1.20

by James C. Ferris
Langley Research Center
Langley Station, Humpton, Va.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1967

i
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

STATIC STABILITY INVESTIGATION O F A

SINGLE -STAGE SOUNDING ROCKET AT

MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.60 TO 1.20

By James C. Ferris

Langley R e s e a r c h Center
Langley Station, Hampton, Va.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

-
For s o l e by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151- CFSTI price $3.00

I
 STATIC STABILITY INVESTIGATION O F A
SINGLE-STAGE SOUNDING ROCKET AT
MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.60 TO 1.20

By J a m e s C. Ferris
Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

Tests were conducted on a 1/2-scale model of a single-stage meteorological

sounding rocket to determine the effect of body length and fin cant angle on the aerody­
namic characteristics of the model. Tests were conducted through an angle-of -attack
range from -3' t o 21' at fin roll angles of Oo, 22.5', and 45'. The Mach number was
varied from 0.60 to 1.20 with a constant Reynolds number of 9.8 X 106 per meter
(3.0 X lo6 per foot). T e s t s were made f o r two models with fineness ratios of 18.2
and 23.8. Results were obtained with fins off and with fins on at cant angles of '0 and 2.'
The results indicate that the models had similar pitch-up tendencies in the angle­
of-attack range from approximately 8' t o approximately 16' at all Mach numbers of this
investigation. Both models had large yawing moments at the high angles of attack. The
canted fins produced positive rolling moments through the angle-of-attack range from -4'
to 12' at all Mach numbers, and they improved the longitudinal stability of the short
model in the angle-of-attack range from -2' to 2.'

INTRODUCTION

The Arcas meteorological sounding rocket has been used by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and other government agencies for conducting high-altitude
research. This vehicle, a single-stage solid fuel tube launched rocket, has had modifi­
cations to improve the reliability and allow the vehicle t o be used for more varied mis­
sions. In order t o meet the requirements for the several versions of the vehicle, it was
considered necessary t o conduct wind-tunnel investigations t o determine the aerodynamic
characteristics associated with body length, fins, and fin cant angle.
Reference 1presents the results of an investigation conducted i n the Langley
Unitary Plan wind tunnel at Mach numbers from 1.50 t o 4.63, at angles of attack from -4'
t o 20°, at angles of sideslip f r o m -4' t o 8', and at a Reynolds number per meter of
about 9.8 X lo6 (3.0 x lo6 per foot). Two models were investigated. A short model

I
(fineness ratio of 18.2) w a s representative of the Arcas Robin meteorological rocket
vehicle, whereas a long model (fineness ratio of 23.8) was representative of the Arcas
vehicle as modified by NASA to accommodate a bioscience payload. The purpose of this
paper is to present the r e s u l t s of an investigation of the same two models conducted in
the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 1.20, at
angles of attack from -3' to 21°, at roll angles of Oo, 22.5', and 45O, and at fin cant
angles of Oo and 2'. The Reynolds number was held constant at 9.8 X 106 per meter
(3.0 X lo6 per foot).

SYMBOLS

The aerodynamic force and moment data are referred to the body-axis system
with the moment reference center located at 70 percent of the body length for both the
short body and the long body.

axial-force coefficient, Axial force

cA qs

base axial-force coefficient, Base axial force.

'A,b qs

'A,corr axial force corrected for base axial force

rolling-moment coefficient, Rolling moment

c2 qSd

pitching -moment coefficient, Pitching moment

Cm qsd

normal-force coefficient, Normal force

cN qs

yawing-moment coefficient, Yawing moment

Cn qSd

-P
Pb
CP,b
base-pressure coefficient, ­
q

side-force coefficient, Side force

qs

d body diameter, centimeters (inches)

M free-stream Mach number

2
P free-stream static pressure, newtons per meter' (pounds per foot2)

static pressure at base of model, newtons per meter2 (pounds per foot2)

free-stream dynamic pressure, newtons per meter2 (pounds per foot2)

maximum cross-sectional a r e a of body, meters2 (feet2)

