DAVID
CA.
STATIC STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF A SYSTEMATIC SERIES OF STERN CONTROL SURFACES ON A BODY OF REVOLUTION
by
O
I
Elizabeth M.Dempsey
uJ
,cr. >
LL
00
0>
DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
I<0
>.
C.C
'
/
SHIP PERFORMANCE DEPARTMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT

S .T
,1
t.AuqoSt 1977
Report 7700O5
I
S...._
OTNSROC COMMANDER
00 01
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
OFFICERIN.CHARGE
I E I I I
FOFFICERAINCHARGE
iSYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AVIAHION AND
EFFECTS
DEPARTMENT 16
(
ESTRUCTURESN DEPARTMENT
_____ ____18 ____ _____
j
PROPULSION AND
HIP ACOUSTICS
DEPARTMENT 19
MATERIALS DEPARTMENT
28
UNCLASSIFIED
%IECuMITY CLASSIFICATION OF TNIS PAGE (WtPn Data Entered)
77_0085,
..
;. . ..
QOVT A
.............
S.
,P
o"
REPORT I
PERIOD COVERED
1Fia
S. S.. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMSER
S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMIER(s)
.....
....
7.A JTN_.
Elizabeth M
Dempsey
AND ADDRESS
10.
David W.
Taylor Naval
Ship
Bethesda, Maryland
I.
20084
81
IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report)
IS*. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 16 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thli Report)
DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

III.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abestract etnterd In Block 20, If dlfferent from Report)
1'
SUPPLEMENTARY
NOTES
19
Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments Stern Control Surfaces Submarine Stability and Control
20 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse eade It necmesary and Identitf' by block number)
Experiments were conducted to determine the forces and moments due to angle of attack on a representative streamlined body of revolution alternately appended with members of a systematic series of stern control surfaces The data from these experiments are presented in the report in the form of graphs and tabulations of the nondimensional force and moment coefficients and static stability derivatives. Based on these data empirical mathematical expreqnions have been developed to predict the contribution of stern
DD
1jAN
1473
OBSOLETE
UNCLASSIFIED,
IECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOER ("*n I
.'
DVote
ntsere)
UNCLASSIFIED
ICCURITv CL&SSIVIC ArION 0 TH VAQ9MlO IS 061ar..lrlrfe
Block 20 (Continued) planes to the static stability derivative Z ' vhen the sternplanes are appended to : s'rbmsr1i.Pe vinse hasic hull ia~a streamlined body of revolut4on A graph is presented for estimiting the location of the center of pressure of the forces due to the presence of sternplanes.
,t., r
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY rLAStlSi PCA rMOrJ ?"0NIS P&OGg(Wt mVlf If Ea1*0*ed)
*'
............................ ......................
DESCRIPTION OF BODY AND STER1N CONTROL SURFACES .......... TEST APPARA'TUS AND PROCEDURE. ................... REDUCTION A)ND PRESENTATION OF DATA .......... DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................. CONCLUSIONS ....................... ............ ACKNO.LtEDG(,',ENTS.......... APPENTDIX A

..................... ..................
d2
27
APPENDIX B
GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF LONGITUDINAL. ANI) NORMAL FORCE AND PITCHING :fOMENT COEFFICIENTS AS FUNCTIONS OF ANGLE OF ATTACK . ........................... .................
31
APPENDIX C  TABULATION OF LONGITI'DINAL AND NORMAL FORCE AND PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENTS DUE TO ANGLE OF ATTACK ........... .. APPENDI)X D STATIC STABILITY DERIVATIVES, INCRFYMFNTAL DERIVATIVES ANT) FREESTRFAM LIFTCURVE SLOPES FOR STERN CONFIGUPATION SERIES. ............... ....................... ..............................
53
65 68
REFERENCkES ........................
"
~Ii'
............
7 8
Sketch of Model 4621 with Contril Surfaces ........... Variation of C and C with Eftective Aspect Ratio
20
.....
21
Cla
Figure 5  Variation of CenterofPressure Location with Effective Aspect Ratio for Various Span Parameters .... Figure 6  Variation of Longitudinal ing Moment and Normal Force and Pitch25
Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Bare 32 and Normal Force and Pitch
Variation of Longitudinal
ing Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 3A Srernplane ..................................... Figure 8  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitch33
ing Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 5A Sternplanes .................................... :igure 9 Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 7A Sternplanes .................................... Figure 10 Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9A Sternplanes .......................................... Figure 11  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack 11A Sternplanec ......................................... for Body 37 36 35 34
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
Page Figure 12  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Momnt Coefficients with Angle of Attack 3B Sternplanes . ......................................... Figure 13  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Fcrce and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack 5B Sternplancs ......................................... Figure 14  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Moment Coefficients with Angle of 7B Sternplanes ......................................... Figure 15  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9B Sternp .,anes.......................................... Figure 16  Variation of LonKitudi;nal and Normal Force and Pitching 41 Force and Pitching for Body with 39 for Body with 38
Moment Coefficients with Angle of %\tack for Body with 11B Sternplanes ........................................ Figure 17  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching 42
Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 3C Sternplanes ......................................... Figure 18  Variation of Longitudinal Moment Coeot and Normal Force and !'itching 43
ictents with Angle of Attack for Body with 44 Force and Pitching for Body with 45
Figure 20  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Furze and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9C Sternplanes ............................................. 46
Lv
Iit
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) PaRe Figure 21  Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Cojfficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 47
48
49
Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack 7D Sternplanes .......................................... Figure 25  Variation of Longitudinal Moment
50
9D Sternplanes .......................................... Figure 26  Variation of Lougitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with
52
vi
LIST OF TABLES Page Table la Geometric Characteristics of Bare Hull Expressed in U.S. Customary Units .................. ................... Geometric Characteristics of Bare Hull Expressed S. I. Units ................... ........................ Geometric U.S. Table 2b Characteristics of Sternplanes in 5 in 9 in 13
Table
lb 
Table 2a 
Expressed
...................