X center-of-pressure location, percent body length

CP

a! angle of attack of model center line, degrees

6F fin cant angle (setting with reference to body center line), degrees

@ fin roll angle, positive clockwise as viewed upstream aft of the model, degrees

APPARATUS AND TESTS

The investigation w a s made in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel. The
test section of this tunnel is square in c r o s s section with slotted upper and lower w a l l s
t o permit continuous operation through the transonic speed range. The total pressure of
the tunnel air can be varied from a minimum value of 0.25 atmosphere at all test Mach
numbers t o a maximum value of 2.0 atmospheres at Mach numbers up to 0.4 and about
1.5 atmospheres at transonic Mach numbers. The tunnel air is dried sufficiently to
avoid condensation effects.

Model
The models used in the present investigation were sting-supported 1/2-scale
models of the Arcas meteorological sounding rocket. Details of the models a r e presented
in figure 1, and schlieren photographs of the forebody and centerbody juncture a r e pre­
sented in figure 2. The models had an ogive nose, a cylindrical centerbody, and a boat-
tail afterbody that ended with a reflex lip. Trapezoidal double-wedge fins were used to
stabilize the model. Two models differing in the length of the cylindrical centerbody
were investigated. The short model had a fineness ratio of 18.2 and the long model had
a fineness ratio of 23.8.
The models were investigated with fins at cant angles of '0 and 2'. The cant angle
of 2' for each fin was in such a direction as to produce a positive rolling moment. The
models w e r e also investigated without fins. The fin anchors (fig. l(b)) were used t o

3
plug the slots in the boattailed afterbody when the short model was investigated without
fins, whereas the slots were plugged with balsa and faired flush with the model skin when
the long model was investigated without fins.
6
The investigation was conducted at a constant Reynolds number of 9.8 X 10 p e r
meter (3.0 X lo6 per foot) through the Mach number range. Both models were investi­
gated at Mach numbers of 0.60, 0.80, 0.90, 1.00, and 1.20. The short model was also
investigated at a Mach number of 0.95. T e s t s were made through an angle-of-attack
range from approximately -3' t o 21' at roll angles (the strain-gage balance was not
rolled during the test) of Oo, 22.5', and 45' clockwise as viewed upstream aft of the
model. In order to obtain turbulent flow over the model, a 0.25-cm-wide (0.10-in.)
s t r i p of No. 120 carborundum grains w a s affixed around the model 3.17 cm (1.25 in.)
aft of the nose and 1.27 cm (0.5 in.) aft of the leading edge of each fin. The stagnation
temperature w a s maintained at 322' K (120' F) at all Mach numbers during the
investigation.

Measurements
Aerodynamic f o r c e s and moments were measured by means of a six-component
electrical strain-gage balance housed within the model. The balance was rigidly fastened
t o a 2.54-cm-diameter (1-in.) sting support which extended 29.21 cm (11.5 in.) aft of the
model base and ended with a 19.2' half-angle flare attached to the tunnel sting.

Corrections
Angles of attack were corrected for tunnel-flow angularity and balance and sting­
support-system deflection under aerodynamic load. Axial-force data were not corrected
to free-stream conditions at the model base, except for the summary data at a roll angle
of '0 and an angle of attack of.'0

Accuracy
The accuracy of the individual measured quantities, based on calibrations and
repeatability of data, is estimated t o be within the following limits:
CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0.004 Cy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0.03
CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0.01 c p , b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *os01
C m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k0.05 qdeg .............. *O.l
C n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k0.05
@, deg .............. kO.5
M ................ *0.003
C N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k0.03

4
 PRESENTATION O F RESULTS

A list of the basic figures presenting the r e s u l t s of the investigation is presented

in the following table:

Fin cant
Model angle,
deg Figure
I
Short 0
Short 2
Long 0
Long 2

Summary data figures of the variation with Mach number of the center-of-pressure
location in percent body length, the axial-force coefficient corrected to free-stream con­
ditions at the model base, and the base axial-force coefficient a r e presented in figure 11
for the short model and in figure 12 for the long model.