Table
3 
Tabulation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients Due to Angle of Attack .... ........ .. 54 Static Stability Derivatives, Incremental Derivatives and FreeStream liftCurve Slopes for Stern ConfiguratiCn I .. .. .. .......... ........................
Table 4 
66
It
S
V
NOTATION A Projected area ef one sternplane extended to hull centerline (leading edge continued at same angle) (end of afterbody) 2b 2 aspect ratio, 2b2 Effective Aft perpendicular Distance between sternplane tip chord and hull centerline Span parameter Lift coefficient, L
AP a b 2b
d
CL
Mean chord of sternplane, chord and root chord Maximum diameter of hull 11ydrodynanic lilt force,
average of tip
d L
positive upward
M
3
U M w OL3U
AM
Hydrodynamic mroment about yaxis Derivative of moment component with respect to velocity component w Contribution of sternplanes to M
w U
, .
w 
3U
w Xx'
Componen.
Hydrodynamic forward
zZ'
positive downward
viii
Z
Z W Z w
'
p 2 U LZ
Derivative of normal force component with respect to velocity component w Contribution of sternplanes to Z
LZ
AZ
'
ne 2 U
Cx
'.x
_ &
NL
o
ad.
\\
\,I
N.JJ '1)
Ki
I,
ABSTRACT Experiments were conducted to determine the forces and moments due to angle of attack on a representative streamlined body of revolution
alternately appended with members of a systematic series of stern control surfaces. The data from these experiments are presented in the report in force and moment
the form of graphs and tabulations of the nondimensional coefficients and static stability derivatives.
empirical mathematical expressions have been developed to predict the contribution of sternplanes to the static stability derivative Zw ' when the sternplanes are appended to a submarine whose basic hull is lined body of revolution. A graph Is a stream
of the center of pressure of the forces due to the presence of sternplanes. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATIUN This project was performed under the sponsorship of the General Hydrodynamic Research Program. INTRODUCTION An experimental investigation was made of the static stability characteristics of a streamlined body of revolution alternately appended
with each set of a family of lowaspectratio stern control surfaces. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the contributions of the control surfaces to the forces and moments on the total finbody combinations and to present the results in a form that would be useful in the preliminary design of submarines from a stability point of view. In the past extensive experimental work was carried out at the
,',aracteristics
of a family of
This
information more directly applicable to In the aerodynamic this report was perof control
submarine appendage design than had been available literature. As a next step, the work presented in
formed to provide fundamental data on the characteristics surfaces when finbody interaction factors are present.
the model and stern control surfaces; outpresents graphs and tables
ing the contributions of sternplhnes to the static stability derivatives for submarines whose basic hulls are streamlined bodies of revolution. NEtIERAL CONSIDERATIONS I'he hulls of most modern submarines are basically bodies of revolution with afterbodies such that diameter (the portion of the body aft ef the maximum diameter) (or afterbody) to the maximum a
the ratio uf the length of the tail falls somewhere between 4.2 and 4.6.
This chara.reristic is
the fullness of the tails and the nondimensional luyer in the vicinity of the stern control sur
of fi'body combinations
body of revolution having a fairly representative tail section would yield finbody interaction effects that could be applied to other bodies having generally similar afterbodies regardless of the shape of the forebodies.
1
11icker, I., Folger and Leo F. Fehlner, "FreeStream Characteristics of a Family of LowAspectRatio, AllMovable Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design," DT>M Report 933 Revised Edition (December 1958).
An existing streamlined body of revolution having an afterbody fineness ratio of 4.4 was chosen as the test vehicle. A family of 20 sets
(4 identical stern control surfaces per set) was selected which covered a
range of sizes, relative to the hull, that could reasonably be expected to be of interest for submarine design. No propeller was used,
the trailing edges were
so that for each of four outreaches from the centerline of the model there were five sets of planes with different tip chords. The vehicle was tested with each of the 20 sets of planes oriented
on the hull in the cruciform arrangement with trailing edges normal to slightly
forward of the sternplanes and the longitudinal positions of the trailing edges of both sternplanes and rudders with respect model remained the same for all configurations. DESCRIPTION OF BODY AND STERN CONTROL SURFACES to the AP of the
a 180inch (4.572metre)
strearlined body of
The hull
revolution with a 24.52inch (0.623metre) was fiberglass with a mahogany tail cone.
maximum diameter.