DISCUSSION

Axial Force
The variation of the axial-force coefficient with angle of attack is presented in
figures 7(a) and 8(a) for the short model and in figures 9(a) and lO(a) for the long model.
These coefficients a r e not corrected for the base axial force; however, base pressure
coefficients for both models are presented in figures 3 to 6. The variation with Mach
number of the base axial-force coefficient C and of the axial-force coefficient c o r -
A,b
rected for base axial force CA,corr for the short model without fins and with fins at
cant angles of '0 and 2' is shown in figure 11 for CY =.'0 The base axial-force coef­
ficients were generally negative at Mach numbers less than 1.00 and w e r e positive at a
Mach number of 1.20. This trend is characteristic of boattailed afterbodies and is also
associated with sting diameter and flare angle. (See ref. 2.) The variation of CA,b
with Mach number is shown in figure 12 for the long model at CY = Oo.
and 'A,corr
The trend is generally the same as that for the short model; however, the base axial-
force coefficient is negative for the fins-off configuration at a Mach number of 1.20.
The positive base axial-force coefficient at M = 1.20 f o r the short model is probably
attributable t o the fin anchors. A comparison of the fins-off configurations for the long
and short models indicates that the long model h a s higher CA,corr coefficients than the
short model at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 0.975. At Mach numbers from 0.975 to 1.20,

5
the short model h a s higher CA,corr values. This trend is also attributed to the fin
anchors, which were not flush with the model skin on the short model.

Normal Force
The results shown i n figures 7(b), 8(b), 9(b), and 1O(b) indicate that the slope of the
normal-force-coefficient curve increases with angle of attack for the model without fins.
This trend is characteristic of slender bodies and is associated with viscous lift (ref. 3).
This effect is therefore greater for the longer body since a common reference a r e a was
used.

Pitching Moment
The short model and long model had similar pitch-up tendencies in the angle-of­
attack range from 8' t o 16' at all roll positions of the fins. (See figs. 7(c), 8(c), 9(c),
and lO(c).) The roll positions of 22.5' and 45' of the fins generally delayed the pitch-up
to higher angles of attack at Mach numbers 0.60, 0.80, 0.90, and 0.95. At a Mach number
of 1.00, the pitch-up occurred at lower angles of attack for the 45' roll position than for
either of the other roll positions of the fins. At a Mach number of 1.20, the roll position
of the fins had little effect on the pitch-up tendencies of the model. Figure 7(c) indicates
that the longitudinal static stability of the short model with fin cant angle of '0 is almost
neutral i n the angle-of-attack range from -2' t o 2' at Mach numbers of 0.60, 0.80, and
0.90. This characteristic is considerably improved with the fins canted to 2' (fig. 8(c)).

Center of P r e s s u r e
The variation of center-of-pressure location with Mach number for the short model
at a roll angle of Oo and small angles of attack, within the range of linear aerodynamics,
is shown in figure 11. The fin cant angle of 20 moved the center of pressure rearward
at Mach numbers from 0.60 to approximately 1.00 and forward at Mach numbers from
approximately 1.00 to 1.20. The fin cant angle had little effect on the center-of-pressure
location for the long model (fig. 12).

Side Force and Yawing Moment

The side-force coefficients were generally small up to an angle of attack of 16'; at
angles of attack greater than 16O, the side-force coefficients were either positive or neg­
ative, depending on the roll position of the fins, the Mach number, and the model length.
(See figs. 7(d), 8(d), 9(d), and 10(d).)
The yawing-moment coefficients were generally small at angles of attack l e s s
than 12'. At angles of attack greater than 14O, the yawing-moment data are e r r a t i c for