The control surfaces were constructed of mahogany and consisted of a family of 20 sets of 4 identical squaretipped planes. The trailing
Each had a
quarterchord sweep angle of 15.25 degrees and a NACA 0015 section shape.
"lhe bases
slant to fit
the average
r3
Length,
ft.
ft. sq. ft.
15.0
2.044 70.55 29.53 ft. 6.684
Maximum diameter,
0.0 3.6 7.2 10.8 14.4 18.0 21.6 25.2 28.8 32.4 36.0 39.6 43.2 46.8 50.4 54.0 57.6
93.6 97.2 100.8 104.4 108.0 111.6 115.2 118.8 122.4 126.0 129.6 133.2 136.8 140.4 144.0 147.6 151.2
11.82 11.66 11.49 11.29 11.07 10.83 10.56 10.27 9.954 9.613 9.243 8.843 8.411 7.945 7.447 6.910 6.334
61.2
64.8
12.13
12.21
154.8
158.4
5.715
5.053
68.4
72.0 75.6 79.2 82.8 86.4 90.0
12.25
12.26 12.25 12.21 12.15 12.06 11.97
162.0
165.6 169.2 172.8 176.4 180.0
4.344
3.584 2.774 1.908 0.984 0.000
Volume,
Longitudinal center of buoyancy, Hull Offsets X In Metres 0.0 0.0914 0.1829 0.2743 0.3658 0.4572 0.5486 0.6400 0.7315 0.8230 0.9144 1.0058 1.0973 1.1887 1.2802 1.3716 1.4630 1.5545 1.6459 1.7374 1.8288 1.9202 2.0117 2.1031 2.1946 2.2860 Y in fietres 0.0 0.0889 0.1264 0.1551 0.1790 0.1994 0.2171 0.2327 0.2463 0.2583 0.2687 0.2776 0.2855 0.2921 0.2974 0.3020 0.3056 0.3081 0.3101 0.3112 0.3114 0.3112 0.3101 0.3086 0.3063 0.3040
X in netres 2.3774 2.4689 2.5603 2.6518 2.7432 2.8346 2.9261 3.0175 3.1090 3.2004 3.2918 3.3833 3.4747 3.5662 3.6576 3.7490 3.8405 3.9319 4.0234 4.1148 4.2062 4.2977 4.3891 4.4806 4.5720
Y in Ttres 0.3002 0.2962 0.2918 0.28b8 0.2812 0.2751 0.2682 0.2608 0.2528 0.2442 0.2348 0.2246 0.2136 0.2018 0.1892 0.1755 0.1609 0.1452 0.1283 0.1103 0.0910 0.0704 0.0485 0.0250 0.0
and the dimensions coanon to all of the planes are presented in When the planes were mounted on the tail cone of the model,
position of the trailing edges of the sternplanes was maintained at 7.9 inches (0.201 metres) forward of the AP. The rudders were 2.25 inches The spans and tip chords
were varied in a systematic way so that the sternplanes had four different outreaches from the centerline of the model, and for each outreach The outreaches 0.3048, and 11 inches
there were five sets of planes with different tip chords. of the sternplanes were 9, 0.3683 and 0.4445 metres). (0.0762, 0.1270, 0.1778, 12, 14.5, and 17.5 inches 5,
(0.228, 7, 9,
longitudinal offset between the rudders and sternplanes, of the rudders was, in each case, 0.48 inches (1.22
centimetres)
than their matchlng sternplanes. The geometric characteristics of the sternplanes are given in Tables 2a and 2b. Figure 2 is a sketch of the modcl with control surfaces. TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE The experimental work was conducted in the deepwater basin on Towing Carriage 2 using the DTNSRIDC PlanarMotionMechanism The model was supported by two struts in tandem, metres) apart. System. 2
6 feet (1.829
The reference point was the center of buoyancy of the associated NSRDC
System,"
_____Tip
Chord

0at to
Chord Line
Figure 1
'*1
7
.'A
('JO
4'
bLi
U'IN
('
CJ
Span A
(Values are for I sternplane) Sternplanes Span from CL of hull, Tip chord, Root chord, Taper ratio Span, distance from root in. in. 25.4 1.50 41.75 36.2 0.98 59.75 46.3 0.72 77.75 55.6 0.56 95.75 64.0 0.45 113.75 in. in. in. 3A 9.0 3.0 5.24 0.57 6.16 SA 9.0 5.0 7.17 0.70 5.96 7A 9.0 7.0 9.10 0.77 5.77 9A 9.0 9.0 11.03 0.82 5.57 Il.A 9.0 11.0 12.96 0.85 5.37
1.94
1.36
1.04
0.85
0.71
I9

TABLE 2a (continued)
Span B
(Values are for I sternplane)
Sternplanes
3B
5B
7B
9B
11B
cL of hull, in.
in. in.
Span,
9.06
8.86
8.66
8.46
8.26
2.32
1.67
1.31
1.07
0.91
10
of hull,
in.
Root chord, in. Taper ratio Span, distance from root in. in.
11.46
2.57
1.90
1.50
1.25
1.06
Ak
?11
AA
..ii
cL of hull, in.
In. in.
distance
14.36
sq. in.
2.83
2.14
1.72
1.44
1.23
12
'.0 r0.
~~
0~Ae *
. CN
0t0
.44 en
"01
en
4
14
'0
4L
ci
('4CJ
0
C4 CI
C~4
'4
Pgo
kn
V)
r"9 r.
P4
C)1
11
M4
C.9
.4
4
r00
(4 Oj* .4
1'J
('4
0
14
1?
.4
L 0"
00
OD4
No
0!C
'AOL
C,,N
z4
I"
0.0
~
LA 4 e,0 ' 0
C4I:
4 : 01
.4
44
la .0
0 00 w
cI.
0 W V 4.
4.0
a,
w aIU.
41
Jt
oA
.4
us
(0 I.
0 w 0
e5 w
1 to
4
1.' 4) qn
to
w0
46 04
610 r.C n X
0 61Cv
u. u
IV m
IVI i
(f
41
m4
41
U4
a 41 .
13
ao
It
00 04
00
~C
C'J
'. C4 4
00
'0
0% '0 4 0
4Y0
'0
OD 0
eJ 0
*,
r'
M0
'
C4 .
4 0
'
4
0
00 Ne
'
rs on
0o
to
Lr0l4
0 '

0
4
0 0
'0
4)4
r_
IA
'0
wa
0 CO
S 0
v
4J
7~~

0 0
'0
r. '0 0 4 C
A.
000'
C'0 4 4
0V
(j
61
4o
4
v
(LI &J

t0) :
A.
la. F
t40
4.0.
1. <
910
go
ON
4
( 
co(
00
~~~
0' 4
00
eJ
(n
rn
4
44
Go
10
10
C4
C>4
(n
N 1'0 cc0'Ln
j
00
~~e
f( .
C1
.00
0j
a'0( 0~
w0
0
ci
14
&ju
&
w
4. Li"Ci0 cc
0
U CL
CG 0
w 9 c
04 0j ( m4
4 . (N w
4 41 4 $4 u x
(n
Ln
4C
U %
10 9'.
*t4
'.0 0
VI *
.4 ' 4
c"4
'4
0%
'4
0n
14
co
C14
W%4
c"
Co 00
C14
(4
9
co
S 4
en
00
0 U
0% 4
'A 0 4 14
'4~~i
'
w:
v4
Q" (P4
0%
(4
C 1444
'0
0A
61
0090
&j
93
m
0 6 > 4 j
CD
4C jo
U0 &j m.4
fotv
0 v
G0 ) 0. 1
to0
M. c
ii iiI
4.
&
fl6I
respect to the body axes were measured by means of internal force balances located at each strut. (3.048 metres) All of the tests were run at a depth of 10 feet
sponds to a Reynolds number of 1.4 x 107 based on model length. The experimental program consisted of static stability tests on the bare hull and on the hull appended with each of the 20 sets of control surfaces. The forces and moments were measured over a range to 18 degrees. The control surface angle
was installed on the hull 9 inches (0.229 metres) aft of the nose.
REDUCTON AND PRESENTATION OF DATA
The data obtained from the captivemodel experiments are presented in nondimensional form in the appendixes. appendixes is as follows: The organization of the
Appendix A contains a derivation of an equation for representing the ratio CZ /CLa as a function of the parameter 2b/d. Appendix B
contains plots of the nondimensional hydrodynamic coefficients X', Z', and M' as functions of angle of attack. Data for the bare body as well
as for the body appended with each of the twenty sternplane configurations are presented. Appendix C presents tabulations of data shown in Appendix D contains tabulations of the deriva,Z, CLu which apply to each configuration.
Summary figures based on the data obtained from the experiments are given in the body of the report.
17
investigation was to determine the contributions of control surfaces to the forces and moments on the total finbody combinations in order
to obtain information that would be useful in the preliminary design of submarines from a stability point of view. In accordance with this objective, the stability derivatives Zwt
and M ' were determined for all configurations by taking the slopes, at the origin, of the curves shown in Appendix B of Z' and M' versus angle cf attack and converting them to "per radian" measure. of Z ' and M ' w w The values
for the bare hull were then subtracted from the covreto obtain the Zw' and
In order to divorce the incremental effects of the control surfaces from the length of the particular body on which they were tested, values of (Z .') were renondimensionalized 2A. the
angles L : Z and a
w',
this procedure in effect converted the increGZa, which could be compared with free
The work done by Whicker and Fehlner (Reference 1) has shown that good correlation exists between experimentallyobtained liftcurve
18
" I '""'....... " I' 'y IF ... .. ...
(1)
a  effective aspect ratio A  sweep angle of quarter chord line Values of CLa for various effective aspect ratios and a sweep angle
of 15.25 degrees were computed from this equation and were plotted as a function of effective aspect ratio in Figure 3. The derivatives CZa
from the sternplane series were also plotted in Figure 3 as functions of their respective effective aspect ratios (aspect planes through the body). It ratios of the stern
mental values of CZo (indicated by the symbols) are functions of outreach a. well as of aspect ratio. The solid lines drawn through the data points were determined in the following manner: mental values of C For each span parameter. d, the ratios of the experi
were computed.