6
some of the roll positions of the fins and large values were obtained f o r the long model
with the fins canted 2' (fig. lO(e)).
The data presented in references 4 and 5 at subsonic speeds indicate that asym­
metric trailing vortices produced by the forebody of high-fineness-ratio bodies of revo­
lution, at large angles of attack, result in large side forces and large yawing moments on
the body. The experimental data presented in reference 6 at a Mach number of 1.91
indicate that large sidewash angles caused by the trailing vortices are present at angles
of attack above 10'. Therefore, it is believed that the large side f o r c e s and large yawing
moments on the long model at angles of attack greater than 12' are caused by asymmetric
vortices on the leeward side of the model, generated by the ogive nose and forebody. At
small angles of attack, these vortices a r e formed at the same body station on both sides
of the body and a r e symmetrical. As a result, the side forces and yawing moments
obtained at these conditions are small. At angles of attack greater than 14O, the vortices
on opposite sides of the body a r e formed at different body stations, a r e asymmetric, and
cause large yawing moments and side forces on the body at '0 sideslip angle. The coef­
ficients frequently change sign with small changes in angle of attack at angles of attack
greater than 14'. These trends a r e present for the models without fins as well as for the
models with fins (figs. 10(d) and lO(e)) and a r e a result of the asymmetric vortices.
Schlieren photographs of the vortices a r e shown in figure 2 at angles of attack of approx­
imately 17.3' and 22.4'. With the schlieren knife edge horizontal, changes in density
gradient through the vortices result in a dark band on one side of the vortex and a light
band on the other.

Rolling Moment
The canted fins were effective in producing a positive rolling-moment coefficient
on the short model (fig. 8(f)) in the angle-of-attack range from -4' to 12'. At angles of
attack greater than 8O, the rolling-moment coefficient generally decreased for the roll
positions of '0 and 45' and in several instances slightly negative values were measured.
The rolling-moment coefficient increased with angle of attack f o r the roll angle of 22.5'
in the angle-of-attack range from approximately 13' to 17'. The trend in the variation
of rolling-moment coefficient with angle of attack for the long model was similar t o that
of the short model.

CONCLUSIONS

Static stability t e s t s at Mach numbers from 0.60 t o 1.20 of a 1/2-scale model of a

meteorological sounding rocket with variations in body length, fin cant angle, and roll
angle led to the following conclusions:

7
 1. At all Mach numbers and roll positions of this investigation, the models had
similar pitch-up tendencies in the angle-of-attack range from 8' to 16'.
2. The fin cant angle of 2' improved the longitudinal stability of the short model
in the angle-af-attack range from -2' to 2'.
3. The asymmetric vortices from the forebody caused large yawing moments at
angles of attack greater than 14'.
4. The canted fins produced positive rolling moments through the angle-of-attack
range f r o m -4' to 12' for the test roll angles at all test Mach numbers.

Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Langley Station, Hampton, Va., December 16, 1966,
607-06-00-01-23.

REFERENCES

1. Babb, C. Donald; and Fuller, Dennis E.: Static Stability Investigation of a Sounding-
Rocket Vehicle at Mach'Numbers From 1.50 to 4.63. NASA TN D-4014, 1967.
2. Cahn, Maurice S.: An Experimental Investigation of Sting-Support Effects on Drag
and a Comparison With Jet Effects at Transonic Speeds. NACA Rept. 1353, 1958.
(Supersedes NACA RM L56F18a.)
3. Polhamus, Edward C.: Effect of Nose Shape on Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics
of a Body of Revolution Having a Fineness Ratio of 10.94. NACA RM L57F25, 1957.
4. Letko, William: A Low-Speed Experimental Study of the Directional Characteristics
of a Sharp-Nosed Fuselage Through a Large Angle-of-Attack Range at Zero Angle
of Sideslip. NACA TN 2911, 1953.
5. Dunn, Eldon L.: A Low-Speed Experimental Study of Yaw Forces on Bodies of Revo­
lution at Large Angles of Pitch and Zero Angle of Sideslip. TM-1588, U.S. Naval
Ord. Test Station, M a r . 1954.
6. Raney, D. J.: Measurement of the Cross Flow Around an Inclined Body at a Mach
Number of 1.91. Tech. Note No. Aero 2357, Brit. R.A.E., Jan. 1955.

8
 rMoment reference center

I r
- -- --lA

A 7
t
2. Id

Short model

[Moment reference center

.65d
16.63 d p m­

-4.7 Id d
i.78d-
T I I'.OOd

Long model

(a) General arrangement of short and long models.