2bLc
2
the following
19
4.0.
jT
... *. . . .
. I...
, I ,8 ,I .. . ....
... .. . . i...
: .. . . . t. . .
.~' I _
... . .. ...
I
. . . . . . . . . ..
I
. .
SI
N
I
. ..
Span Parameter.
. . *I
i]
..
1.427
2.4"
:
U
'
I1.183
*0 2.4
41.
1.2
I
010
II,
I
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Variation of C
20
0.8
1
1
t
I
!7
0.7
0.6I
N L
I
,
I
_ _,_
.
__ _
o.
0I
I_____ ____
i i
0.4
Span Parameter, 2b
Figure 4
Variation
003728
CLa
for the range 0.734
())2 (2)
Combining Equations
(1) and
[0.3644
1.2380
(2b)
+ 0.3728 2 d+032 
(3) 3
may be used
to Z ' of
sternplanes on a
since
C za
6 w 2A
of the sternplanes extended 2b A
2
aspect ratio
through the
a
then
0.3644
1.2380
2b
+ 0.3728 (.Lb2
(4) (4))[34
1.426.
(2) a
in
gives a very good representation of the ratio the range between 0.734 and 1.426, extrapolations
22
As the span of the sternplanes beyond this range cannot be relied upon. approaches infinity the ratio should approach unity. Equation (2) CLa does not satisfy this condition since it reaches a maximum value of 2b 2b 0.663 at  1.6604 and becomes zero at 2.994. CZ An alternate equation for representing the ratio is derived in CLa Appendix A. This equation fits the experimental data slightly less well than Equation (2) For this reason it but has the advantage of becoming unity at is recommended
2b
d
__
0.56inb
CZA
0.2556b)
0.6366 sin
2b/d
(5)
2b
2b
,z
w
_
.2b.2
1.8na
+ 4) (
! 2.b,)0.2556
1
1.8 + Cos.
(.2b.6
(6)
0.4015.}

0.161211
0.6366 sin si
2b/d~
23
2b f or 0.4015 . L
0.,34 and
I.416
2h d
The longitudinal positions of the center of pressure of the forces due to the sternplanes with respect to the hull LCB were determined by AM I the ratios z . These centerofpressure locations were then referred wr
w
to the trailing edge of the sterrplanes and the resulting distances were nondimensionalized by the mean chords c. Figure 5 shows a plot of the center of pressure locations as functions of effective aspect ratio. in the data, Although there is considerable scatter it can be seen
that for a given aspect ratio the center of pressure in general moves forward as the span parameter L. increases and, ally forward of the planes. CONCLUSIOIS From the experimental results of this investigation empirical in some cases, Is actu
mathematical expressions have been developed to predict the contribution of sternplanes to the static stability derivative Z ' when the sternplanes are appended to a submarine design whose basic hull is streamlined body of re,olutian. A graphical method is provided to a
estimate the location of the center of pressure with respect to the trailing edge of the sternplanes.
24
".4
*N
Sd
10)
c.
4I
I0.
CLi
10
*
>
0
0~ 08
Jo
02P3
OJ
3VSUl~~nTur
'II3
25*4
and M. Gertler formerly of DTNSRDC who initiated this experimental program; to B. Carson, R. S. Dart, E. H. Dittrich, Dr. E. C. James, N. King,
and 1. Mahoney who participated in the experimental work; and to Dr. J. P. Feldman for his contributions and guidance.
26
APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF AN EQUATION FOR REPRESENTING THE RATIO cZ AS A FUNCTION OF THE SPAN PARAMETER b
SLot d
C2
27
r
APPEND)IX A
Derivation of an Equation for Representing the Ratio CZa 2h as a Function of the Span Parameterd C Lct
If
is
assumed to be elliptical,
.i,
is
proportional to
2b
o '
(b,  x)
bdx 
If is
the lift
bb
C7
i 1
proportional
to
2:
bW 
x)
dx
7b[: 
)
sin 1 K]
2M
Czr
K(1
K,)!,
2 sin
(7)
C~aC?
A value of K for the average experimental value of CC71 span was determined from Equation C
with
for each
(7) 2b
TA.BULATION I 2b
4d C
KZ()
C L,1
It
cs9entially
or K L
0.4015
0.4015 b
in the effective
Substituting 0.4015 2b
for K in Iquation
(7)
gives
(7)4
CZa
0.2556
[(d2b)
0.16122
0.6366 sin
0.4015 2b/d
1~
( b)""
Tabulation 2 compares the values of CZ' from the experiments with CLa those computed from Equations (2) and (8).
TAB'LATIoN 2
2b
(CZ. 
CZ_
CL i Experimental
can be seen that Equation (2) gives slightly better agreement CZ' with the experimental values of than does Equation (8). CL,
It
30
APPENDIX B GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF LONGITUDINAL AND NORMAL FORCE AN PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENTS
1.
31
14," ,..
. ,
.
r..
m,
. __..3=
. .
"k. 4
I.
+0
x i
140
I
I
s..