Figure 1.- Model geometric characteristics. All dimensions are i n terms of centerbody diameter d, 5.72 cm (2.25 in.).

W
 -

,386 .49d .6id Jid .id .88d .94d 1.006

u
T a i l c o n e and f i n s

(b) Details of forebody, tail cone, and fins.

Figure 1.- Concluded.
 a % 17.3"

Figure 2.- Schlieren photographs of forebody and centerbody juncture. M = 1.20; QI = 0'; long model. Knife edge horizontal. L- 67-922
 I
7
Off
On
On
0
22.t
T
Y

16 20 24

Figure 3.- Effect of roll angle on base pressure coefficient. Short model; bF = 0'.

12
 Q1 deg

Figure 3.- Concluded.

13
 I 20

0
Figure 4.- Effect of roll angle on base pressure coefficient. Short model; bF = 2 .

14
 .I

M=0.95
-. I
Fins d,deg
-. 2 Off
Gn 0
On 22.5
-. 3

.I

CP,b
c
M = 1.00

-.I

-. 2
-. 3

-.4

0
M=1.20

-. I
-. 2
-.-4
3
0 4 a 12
a,deg

Figure 4.- Concluded.

15

I
 16 24

Figure 5.- Effect of roll angle on base pressure coefficient. Long model; bF = 0'.

16
I

-. I

-.2
rrr
-7I I

-4 0 8 12 16 20 24
Q,dW

Figure 5.- Concluded.

17
 .I

-, I

-.2

-. 3

-. 4

.I

-. I

-. 2

-. 3

-.4

-.5
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
a ,deg

Figure 6.- Effect of roll angle on base pressure coefficient. Long model; bF = 20.

18

.. ..
 .I
T
0 T
1=0.90

-. I
Fins Ol,degl
0 Off I
0 On
-. 2 0 On
a On

-.3
-. 4

.I

1; 1.00
P,b 0

-.I

-.2

-. 3

-.4
C

-. I
VI= 1.20

-. 2

."
- 7
- 4 8 12
Q ,deg

Figure 6.- Concluded.

19

I
 .b
- Fins

P
r/
L 0
.2

0
.6
0
0
A

.4

Q
.2

0
I
.8

11
.6 0
/ a
/
.4

.2

4:
F
r
M=0.90
0 4
.

12 16 20
-0

24

(a) Axial-force coefficient.

Figure 7.- Effect of roll angle on aerodynamic characteristics. Short model; 6, = 0'.

20
 Fins 0,deg
.8 l o Off

.6

.4

.2

0
7­
vI=0.95

'+r
.a

.6

CA .4

.2
1
\n = 1.00

C
.E

.E

-1
.L

M=1.20
(
- 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
a,deg

(a) Concluded.

Figure 7.- Continued.

21

!
 (b) Normal-force coefficient.

Figure 7.- Continued.

22

., . .
 12
Fins 0,deg
0 Off
0 On 0
IO 0 On 22.5
a On 45

2 /

-2
cm

-4

-6
6

-2

-4

-4 0 4 8 12 20 24
a,deg

(c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 7.- Continued.

23
 16 20 24

(c) Continued.

Figure 7.- Continued.

24
 Fins 0,deg
12 0 O f f
0 On 0
0 On 22.5
n On 45
IO

4
/’
2 /

0
a/
cm -2

-4

0
\
/

-2

-4

-4 0 4 �3 12 16 4
Q1 deg

(c) Concluded.

Figure 7.- Continued.

25
 Fins @,deg
0 Off

l-r

CY

20

(d) Side-force coefficient.

Figure 7.- Continued.

26
 Fins 0,deg
0 O f f
0 On 0 '

(e) Yawing-moment coefficient.

Figure 7.- Continued.

27
 Fins #,deg
0 Off
0 On 0
22.5
45

16 20 24

(f) Rolling-moment coefficient.

Figure 7.- Concluded.