28
Ii
/
I
H.8
'i'
'
'
14 '
81
I
I
__
I
.,I .*
..1 0 0:
LP..........
I,4
Iz
I
,i
.
4.,
I,
I__
/
I:
T
4
.4
FIgure 6 Variation of Longitudinal autd Normal1 Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Bare Body
*'A
1'04
4
24 x104
0C

20
41....
..
O
S
.
Si
S..
* I
4
0 4 8
i'
.
4i
I' I
4
Angl of Atac a indgre
I
I L
\_
*0
4
6Z
F1g~7Anglle
Fisuee 7 Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 3A Sternplanes
33
I0i
100
104
20
so
16
611111142
;, 4o 0
6o z
U
,
U4
0
0
"a 0
,4
0
A.l .
4
1 Atta.. a n
i
i"
1f
"
Figure 8
Variation
of
Longitudinal
34
I0**

I0
4
2
10
60
..
A,
40.
1
,,,
I.
,,.1

S.
.4:.2
kIJ
4
12
16Z
AngIe of
Uttack 0 in degrees
35
10
, 100 o
I
I
20 . 10 1
60r
12
Ia
. . .. . . !..

I 
T)
20
T
i, I
(40
II
S
'1
. 4j ( . . .
,4
4 ""
16
I,
.
4
\II.
4 K'
"
16
20
Figure 10
Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9A Sternplanes
3b
In
x IfO

x t10
I+
'
':f 7
4
x OC
'4I
" bi
.4
. .. .. ...
Ang:
,f Attack C in dgr..ci"
Figure 11
.,.
IC' x" Oi
'
I1
I2!
0 x o
ii
~I
"I

!~'
,.QI ,\
AII
Figure 12
Variation
Coefficients with
3A_
o 0
I8
16
,o',
20
Z
4
Ui
0
L..
xU
S40
i1
8o
'
.16
*
.4
16
102
Figure 13
Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 5B Sternplanes
39
I(
~x
112 M
1 0'
0.
220
24
t811
120
Figure 14
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 7B Sternplanes
10
60
10
M'
40
to
E'Io
40
a4
lb
b4 8
CE
80
"
_16
\iigi
At'
'
n i r
'
100
Fiue1 Vraino
Lniuia andNo,,a
,I
Frc
S
anJicigMmn
zo
b
4
8 Atta, P a in dekrpee
It
if,
10
"\Figlv vf
Figure 15 Variation
SI:
./4l
60 4
101
I"
4
F Coefficient
..
1 A1
.....
S:
I
100
_ _ _ _i
* I
iI
12O0
___
_____
r0
___
______
24 16 2O
8
4
12
Figure 16
Variation of Lonigitudinal and Nor'mal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with lIB Sternplanea
4'
4i
40

C.
EE
Z,Z
 1
SI
iI
Figure
17
VariatIon
' _ A
I0Q
1 40
M'i
x0.
:0
'40.
* 100
.140
LJ~L
Figure 18
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 5C Ste:nplanes
44
IO'x
40
K 10"
zo L
" .. .
0
"x
L 40
X,
0E
7
VK
O
0 U
I
II
100~
.8
4
16
z0
Figure 19
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching floment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 7C Sternplanes
'
 
 ]
...
..
..
2c
40
4
"40
I.z
zC
10
,t~
Anl '
of
n dere
420
24
Figure 20
Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9C Sternplanes
46.
10
40
10____
II 0 0
I!f
t
I*I
.
AI
"
.
..
..
'
"4'

IbO 3
_ 
_ i .
1
z
"I

44 .I
4RI.l
5
Figure 21
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Akigle of Attack for Body with 11C Sternplanes
47
Iox
0
II
0
4
4i 40 zE
~40
4 I
i'
_ i
s
E
CI
.60
""j80
.. r. . . .. . . . .
I,
4i
I
I
I
z Z16
"
.. ..
. . , . . .
. .
..
. ... _ __..
 ""'
 0
100
.8
4 Angl
4 of Atta
8 ! degree@ in .k
lb2
Figure 22
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment I: ' th Angle of Attack for Body with 3D Sternplanes fI Ienw ,oef
48
10
~40
,. .  , .
M,
0'
,
,
"C
UU
60
,Iz
164
2
M
.4
4 4 Z~ I
.40
Figure 23
Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 5D Sternplanes
IIgr
3Vraino
o~tdn]
et*wt1n o
n
)
oc
nywt
tetgH~n
D trpae
C&ef
takfr
104x
0
40
0'
o,
2
I.
60

__
4
0 ,
1..
4
60
I,
C 100o
i
.140
. 8
4
Izj
'3
Angle of Attack a
in drfgrr~e
,A
Figure 24
Variation
50
4.