28
I

Fins (d,deg
.6 0 O f f
0 On 0 1
0 On 22.5 I
.4
J
G
.2
I
0
.6

.4

C A a2

\n=0.8C
C
T
t.:
.e
-u
.E -0
P
L

r
.L

M=0.9(
-c 0 4 8 12 16 20
a 1 deg

(a) Axial-force coefficient.

Figure 8.- Effect of roll angle on aerodynamic characteristics. Short model; &iF = 20.

29

I-
 Fins
0 O f f
0 On
0 On

4 8 12 16
a ,deg

( a ) Concluded.

Figure 8.- Continued,

30
 6

CN 0

(bl Normal-force coefficient.

Figure 8.- Continued.

31
 . . .
Fins 0 , de!
0Off
On 0
0 On 22.5
a On 45

A’
/
,/ 1I
4=0.6C
I

I
$
l
i
A
I

1.0.80
I

-4 C 4 8 12 16

(c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 8.- Continued.

32
 12
@,de
0
IO 22.5
45

2
;i
0
I
-2 I/

7
Cm
-4

4
/k
'I
2

0
l­
I
-2

-4
+
37
_ I
0 4 8 12 20 24

( c ) Continued.

Figure 8.- Continued.

33
 Fins 0,de
0 O f f
o On 0
0 On 22.5
A On 45

Cm

-4 0 20 24

(c) Concluded.

Figure 8.- Continued.

34
 Fins @,deg
0 O f f

(d) Side-force coefficient.

Figure 8.- Continued.

35
 Fins @,deg
0 O f f
o On 22.5

( e ) Yawing-moment coefficient.

Figure 8.- Continued.

36
 (e) Concluded.

Figure 8.- Continued.

37
(f) Rolling-moment coefficient.

Figure 8.- Concluded.

 .8
Fins
0 O f f
0 On
.6 0 On
On

.4

.2

0
.a

.6

CA .4

h >
.2

v1=0.80
C
.a

.6

.4

.2

-
C 20 24
4 8 12 16

(a) Axial-force coefficient.

Figure 9.- Effect of roll angle on aerodynamic characteristics. Long model; 6, = 0'.

39
 I I
=
AI
I I
I I
ZFP Fins
0 Off
0 On
0 On
On

i
I
A
7
12 16 24

(a1 Concluded.

Figure 9.- Continued.

40
 8

-2
-4 0 4 a 12 16 20 24
a ,deg

(b) Normal-force coefficient.

Figure 9.- Continued.

41
 18

16
@ , deg
0
22.5
45
3.
T
14 I
I
12 I
I
IO

a
If.
'I
I
6 I

I
2

0
(
T
-2 I?
2
I/
0 1
-2 YI
-4

-4 0 4 8 12 16
I
20 24

(c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 9.- Continued.

42
- .
 16
Fins @,de!
0 Off
0 On 0
14 0 On 22.5
A Cn 45

12

IC

4
/
2 /

Cm c

--L

-t

-1

-(

- 20 24

(c) Continued.

Figure 9.- Continued.

43
 4 8 12 16 20 24

(c) Concluded.

Figure 9.- Continued.

44
 Fins
0 O f f
0 On

4 12 16 20 24

(d) Side-force coefficient.

Figure 9.- Continued.

45
 2

-I

-2

Fins @,de
-3 O f f
On
On
I

-I

-2

-I

-2

-3- I
-4 0 1 16 24

(e) Yawing-moment coefficient.

Figure 9.- Continued.

46
 I
7
&
0

-I

-2

-3
2

0
T.

f
1
z
A= 1.00

I
t
~

Fins
0 O f f
0 On
0 On
a On
I

n= 1.20
-I
Cn

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8
-
-4 4 16 20 24

( e ) Concluded.

Figure 9.- Continued.

47
 .a
Fins @,de!
Off
On 0
.4 On 22.5
On 45

.4

.4

Cl
0

.4

.4

-.4
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 c

( f ) Roiling-moment coefficient.

Figure 9.- Concluded.