.40
h
I12 I16
CL
.14
Anxi
,I
%Il,__ain
___~r
Figure 25
Variation
of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 9D Sternplanes
10
XZC 10 4R
4
10
ixNi
 0 4
H60

SI
'
S!I
__
"I
I
Ii
Mc
'
If
,
""U
1z
16
z(
Figure 26 Variation of Longitudinal and Normal Force and Pitching Moment Coefficients with Angle of Attack for Body with 11t) Sternplanes
')2
APPENDIX C TABULATION OF LONGITUDINAL AND NORMAL FORCE AND PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENTS DUE TO ANGLE OF ATTACK
53
TABLE 3  TABULATION OF LONGITUDINAL AND NORMAL FORCE AND PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENTS DUE TO ANGLE OF ATTACK
Bare Rody
VALUE! OJr ALL C IFFICIENTS MUST 01 MULTIPLIED BY 10 "1
Deg Deg 6
4 3
X)
Z'
Ilvi
10. 9
10.7 10.7
10.7
6.5 4.4
12. 29
8.84 6.62
Z 1
0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14
10.7 10.5
10.6 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.6 10.4 10.0
2.6 1. 3
0 1. 3
4. 42 2.23
0 2. 22 4. 42 6.64 8.49 12.69 16. 31 19.28 21.86 24. 27
16
18
9.6
8.5
58.4
73. 1
26.4Z
28. 55
54
Ip
r
Cl
r
0.
co
IQ
x~
.0.
'1
X
0!
'ii,
s.f ,,
~r0(]
~G
L(n
t
1 .o oo
00
t'o
NJ
r
14i
rN
r'0
O
CO
r
rn
00
(I,,
3
Ct4
1
ON
1
N
'1
Q
4
o
L.
r
N if
rN
N
t
if I
O''0 NO
U
0
I
0' N
1*
.
N 0 'ON
I
r'J
I I
___
fj
i
U
*
Z X
;'

r
r
I
'0
'0
NO 0 0
I
I
0
I I I I I I
0'
(0
t
.E
__
;ur:LI:i:

3
*1*
'..O
*1*
'.0
0
U
I
II
I".'

L1
0"
'J
'0
r N

I
a
1
E
.1
I,)
N
i
'
r
'3(0
I
0' I
'0(0 N
'0 '01 N
i
*P
I
rI
J
I
'
**1
N .3
C.
20
'2
'
0'
t
t
'I
*0
.
.0
I
.t
I
''
N
I I
J
I
'
'0
(0
0

N

1'

'0(0

C
01
VI
M
r.;
o
0r1
0*
C),
C)
aa
'C
rn'
L
~
~
~

'.4~0
r
CO Sr
a,
II
4.04lj
't
t
N0
NN
I 'D
V~
cJcc
etaj
D 
t
Sr
c
 cc
 o
r
t.

m 77r 11
1r
'0
'o
N " D3
r
n
0,
00ck
'r
0o
U,
r .
I 14
NJ
'~
>00
4)
>
ID
LI
LA
o
t
MJ
It

j
mi
rI N:
,j
NJ
"i
'~
cN
a:
c,
ID
A
.~
;'
4.40
r afl
~ co N
r
UN
I Or3,
go
r
in N
LnU 0.
'0
I
0 r
t
C 0'
rn
4
'o CO
I
1,
1*1 CO
. q4
0
"
0
4~U
'
oN
r4
I~a,
P
y
1
co
r.:
D
t.
0,
jo
0v
U6
.1coL
,
t
D
Jw
'r
0,
C)
v
r
30
..
VD 0
I . '~1~ .
oS..
~
I
7
CD
"r
4I
U~~~~~~
.
..

.
.
vA'1 N
LAL
0 D
 I
co
N
71 'D
u'


.0
~0 ro
00
 t~.. a ~
Or
a..
WN
'D
00 N
'00
f
(1
L, a
U
IV

z
r
'o
65
TABLE. 4 
STATIC STABILITY DERIVATIVES, INCRFMENTAL DERIVATIVES, AND FREESTREAM LIFTCURVE SLOPES FOR STERN CONFIGURAT1ON SERIES
Se1neZ'
S te mr l a ne p Configuration zw
'
Z LZw
M' amw
Cz
Cz lC
mw
3A 5A 7A 9A
IIA
3B 5B 7B 9B 11B
0.01239
0.01499 0.01662 0.01776 0.01833 0.01862
0.01061
0.00906 0.00825 0.00770 0.00759 0.00768
0.00437
0.00697 0.00860 0.00974 0.01031 0.01060
0.00201
0.00356 0.00437 0.00492 0.00503 0.00494
0.622
1.815 1.616 1.432 1.244 1.085
1.903
3.754 3.277 2.883 2.558 2.287
66
TABLE 4 (continued)
Z'
Hw '
.Zw'
tMw
3C 5C 7C 9C lic 3D 5D 7D 9D lID
0.01933 0.02199 0.02396 0.02500 0.02sbc 0.02498 0.02840 0.0 11 37 0.03438 0.03572
0.00716 0.00586 0.00526 0.00469 0.00468 0.00496 0.00359 0.00229 0.00162 0.00073
0.01131 0.01397 0.01594 0.01698 0.0175.8 0.0169r' 0.02038 0.02 335 0.02636 0.02770
0,00546 0.00676 0.00736 0.00793 0.0079q 0.007,66 0.0C,904 0.01033 0.01100 0.01189
2.241 2.043 1.848 1.630 1.440 2.539 2. 305 2.122 2.003 1.808
3.893 3.472 3.111 2.804 2.542 4.013 3.645 3.321 3.037 2.791
Notes:
1.