 . ,
.8 Fins Z,degl
3 Off
3 On
.6 3 On 2.51
4 On 45

P
.4

.2

bl=0.6C
0
.�

,E

CA .4

r
.L

C
.E
M.0.81

'4
I
c
.c

M=0.9
-( 1. 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

(a) Axial-force coefficient.

Figure 10.- Effect of roll angle on aerodynamic characteristics. Long model; 6F = 2.'

49
 Fins
0 Off
0 On
0 On
On
I.o
- 1
.8
&
-1
.6
2
L
.4
IL
.2

CA 0

.8

.6
1
.4
I
- I..
.2
I
-- I __

n
-"4 0 4 8 12 16
-1 20 24
a,deg

(a) Concluded.

Figure 10.- Continued.

50
 8
Fins @,deg
Off
On 0
6 On 22.5
On 45

vl=0.6C

C
CN 7
A=0.8C

I
C 1
7
Wl=O.9(

c I
7
VI = I.0C

2r
vl= 1.2c
-L
­ 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
a,deg

lb) Normal-force coefficient.

Figure 10.- Continued.

51
 18 T
II I
Fins @,de!
0O f f
0 On 0
16 0 On 22.!
n On

14

12

10

/l=0.60
0

-2
2
I

1.0.80
0
I

-2

-4

-6
-4 0
I4 20 24

(c) Pitching-moment coefficient.

Figure 10.- Continued.

.52
 16 . . .
Fins
0 O f f
0 On
14 0 On
LA On

12

IO

Cm 2

-2

-2

-4

-5 0

(c) Continued.

Figure 10.- Continued.

53

I
 I

F i ns z ,de!
II 0 O f f
0 On 0
0 On 22.5
On 45

/
i-

U
-54 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

(c) Concluded.

Figure 10.- Continued.

54
 Fins @,deg
0 O f f
0 On 0
0 On 22.5
On 45

0
M=0.8C

CY

i I

-I
-4
l l 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
a , m

(d) Side-force coefficient.

Figure 10.- Continued.

55

I
 -4 0 24

(e) Yawing-moment coefficient.

Figure 10.- Continued.

56
 I
I
0 A
7
JI= 1-00
-I

-2

-3

-4
C"
-5

-6

-7

-8

-9
Trr
-10- I T8 I
a,deg

(e) Continued.

Figure 10.- Continued.

57
 . . .
Fins . @ , d e l
0 O f f

-4 0
a,W

(e) Concluded.

Figure 10.- Continued.

 Fins #,deg
0 O f f
0 On 0

(f) Rolling-moment coefficient.

Figure 10.- Concluded.

59
 f
90
-
Q)

).
U
0
B
+
c
80

x
5 70

Figure 11.- Variation of center-of-pressure location, CA,corr, and C with Mach number. Short model; 0 = 00.
A, b

60
 f
-p 90

%- 8 0
c
8
Q)
Q
& 70
X

.8

.7

.6

.5

'A,corr .4

.3

.2

.I

.6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

M

Figure 12.- Variation of center-of-pressure location, C and C with Mach number. Long model; 0 = 0'.
A,corr' A,b

NASA-Langley, 1967 -31 L-5132 61

IIll
 “The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be
conducted so as to contribute .. , to the expansion of human Rnowl­
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination
of information concerning its actiuities and the results tbereof.”
-NATIONAL AERONAUnCS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered

important, complete, and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless of

importance as a contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distribu­
tion because of preliminary data, security classification, or other reasons.
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and technical information generated
under a NASA contract or grant and considered an important contribution to
existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign
language considered to merit NASA distribution in English.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information derived from or of value to NASA
activities. Publications include conference proceedings, monographs, data
compilations, handbooks, sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PUBLICATIONS: Information on tech­
nology used by NASA that may be of particular interest in commercial and other
non-aerospace applications. Publications include Tech Briefs, Technology
- Utilization Reports and Notes, and Technology Surveys.
,$%&*!
9

, I -

Details on the availability of these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION

NAT10 NA L A ER 0 NA UTI CS AND SPACE AD MI N I STR AT IO N
Washington, D.C. PO546