Z w
and M w
are 0.00802
and 0.01262
respec
tively. 2. CLA is computed from Equation (1) using the effective aspect
ratio of 3.
C.
AZ
2A
[7
REFERENCES 1. Whicker, L. Folger and Leo F. Fehlner, "FreeStream Characteristics of a Family of LowAspectRatio, AllMovable Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design," DTMB Report 933 Revised Edition (December 1958). Gertler, MorLon, "The DTMB PlanarMotion Mechanism System," Report 2523 (July 1967). NSR.DC
68
OH~~ OOFPwwa u n HJt iN .. '.... .. H D '~l ilN   .tA
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION Copies 1 I 2 WEr CHONR/438 Cooper NRL i 1 Code 2027 Code 2629 Copies 1 2 NAVSHIPYD LBEACH/Lib NAVSHIPYD MARE 1 Lib 1 Code 250 NAVSHIPYD PUGET/Lib NAVSHIPYD PEARL/Code 202.32 NAVSEC SEC 6034B I SEC 6110 I 1 1 I 1 1 I SEC SEC SEC SEC 6114H 6120 6120 6136 SEC 6144G SEC 6148 NORVA/6660.03 Blount
1 1 8
I 1 1 1 4
ONR/Boston ONR/Chicago ONR/Pasadena NORDA USNA Tech Lib 1 1 Nay Sys Eng Dept 1 B. Johnson Bhattacheryya 1 NAVPCSCOL 1 1 1 Lib T. Sarpkaya J. Miller
1 12 I I 1
NAVSEC,
DDC AFOSR/NAM AFFOL/FYS, NSF/Eng Lib LC/Sci & Tech DOT/Lib TAD491.1 MMA 1 U. U. J. Olsen
1 3
1 1 1 1 4
I I 1
of Cal/Dept Naval Arch, Berkely I Lib 1 Webster 1 Pauling 1 Wehausen U. of Cal/San Diego 1 I A.T. Ellis Scripps Inst, Aero Lib T.Y. Wu A. Acosta Lib
I 1 I I I
NAVFAC/Code
CIT 1 1 I
69
Copies 1
1 1 2 Colorado State U./Eng Res Cen U. of Connecticut/Scottron
Copies
5 SIT I 1 1 I I
Cornell U./Sears Florida Atlantic U. 1 Tech Lib 1 S. Dunne Harvard U./Lib U. of Hawaii/Bretschneider U. of Illinois/J. Robertson 1 I 2
U. of Texas/Arl Lib Utah State U./Jeppson Southwest Rest Inst 1 Applied Mech Rev 1 Abrahamson Stanford U. I Eng Lib 1 R. Street Stanford Res Inst/Lib U. of Washington/Arl Tech Lib
1 1 1 3
U. of Iowa 1 Lib I Landweber I Kennedy Johns Hopkins U./Phillips Kansas State U./Nesmith U. of Kansas/Civil Eng Lib
.
1 I C 1 1 5
Lehigh U./Fritz Eng Lab Lib MIT 1 1 I I Lib Mandel Abkowitz Newman 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 5
Webb 1 I 1
Woods Hole/Ocean Eng Worchester PT/Tech Lib SNAME/Tech Lib Bethlehem Steel/Sparrows Point Bethlehem Steel/New York/Lib Bolt, Beranek & Newman/bib
SLeehey
U.
Exxon, NY/Design Div. Tank Dept General Dynamics, EB/Boatwright Gibbs & Cox/Tech Info Hydronautics 1 Lib 1 I I I E. A. V. C. Miller Goodman Johnson C. 11su Sunnyvale/Waid
III I
Penn State/Arl/B.
Lockheed,
Princeton U./Mellor
70
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
Newport News Shipbuilding/Lib Nielsen Eng & Res Oceanics Rockwell International/ B. Ujihara Sperry Rand/Tech Lib Sun Shipbuilding/Chief Naval Arch Robert Taggart Tracor
CENTER DISTRIBUTION Copies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 30 1 Code 1500 1504 1520 1521 1524 1540 1552 1560 1561 1564 1564 1568 1572 1576 5214.1 522.1 522.2 W.E. V.J. Cummins Monacella
W.C. W.B. J.
McCarthy
71
DTNSRDC ISSUES THREE TYPES OF REPORTS (1) DTNSRDC REPORTS, A FORMAL SERIES PUBLISHING INFORMATION OF PERMANENT TCHNICAL VALUE, DESIGNATED BY A SERIAL REPORT NUMBER. (2) DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. A SEMIFORMAL SERIES. RECORDING INFORMATION Or A PRELIMINARY OR TEMPORARY NATURE. OR OF LIMITED INTEREST OR SIGNIFICANCE, CARRYING A DEPARTMENTAL ALPHANUMERIC IDENTIFICATION (3) TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AN INFORMAL SERIES, USUALLY INTERNAL WORKING PAPERS OR DIRECT REPORTS TO SPONSORS. NUMBERED AS TM SERIES REPORTS; NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION.