I _ U,/I

3 1176 00166 1207 i

O NASA CR-152391

NASA-CR-152391-VOL-1

levi _a14_e 7

ANALYSIS OF WIND TUNNEL TEST RESULTS FOR A9.39-PER CENT SCALE MODEL OF A VSTOL

FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT

VOLUME I - STUDY OVERVIEW

DR. J. R. LUMMUSG. T. JOYCE

O C. D. O'MALLEY

Prepared under Contract NAS2-103A4by

General Dynamics r : ;, -,, ,,,_.:,, ,_:?._,_Fort Worth Division i :-- _ ....' :,,

for

Ames Research Center ,..,..:,._:,_,_0 i981

............. ; ;.",7,,.',

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

O _]s _ocument Contains Tecl_nical Data consi_ered to 5el"esourco _nder A3z_ !.329.1(b) _nd DoD Directive 54,n,0.7_nd i ;,[ a "i,, _',d" required to be released _' !_, 'heFr::.: i i: td.i_tio[l ACt.

0

0

0

O1. Repot No. I _ Gom_nt _ No. 3. Rm_mt's _lq _.NASA CR-152391 I

4. Title and _i_ 6. Re1_m't _

"Analysisof Wind TunnelTest Resultsfor a October,19809.39-percentScaleModel of a VSTOL Fighter/Attacke.pe_m,_o_,,iu,i_c_Aircraft

7. Autl_r($) 8. I_wf_m_; _n,z=z,_ Report No.

" Dr. J. R. Lummus,G. T. Joyce,C. D. O'Malley 10.w_ku,,,_.9. P_/_ng O,'llimiut,o- _.'w w'tmlm_kem

GeneralDynamlcs/FortWorth Division 11;_ntractorGmnt_.P. O. Box 748 NAS2-10344Fort Worth, Texas 76101 13. Tv_ ot,,=o_mdP..._ _,._

_.s_,_,cv _,,_ _x_rm ContractorFinal ReportSept.i0, 1979-Feb.lOt 1981

NASA, AMES ResearchCenter, 14.sl,omm,+_A_-cvCo_MoffettField,Ca 94035

15. _D_emen_r¥ Notl_

AMES ResearchCenterTechnicalMonitorW. P. Nelms(415) 965-5880

16. ,ll,l_ixra_

The resultsof a seriesof NASA AMES wind tunneltestsof a GeneralDynamicsvectored-englne-overWing,Navy VSTOL fighter/attackconfigurationhaveteen analyzedto (I) assesspredictionmethodcapabilities,(2) evaluategeometryvariationssuchas mdltiplecanardlongitudinallocationsand strakeshapes,and (3) evaluatethe effectsof configurationchangesassociatedwithvaryingthe propulsiveliftsystemfroma jet-diffuserejectorto a RemoteAugmentationLift System(RALS). Conflgura-

_ tlonmodificationand additionaltestingand analysisare recommendedto. adequatelyevaluatethe configurationpotential.

This documentis presentedin fourvolumes- VolumeI - Study OverviewVolumeII - Evaluationof PredictionMethodologies,VolumeIII- EffectsofConfigurationVariationsfrom BaselineE205Configurationon AerodynamicCharacteristics,and VolumeIV - RALS RI04AerodynamicCharacteristicsand Comparisonswith E205 ConfigurationAerodynamicCharacteristics.

17. Key Wo_ds |Suggmzted by _(t|| I 18. Dislxib_i0n Statement

PCANARD,STRAKE,AERODYN2_IICPREDICTIONMETHODS

"19. _,Z¥ OlrlZit 104tl_iSll,pO_) 20. ,_4_IJritV_lllmf.(Of tl_il Plg_| I 21. No. of Pages I 22. _icl"

I IUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

For r,,ll¢b) the NltJonll "i"l_chni_] ]nforrnztzon$€_.|=e,Spr,ni_eJd. Ylrl[inl*22161

i

ID

i5_

QVOLUME I - STUDY OVERVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Summary 1

- 2. Introduction 3

3. Review of Airplane Configuration Development Study 6

3.1 Configuration Descriptions 8

3.1.1 E205 Ejector Configuration 83.1.2 RI04 RALS Configuration 13

3.2 Predicted E205 Full-Scale-Airplane 19Aerodynamic Characteristics

3.3 Resulting Aerodynamic Uncertainties 27

3.4 Description of Wind Tunnel Models 30

O 3.5 Wind Tunnel Test Programs 334. Conclusions and Recommendations 35

5. References 42

O

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

2-1 VEO-Wing Powered Lift Concept 43

2-2 E205 Three-View Drawing 44

2-3 RI04 Three-View Drawing 45

2-4 Artist Concept of E205 Configuration 46

2-5 Artist Concept of RI04 Configuration 47

3-1 DLI Mission Profile 48

3-2 E205 Airplane Cross-Sectional Area Distribution 49

3-3 RI04 Airplane Cross-Sectional Area Distribution 50

3-4 VEO-Wing Experimental Data Base 51

3-5 Longitudinal Forces Acting on E205 - 52

3-6 Equations for Building Up Aero-Only Coefficients 53for E205 Airplane Configuration

3-7 E205 Minimum Trimmed Drag vs Mach Number 54 O

3-8 Power-Off Wing Body Lift, Drag, and Pitching 55Moment Characteristics for the VEO-WingFighter Model of Reference 4, M=.2

3-9a Lift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test 56Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of BaselineE205 Configuration, Power-Off, Mach= .2

3-9b Drag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal 57Aerodynamic Characteristics of Baseline E205Configuration, (Expanded Drag Scale),Power-Off, Mach = .2

3-10a Lift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test 58Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of BaselineE205 Configuration with Wing Trailing-Edge FlapDeflected +i0 °, Power-Off, Mach = .2

3-10b Drag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal 59Aerodynamic Characteristics of Baseline E205Configuration with Wing Trailing-Edge Flap Deflected+i0 °, Power-Off, Mach = .2

3-11a Lift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test 60Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics ofBaseline E205 Configuration with WingTrailing-Edge Flap Deflected +25 °, Power-Off,Mach = .2

iv

O LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3-11b Drag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal 61Aerodynamic Characteristics of Baseline E205Configuration with Wing Trailing-Edge FlapDeflected +25 °, Power-Off, Mach= .2

3-12 Full-Scale E205 Airplane Power-on, Trimmed Lift £2Curve- and Drag Polar-Envelopes from Wind TunnelData for M = .2, CT TOTAL= 1.81

3-13 E205 Trimmed Cruise/Maneuver Drag Polars 63

3-14 VEO-Wing Trim Method for Maneuver 64

3-15 Power-on and Power-off Predicted Trimmed e's as a 65Function of Equivalent Lift Coefficient, CL_ MachNumber, and C_ (from Reference i)

3-16a E205 Lift and Pitching Moment Curves at 66M = 1.2 with Canard Deflection

3-16b E205 Drag Polars at M = 1.2 With Canard Deflection 67

D 3-17a E205 Lift and Pitching Moment Curves at M = 1.6 68With Canard Deflection

3-17b E205Drag Polars at M = 1.6 with Canard Deflection 69

3-18 E205 Predicted Aerodynamic Center 70

3-19 Aerodynamic Center Test/Theory Correlation 71

3-20 E205 Buffet Onset Angle of Attack 72

3-21 E205 Lateral-Directional Characteristics 73

a. C¥_ vs and Mach No. 73b. C n vs and Mach No. 74

c. C_ vs and Mach No. 75

d. Vertical Tail Effectiveness 76

e. Aileron Effectiveness 77

3-22 Three View Drawing of E205 Wind Tunnel Model 78

D 3-23 Photos of E205 Wind Tunnel Model 79

V

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page O

3-24 Cross-sectional Area Distribution of E205 80Wind Tunnel Model

3-25 Three View Drawing of RIO4 Wind Tunnel Model 81

3-26 Cross-sectional Area Distribution of RIO4 82Wind Tunnel Model

3-27 Photo of RIO4 Wind Tunnel Model 83

3-28a Variations in Canard Locations for E205 and RIO4 84Wind Tunnel Models

3-28b Variations in Strake Shape for E205 Wind Tunnel Model 84

4-1 Recommended E205 Canard and Wing Planform Change 85

O

Ovi

O LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3-1 Dimensional and Design Data i0For Ejector E205 Configuration

3-2 Dimensional and Design Data 15For R104 Configuration

3-3 Methods Summary 20

3-4 E205 Minimum Drag Buildup 23

3-5 Summary of Constants 31

3-6 Available Component Deflections 32

O

O

vii

iLIST OF SYMBOLS 1-

a. English Symbols

A axial force, ib (N)

•a.c. aerodynamic center, %_

AR aspect ratio

b span, in. (m)

c, MAC mean aerodynamic chord, in. (m)

CA axial force coefficient

CA axial force coefficient due to ejectorejector

CD drag coefficient

CDAER 0 aero-onlYincluded)drag coefficient (no thrust increments O

CDmi n minimum drag coefficient

CDE equivalent drag coefficient

CDRAM ram-drag coefficient (engine inlet)

CDt total drag coefficient

CL lift coefficient

CLbuffe t buffet-onset lift coefficient

CLE equivalent lift coefficient

CLmax maximum lift coefficient

aero-only lift coefficient (no thrust incrementsCLaer° included)

CLt total lift coefficient

CI rolling moment coefficient O

viii

O LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued)

CI_ rolling moment derivative due to sideslip, I/deg

CmE equivalent pitching moment coefficient

Cmx- pitching moment coefficient about x percentc

C zero lift pitching moment coefficientmo

Cm total pitching moment coefficientt

CN normal force coefficient

Cn yawing moment coefficient

Cn_ yawing moment derivative due to sideslip, i/degT

CT thrust coefficient,qSREF

side force coefficient

O _ side force derivative due to sideslip, I/deg

CMU, C ideal thrust coefficient, w Vj/gqsRE F

D drag, ib(N)

e span efficiency factor

TESF engine scale factor,

TESF = 1.0

IGE in ground effect

L lift, ib(N)

iF lift due to supercirculation, ib(N)

i rolling moment, ft ib (Nm)

M Mach number

m pitching moment, ft Ib(Nm)

Total Pressure

Q NPR nozzle pressure ratio, p

ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued) O

N normal force, ib(kg)

n yawing moment, ft Ib (Nm)

OGE out of ground effect

•P freestream static pressure, Ib/ft 2 (--N2)m

Po freestream total pressure, Ib/ft 2, (--N2)m

q freestream dynamic pressure, Ib/ft 2 (--N2)m

SC canard exposed area, ft2 (mZ)

Sref reference area, ft2(m2) (usually equal to SW)

STOL short takeoff or landing

area of trapezoidal wing extended to centerline, OSW

ft2(m 2)

2(m2)SVT exposed area of vertical tail, ft

T thrust, Ib(N)

Vo_ freestream velocity, ft/sec, knots (m/sec)

V. jet velocity based on isentropic expansion fromJ nozzle camber total pressure to freestream static

pressure, ft/sec (m/sec)

VSTOL vertical or short takeoff or landing

VTOL vertical takeoff or landing

VEO-Wing vectored engine over wing

weight flow, ib/sec (kg/sec)

X action point of circulation lift relative tocp leading edge of MAC

g

x

Fo_ Wo_h Divis_n __0. Box 748, Fort Wor_, Texas76101 • 81_732_811

LG:mb/10344-FW#060-15 _ /_t___-_ _._._

3 February 1981 ___ _ _ __0

Subject: Contract NAS2-I0344

Contract Compliance Submittal

Final Report - NASA CR-152391

To: National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAmes Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035

Attention: W. P. NelmsN-227-2

Enclosure: (A) One (I) reproducible and twenty-five (25)copies of NASA CR-152391 "Analysis of WindTunnel Test Results For A 9.39-Per Cent

Scale Model of a VSTOL Fighter/Attack Air-craft" Final Report September 10, 1979 -February 10, 1981, dated October 1980

Volume I - Study OverviewVolume I - Evaluation of Prediction

MethodologiesVolume III- Effects of Configuration

VariationsFrom Baseline

E205 Configuration onAerodynamic Characteristics

Volume IV - RALS RI04 AerodynamicCharacteristics and Compari-sons with E205 ConfigurationAerodynamic Characteristics

(B) Distribution List for NASA CR-152391

I. The Report, submitted as Enclosure (A), covers work conductedby General Dynamics under NASA Contract NAS2-I0334 for the jointAMES/NSRDC VSTOL Aerodynamic Technology Program.

2. Enclosure (A) is submitted in compliance with Article II.C.1.cand Article V.B.3 of Contract NAS2-I0344.

3. Distribution is being made in accordance with Enclosure (B)

list suDplied by Mr. W. P. Nelms, Contract Technical Monitor,NASA-Ames Research Center.

GENERAL DynamicsFort Worth Division

au manDirector of EngineeringAdministration

Page 2I0344-FW#060-15

To: NASA/W. P. Nelms

cc: w/Encl. (A)Ames Research CenterPatent CounselN200-11A

Ames Research CenterTechnology Utilization OfficeN240-2

cc:

Ames Research Center Technical Information DivisionN241-12

Ames Research CenterContracting Office, Carolyn S. LaFolletteN241-I

Direct transmittal is approved by theAir Force. Your answer, if any, willbe forwarded through regular Air Forcechannels to General Dynamics,Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas.

Page 3I0344-FW#060-15

To- NASA/W. P. Nelms

CC:

J. R. Lummus, 2882W. R. Kayl, 2870T. M. Pettigrew, 1649L. G. Graham, 2236 (2)Engr. Files, 2228Cortes. Control, 1137Contract Records, 6699

tw

Enclosure (B) toI0344-FW#060-I5

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR NASA CR-152391

Mr. W. S. Aiken,'RJ-2 Mr. Hal AndrewsNational Aeronautics & Room 412

Space Administration Jefferson Plaza #IWashington, D.C. 20546 1411 Jefferson-Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 20306Mr. John Ward, RJL-2National Aeronautics & Mr. M. W. Brown

Space Administration Room 904Washington, D.C. 20546 Jefferson Plaza #2

1421 Jefferson-Davis HighwayMr. Jack Levine, RJH-2 Arlington, VA 20360National Aeronautics &

Space Administration Capt. D. C. TroutmanWashington, D.C. 20546 Project Manager, V/STOL

Room 674Mr. P. J. Bobbitt Jefferson Plaza #IM.S. 285 1411 Jefferson-Davis HighwayNASA Langley Research Center Arlington, VA 20360Langley StationHampton, VA 23665 Mr. R. F. Siewert

OUSDR&DMr. R. V. Harris Room 3D1089M.S. 407 PentagonNASA Langley Research Center Washington, D.C. 20301Langley StationHampton, VA 23665 Mr. T. J. Brennan

Naval Air Development CenterMr. L. W. Gertsma Code IVAM.S. 500-208 Warminster, PA 18974Lewis Research CenterNASA Co. Peter J. Butkewicz21000 Brookpark Road Chief, Aeromechanics Div.Cleveland, Ohio 44135 AFWAL/FIM

Flight Dynamics LaboratoryMr. H. R. Chaplin Wright-Patterson AFB, OhioNRDC, Room 219, Blag. 7 45433Corderock, Maryland 20034

Mr. John Chuprun, Jr.Mr. James H. Nichols, Jr. 3 Cys. ASD/XRHDNSRDC, 208A, Bldg. 13 Wright-Patterson AFB, OhioCorderock, Maryland 20034 45433

• Ir " I,,

Q LIST OF SYmbOLS (Continued)

b. Greek Symbols

a alpha angle of attack, deg

8, beta angle of sideslip, deg

F supercirculation

y flight path angle, deg

6c,_i canard deflection (positive, leading-edge up), deg

_TE' 6F VEO-Wing nozzle and outboard flaperon deflection,deg; except for aileron action the flaperons andVEO-Wing nozzle flaps always deflect together.

pitch attitude angle, deg

83 jet thrust deflection out of VEO-Wing nozzleswhen deflected, deg

O TE'

ALE leading-edge sweep angle, deg

taper ratio, tip chordroot chord

ejector measured thrust/isentropic supply thrust(where isentropic supply thrust is the thrustwhich would be obtained from supplied air at thenozzle exit of pressures and flow rates expandedat isentropically to ambient pressure)

O

xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued) O

c. Model Symbols

BI VSTOL ejector configuration E-205 basic fuselagewith fuselage strake that blends the fuselage tothe inboard section to the wing.

B2 VSTOL RALS configuration R-104 basic fuselage

CI All moveable nacelle-mounted horizontal canard ofVSTOL ejector configuration E-205 in the mid-location

C2 Horizontal canard in VSTOL E-205 or RALS RI04fwd-location

C3 Horizontal canard in VSTOL E-205 or PALS RI04aft-location

N VSTOL ejector configuration E-205 or RALS RI04

VEO-wing nacelle QSI Baseline strake on E205 configuration

S2 High sweep strake on E205 configuration

S3 Low sweep strake on E205 configuration _

V All moveable vertical tail of VSTOL ejector

configuration E-205 or RALS RI04

W I VSTOL ejector configuration E-205 wing with linearelements between SS 96.496 and SS 223.695

W2 VSTOL PALS configuration R-104 wing with linearelements between SS 87.231 and SS 214.430

O

xii

Oi.o SUMMARY

This document presents the analysis of a series of NASAAMES wind tunnel tests of two General Dynamics Vectored-Engine-Over (VEO-) Wing, Navy VSTOL fighter/attack con-figurations; the airplane configurations and wind tunnelmodels were developed during a previous NASA AMES contractedeffort described in Reference i. The two configurationsdiffer primarily in the propulsive lift systems employed forVTOL operations, the jet-diffuser ejector (E205 configuration)and the Remote-Augmentation-_ife System (RALS RI04 configura-tion); both configurations employ the VEO-wing concept forimproved maneuver and STOL performance.

The wind tunnel data has been analyzed to (I) assessthe prediction method capabilities, (2) evaluate geometryvariations such as multiple canard longitudinal locationsand strake shapes and (3) evaluate the differences in theaerodynamic characteristics of the two configurations, i.e.,the effect of the propulsive lift system on the airplanearrangement and subsequent performance.

I The existing prediction methods were found to be sur-prisingly effective for such unusual configurations but areasof concern were uncovered where improvements in predictioncapabilities are certainly worthwhile. The experimentaldata base gathered in this series of tests forms one of themost complete, systematic parametric variations of con-figuration variables existing in the literature availableto the designer and as such, should represent a very valu-able aid in years to come. The analysis of these variationspresented in this report will also hopefully become a worth-while design aid.

Comparison of the overall performance of the two con-figuration concepts showed the E205 configuration to besuperior.

The major limitation of the E205 concept has been un-covered and several suggestions for future research havebeen recommended to resolve the limitation and check the

effect of the required configuration changes on the effectsof the geometry variations described above.

|i

AThis document is presented in four volumes - Volume I -

Study Overview, Volume II - Evaluation of Prediction Method-ologies, Volume III - Effects of Configuration Variationsfrom Baseline E205 Configuration on Aerodynamic Characteris-tics, and Volume IV - RALS RI04 Aerodynamic Characteristicsand Comparisons with E205 Configuration Aerodynamic Charact-eristics. The figures are placed at the end of each volumefor the reader's convenience while the tables are integratedinto the text as they occur.

O

O2

Q 2. INTRODUCTION

Many potential advantages for incorporating VSTOL capa-bility into future Navy fighter/attack aircraft have beenperceived by both the government and the aerospace industry.Among the advantages are tactical benefits resulting fromdispersal of air strength through operation from shipssmaller than aircraft carriers, improved combat tactics viain-flight use of vertical-lift propulsive systems, reducedcosts from requirments for construction of smaller ships,and improved close support through short takeoff and land-ing. Presently, the integration of a vertical-lift propul-sive system penalizes subsonic cruise performance and super-sonic dash capability, degrades the ship-board deck enviro-nment, and imposes additional operational requirements.However, innovative aircraft design, including advances inpropulsive system, flight control, structural, and aero-dynamic technologies projected to the 1990 time period, hasled to the emergence of VSTOL concepts with significanttransonic maneuver and supersonic performance potential.Nevertheless, detailed configuration design of these VSTOLaircraft concepts is generally lacking, and only limitedexperimental data to define the aerodynamic/propulsivecharacteristics of such vehicles are available. Therefore,studies were commissioned jointly by the Navy (David TaylorNaval Ship Research and Development Center and Naval Air

O Systems Command) and NASA Ames investigate aerodyna-to the

mic technology associated with various VSTOL fighter/attackaircraft concepts.

In Phase I of the contracted program, (Reference I)four contractors provided conceptual designs, estimated theaerodynamics of the designs, identified aerodynamicuncertainties of the concepts and proposed a wind-tunnelprogram to explore these uncertainties. In Phase II of thecontracted program, two contractors designed and builtwind-tunnel models for tests in the Ames Unitary and 12-FootWind Tunnels covering a Mach number range of 0.2 to 2.0.

This report presents the analysis of the testing accom-plished with two models designed and built in Phase II ofthe contracted program by the General Dynamics Corporation(Reference 1 and 2). This analysis was conducted by GeneralDynamics under a separate contract to NASA Ames under Con-tract No. NAS2-I0344. The two wind-tunnel models investi-gated in this report represent horizontal attitude takeoffand landing VSTOL fighter attack aircraft derivatives ofGeneral Dynamics' Vectored-Engine-Over-Wing (VEO-Wing)concept. This concept (see Figure 2-1) achieves improved

O

3

transonic maneuvering and short takeoff and landing (STOL)performance by utilizing the full engine momentum fromover-wing-mounted engines to augment the external aero-dynamics through a jet-flap effect and vortex augmentation.The major difference between the two configurations is thepropulsive system utilized for vertical lift. These propul-sive systems are the jet-diffuser ejector and the GeneralElectric developed Remote Augmentation Lift System (RALS).These systems represent the range of cold-vs-hot deck en-vironments currently being considered for vertical propul-sion concepts. Both systems afford thrust/lift augmenta-tion, which allows reduced vehicle size for a given payloadcapability. The aerodynamic lift augmentation achieved fromthe VEO-Wing nozzles through upper circulation also leads toreduced vehicle size. Three-view drawings and artist con-cept drawings of the E205 and RI04 airplane configurationsare shown in Figures 2-2 through 2-5. The models repre-senting these configurations are described in Section 3.4.

The primary objectives of this analysis effort are:

i. To evaluate the ability of current methodologies toaccurately predict the aerodynamic characteristicsidentified as uncertainties for the two aircraft con-figurations developed in the Phase I study programdescribed above.

2. To analyze the results of the three test entries to Odetermine the effects of configuration variations withthe baseline ejector and RALS configurations.

3. To analyze the results of the three test entries todetermine the differences in the aerodynamiccharacteristics of the ejector and RALS baselineconfigurations.

These objectives are accomplished in this report bytracing the development of the airplane configurationsthrough the design process and noting the predicted aerodynamiccharacteristics used in the sizing studies for the E205configuration and the resulting aerodynamic uncertaintiesthat evolved. Following a description of the wind tunnelmodels and tests that were accomplished, an analysis of thetest data yields an appraisal of current prediction methodo-logies to resolve the aerodynamic uncertainties. The analy-ses also aptly demonstrate the variation in aerodynamiccharacteristics resulting from the wide variations inconfiguration variables as well as the differences thatresult from variations in the vertical propulsion concept,i.e., RALS vs ejectors.

O

4

O Comparisons of predicted and wind tunnel aerodynamiccharacteristics are limited to the E205 configuration onlybecause (i) either one of the configurations could serve asa sufficient test case to determine the capabilities theprediction methods for this generic class of VEO configura-tions and (2) the E205 wind tunnel model more closely repre-sents the full scale E205 airplane configuration than doesthe wind tunnel model of the RALS RIO4 airplane configura-tion (see Section 3.4).

O

O

5

3. REVIEW OF AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION ADEVELOPMENT STUDY w

The E205 and RI04 airplane configurations (Figures2-2 and 2-3)were developed during the Reference I, Phase I,contracted study effort. This contracted study limited thescope of the analysis to only one concept, the jet-diffuserejector concept, E205. This configuration concept wasselected because it offered more potential shipboard opera-tional benefits due to its benign footprint that othermembers of the VEO-generic class of VSTOL fighter concepts.Further, the ejector configuration exhibits more aero-dynamic uncertainties and differs more from the existingdata base than does the RALS. The RALS configuration moreclosely resembles the VEO-Wing fighter for which an un-powered experimental data base already exists. GeneralDynamics continued to pursue the RALS configuration throughin-house funding in a somewhat parallel study program; infact, the RALS and ejector configuration were first comparedusing NAVAIR-supplied ground rules in Reference 3.

However, the E205 and RIO4 configurations were furtherdeveloped using the sizing ground rules of Reference i. TheReference 1 study was structured to assess the importance ofthe various aerodynamic uncertainties involved in the con-cepts by actually designing and sizing the airplanes to aset of requirements suggested by the NASA contract guide-lines and by General Dynamics' experience in previous NavyVSTOL fighter studies. The requirements shown below, re-flect the desire for the aircraft to have good supersonicfighter combat performance (with reasonable mission "legs")when operating in VTO and good attack-support capabilitywhen operating in STOL:

Mission: VTO Deck Launch Intercept (DLI) with(Standard Day) radius of action = 150 n.mi and design

dash M = 1.6 (See Figure 3-1 fordetailed mission profile definition).

Combat Performance: Sustained load factor of 6.2 at Mach(Standard Day) 0.6, i0,000 ft of altitude at 88% VTOL

gross weight

Specific excess power of 900 fps at ig,Mach 0.9, i0,000 ft of altitude at 88%VTOL gross weight.

O6

O VTOL: Vertical acceleration = 1.05 g (IGE)(Tropical Day) while achieving maximum design control

rates simultaneously in all axes, wheremaximum design control accelerationrates are:

Roll = .96 rad/sec

Pitch = .28 rad/sec

Yaw = .40 rad/sec

STOL Operational from land and from shipssmaller than CV's without catapults andarresting gear;sea-based gross weight =VTO maximum gross weight + i0,000 ib;sea-based WOD = 20 kt for overload.

VTO Takeoff Maximum = 35,000 lb.Gross Weight

Fuel Flow Use minimum engine without 5% fuel flowConservatism conservatism (approximately same as

using average engine with 5% fuel flowconservatism).

O It should be noted that the RALS 104 configuration, asdrawn in Figure 2-3, does not represent an aircraft exactlysized to meet all of the ground rules described above but,instead, served as a sizing baseline configuration forsynthesis studies. Comparisons between the ejector and RALSconfigurations sized to these ground rules are shown inReference 1 based on synthesis studies.

The VEO-Wing Ejector and RALS fighter/attackconfiguration layouts have been influenced heavily by thenecessity to meet the following three criteriasimultaneously:

i. Static margin variation (center of gravity/aerody-namic center) with Mach number from approximately-18% (unstable) subsonically to + 10% (stable) sup-ersonically. The maximum allowble instability of-18% static margin subsonically is a value set bythe aerodynamic control and control-system-responsecapability expected in the 1990 time period.

2. Center-of-gravity, wing, nozzle, and canard-loca-tion relationships (as well as static margin) toachieve the supercirculation benefits of the VEO-Wing concept for cruise maneuvering and STOL. To

O achieve the benefits of the VEO-Wing concept re-

7

quires the c.g. to be as far aft as possible (with istatic margin as in Criterion I). This has a largeimpact on the configuration design; it is difficultto achieve the desired c.g. location without get-ting so much "real estate" ahead of the c.g. thatthe resulting forward-located aerodynamic centerproduces more instability than can be tolerated.

3. Center-of-Gravity, aircraft-inertias, and thrusterlocations that meet the hover requirements.

3.1 Airplane Configuration Descriptions

This section provides a brief description of the physi-cal characteristics and design features of the E205 and RI04airplane configurations. For a more detailed description ofthese configurations, the reader is referred to References1 and 3 which deal with the following design features insome detail and which are omitted from this report:geometry, propulsion systems, mass properties, structuraldesign, flight controls and the major subsystems such asavionics, crew station equipment, secondary power generationand weapons, electrical, hydraulic, ECS, oxygen and fuelsystems, etc.

Both the E205 and RI04 supersonic fighter designs areconfigured to provide propulsive enhancement of external Aaerodynamics. This unique integrated airframe/propulsion wsystem, known as VEO-Wing (Vectored Engine Over Wing, seeFigure 2-1) utilizes the full engine momentum from theover-wing-mounted engines to augment the externalaerodynamics through a jet-flap effect. The VEO-Wingfeature is combined with spanwise blowing in which a portionof the engine exhaust is used at high angles of attack toproduce leading-edge vortex augmentation. This uniquesystem is thus capable of providing lift/drag polarimprovements in the full angle of attack range, resultingin improved maneuverability and STOL performance.

3.1.1 Ejector E205 Airplane Configuration

The three view drawing of the jet-diffuser ejectorVSTOL fighter/attack conceptual design (E205) sized to meetthe mission, hover and combat performance requirementsdescribed in Section 3.0 is presented in Figure 2-2.

The concept utilizes a high-canard, low-wing arrange-ment with podded engines located for over-the-wing blowing.Four chord-wise bays between the center body and nacelles(two forward and two aft) are provided for location of thejet diffuser ejectors.

O

OUnique features of this configuration approach are the

incorporation of movable doors to form the ejector nozzleand the stowable primary nozzles, which result in a rela-tively compact arrangement when the ejectors are not in use.A strake is extended forward and a beaver tail aft to fairoff the depth of the ejectors when folded into their cruiseposition. The ejector design is based on application of theresearch discussed in detail in Reference I. The ejectorsare sized to be operated with intermediate power airflowfrom P&WA .35-25-2800 parametric engines. Air is divertedto the ejector primary and throat nozzles through the duct-ing arrangement shown in Figure 2-2. The augmentation ratiois 1.98 in free air and 1.70 at lift off. Thrust modulationat the forward and aft ejectors, by varying airflow at theejector primary nozzles, is used for pitch control duringhover and transition. Yaw control is achieved by vectoringthe ejector flow. Engine exhaust air is ducted to upwardand downward firing thrusters for roll control. No lift isproduced by this reaction control system in hover. TheVEO-Wing engine nozzles can be operated in afterburner powersetting with the ejectors running.

VTOL transitions are accomplished by diverting theexcess thrust required to hover out of ground effect fromthe ejectors to the vectorable VEO-Wing nozzles. For STOL

O operations the hover controls blended with theare aero-

dynamic controls (the canard, elevons, and all-moving verti-cal tail) to provide control about the pitch, roll, and yawaxes. The reaction controls are fired fore and aft or upand down as required to provide yaw and roll control at verylow speeds or high angles of attack to augment theaerodynamic controls.

During conventional flight, control about the threeaxes is provided with canards, elevons, and the VEO-Wingnozzle for pitch, flaperons for roll, and the vertical tailand flaperon for yaw. The reaction controls are alsoavailable at low speeds for augmenting the aerodynamiccontrols to extend the lateral-directional controlcapabilities at high angles of attack. Due to the highlongitudinal instability levels that result with this typeof configuration, the flight control system is used toschedule the canard, VEO-Wing nozzle, and wing flaps as afunction of Mach number, angle of attack, and power settingto achieve desired levels of static longitudinal stabilityand to augment the longitudinal stability to the requiredfrequency and damping levels.

Dimensional and pertinent design data for the E205 con-figuration are presented in Table 3-1. The wetted areacomponent buildup is included. The cross sectional area

o

9

TABLE 3-1 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATA WFOR EJECTOR E205 CONFIGURATION

WING

Area (Ref) 384 ft2 (35.67 m2)Aspect Ratio 3.62Taper Ratio .19b 37.28 ft (11.36 m) •b/2 223.70 in. (5.682 m)CR 207.72 in. (5.276 m)CT 39.47 in. (1.003 m)c 142.680 in. (3.624 m)y 86.473 in. (2.196 m)Airfoil Root & Tip NACA 64A204Sweep-Leading-Edge 40°Sweep - c/4 32 °Incidence -0 °Dihedral 0 °

CANARD

Area (Exp) 76.9 ft2 (7.14 m 2)Aspect Ratio 2.16Taper Ratio .37b (Tip to Tip) 28.6 ft (8.72 m) gb/2 (Exp) 77.33 in. (1.96 m)CR (Exp) 104.58 in. (2.655 m)CT 38.67 in. (.982 m)c 76.65 in. (1.947 m)Y 32.74 in. (.832 m)Airfoil Root NACA 64A005Airfoil Tip NACA 64A003Sweep-Leading-Edge 45°Sweep - c/4 37°Incidence & Dihedral 0°Lc (LE _ Wing to _/4 Canard) 6.7 ft (2.04 m)Vc (Volume) 514.3 ft3 (14.565 m 3)

O

i0

Q TABLE 3-1 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATAFOR EJECTOR E205 CONFIGURATION(Continued)

VERTICAL TAIL

Area (Exp) 47.5 ft2 (4.41 m2)Aspect Ratio 1.27Taper Ratio .43b 7.8 ft (2.38 m)CR 102.6 in. (2.606 m)CT 44.1 in. (1.120 m)c 77.3 in. (1.963 m)Y 40 in. (1.016 m)Airfoil Root 5.3% BiconvexAirfoil Tip 4% BiconvexSweep - Leading-Edge 47.5 °LVT (LE c Wing to c/4 VT 17.8 ft (5.43 m)VVT (Volume) 845.1 ft3 (23.933 m3)

WETTED AREAS

Fuselage 451 ft2 (41.90 m 2)Canopy 33 ft2 (3.07 m 2)Nacelle 461 ft2 (42.83 m2)Wing 919.5 ft_ (85.42 m2)

O Canard 153.8 (14.29 m 2)ft2Vertical Tail 95 ft2 (8.83 m 2)Dorsal 8 ft2 (.74 m2)Wing Aft of Nac 27.7 ft2 (2.57 m2)

TOTAL 2159 ft2 (199.64 m 2)

Fineness Ratio (l/de) 7.66Fuel Fraction 27.2%Structural Fraction

(w/o Ejectors) 32.4%Composites (% of Struct Wt)

(w/o Landing Gear) 23.1%Advanced Metallics (Incl

Ejectors) (% of StrucWt w/o Landing Gear) 72.8%

C G Location (% c) 3.0%

VTO TOGW/Max TOGW 34987/44987 (15853/20384 kg)Combat Wt (88% VTOGW) 30789 ib (13950 kg)Flight Design Wt (88% VTOGW) 30789 ib (13950 kg)Empty Wt 23402 ib (10603 kg)Payload (VTO/Max Overlead) 1146/11,146 ib (520/5055 kg)Installed Gun Sys. Weight/Ammo 521/500 ib (236/227 kg)Avionic Wt (Installed/

Uninstalled) 1057/846 Ib (479/384 kg)

Q

11

TABLE 3-1 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATA AFOR EJECTOR E205 CONFIGURATION w(Continued)

Internal Fuel VolumeFuselage (Bladder) 877 ib (3974 kg)Wing (Integral, Halon

Inerted) 750 ib (340 kg)Total 9521 ib (4314 kg)Design Mission Fuel 9521 ib (4314 kg)Number of Engines & Types (2) P&W Parametric

Eng FB ABTFBPR=.362 OPR=25TIT=2800°F (1537.8°C)

Thrust (Max A/B SLS-Unistalled Each) 22,718 ib (10,294 kg)

Inlet Type Axisymmetric Normal ShockShock

A1 Per Engine 4.86 ft2 (.451 m 2)

W/S At VTOGW 91 ib/ft 2 (444 kg/m 2)T/W At VTOGW (Max A/B SLS

Uninstalled Thrust) 1.3Max Cross Section Area

Minus A1 33.2 ft2 (3.084 m 2)Airplane Overall Dimensions

Overall Length 53.3 ft (16.25 m)Overall Span (Including

Missiles) 39.4 ft (12.0 m)Overall Height 15.4 ft (4.69 m)

Flight Design Limit LoadFactor 7.5 g

Design Rate of Sink 15 fps (4.57 mps)

O12

O distribution is shown in Figure 3-2. The is maintainedc.g.by fuel burn sequencing at +.03c (F.S. 308.86) as long aspossible to achieve the VEO benefits for combat (until about3000 of the 9521 ib of fuel for the DLI mission remains).

The control devices and deflection limits are asfollows:

Max deflection

i. VEO-Wing nozzle -I0 ° to +30 °

2. Flaperon (outboard of VEO-Wing -20 ° to +30 °nozzle)

3. Canard -25 ° to +25 °

4. Reaction controls -90° and +90 °

5. All-moving vertical tail -25 ° to +25 °

The flaperon acts with the VEO-Wing nozzle for highlift but also acts as an aileron from the deflected flapposition to provide roll control.

3.1.2 RALS RI04 Airplane Configuration

O The RALS RI04 configuration (Figure 2-3) utilizes ahigh-canard, low-wing arrangement with podded engineslocated for over-the-wing blowing like the E205 configura-tion. The RALS concept provides a vectorable force forwardof the aircraft c.g. by augmenting fan-discharge air (with aburner) from the GE 16/VFI9-DI (.6 bypass ratio) variable-cycle engine in a remote duct buring system. A "threeposter" configuration is thus achieved for vertical flightby vectoring the reheated VEO Wing exhaust nozzles 90degrees downward (in conjunction with the RALS nozzles).The nominal exhaust tempertaure of both the remote andprimary nozzles is 2800°F. Thrust modulation of the RALSand VEO-Wing nozzle burner is used for pitch control duringhover and transition which results in temperatures up to3200°F. Yaw control is provided by vectoring of theVEO-Wing nozzle. Roll control is achieved with downward-firing reaction control thrusters, which are located in thewing tips and always contribute to lift. Transition fromhover to wingborne flight is accomplished by graduallydiverting the thrust from the forward RALS to the aftVEO-Wing nozzles as wingborne flight is approached. Toachieve the VEO-Wing benefits for up-and-away flight, thec.g. is held as far aft as possible (c.g. = +i.1%c).

O

13

This configuration (like E205) also features spanwiseblowing louvers (upstream of the VEO-Wing nozzle burnerrings), which exhaust engine thrust out over the wing(Figure 2-3) to augment the leading vortex, thus delayingstall to higher angles of attack and producing excellentSTOL performance (although the effects of spanwise blowingare not incorporated in this report).

For operations at low speeds, the configurationfeatures an all-moving verticl tail.

The RALS nozzles are gimballed to provide 15 degrees ofdeflection from 90 degrees downward and 360 degrees in theplanform view, except straight aft, where a maximum deflec-tion of 30 degrees is possible. These RALS nozzles not onlyare used to achieve vertical transitions or hover by pro-viding pitch and yaw control, but also are used as forwardthrusters to achieve nose-wheel rotation at very low flightspeeds to provide excellent STOL performance.

The control devices for up-and-away flight and theirdeflection limits are as follows:

Max Deflection

i. VEO-Wing nozzles -i0 ° to +90 °

2. Flaperon (outboard of VEO- -20 ° to +30 ° OWing nozzle)

3. Canard -25 ° to +25 °

4. Reaction controls -90° and +90 °

5. All-moving vertical tail -25 ° to +25 °

Just as on the E205, the flaperon not only acts withthe VEO-Wing nozzle for high lift, but also acts as anaileron from the deflected flap position to provide rollcontrol in the transition, STOL or conventional flightmodes.

Like E205, IR-guided missiles are carried on the wingtip; all other payload on RI04 is carried on the nacellesand the wide flat fuselage between the nacelles.Dimensional and pertinent design data for the RI04configuration are presented in Table 3-2. A cross-sectionalarea distribution is shown in Figure 3-3; the large volumes(and consequently large cross-sectional areas) required toinstall the RALS ducts in the fuselage plus the large enginesrequired for V/STOL operation result in the high peak in theare distribution. The wetted area component build-up isalso shown in Table 3-2.

g

14

O TABLE 3-2 RI04 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATA

WING

Area (Ref) 300 Ft2 (27.867m 2)Aspect Ratio 3.6Taper Ratio .20b 32.9 Ft (i0.028m)b/2 197.2 In (5.009m)CR 182.5 In (4636m)Ct 36.5 In (.927m)c 126 In (3.200m)Y 75.7 In (1.923m)t/c Root & Tip NACA 64A204Sweep-Leading-Edge 40°Sweep - c/4 33°Incidence & Dihedral 0 °

CANARD

Area (Exp) 66 Ft2 (6.131m2)Aspect Ratio 2.16Taper Ratio .37b (Tip to Tip) 25.4 Ft (7.742m)

O b/2 (Exp) 71.7 In (1.821m)CR (Exp) 96.5 In (2.451m)CT 36 In (.914m)c 71 In (1.803m)Y 32 In (.813m)t/C Root NACA 64A005t/C Tip NACA 64A003Sweep-Leading-Edge 45°Sweep - c/4 37°Incidence & Dihedral 0°Lc (LE c/4 Wing to c/4 Canard) 6.5 Ft (1.981m)Vc 429 Ft3 (12.148m3)

VERTICAL TAIL

Area (Exp) 43 Ft2 (3.995m2)Aspect Ratio 1.25Taper Ratio .43b 7.3 ft (2.225m)CR 98.5 Ft (30.023m)CT 42.34 In (12.91m)c 74.7 In (22.769m)Y 38 In (.965m)t/c Root 5.3% Biconvext/c Tip 4% BiconvexSweep - Leading Edge 47.5 °

o15

TABLE 3-2 RI04 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATA

(Continued)

LVT (LE _ Wing to _/4 VT) 16.08 Ft (4.901m)VVT 691.6 Ft3 (19.584m3)

WETTED AREAS

Fuselage 479 Ft2 (44.5m 2)Canopy 42 Ft2 (3.90m2)Nacelle 473 Ft2 (43.94m2)Wing 338 Ft2Canard 132 Ft2 (12.26m 2)Vertical Tail 86 Ft2 (7.99m2)Dorsal 6 _t2 (.557m 2)Wing Aft of Nac 28 Ft2 (2.60m 2)

TOTAL 1584 Ft2 (147.158m 2)

FinenessRatio (l/de) 7.12Fuel Fraction 34%Structural Fraction 28.7%Composites (% of Struct Wt)

(W/O Landing Gear) 26.1%Advanced Metallics

(% of Struct Wt gW/O Landing Gear) 64.3%

C.G. Location (% c) 0.6%

VTO TOGW/Max TOGW 31,940/41,940 (14,485 Kg/19020cCombat Wt (TOGW-40% WF) 27,590 Lb (12512 Kg)Flight Design Wt (TOGW-

40% WF) 27,590 Lb (12512 Kg)Empty Wt 19,000 LbPayload (VTO/Max Overload) 1146/ii,146 Lb (520 Kg/5055 Kg)Installed Gun Sys. Weight/Ammo 521/500 Lb (236 Kg/226 Kg)

Avionic Wt (Installed/Uninstalled) 1057/846 Lb (479 Kg)

Internal Fuel VolumeFuselage (Bladder) 10,315 Lb (4678 Kg)Wing (Integtral, Halon

Inerted) 560 Lb (254 Kg)Total 10,875 Lb (4932 Kg)

Number of Engines & Types (2) GEI6/VVCE 5Study D2 EnginesWith Remote AugLift Sys.

Thrust (SLS-Uninstalled Each) 21,747 Lbs (9863 Kg)

0,16

I TABLE 3-2 RI04 DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN DATA

(Continued)

Inlet Type Axi-SymmetgricNormal Shock

A1 Per Engine 4.55 Ft2 (1.387m2)W/S At TOGW 106.5 Lb/Ft 2 (520 Kg/m 2)T/W At TOGW (SLS Uninstalled) 1.36Max Cross Section Area 38 Ft2 (3.530m2)Airplane Overall Dimensions

Overall Length 48.8 Ft (14.874m)Overall Span 32.9 Ft (i0.028m)Overall Height 11.54 Ft (3.517m)

Flight Design Limit Load Factor 7.5 gDesign Rate of Sink 15 fps (4.572m/sec)

O

O

17

Like the E205 configuration, the structure of the RI04 Oconfiguration is designed for a limit load factor of 7.5 g'sand a design sink speed of 15 ft/sec. Both aircraft employadvanced metals and composites as well as advances inavionics to achieve weight savings considered feasible bythe 1995 time period.

O

O

18

O 3.2 Predicted Aerodynamic CharacteristicsOne of the primary objectives of this analysis effort

is to determine the capabilities of current predictionmethodologies to predict the aerodynamic characteristics ofthe E205 type of configuration. In Reference 1 predictionsof the longitudinal and lateral-directional aerodynamiccharacteristics of the full-scale E205 airplane configur-ation were presented for the subsonic (STOL/VTOL, M <.3) andtransonic (cruise/maneuver, .3 <M <i.0) and supersonic(dash, M >i.0) flight regimes of the design DLI mission (de-fined in Section 3.0). These full scale aerodynamic predi-ctions are briefly reviewed in this section because theyform the basis for developing the predicted.'m6del-scalewind-tunnel aerodynamic characteristics that are compared inVolume II with the actual wind-tunnel data to determine theprediction-methodology capabilities for the E205 type ofconfiguration. Predictions of the full-scale E205 longi-tudinal aerodynamic characteristics including the lift,drag, and pitching moment curves, aerodynamic center traveland buffet onset angle of attack are presented in this sec-tion as well as estimates of some of the lateral-directionalcharacteristics including the rigid sideslip derivatives,vertical tail effectiveness and aileron effectiveness.

The predicted longitudinal aerodynamics of thefull-scale E205 aircraft configuration are based on

Q estimated values of drag lift, pitchingminimum while the

moment, and drag due-to-lift rely heavily on theexperimental da_a base developed from wind-tunnel tests ofthe powered GeneralDynamics Research Model (Ref.4) and theunpowered VEO-Wing fighter model (Figure 3-4) (Ref.5). Figure

3-5 illustrates the forces and moments considered inpredicting the full scale E205 aircraft aerodynamiccharacteristics. Table 3-3 provides a summary of analysisschemes with other pertinent data included for each flightregime. Three types of data coefficients were developed inReference 1 for analyzing the configuration in these flightregimes and are defined by the following equations:

i. Total Coefficients (Subscript t): All aerodynamicplus thrust forces included

= CTv.N. CTEj EjectorCL t CLAero + sin (_F +_ ) + cos _ - CDram sin

= CT cos_(6 F +(_) + CTEJ sins+ CDEng +CDram cos (xCDt CDAero -Inlet Ejector

Ram Drag

O

19

Table 3-3 Methods Summary

FLIGHT PROPULSION VEO NOZZLE THRUST DATA TYPE

REGIME SYSTEM EMPLOYED ANGLE _GNITUDE BOOKKEEPING AND TRIM METHODS PRESENTED

STOL, VTOL THRUST VECT FROM VEO 6TE = 30° CT _ 7.4 GROSS THRUST APPLIED/REMOVED AEROM _.3 NOZZLE + EJECTOR IN (+_ TE ) DIRECTIONeNOZZLE EQUIVALEN_

THRUST + SPANWISE & INLET FORCES APPLIED TOTAL

BLOWING (NOT USED EXTERNALLY TRIM w FLAPERON,IN REPORTED CANARD, EJECTORS, VEO WINGANALYSIS BUT NOZZLE

POSSIBLE)

o

CRUISE/ THRUST VECT FROM 6TE = 15° CT !.2 NET THRUST APPLIED/REMOVED EQUIVALENTMANEUVER VEO NOZZLE IN DIRECTION INDUCED &.3_MXI.0 VECTORING EFFECTS INCLUDED

IN "EQUIVALENT" POLARNOZZLE & INLET FORCES IN

PROP. TRIM WITH FLAPERON,

CANARD, VEO WING NOZZLE

DASH NO THRUST 8TE= _ CT <.15 CONVENTIONAL A/C METHODS EQUIVALENTM>I.O VECTORING (USE UNPOWERED DATA)

NO SPANWISE TRIM WITH CANARD

BLOWING

• '0 •

O

_t = _Aero + CT cos _F (C.G.W.L. -_ V.N.W.L.)C

sin 6 F (C.G.F.S. - V.N.F.S.)+ CTv'N" c

+ (C.G.F.S.-EJ.F.S.)+CDEng• sins(C.G.F.S.-InletF.S.)CTEj _ -Inlet -c c

Where C.G.W.L. = waterline for center'of-gravitylocation

V.N.W.L. = waterline of VEO-Wing nozzlethrust vector

C.G.F.S. = fuselage station forcenter-of-gravity location

V.N.F.S. = fuselage station of VEO-Wing nozzlethrust vector

O EJ.F.S. = fuselage station of ejector thrustvector.

Assuming ejector thrust always 90 ° to W.L., i.e. nothrust recovery•

2. Equivalent Coefficients (Subscript E): Aerodynamic plusthrust forces with thrust angle-of-attack effectsremoved are:

sins cosS + sin_C_ = C_ - CTv.N" - CTEJ CDram

Ejector

+ C cos_ sins- cos_

CDE-" CDT TV.N. - C;rEj CDrnmEjector

CME= CMT - CTv _ - CTE J • . .-_ "N. (C.G.W.L.-V.N.W.L.i (C G.F S EJ.F S.)• C C

O

21

3. Aerodynamic-Only Coefficients (Subscript Aero):Longitudinal force and moment coefficients with all wthrust effects removed:

_ero DAero ro The coefficients were de-veloped by applying corrections (for super-circulation,VEO-Wing nozzle deflection, and canard deflections,dreived from the General Dynamics Research model plusdifferences between the AFFDL VEO-Wing fighter modeland E205 geometry) to the unpowered VEO-Wing fightermodel wing-body data of Reference 4.

A detailed set of equations for developing theaero-only coefficients for the E205 configuration inthe STO/VTO flight regime is presented in Figure 3-6.

The predicted trimmed lift,drag and pitching momentcurves for the subsonic, transonic and supersonic flightregimes for the full scale E205 aircraft are presented fromReference 1 in Figures 3-12 through 3-17 ; powereffects are included where appropriate. In the subsonicregime, the trimmed lift and drag curves differ from thosepublished in Reference 1 due to an error discovered inprevious calculations.

Table 3-4 presents the estimated minimum trimmed dragcomponent-buildup for the full shale E205 configuration from.2 <M <2.0 with canard, VEO-Wing nozzle, and flaperons at a izero degrees deflection. Estimated trimmed minimum drag isplotted versus Mach number in Figure 3-7. The subsonic andsupersonic friction_ form, wing camber, and interferencedrag were estimated by an empirical aircraft aerodynamicprediction method developed by General Dynamics for AFFDL(Reference 6). The supersonic wave drag was estimated by amodified version of the Harris area rule procedure. Theroughness + protuberance drag was estimated at 18% of thefriction plus form drag subsonically and 28% of frictiondrag supersonically based on F-16 flight test experience.This trimmed drag also includes increments for flap scrubdrag, and installed missiles and launchers for the DLImission (2 Low-Cost Lightweight missiles and 2 AdvancedMedium Range Air-to-Air Missiles + Launchers).

The STOL/VTOL longitudinal aerodynamics were estimatedby adding increments in lift, drag, and pitching moment tothe wing-body fighter model data of Reference 4 (Figure 3-8)according to the equations described above and in Figure3-6. These increments, derived from the powered researchmodel of Reference 2 (for canard deflection, wing trailingedge flap and VEO-Wing nozzle deflection as well as thrustlevel), were corrected, where applicable, for geometrydifferences between the powered research and fighter

o22

• • •

Table 3-4 E 205 MINI_flJMDRAG BUILDUP

Sref = 384 ft2- MACH NUMBER

DRAG COMPONENT .2 .4 .6 .8 .9 I.2 i.6 2.0

(Drag in Counts)Friction 166.5 149.3 139.0 130.4 126.5 116.0 103.0 90.8

Form 17.2 15.5 14.2 13.4 13.i - - -

Interference 8.2 6.9 10.9 21.0 22.2 - - -

Wing Camber 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 6.3 9.4 10.4 14.6

Roughness + Protuberance 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 32.5 28.8 25.4I

iFlap Scrub 32.7 10.9 5.5 4.4 4.4 2.2 1.1 1.11

'Wave ..... 292.3 289.4 281.4

Missiles + Launchers

(1) Wing-Tip LCLM 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.7 16.1 14.3 12.2

(2) NAC-MT'D AMRRAM 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.9 13.5 ii.0 7.5 ,Trim 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8

ITotal 268 226 213 213 216 482 466 441CDmin h _

models and the E205 configuration. Similar corrections werealso made to the wing-body fighter model data to account forgeometry differences with the E205 configuration. Figures3-9 through 3-12 present the resulting predicted fullscale E205 STOL/VTOL power-off and power-on lift, drag, andpitching moment curves. Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11 havebeen lifted from Volume II to illustrate the predicted windtunnel-model low speed (M=.2) lift, drag and pitching momentcharacteristics for variations in canard and wing trailing-edge flap deflection. The full scale airplane predictions(power-off) would differ from these curves only by a scaleeffects correction to minimum drag. Figure 3-12 illustratesthe envelope of trimmed lift curves and drag polars that areobtained when the power effects are included with the un-powered data of Figures 3-9 through 3-11 (corrected to fullscale airplane). Figure 3-12 demonstrates that by using theforward ejectors in conjunction with the vectored VEO-Wingnozzles, virtually any reasonable angle-of-attack range canbe achieved for STO/VTOL operations. This is discussed inmore detail in Volume II.

The full-scale airplane cruise/maneuver (transonic)aero data estimates presented in Figure 3-13 required analternate approach from the STOL/VTOL data estimates. Thelimited existing data base prevented the development ofaerodynamic estimates for variations in all of the desiredparameter combinations (canard deflection, VEO-Wing nozzle wdeflection, flaperon deflection, C_, and Mach number). Outof necessity an alternate approach was sought, which leddirectly to representative estimates of the trimmed cruisemaneuver drag polars without developing the untrimmed dataas follows. Figure 3-14 schematically illustrates how a setof equivalent trimmed, optimum-span-efficiency (e) envelopes(vs C_ and Mach number) were developed from the poweredVEO-Wing nozzle.only for trim with a zero-degree canarddeflection, maxlmum negative static margin = -18% at M = .2,and c.g. = +.03c (like Configuration E205).

For a given Mach No., VEO-Wing nozzle CB, and withcanard undeflected, the equivalent wing span efficiency isderived and plotted as a function VEO-Wing nozzle deflec-tion, 6TE, and equivalent lift coefficient in Figure 3-15.The _TE required to trim (with undeflected canard) atvarious angles of attack and equivalent lift coefficient isdetermined from the equivalent lift and pitching momentcurves and allows the determination of the optimum trimmedspan efficiency envelope as a function of equivalent liftcoefficient.

However, since the estimated static margin for _c = 0°is more unstable than allowable for the E205 configuration(as explained in subsequent paragraphs), the flight controlcomputer schedules the canard with Mach No. and angle of iattack to achieve the desired stability level. Therefore, a

24

O reoptimization the canard/VEO-wing-nozzle deflectionsof

would be required at each Mach No. and blowing-momentum-co-efficient combination to achieve the maximum obtainablee-envelopes. Since the existing data base was inadequatefor developing these max-obtainable e-envelopes, thee-envelopes using the VEO-Wing nozzle only for trim wereused in making these predictions. Although the e's are notnecessarily the optimum achievable with the canard/VEO-Wingnozzle trim, they are considered representative of what canbe achieved with canard/nozzle deflection combinations givenenough experimental data.

The C L at Cilnin is a fallout of the way the e's are de-rived; these e's are used directly with the estimated mini-mum drags to produce the resulting cruise/maneuver equiva-lent trimmed drag polars shown in Figure 3-13. (Theminimum-drag trim penalty was negligible based on thepowered model data.) This approach does not afford thedevelopment and visibility of the untrimmed lift, drag, andpitching moment curves directly because this would requireenough experimental data to determine the canard/VEO-Wingnozzle deflection schedule with angle of attack, Mach No.,and C T (or C_).

The estimated supersonic (M = 1.2 and 1.6) lift,drag,and pitching moment curves were developed for the E205

O onfiguration by correcting the unpowered VEO-Wing fightermodel data (zero degrees VEO-Wing nozzle deflection) ofReference 4 for changes in CMo , canard arm, and referenceareas. These data are presented in Figures 3-15 and 3-17along with the trimmed lift curves and drag polars which aredeveloped from these data and shown in Figure 3-13.

Aerodynamic Center

As discussed in Reference I, the aerodynamic centertravel with Mach number plays a major role in the design ofthe VEO-Wing configurations.

Estimates of the E205 configuration aerodynamic-centertravel with Mach no. have been made by use of the CarmichaelProcedure (Reference 7) and the Datcom method (Reference 8).Figure 3-19 presents a General Dynamics a.c. pre-diction accuracy correlation for the Carmichael procedurefor various configurations, including the VEO-Wing fightermodel of Reference 5. The correction vs Mach no. (Figure3-19) indicated for the VEO-Wing fighter model was appliedto the Carmichael predictions for the E205 configuration (asimilar configuration) to produce the corrected Carmichaelestimates, shown in Figure 3-18, for a zero-degree canarddeflection and with canard off. The Datcom estimate forcanard at a zero-degree deflection for M = .4 is also shown

o

25

for reference and shows a significant disparity between the Wprediction methods.

It was thought to be very difficult to predict the E205a.c. with either of these existing methods because of theunusual aspects of the configuration: the wide, flat bodywith separated nacelles, the relatively blunt forwardstrake, etc. The methods do not lend themselves to thistype of configuration. The configuration is being drivenhard by the predicted instability levels. This is a majoraerodynamic uncertainty that must be resolved with anexperimental test program. The methods above predict thea.c. in the linear attached flow (low _) regions only; asnon-linear effects are experienced at high _'s, thea.c.-variation prediction methods are less reliable andexperimental data must be used as a guide. So many aspectsof the design are dependent on these high-_ stabilitycharacteristics; a wind tunnel program must be conducted todevelop and tune the E205 configuration with any confidence.

The E205 configuration is longitudinally statically un-stable to achieve the VEO-Wing nozzle benefits. As notedabove, the predicted instability levels are greater than canbe presently tolerated. The maximum-allowable instabilitydictated by control system limitations is approximately15-18% MAC. Therefore, the Flight Control System (FCS) willbe used to augment the stability to the required level offrequency and damping. As part of this augmentation theflight control computer will be used to schedule the canardas a function of Mach number and angle of attack to achievethe desired level of static longitudinal stability.

Buffet Onset

The estimated buffet onset angle of attack variationwith Mach no., canard deflection and wing trailing-edge flapdeflection are presented in Figure 3-20; these estimates donot include the effects of thrust deflection which are asyet unknown but are expected to be favorable. Theseestimates were determined from analysis of the axial forcedata of the VEO-Wing fighter configuration force model ofReference 5 using the methods of Reference 9.

Lateral-Directional Characteristics

Figures 3-21a through 3-21e present the estimatedstatic lateral-directional characteristics for the E205configuration. The variation in the rigid sideslip deriva-

tions, CyR , C ,_, and C_ , with angle of attack and Machno. have _een estimated using Datcom procedures. Thederivatives are determined for _'s from -2 ° to +2 °. Itshould be noted that the wide forward fuselage fairing and

o26

O nacelles contribute to the uncertainties in thepredictingstatic lateral-directional instability and the effects onsidewash. The variation of the directional characteristicsis largely dependent on this unorthodox forebody loading,which is not easily predicted by standard methods. Thedihedral effect, which is dependent on C_, will be greatlyaffected by the induced super-circulation lift. The lateralcharacteristics were also expected to be affected by thecanard and canard deflections. Data in these figures hasbeen predicted for the zero-canard-deflection case.

Directional control for configuration E205 is obtainedwith an all-movable vertical tail. Control effectiveness ofthis surface is presented in Figure 3-21d. Standard DATCOMmethods for these predictions were used.

Lateral control for configuration E205 is obtained withailerons located from immediately outboard of the VEO-Wingnozzle to approximately 85% semi-span. The predicted valuesof roll-control effectiveness are presented in Figure 3-21e.

The augmentation in rolling moment due to the VEO-Winghas not been included because of lack of available data.Side force and yawing moments due to aileron deflection werenot predicted. The yawing moment is caused by the pressuregradient against the side of the fuselage. There was not

O enough experimental data available for correlation to anyreliable prediction method.

3.3 Resulting Aerodynamic Uncertainties

In Reference i, the critical aerodynamic uncertaintieswere identified as those aerodynamic parameters which hadthe greatest effect on the E205 design and performance andwhich could not be accurately predicted with confidence.The power-off aerodynamic uncertainties identified were theprime targets for experimental investigation in the windtunnel tests described in Section 3.4.

Both the ejector and RALS configurations have large,wide, flat fuselage/strake areas end-plated by nacelles withthe primary lifting surfaces located outboard. The aero-dynamics for this type of configuration are difficult topredict with existing tools. The unpowered-aerodynamic-testdata base approximates the RALS much better than the ejectorconfiguration, but no powered data exists for thisseparated nacelle type configuration.

A reiteration follows of how these aerodynamic uncer-tainties are related to the VEO-Wing/ejector design. Whilethe following discussion focuses primarily on the ejectorconfiguration, E205, many of the comments apply to the in-

O house RALS configuration due to the similarity in externalarrangements.

27

o e - The optimum e envelopes that can be obtained_ith canard/VEO-Wing nozzle combinations for trimmust be confirmed since the experimental data basedoes not exist to allow optimizing the canard/VEO-Wing nozzle dfelctions (especially at transonicspeeds). The transonic maneuver performance (andsubsequent aircraft sizing) presented in this studyare predicated on the assumption that the envelopee's developed for the more stable VEO-Wing fighterconfiguration (Reference 4) with trim provided bythe VEO-Wing nozzle only (i.e., canard fixed) can beduplicated with the canard/VEO-Wing nozzle deflec-tions, which also provide effective augmented in-stability levels of -18%. The effect of canardlocation will be examined in this effort as well asthe influence of the strake/inner-body region onaerodynamic center and the resulting trimmed e.

° Minimum Dra@ - Large volumes are required for inst-allation of the vertical-lift ejector system(ejector bays and ducting). As a result, increasesin wave drag and friction drag are incurred comparedto a conventional takeoff-and-landing (CTOL)configuration. Minimizing the impact of increasedcross-sectional area on supersonic wave dragrequires considerable experimental configurationtailoring. Integration of the wing/nacelle/strakemust be examined experimentally to minimizeinterference drag at transonic speeds because it isvery difficult to predict the flow field andsubsequent interference drag between the fuselagebody and the nacelles.

o Trim Dra@ - Trim-drag penalty is critical fortransonic maneuvering and the supersonic dash. Theeffect of canard location and schedule optimizationwill be investigated, as well as the effect of a.c.on trim drag.

o _Lm_x - Maximum lift coefficient is critical fortransonic maneuvering, STOL, and VTOL transitions.The usable CLmax is determined by both longitudinalpitching moment and lateral-directional controlcharacteristics at high _ , which are virtuallyimpossible to predict with the wide-bodiedconfiguration being studied with power effects.

" Body/Wing Design for Cmo - During maneuver attransonic speeds, it isdesirable to camber thebody/wing for a positive Cmo contribution toalleviate the nose-down pitching moments induced bythe vectored over-wing nozzles. Without this Cmo

Q28

O contribution, the (larger) positive canard deflec-tions required to trim degrade the configurationtransonic maneuver capability. Unfortunately, theE205 cDnfiguration, with jet diffuser ejectors in-stalled in the fuselage, precludes the use of a de-sign body camber. (This restriction does not existfor the RALS configuration, which has body camberincorporated.) One possible approach to obtain thedesired positive Cmo shift for the ejector con-figuration is to employ a fuselage beaver tail de-flected upward during maneuvers.

o Aerodynamic Center Location - Power-off aerodynamic-center predictions versus Mach number were shown infor the ejector configuration (canard off and zerocanard deflection). The estimates are based on theCarmichael method (Reference 7), with a comparisonpoint against the DATCOM method (Reference 8 ) atMach 0.4 and zero canard deflection. There is asignificant disparity between the predicted valuesfor the two methods, which must be resolved duringthe testing.

It is very difficult to predict the aerodynamiccenter with either of these methods because of the

O unusual aspects of the configuration, the wide flatbody with separated nacelles, and the relativelyblunt forward strake. Also, the variation of aero-dynamic center with power setting, angle of attack,and trailing-edge flap deflection is difficult toestimate with conventional methods.

° Buffet Characteristics - The close-coupled canard ofthe E205 configuration is expected to delay thebuffet onset to higher angles of attack in much thesam_ way as does the forebody strake on the F-16aircraft. However, data to substantiate thisfavorable effect is lacking for canard/wing con-figurations. An additional increase in angle ofattack for buffet onset should result from power-onsupercirculation effects. It is desirable to obtainroot-bending-moment (CORMS) strain-gage data duringthe wind tunnel tests to verify the estimatedconfiguration buffet characteristics.

o Lateral-Directional Characteristics - Lateral-direc-tional characteristics determine the a max and re-sulting usable CL max, which contributes to airplanesizing for transonic maneuvering STO, and VTOLoperations. The effectiveness of the all-movingvertical tail in preserving lateral-directional

O control at high angles of attack when influenced by

29

Athe

large flat body and strake of the E205 (or RALS)configurations is difficult to estimate.

3.4 Description of Wind Tunnel Models

The 0.0939 scale wind tunnel model representing theE205 aircraft configuration is defined in Figures 3-22 and3-23,and was constructed by General Dynamics and tested at AMESResearch Center. The overall dimensions of the model areillustrated in the three view drawing in Figure 3-22 andTable 3-5 while the cross-sectional area distribution of themodel is shown in Figure 3-24; note that the modelcross-sectional area distribution differs somewhat from thatof the airplane (Figure 3-2). The model scale was dictatedby the Ames requirement that the model be sized to match theairplane engine maximum inlet airflow with that of theXM2R/CMAPS engine simulator being developed for future Amesinvestigations into propulsion/airframe interactions. Themodel is defined in detail in Reference 2.

A second wind tunnel model was constructed to investi-gate some aspects of the RALS RI04 configuration. The threeview drawing of the RALS model is shown in Figure 3-25while the cross sectional area distribution and photographsof the model are shown in Figures 3-26 and 3-27. This modelwas constructed by building a new center fuselage section(simulating the RALS fuselage lines aft of the canopy/nose Aarea); (the transition in lines from the E205 nose and wcanopy to the RALS fuselage lines resulted in anaerodynamically unfavorable concave depression which may befaired-out in future investigations). The E205 model wings,canards, vertical tail, nacelles, nose and canopy were usedon the RALS model; the major changes are a narrower fuselageresulting in more closely spaced nacelles and a thickerstrake, and a deeper, narrower vertical channel between thenacelles and fuselage sides. Fairings on the E205 nacelleswere removed to more closely simulate the nacelle shape ofth RALS configuration. The use of the wing panels outboardof the nacelles on the RI04 configuration resulted in atheoretical wing area of 357 f_ instead of the 300 ft2 ofthe RI04 aircraft.

Both the E205 and RI04 model configurations haveseveral very useful geometric variables which allow tailor-ing the aerodynamic performance of the configurations andprovide real insight into the mechanisms of the uncer-tainties described above. Table 3-6 lists these geometricvariables and the ranges of associated deflections orlocations for each. Both models allowed three longitudinalcanard locations (baseline (CI), forward (C2), and aft (C3)Figure 3-28a); the canards have leading and trailing-edge

e30

OTable 3-5

SUMMARY OF CONSTANTS

w

PARAmeTER E-205 R-104i

2 2Fuselage Base Area, Ab 9.5991 in 9.2941 in

2 2

Nacelle Exit Area, Ae(per side) 4.8982 in 4.8982 in2 2

Nacelle Inlet Area, Ai(per side) 6.1685 in 6.1685 in2 2

Nacelle Plug Base Area, _(per side) 3.2484 in 3.2484 in

Wing Reference Area, S 3.3858 ft2 3.1541 ft2

Wing Reference Span, b 42.010 in 40.270 in

Wing Reference Mean Aerodynamic Chord, E 13.398 in 12.973 in

Longitudinal Transfer Distance, X 1.002 in 1.479 in

O Lateral Transfer Distance, Y 0.000 in 0.000 in

Vertical Transfer Distance, Z 0 700 in 0.419 in

Moment Reference Center @ FS 29.002 29.463

13.050 13.050

BL 0.000 0.000

Balance Incidence Angle, i 0°00 ' 2°00 '. m(positive incidence alrplane nose-up)

31

iTABLE 3-6

AVAILABLE COMPONENT DEFLECTIONS

Component Deflection

Wing Outboard Trailing-Edge Flap 0°00 '

- I0°13 ,

20°24 '

25°29 '

Wing Leading-Edge Flap 0°

15°

30°

Wing Inboard Trailing-Edge Flap 0°

I0°

20 ° '0

2.5°

Canard Leading-Edge Flap 0°

15°

Canard Trailing-Edge Flap 0°

20°

All Moveable Horizontal Canard 0°

+I0°1

+20°1

All Moveable VerticalTail 0°

5°

15°- Q

32

eflaps (inboard and outboard segments); the vertical tail isall moving to several deflections. The E205 model has threestrake variations (baseline S I) mid sweep (S2) anda lowsweep (S3), as shown in Figure 3-28b.

Both models are sting mounted through the base of thefuselage with forces and moments measured with a 2.5in. TaskMK-XXA six component strain gage balance. The moment refer-ence center for both models was located longitudinally at3-percent of the mean aerodynamic chord which representsfuselage station 29.002 on the E205 model and fuselage sta-tion 29.463 on the RI04 model along waterline 13.050. Themodel angle of attack is referenced to the wing referencechord plane which is along a waterline. Fuselage-stingcawity pressure from three static orifices (two locatedimmediately aft of the balance and one located 0.5 inchesforward of the fuselage base) and nacelle nozzle exit plugbase pressure from static orifices located in each nozzleplug base were measured concurrently with the force data.Nacelle nozzle exit static and total pressures were recordedduring internal drag runs. Two pressure rakes, each con-taining 20 total pressure orifices were calibrated prior tothe wind tunnel tests against known mass flows measured byASME nozzles; these rakes were used to gather the totalpressure data for the internal drag calculations while the

e static pressures were obtained from the manifolded orificeslocated in the nozzle exit plug walls. Fluctuating wingbending moments are measured as a buffet indicator (RMSvalue) using Kulite diffused semiconductor four-arm straingage sensor, type 5B-3-350-300-4, locatged at 40% chord andspan station 9.600 on the E205 and 8.73 on the RI04 models.

3.5 Wind Tunnel Test Programs

The wind tunnel models described in the previous sec-tion were tested once in each of the following NASA AmesResearch Center wind tunnels: the 12-foot pressure tunnel,the llxll foot transonic tunnel, and the 9x7 foot supersonictunnel. These are single return tunnels with controls thatallow independent variation of Mach number, density, temp-erature and humidity. Tests were conducted at Mach numbersranging from .2 to 2.0 at a constant Reynolds number of 9.84x 106/M (3.0 x 10G/ft). To evaluate Reynolds numbereffects, selected configurations were tested at additionalReynolds numbers for several Mach numbers. The angle ofattack range was -5 ° to 90° in the 12-foot, -5 ° to 27 °(maximum allowable loading) in the llxll foot, and -5 to 15 °in the 9x7 foot tunnel. The angle of sideslip ranged from-4 to +8 °.

e

33

A

The measured angles of attack and sideslip werecorrected for wind-tunnel-flow misalignment and for balanceand sting deflections caused by aerodynamic loads.

The measured axial forces have been adjusted to a con-dition corresponding to that of having free-stream staticpressure acting on the fuselage cavity and on the base areasof the two nacelle choke plugs. The data in this report hasalso been adjusted for internal forces acting in theflow-through nacelles using the internal and normal forcesderived from the series of runs employing the duct exitsrakes in each nacelle.

To assure a turbulent boundary layer, transition gritstrips were placed near the leading-edges of the wing,canard and vertical tail, around the fuselage nose andaround the nacelle leading-edges.

O

O34

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The initial objectives of this research effort have

been accomplished. The capabilities of current prediction

methodologies to evaluate configurations of the VEO-Wing-VSTOL generic family have been evaluated, the effects of

geometry variations have been examined, and two versions of

this generic family, the E205 and RI04 configurations, have

been aerodynamically evaluated and compared. As a result ofthese evaluations and analysis additional research isrecommended.

CAPABILITIES OF PREDICTION METHODS

Because of the unusual geometry involved with the E205

and RI04 configurations there was substantial concern that

current prediction methods would not do an adequate job on

predicting many of the areas of "aerodynamic uncertainty"for the E205 configuration.

In summary, the minimum drag is predicted reasonablywell in the subsonic and transonic speed regimeswith

existing methods; there are some substantial problems withthe predictions supersonically where the actual drag issubstantially higher than predicted. Part of this discrep-

ancy many be due to a failure to accurately predict the

model sting interference effects and the excess interferencesuspected due to the model components.

The aerodynamic center variation with Mach number was

reasonably well predicted for the E205 configuration with

the Carmichael Woodward procedure. However, a failure toconsult the Carmichael Woodward results regarding the ef-

fective camber of the configuration resulted in the error in

predicting C m which in turn resulted in larger trim penal-

ties than anticipated as some speeds.

In fact, the agreement between the predicted and test

untrimmed lift, drag, and pitching moment curves is rather

good (except for the error in Cm ) with the canard and flap

undeflected at most speeds. The°canard is a little moreeffective than predicted because of the higher upwash than

expected caused by the E205 wing-body. The wing trailing-

edge flaps were also found to be slightly more effective

than predicted ; the flap effectiveness was also found to

vary with canard deflection which was not accounted for inthe original predictions. However, the flap effectiveness

was predicted by ratioing data from a similar configurationusing appropriate parameters. This continues to be a

basically reliable method of predicting the flap effects.

@

35

Trimming at low speeds was accomplished using com- ibinations of wing trailing-edge flaps and deflected thrustfrom the VEO-Wing nozzles balanced by the modulated thrustfrom the forward ejectors. The canard was not used for trimbut could be deflected for maneuvering from trim (gustresponse, etc.). Transonically and supersonically, leavingthe canard undeflected and varying the wing trailing-edgeflap deflection yielded trimmed drag polars that were almostas good as with an optimum combination of canard and flapindicating that it may be possible to justify fixing thecanard and using only a canard trailing-edge flap for aidingmaneuvering from trim. The trimmed wind tunnel data cor-rected to full scale and including the power effects (super-circulation and deflected thrust) of Reference 1 werecompared with the predicted power-on trimmed full scaleaircraft characteristics of Reference 1 on which the E205performance was evaluated. In general the test resultsindicate better characteristics than predicted except forCm at some transonic and supersonic speeds,which canlargely be traced back to a failure to accurately predict

Cmo,resulting in substantial trim penalties. The polarshapes are, for the most part, better than predicted indi-cated that the maneuvering cruise, and dash performancewhich played a substantial role in sizing the aircraft tothe ground rules described in Section 2.0 can be achieved,especially if some redesign to provide a more acceptable Cmo

variation is employed, i

The buffet-onset angle of attack variation with Machnumber developed from the test data (using the RMS value ofthe wing-root bending-moment strain gage output) indicatesthat the E205 buffet characteristics are better thanpredicted but do agree in trend with the predictions.

The Datcom prediction techniques for the lateral-direc-tional characteristics appear to adequately account for theconfiguration effects except for sidewash generated atangles of attack. Most prediction techniques are onlyconcerned with the linear range of the parameters involved.The sidewash determined from these tests indicates a need toexamine the configuration to at least determine what com-ponents effect the sidewash using a procedure such asCarmichael Woodward since Datcom does not adequately handlethe sidewash prediction at angle of attack.

EFFECTS OF GEOMETRY VARIATIONS

A matrix of combinations of canard longitudinal loca-tion and strake shape were investigated for the E205 con-figuration. This investigation indicated that there aremajor "first order" effects for varying either canardlocation or strake shape,but the influence of the strakeshape on the canard effectiveness or the canard location 0

36

O on the changes produced by varying strake shape are"second

order" for this type of configuration; i.e., in thepreliminary design stage the effects of canard location andstrake shape must be considered, but the mutual interferenceof the canard and strake is not that important to the type ofnacelle-strake-canard arrangement exhibited on E205.

Canard location produced the expected changes with themost dramatic change being the substantial variation in d.C.caused largely by changes in the canard/wing interaction.Also of major importance is the change in effective configu-ration camber produced by changing canard location resultingin C and subsequent trim variations. The mid-canardlocation of the baseline E205 configuration offered the bestoverall trimmed characteristics across the Mach range aswell as the best lateral-directional characteristics.

Variations in strake shape were found to be a veryeffective means of tailoring the pitching moment curve athigh angles of attack to avoid pitch-up. Strake effectsbecome more pronounced with increasing angles of attack andMach number. The S1 C1 combination offers the best overallpitch-trimmed characteristics over the Mach range tested.At low speeds, the S1 C1 combination also exhibits the bestoverall lateral-directional characteristics; at transonicand supersonic Mach numbers, the limited amount of data

O precluded determining the best canard/strake combination forlateral-directional characteristics.

COMPARISON OF E205 _D RI04 CHARACTERISTICS

The configuration body-nacelle-strake arrangement doesinfluence the performance of the canard and wing. Compari-son of the E205 and RI04 wind tunnel model results indicate

that the wide, flat strake arrangement of the E205 configura-tion acts as an effective lifting surface inducing a substantialupwash on the canard and wing. This results in the E205 wingand canard each performing better (alone and in the presenceof each other) on the E205 configuration than with the narrowstrake arrangement on the RI04 configuration.

The untrimmed minimum drag of the E205 and RI04 configura-

tions is about the same subsonically; the RI04 transonic dragrise is much more severe, followed by substantially highersupersonic drag. This increased drag of the RI04 is due to its largermaximum cross-sectionalarea, the higher interference drag due to the

O37

Anarrow channel between the nacelle and fuselage,and the Wadverse effects of the concavity formed by using the E205nose and canopy with the RI04 fuselage.

The aerodynamic center variation with Mach numberfor the two configurations are similar. The addition ofthe canard makes approximately the same a.c. shift for bothvehicles.

The flap effectiveness for the two configurations isalmost identical.

Comparisons between the E205 and RI04 wind tunnelmodel (unpowered) trimmed polars indicate that at transonicMach numbers the E205 has a better trimmed drag polar thanthe

RI04 for CL's >.35, so for combat maneuvering the E205 lookssuperior; The RI04 appears slightly superior for transoniccruise at low CL'S. At M = 1.2 the E205 is superior at allCL'S primarily because of the lower minimum drag. Althoughthe untrimmed minimum drag of the RI04 is higher than thatof the E205 at all supersonic Mach numbers, the trimmedminimum drag however is less for the RI04 at Mach numbers <

2.0 primarily because of differences in Cmo of the two con-

figurations. O

The lateral-directional characteristics of the two

configurations are very similar except at M = 1.2 wherethere is apparently a more favorable flow at the verticaltail for the RI04 than the E205.

The major deficiency of both the E205 and RI04configurations appears to be the inability to trim to anglesof attack higher than 6 to 8 degrees at low speeds witheither the canard or wing trailing-edge flap with the poweroff. The large configuration instabilities at low speedrequire large negative canard deflections to trim with thepower off; _c = -20o was the largest negative deflectiontested and this was not adequate to trim over a reasonable

- range. The canard appears stalled at a canard-localangle of attack of near -20 (in the presence of the wing),so that the resulting trim limit appears to be about 8°model

angle of attack. Part of the problemis, of course, the factthat the wing itself is stalling at about _ = 8° because ithas been provided no leading-edge protection, the leading-edge flaps not being employed due to a lack of test time.

O38

The airplanes could be said to be balanced at the wrongpoint but movement of the c.g. forward would result in de-teriorating canard controlpower even more. Several areasof additional research are suggested below to investigatethe "real" aerodynamic characteristics of the configurationif the wing is working properly and to solve the problemof limited trimmed o(- range at low speeds.

I. Test the existing E205 wind tunnel model at lowspeeds to develop an acceptable trimmed _- range by varyingthe wing leading flaps across the wing span in combinationwith the canard at various deflections (deflecting the canard

to negative deflections _<-20°)plus varyin_ the strake shape.The objective of this testing would be to allow the wing towork effectively to higher a's;of course, as the pitch-trimlimit is raised, the next operational constraint is the _ - limitdue to deteriorating lateral-directional control ( a _ 16°).Hopefully, aiding the wing performance and working on thestrake shape will have positive effects on increasing thelateral-directional _- limits. With the configurationworking better at low speeds, higher Mach number improvementscan be investigated. Also, the effects of the canard loca-

l tion movements and trimmed characteristics shouldbe rechecked from the current tests to see if the magnitudeshave substantially changed (trends are expected to be thesame but magnitudes will probably substantially change,e.g., "wing-alone" performance or "canard-alone").

2. Remove the canard and develop E205 wing-bodycharacteristics that are acceptable to higher _'s at lowspeed in the same manner described in the preceding para-graph recalling that the strake shape as well as the wingleading-edge flaps are effective means of modifying pitchingmoment characteristics and avoiding pitch up. When this isaccomplished, mount the canards on the top of the verticaltail to be used as horizontal tails and test to develop thetrimmed characteristics across the Mach number range usingcombinations of horizontal tail and wing leading and trailing-edge flaps. Estimates show that the existing canards are anacceptable size and planform for use as horizontal tails onthis configuration.

I39

O3. Based on the results of the data analysis presented

in this report, a change in canard and wing planform issuggested for the E205 configuration which should alleviatethe problem of low speed, power-off limited trimmed a -range.

General Dynamics has had considerable experience withwind tunnel testing delta planform configurations - withand without horizontal canards. A recent example was theConvair Division's lift-plus-lift-cruise V/STOL program.In general, optimum low-speed and transonic maneuveringperformance was obtained with this configuration balancedsufficiently unstable, canard-on, so that trailing-edge-down elevon deflection was required for trim. Pitch re-covery control power at high angles of attack was obtainedby unloading the canard (high authority actuators arerequired). Pure tailless configurations do not possesssufficient nose-down control authority through the trailing-edge surfaces to permit maneuvering flight at negativestatic margins much greater than 1-2%. For modest canard-wing area and span ratios, the size of the canard onlydetermines the center-of-gravity position at which the con-

figuration should be balanced. O

Based on this Convair experience, the modifications tothe wind tunnel model indicated in Figure 4-1 are recom-mended as a potential direction toward effecting improve-ments in Configuration E-205 balance. Specifically, thewing has been enlarged and moved aft, in order to positionthe wing-body a.c. slightly behind the 3% reference point.The planform selected is based upon previous wind tunnelexperience, and is expected to give linear pitching momentcharacteristics at operational angles of attack. (Somewing leading-edge treatment may be required at extremelyhigh maneuvering angles of attack). At the same time, thecanard has been decreased in size and moved forward to the

forward pivot location (MS 21.036). Summary geometricdata are noted on the figure.

Aerodynamic predictions have been made, utilizingreadily available wing-body and canard surface methods,in conjunction with wind-tunnel extracted canard flowfields(E205data). These data are inset on Figure 4-1. The

wind-tunnel Cmo has been included, although a portion offurther configuration development efforts would be directed

Q40

Otoward the elimination of this phenomenon. Note that anominal static margin of -8.5% is indicated (M --0.2),and that the configuration is significantly more controllablein the normal range of lift coefficients.

Construction and testing of the new canard and wingplanform arrangement is strongly suggested because (I)it can be accomplished with minimal cost utilizing theexisting E205 model hardware (only a hew canard, canarddeflection bracket, and wing panel outboard of the nacelleare required) and (2) it would allow the confirmation ofthe expected solution to the low speed trim problem.

O

O41

O5.0 REFERENCES

i. Lummus, J. R., Study of Aerodynamic TechnoloKv for a

VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft_ NASA CR-152128, May, 1978.

2. Walker, J. J., Model and Test Information Report,.0939-scale VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft Wind TunnelForce Model, General Dynamics Rept FZT-344, Dec., 1978.

3. Advanced VSTOL Fighter Attack Aircraft PreconceptFormulation Study, General Dynamics Fort Worth DivisionReport NAV-GD-006, March, 1978.

4. Woodrey, R. W., et al., An Experimental Investigation of

a Vectored-Engine-Over-Wing Powered Lift Concept, AFFDL-TR-76-92, Volumes I and II, September, 1976,

5. Heim, E. R., Basic Aerodynamic Data for a Vectored-Engine-Over-Wing Configuration, AEDC-TR-78-1,February 1978.

6. Schemensky, R. T., Development of an Empirically Based

Computer program to Predict the AerodynamicCharacteristics of Aircraft, AFFDL-TR-73-144, Vols. Iand 2, November, 1973.

7. Carmichael, R. L., Costellano, C. R., and Chen, F. C.,"The Use of Finite Element Methods for Predicting the

Aerodynamics of Wing-Body Combinations," AnalyticalMethods in Aircraft Aerodynamics, NASA SP-228, October,1969.

8. Hoak, D. E., USAF Stability and Control DATCOM,October, 1960.

9. Ray, Edward J_, Techniques for Determining Buffet Onset,NASA TMS 2103, November, 1970.

O42

O• HIGH LIFT COEFFICIENTS (Low ApproachSpeeds)

AT TAKE-OFF/LANDING CONDITIONS

6.0

5.0 (_)

4.0

CL3,0

2.0

1, VE01. 2. SPANWlSE

LO IN

1; 30= DEG

Q,• FULL ANGLE OF ATTACK POLAR IMPROVEMENT

AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS

-- MACH=.9

12.• COMBINES SUPERCIRCULATION VEO-WlNG

FROM OVER-WING-MOUNTED \=_ .8ENGINES WITH LEADING-EDGE

VORTEX AUGMENTATION ""I,-,,,=1

• UTILIZES FULL ENGINE _J .4MOMENTUM (No Bleed)

00 .04 .08 .12 .16 2.0

CDTRIM

Figure 2-1 VEO-Wing Powered Lift Concept

043

"...... ,,...Q""

____... _ -L~~ ""')-

Figure 2-2 E205 Three-View Drawing

Figure 2-345

~~a.-..~

~TUDYVpTOL l:>

r ON~IG 12104-' .. --:::.a;:::--I fWlO~OOl..RI04 Three-View Drawing

•Figure 2-4 Ejector Configuration in Cruise Mode

Figure 2-5 Artist Concept of RALS R104 Configuration

MISSION DEFINITION

,

• RADIUS •

WARMUP & T.O.: 2.0 MIN'@ INTERMEDIATE PWR+30 SEC VTO THRUST

PRIMARY (SIZING) MISSIONDECK·LAUNCHED INTERCEPT (DLI)

10-MIN LOITER+ 5% INITIAL FUEL

+45 SEC VTO THRUST

• LOADING:• (2) LCLM MISSILES• (2) AMRAAM MISSILES

M = OPT, h = OPT

h =40K FT, M = 1.6 '-="COMBAT: I2-MIN @MAX AlBM=1.6

612201

Figure 3-1 DLI Mission Profile

V/STOL BPROGRAM:

I' . ,

.4·1·.... ·.I'. .. ..~

600

, I·

500200

j:h' • '"1 ....

. 'l' .

100o- 60

5000

4000

N2:

3000ex:

~wa:

l.O ex:2:

- •...•.+C

II-c.Jw 2000

Ien .. "

enenca:c.J

1000

FUSElAGE STATION·IN.

Figure 3-2 E205 Cross-Sectional Area Distribution

VIo

•

5000r-----f------t--Ir..r:- .~~~_-:.~~,+----~-V.:..:£::..R::..T..:.T::..AI;.:l--1------1

4000 t------+-----.y-----+----~~~-----f-----+------1

....!!

IC looO...a:c

2000 1__----~--1~c......---+--I----~--~---~-+---~.I------~~-------4

1000 I- +-I~----~t..------+-----+--\-----.p,,---~,....--I-------I

OLL .::Ir;::;;..__.L.....M:::...:::::a...__~.......~-......I-~~-...I_--~~~-----'o 100 200 JOO 400 600

fUSST,. -IN.

Figure J.J Cross·Sectional Area Distribution. R104

GD/NASAIAFFDl RESEARCH MODEl"---.--.---- .. - - (Ret"4) - -_. _._--

• POWERED MODELTested Subsonic to SupersonicQ' 's to 400 Subsonic

• PROVIDES-Power Effects-Canard Effects

(Subsonic)

-Transonic e'sFOR THIS STUDY

AFFDl VEO FIGHTER MODEL AEDC TEST(Ref. 5)

.. UNPOWERED flOW THROUGH MODEl

• PROVIDES-Power Off Baseline forVSTO l Aero Buildup

-Supersonic Trimmed PolarShapes

FOR THIS STUDY

Figure 3-4 VEO-Wing Experimental Data Base

\JIN

TFWDEJECTOR

.-----------.-.----------..------- -~-_.

----------_...

Figure 3-5 Longitudinal Forces Acting on E205

0 0 •

AERO-ONLY COEFFICIENTS BUILDUP

SREFTEST _ SCE205 SREFTEsT 6 SWE205 SREFTESTCLAERO" CLWBTEST " SWE205 . SREFTEST + _ CLcHANGE + CLcANARD + CLFLAP •

• SWTEST SREFE205 SREFE205 SCTEST' SREFE205 SWTEST SREFE205

Lrl . + SREFTEsT . J_t SCE205 SREFTEsT _CDFLAP SNE205 SREFTEsTSWE205 SREFTEsT _ CDcHANGE CDcANARD +

Go CDAERO" CDNBTEST SWTEST SREFE205 SREFE205 SCTEST SREFE250 SWTEsT SREFE205

CMAERO" CHwB,1.EST • SWE205 SREFTEsT. CTEST + _ CHcHANGE SREFTEST -CTEST +_CHcANAR D SCE205 SREFTEST • CTESTSWTEST SREFE205" _E205 SREFE205 "_E205 SCTEST SREFE205 " _E205

+ _CLCANARDE205 XCTEST " XCE205 _REFTEST + _CLFLAP XCp _REFTEsT + (cgz20§ moment '_

_EFTEST_EFE20S _TES'---W" _EFE20SCL_ERO " "_'_STJ

Figure 3-6 Equations for Building Up Aero-Only Coefficientsfor E205 Airplane Configuration

""..........._*"_1o'J_ 'i ';t ..... ;! ...... '!.... :i .......... ! i'............................................. I ' .....''] ;i!....

i * [....I.....i_t.-........!.......i * _ ................i......................i.......__...._.....,_................I........_.-1

L.l.._iilll....1....I..::I....I.......i.......i...i.i_i....i..........i-i-l--:-i.......!___i..._, ...........ii.....,.....• " : i ::

._L]....................:......

Figure 3-7 E205 Minimum Trimmed Drag Versus Mach Number

• • •

O

1.1

22

• UNPOW[RLDI • • STE• 00

WAEDCTC t,12

14

t2 / 12.!

t.I J

CL / !

.I / .i |

JI / / 4"1ll,0

// '/I -Zl

-.2 1O 4 | 12 1S Z0 Z4 4 3 2 I 0 - ! -,2

ar WlkG CM03€24

• 6 T[* _o ( RU_ t0!• A[DCTC St? _ /

20 /

,, /

a I! f

'if4

D ,

4•1 ,7

€D

Figure3-8 Power-Off Wing Body Lift, Drag, and

Pitching Moment Characteristics

I for the VEO-Win_ Fighter Modelof Reference 4 ,Mach = .2

55

S YM TEST -RUNIMACHILEF TEF HORIZ. _5Predicted 0.20 0.0 0.0 -I0.0 :li

_) Predicted 0.20.0.0 0.0 0.0 t,.Predicted 0.20 0.0 0.0 iO.O t::'Predicted 0.20 Wing-Body ' I:327 43 0.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 " : i= _''327 30 0.20 0.0 0.0 OFF !!_

: :i: : .:1 :.:1

: I: .... _ :-|

, !

:[

!.

i@ --_.I! • : r.:

. !i

.[

! :

CRE F ......= _ -'1_i:

t :

t

•1 I ::_L --L--l:

-i ........1

_-#-- -+.-_

i i.... t.--t

! ! ![._ ..i, iI.

I I I l f I I I' I:1: 1 t2: : :

:i[_1,t_1;;t!_12t=H_I_I_ti ! ........_:H:H!H+H_iL!tli!:Ii_ ......:, ':_-i ..... . . -'- .........

Figure 3-9a Lift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test LongitudinalAerodynamic Characteristics of Baseline E 205 Configuration, Power'Off,Mach = .2

• • •

• • •

.JARC-12-327 i

E 205

TEST RUN _%CH LEF 'TEF HORIZ. iPredLcted 0.20 0.O 0.0 -I0.0 _

[3 Predicted 0.20 0.O 0.0 0.0 !

/k Predicted 0.20 0.0 0.0 10.0 .i!

Predict ed 0.20 Wi ng-Body

327 43 0.20 0.0 0.0

o.o_ _327 30 0.20 0.0 :1 _ , !

'_,'_EF = 384.00 ft.2 !! _.

•' -:-r=:...... ilii...... i.

_l .,_/ ; . IL. j

-4 f,. ?i_- ,l,_: i2"

E205

...

.... VITFTI-

....,._ .I....l.. ............ _ .......i

i"i ii I::i;[71!iiIi':_ iiFigure 3-9b Drag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal Aerodynamic

. Characteristics of Baseline E 205 Configuration, (Expanded Drag Scale),

I....1

~f-' '" \:- _. i SYH T~-;T- 'R~-;"T ~~~ , LEF .._~~~ ··'-"~~~l·~''- -;'. -"- : .. _~ --'~".-. -I-.~r·j I I :... : -- ..~.. 'ib ''--: ... t'!' E H:~H~:~ g:~g g:g ~gj -:g:g 'T' i ... ··ri"" : ("':' ·"rt·~':"-'- -... -:', _.+..~

Lr - _ ---- - 0 327 33 0.20 0.0 10.0 0.0 \-- r--'" ._--! r-'-' '-:--1 ' -f--f'~. r--' t. f' ~~~~ ~t-- ~+.... i-.....;.. ~- -''''.~~' I ! .-_..... ~ ...:- '-t·: .- ~~, .. :.- \... 1'-:" ---\ .. h- .~ ~-,- .~t-.-w-.·.

i : : ··1 . , ~'t- ! .. ! ;' .... .~. I" 'I.!:; ., I :1--.':-.'. .... - 1--.. ....,.-.iI..:.- 1--- . 1--...--.1--.... ;.:.; ",111'-.:-- I' - .......- ...+- - .. it'. "-' f--o--"':' . ~ - _ ....f.. ·.. -- ': . ..--·t-,l-,-.

[~~~ ... .!: 0: : . .'fl,.... I.: j I·; :.,.j. · ..·ji:.~+.... ·f·61 ~...;- --.: . -~-~~l'7 'i ... -_ ...~ --:-------,:i .. r~··+..~- -'-,---',( : oW " : I ~T':1

S'~!~ ~-'}+' , ;' i/~"f~~'f"; I • ---r .~_. ·~c---~~J ..~ ..~-~T:l ~. ; i ·i· ' \ -l-jr+.. -:- ..pt-~~ :.'--;-- ,.......~f'-' .' _..-I---.. ... -..:-: 1--;-.:.: ... -. -.-. I-.-.-~ -... '.-- "·~...-·..I-· .... -. I·.. I~.-+-' t-+ !--~'-'''-r~'... ; ....•. ..".. ':"j' . "j" 17 [z" :'>.."". ,"! '!'j ...H- --"-. -- - .: I" .. .: . I '~,~~-+L: .......±-'-..!;~.+.+.. 1-.:.)~;j.z . .. ., .. ,.. . i· .. . . . . I .'\.~ I . t·.· .i..! ., -;. : 1·-:,· ...., ..r- t--.... t.l-- --~_.. : : VI), )i r--' --~... I '1'-" '-; .....- ..._- --t---f---l-' .~.- ..'1)': ! "'~ ..:! : +-I-i I.. .. "'!: ... I: I·' ',;) . I ., .. '. . ! .: ....,..: :.. L: 'i.' l' \~. i'" I .. , .. --,' I.....i,,· , i . -:-iAt'rfTf- --+- -i--i-f- ARC-12-327 ..-f-,- r--' 1-,-1--- -, \.J\'l-' . 1. i I-I . ;. I I'

T'\ !'''I/~JlCI ~ i' -1. i' I I 'rt"- ---~. ~- ...:.. ).- Lm:l\~'!:f.~ 'b j'1'~ .! .. T"'I 'j

~:r"f' .:- ...j.. j .. :.'~AVr·· 1.. 1.. ; ..: : .! .. j .. ; 'IE ?o..l i·:· .;::. l·i \ 1\ r~'" ~\I"·~ ...:...+ .. j.++:.·I·'-..!

I . : • I • M';' M : I . .:.. T 5 2 l,'t' ~" I· ..i ; I· _..··\·'··1 .. :··· ,:;" . :'" -.! !....... i REF = 384.00 ft•... , 1: . : .j : I": I... : .. ,... :....... i'4· 1--;..·!t"D :.: ...J' :. -- ~. ..--j---i '-H--'--\--!--,- . --8: ~- .~-.p+-- ~·;Ofs ;, '. ,.!:. : 1·:_· ..·I·~7.~/I..·' .. ··i .. ·-i· .. ·i ... i.. I ..• ~ EF = 142.68 in.'; ... I, I:..· ...! 1"1.:\.m'~:" ",i.-I'."." .. r'· .. ··..· '. ., I···i ! . :.. i f:7,/J, :..!.. ·f ' · ~ ·'···1:.~I :T: I i j.:; . ':'" --;'~i'-:"'I-: ... :. ·,Tl \.[ I··: ... ..: ., i'~"'i'-

i--l- .-- 0,., . " 'J/-ff' :. -'.- 1 • : -- :. ..~~ ....::..,·ia.... ~, . . I...... ·j_·-·,. ; .:. (;';1 .. . I .1 .. : .j.. i··, .... i .:. . ... I .:. ;. ~;\. .: ... I. '. . . . j

; ; I~'" -.: lY~~ : I.. :. ; .~ .[=':.. '1 :. E205__ = ~l-=~I ; ·:.-+-r1·1~.·j'''':·~(\r5:. -f\~;":"-~~ "~'T"'l'i--:'.,.-tOo '--"]U.+' -#)--.r---. ., ;--I--i--I---. ~=-== f- - ..-I- ..... _.-_. -.,.....,....... \: :...- '-'".i . P/,.: :. '1:· .. ---- -,-=:'~-'::::-- ----~i :.: .... . :·1 :.; i\i~ 1"\: 't ~ I' +. 1 ::c-t... j..... .... 1--... ~-l-. . ....-- --'- ---..1 j" '."- 1-.,..... '-"1-;·1--·1 ....-f--+-. "'t'ir'1-I1,' . ---t--'r-i-ii • ) ,/·1 \1:. i f': ~ ~ I··: ! i: " .! .. 1 / \i 'fi i- , ¥!., ·fl··. i i:

I-A· l--'~'J: . ·-t- -'- --r-I--- --- -- --- r·· _ / "..L·~+-__ I: : i"'· ·.. m--t--" ·-,-1·-'. i.' . " . , .:: 1\: ' i·· , i

:.1 I' 'I . , . ...; . I . . . I' .. , !. • I' lri··· "1 I'· i .

~-I"'" or;" ;...i....:... _ _j--- ----- "-' !'" ., ,'''" +.._..-1--'-1·'· ,·_:~"-l--l"": .j : L I .. : 'l---I'~'-r~ ';-!..·-1o..-1·~~r-+· ..-!~

"{ I ! . ! I. ~ ! . . !"., '

t.l,.... + r· '/f '+: 20 i....~~ i 21l : .32.' a.S q~ 0·3 D.:? ;r, i.~.o':' i -0.·J.. -0·3

\.. -kz \. i IlLPdtl (b l6IlE

ES); .._\ -0.2; ..: C 1'1

I I iI

I I 1. .. I !

Figure 3-l0a.Lift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test LongitudinalAerouynamic Characteristics of Baseline E205 Configuration with WingTrailing-Edge Flap Deflected +10 D

, Power-Off, Mach = .2

':'.' : ..:.... J"'H--i .__.~'~3i .. ,.. .: I·· ~.O!_+__~_.__~~ ~~,- '~L ..~_. ..~:~o~ _:__.._. --:O¥'!~_f-' _. Ii .:... ..._O~ I.~__)_.."_ '!:O ,....·-!O·II{:J .... ;n. .L...! i i· .. .; .;. i'" ' . 1 : :. • • .. i I : C 1>' '" j . :... j: .. : ...4i- " I';~iI' : i i : ' , :' -!-. -+ : -,-f--'-'- -- --'1 ~- -,- ....-1"--

.. "'1 ... : - _.\:...,. - !. I· : . : : ; .... ,: : I· i· : ; I "I'.'. .,.. ....i..: i·~ +-~. : : • ~_...J.._ r-i- -L -+- ,.......- -~-I- ..'- ~ I -i-· -.- -+- _..:... ..... -', "11--.._. -' -- - _..' ; ... --+-+-+-i-I-i--i--'- ;. --'--t-;-.';+-',.-1_....

1-1...

\h ~ .. ,":1-" . ··1· . ,:.+.. :)~~._ ....)... "'1 .-\ :..:.! . ; 1,-, "; ... i. . I ; : .! ' . ! "')' .j.. ;' ..:... .~.. 'i-'~' -. :., ".. r····';;io'-'l<t.~ -"-f--r"~-+.+- -t-.; t-;- _ -.,_. . '"... t- .. " -i'- 'r -- ·f··-- ..·· _·1 j.... ."""-j- 1-,-"T -. r'- '--r I .

~'~FF ~:: 2r-- Jt: ::.L-:j .... :.~ ~ J1

.. : -;- . :... ...i. ~.,_~L.."1-·· -- ·-~_c-J·l ..~- ; :. . J' . .... . ) r-L ._.L. ~L_i..- --...- r--';-i --L- ...:. rt~l."; 'oj'" ;: ..!_ ;.::,~. : .j" 1. _.~ __Le-L.~ . T' , i i _.L.1 ..~_ ~ _.:.. "....1...._. :_~ 'J.:.. .Lill r i r j' : .(

Figure3-10bDrag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal AerodynamicCharacteristics of Baseline E205 Configuration with Wing Trailing-EdgeFlap Deflected +10°, Power- Off, Mach = .2

~:-----r--- - ,. "---r- -,.------ ----- ----. -_ . ..,.----,.--.-,-- - ---~- ..--~ -. - -1' - _. -- - - ~--r-..,----r-'----'-"-r--r--....---r--r->

·1 .; 1I! S~ TEST RUN HACH LEF TEF HORIZ." " i" ;.. I . ' . i .;ri··· ...,.. -'" ....L. 0 :~:~~~~:~ ~:~~ ~:~ ~~:~ -1~:~ 1-- ..... --- ... _l~.. ;_ •.. ,. " "'1---;'1-'-1-'--'" -- ..-:- ._- _._+1:1' ! t::. Predicted 0.20 0.0 10.0 10.0 I . :.:! !' ~' .•.. \.

~. --:--r': .'.1fff .i3

H27.. i 33, I 0.20 - 0.0 ..10. ~ I 0.0, :-.... -- -::+-:- '-'~-J'... :. I'" ..!. ~ Ii -~-:::~t4" ...;.\.. .. '.. ;.-

H+ C\.f"H -i-1-; ..-... : ....--r~- f-..- - ..- _..... i- -,- ...;-+,-+..... +~ E"" e-,- --:-r-' '-. r:-r ~TIJ~' '.._; :. ':'. '.! :. !. .; . , : i: ' i' . : 1 I 1/ ,~. . I ,. . .,,> r) I . I" 'j.

H·· ...~ ...,.. -ARC'-l2-327 .- -'T- -:-1-'''' -;'-f-.- ·-rr---;--t-·r--j .... >1:0.. '~~-r'--"- ...,....+::::- /'F--' ._. ~..-.. , , '+--i,:-.......;.--+-,.-l-----I---;---+-~f---+-...,.....fI:i t· : i' ,.;.... . .. , .. , 'j' .....'.' ,. " £/'1' h.: :7"1 '·1· ·f··,.-,-." 0;7 1-"1'-j-, . I ..L " f-,-- - ,-r'-ri", .. , 1-,- --r- -.- t::::~......~?I-"-- -_.. - --1- , , !i. "IE 205,. Ii,. ; i ., " -.. '" '/ft i .; ':""" .i.lit r I....: , . " , ~~./'.....: ,. i:'-,. ..-_ ...----r-:-,-i- - .. .,-,--.;..... ---.-... ~rl -/' ._. --.]_.._\ ..._-.. "; -I---

., i I .1"., , .. ,.. . ; ;.e ".; . : ,Y "V ' : , :~ .,' I··:·' '1' I.. • .. -··!T : ....f--'-. -10;" . S REF = 384.00 ft. 2 -' - -'" ..._.. =-:.- •.-. ~;;:r' + ~.......- "--- -;-.. ;;.6t" _ .. -'- _.- . _. ++- -' .--J-..-f4..r ',ii" "T'T , .. ".:," i"".-r r : :' / . i"i i"" ,-

~···':+-~"--r;r.' .••••.•••• ;, ..;;'}.·'f=i~t~(:~t[i~, .;:,.·+"r~."+ ,rr'j: :.8:.:.+"i 71" .,/ ,,-I.-V '[1 '1_ .+, 'W- .... ,J. ·1,-;·... ..

4"'::. Tt~t.r*:Lii.I··· //(:=:~tr~T'"" ::;~~~]-cJ~~=!IJj+T::::,'H- f---.- i---t-7- .• --j--,. '; i ~~ --- . -"'1' - . ': --

~~IO'~ _..._.I~Lj.:-_=·.i. r1' ·i ~( ..... / :/·1··, ..··• ' ~c=~~~'7- .'-..·7~~__:__~_~ ~ ."'j"i' ..... ' .+ ).,.: .,. I:· ... i .... yi·t· 1 . ..... .. i.. .. iT' ..; ..+ ·····1;· .~r·_··- '-r tJ-r T·r--· .1. I,.. ', ..... !...; .. ; i . , . ~ ~. i.- ;. i 'i: i ...~:~ f+ +1 "_IitT~ .1. i: riIl ::':Ji__=~:tj="]_,! " ......, ····i:-1'·1' .. I ... , "'i . .:... .. j ... 1""""\ .. i -'I ···i· .i ,...: l : ·1"·~··, .I· ....1·· ..+··+·· ... ,..; :. ,ttr.-.....

F- - HORIZ • '

i I i SYM TEST RUN MACH LEF TEF I• X Predicted 0.20 0.0 25.0 -10.0 ..... J-:-"_ ......

[] Predicted 0.20 0.0 25.0 0.0

I i /k Predicted 0.20_- _0.0 25.0 10.0<> 32"/ 42 0.202 ..... [_0.0 25.0 0.O

-4- "_"1-':/-! "

i .....

.....i.....ARC-12-327

: I !"i i E 205 !_ i _'1

--SREF = 384.00 ft.2 i.I I : 1 ; I : I I

m i _REF = 142.68 in .....: :-t

E205

i'i. . .i_ _.1 I _---=--_- :-- --'j- '" i

..... i

_,I.- _zL.___, ,.--J'...."Figure3-11aLift and Moment Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Baseline E205 Configuration with WingTrailing-Edge Flap Deflected +25 ° , Power-Off, Mach = .2

• • •

• • •

S_ TEST RUN MACH LEF TEF HORIZ. ! : i ' iX Predlcted 0.20 0.0 25.0 -i0.0 I ......;, !,.....

_ Predicted 0.20 0.0 25.0 0.0 " i 'Predicted 0.20 0.0 25.0 I0.0 ......!.......i.: '-l--i.I !-! _ 327 42 0.20 0.0 25.0 0.0 i -[ i I !

ARC-12-_

lI-"- ---[

' E 20: _

i z _..I

....,SRE F = 384.00 ft.2 I _.

...._---!--i-!_--!,

•.i:_iI_!:' -_-i-=........ -t_._ =--_.....: .[| - ...i...... 1.......:. :..... _ ... ; .

'-' _ . _--_ --!--- -+- . - ;----i ........... i--- ...... i i

! 1

o,V_ o.,o_, /o.:,_-_ I_ o._+ _l if!!.....i:--_.......-......:_- i........: '_...............: :-i..... ---]..........! .-i..................._...... _..........._........_--,----_......._........_----_-_l ................' _ i :l . : .... i i ...... ' !.................

t• ] • ! : :

.. . , _ , ..., . '. . _ , ....... ,

Figure3-11b Drag Comparison of Predicted and Test Longitudinal AerodynamlcCharacteristics of Baseline E205 Configuration with Wing Trailing-Edge

(j'I

N

0 i ~ 10 I~ 2'0•.•• 1

T" I .\ .,de,I (XI !

-1.0 -08 -o{,'!

-0.4 -O.Z ·az 0.4 0.1, 0.8 t.O

I i. L. ! :J. :\

Figure 3-12 Full-Scale E205Polar-Envelopes

Airplane Power-on, Trimmed Lift Curve- and Dragfrom Wind Tunnel Data for M = .2, CTTOTAL = 1.81

• • •

Figure 3-13. E205 Trimmed Cruise/Maneuver Drag Polars

(_TE 10o

50 CLT CT = X .TESTDATA 0 (_TE 0

C2LE

CDS/_ SM

® ® ®L

I CDE CLE (+) (-)CMo

CDo CMTM = XXCT = XX OPTIMUMe ENVELOPES

MACH (_C= 0° OPTIMUMENVELOPE

CT = X eE _ TRIM eTRIM CT= X

_..4o_ CLE _ "---_. _,,. _., _ f _4-- _ _:> _,_• / _ _ " _ _TE

_"_._ _TE ,_ _.e.6

_. _TE .,,J_\E._ @ -"" i.0

_TETRIM CLE MACH1

Lo ,4Lr dLr LT= Lo+ALr+ALR e=TT'-'A-_" C2LE

CDE- CDOE

MT= MoXdL_ XRALR

cgWHERE ,L o = POWEROFFAERODYNAMICLIFT

4Lr = LIFTINCREMENTDUETOSUPERCIRCULATIONT LR = REACTIONLIFTDUETOTHRUST

X = SUPERCIRCULATIONARM

Xr XR = REACTIONLIFTARM

CDc = CAMBERDRAG

CDs = FLAPSCRUBDRAG

Figure 3-14 VEO-Wing Trim Method for Maneuver

Q • •• : •

...................................... t..... ' I" " ' I ................ '' '" '_*....................................................... f , 11, ,

":"l"'": ": ::""_[ :. ','. : ', ::: i !i i: :!:: : : - : .: . ; _ : : :_,[ 1: :::,,: :i' : ',

_Jl _ I , . I . ,, , . _ , : . _ , ,, . , , I , ! ......... , I I ....

! ............. I• I ....... ,................ . _ _ , [ _

I1 II I I l,,,_,,,!I !Ii!!_ 1111111111,,,,Ilt,!h,,,,.,.**,_:._

" " ' ' ' " ' ' ' • " ' ' " ' ' ; '" : " : " "" " ' _ " ' t ' '

__I_,'.;_FI_..._-_h-i_ I.-'-_,_,. b-'bT! -'1-_,_-_.'Mach = .6, Cp = .302 MAX A/B POWER

_:: IL_li:_J_l :_[[ILI_]_. g_Ll__.'_'_':._-'_-. Kach = • 9, C/_ - . 159 MAX A/B P( _ER

_' I.":.!l_:.l_dMti_ilii _EYHqc:I :. I: illii "-I.Li I_-'1"...1.:.'*,, ....,...,,,_,:l.... ,,,,,i, ,,,,,..,,,,,,. ,:L:'.qliiil!i_i [ fill il_:_1:_1:_--:-:I_---I_I_LI'LL_IL:I_--q_-.q-Ht:- - .+l--_l-"--.::-:1__ -_Math = . 9 POWEROFF_,H_t. _

• :. .: ................... II .... , ......

-_-..... _- :-: .....c _ ....!..-'Math= .6, C = o171'"::':':;:" _:-' __.:,,:.. =_..::,::,: :7177I_._.M_,....,......... ' ......... " " '" ' I_,I ilF_IIU__iFl_li_lT;_l_l_:Tli:lTi_:liilTil_77F_l_71_F.i_oo_-.,,,-.o,o_:,:::,,,,:,::,,,_,,::,,:,,_,_,

I iI3 1' !tl 1,i.............._7--_..: - i ...... "' _" _ 1_ _ .................................

.::::.:: :: .i:_;_::: :: ...:. : ._ : : :: - !i!!i :: i: ii : !.!! !!! i!l:! 1 ii!:it ! i!:!!_ii! !{!!

!:: i'.i: i_ :i:!!i!!:!:t ii:i!: _. ": :-:_:i::'.:i!:.i! _ !i. iiii!iil :i !:!il .i!'ii!i!!! i!V.i':!i_:!i! iii!liiiii!.. :i:i

:i__., .... _:_"-_:__.__:-:_::: _:_i:_:_',:'_:__i__:-_::_:iii:_:__:"'! :'_':_:::.. _ ": .,__ii .- : , • !!i_ i !!i

:....I_.. . !.,b..l:.:.:.....:.LL_!___-_._....i:: :I: .!:

Figure 3-15 Power-on and Power-off Predicted Trimmed e s as a Function 0f"Ecuivalent" _.i::l: ..... L-L .....

Lift Coefficient, CIE, Mach Number, and CZ (from Reference 1)

Figure 3-16a E205 Lift and Pitching Moment Curves at M=I.2 with Canard Deflection

, • • •

..+. -,-+-. ; c~(.:~'~~vj ;Y:o'j ~ / / +L_-[- ~..I

-+---'-.. / ;-._.+-11,.,_-+•.-.,..+-j,.-+..---'--t-'-.. -+--.-;n-·:'-tM.u,,~l. : j?!. )~'::tSV~~' [rilED. :M~,£ .•~" 1"'-:' ........1 -i , .

r'r_ =.il?> C k rY: ']7; !MAll! /fWA OH 'HIP" I ;/ IT i' i.: .

:

'C·+-·C-+':'+"''-'''--+'-+h~~;Lf- .-,.!-:-)L1-·· ..+_.+- '-Ii :~ -+ -+- -+.. "'1'+-[" J ····/···-+···+··f ····1··· .. :-~..+..-+- ···1··- "'r'- .+... f·· 7:!.f~(~r:m~~~/" i..I-_ ..-r.. _.+++.. _L "1'-"'1' ··-f ""["-f""':"""';""'--:

_.- ..--l-- ;.,.,.+. ···1I-'1} -I.. J" ---r ···l··[·J ,.. :'i'" .(-+ ..+.- ··:·1')"" :1····1····:· "j'" ~

.....:j...L. "" .,-,+,-.! Vii ... -.. i""'" .... :.. \... ····~l1o(;io~-+.. i""" ""'-j ". !,. -..J- .. "-1- -d-. ··1····1:· ... . ...j ....! 'j' '1'

't- :-, _.,-j- J ".:" .:: 7'" "'v~~""'lf'-·····1,-···[.·· i·· +.. -+- -'-..:+~. ''-'''' -'" ..+..+.. ~ ++ j-.. ·f··:·i· -·T· ,. .• ' :11'\-,. LL -.I/L.-C: .,c -,-" l···· -,- --.-1- r- !.- --t-o -,--' ,.,. .·,-t~.•. -,- -- -·1 - ~ :... "",' -.. i! ...;! ·1·..· .. I(~:,I /', ..., ... I '!"..•. • i

. - ......... ', ..... - .. " '.- - .. - "'.

~=I'c--'-f-,±;··;et.. =:::+:;;'j':.. ~ .. :;.,:,:, :,:,~: "--.: .. ... ".. .... ... ... . I••••• - ••••••• -+ •••••~•• ~-- -~"1

I

,,c.>Q w:.++l"b!t"rJ,; {,: LOll •• ,: ...J~ .... .~l~" ..• '-...tf4-I-+_.. :J ,-,;:LI~.~.t.~b+:,'J"+r-.",,~·.l1~- ,,~ ... ::18. 3D.!•• : •.••. ::: ':.' I:" .........••'.:' •••. : --'.1 ~jJj L ..J_.. _ :.. .•• ••• L2. 2::1: L~ "T- .~.,c, U:.U ' ' .::":::L..•:. .•......__ :': .,c _ ,_ 1

Figure 3-l6b E20S Drag Polars at M=1.2 with Canard Deflection

TOTAL COEFF : AERO-ONLY COEFFICIENTS (SF=O°),

/.2 _,_

.LO° _ = 12. ._ x i

// I0

/ o

' -5 . \0.8 ..... B _ _

.... N\I_ . . 4 :

o.4 -, o,..,1

!

........... - ......... :- --- I0-----_. ..............

I ! : i

' ' | I ' I i ' i I i

DEG Cm3,%MAC

Figure 3-17a E205 Lift and Pitching Moment Curves at M=l.6 with Canard Deflection

• • •

• • •

Figure 3-17b E205 Drag Polars at M=I.6 with Canard Deflection

Figure 3-18 E205 Predicted Aerodynamic Center

• • •

• • •

Figure3-19 Aerodynamic Center Test/Theory Correlation

00010 0 0

OFF 0 0-5 0 0

o,... "'.' L1

(JG:J

.. f·. t··. t··

····f'.'j.!

.. , .,! ~·I·"; '!l":: ::':1: ::DB-O .: .. l . r·iU. I· .. . • : : :.. : : :: i· : :- •• f··· ...•. I

DEG ;:<::: ... ::-:--- ~::.':: ::~:!:::: :::t: ..--------------, :;:.:1 .!.::~:!: ::1::: '::J< ::J<~!;';' ::.J:~:1.:::r::::·::··1 .. 'It;:· .....

::: :.,:..:..::: ..j,~·.• :•. 8;, ,·.: : .•, ..): ... ::::r.: ::J::: :::: :::: :::T::: ::::~:::)<: ::::~:r-..l..:;

.•• j

_.- .. - ..._:!:::: ····t:·······f· I'·

-.-..-..-;'-12 ..., ... :::-1:' j •..

.~.,':,.:,',:",..,:.:;,~.. ,,:.::._:: :..,:;,:.:.', :::::,L,::l: :.,... .. :~ .: ,,·~lfl~:: :F/ .::::.::: ': ::::1.':::: ::::!:::-:1 , ~ ' " .. '-u ~ri1:: ,., .

I l: II 1 . ~:: .::: j ....

.. i:."

. . T .. •. .

:.~: : = : : '. ..:: _ ! : : : : .... ! . . t . . .. ... . .. .... -... .... .... . ... l' .. ... ~ .:: : ~ : !:.:. ...___ .;j .~ •••••••••• :::1:::'::: t :-::~::: :::: :::: :~:: :::~ ;~:: :::: ::::::::: ::::i: f ..•.. I .

. ! .... , ... ... .... .... .... .... ... .... ..... .. 'j". . , i '" . ,. . i i·: ::.::: :::: :::::::: :::: -:::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :. .

-::::: ..... ;:::: .:(::': ::::1::: :::: :::: :::: :::; :::: ~~:: ::~.;:::: ::J:::: : :.; :::1:: :::1·:::

;:1: ::·1:· . ,.,.:> :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: ::': :::: :::: :::: :.... , . . ' 'j .: : .. I. :•• ·....tii}~f: n: :-- ..st~-;~ii H'lfOh~li2i .;Figure 3-20 E205 Buffet-Onset Angle of Attack

72

:i i:_ E205RIGID SIDESLIP DERIVAT

"_C= 0"

! !!:ii: . ...... .i i

iCy 8 :!:::,::::'. ::.:.! : : i ': :; i::.::il...i .:!. i . ._:_' :_i::::: : ! : ! : :i:il " ......-T ................ i ; '- ....................................... t .....

: :=..,T:':::::i..... I " :" " ::': : " :: : I:

iPEi__i::::ii::ili::::i::iili_i::ill _:::_!_::Ii!:_i::_:_l_!I_ _ _:_l:_I:::!_:_l:::._ ; : i : ::; ,,DE.G.j:!:!i:.i:'.::::i:!:;,::, :. : :::!: ,: ! i:!::!!:!!::.:i: /:.":.:!:.i!::il.....,,_:_:!j:."i ::i'.I i': i:i.iili::ilI •i !I i _!

i:.:!:!'::i - M=O.6,O.S,1:.6";::::::::,:::._::_::!i::.:::::I_.:::i::._..:.:!_:._-.i............::_i,::il!:::,_ : '. '.. i

, i i ,

•: : :: ::: _: :_i:_; i: :i:: i : ! :t:: t : i: : ]. :: ! ! i ! ::::!::.',:-0 :.:,i _ _ [ . ! , , ,_ . ......: ::. : .... " :: .i: ' . , : " , " : • _ : ; I '• _ .......... ;......... i i ..... ? " _ ; ,', "

i:i:. :,:!:-i. :it: : i:- 0:i::! " :: I :i:iii::t.: i0 ::.-:i!::! : i::! :: ::: 20 i. :i..... _............ , ......... , ........ ! - : I : , .: :: ::I"....I ....:: ":: • ::. : ":'_• ...... I ......... :• __ _ I I '_ • : : I I I ': .... "!::: : " " _ I:t:::: :t I...... ] ...... :IO_DEG ::: " . : I ..... I ' ' ' ' ' I '

i.:::iiiili::' i " -::' i .:_ ':!::.::i:. i : :: .i " I::::I_::::'':"::' ' !I::i:_i:I:i:::: _ i _ :

:.i[ ::: ! i::!-'i : _ ,.i.... ]:.... i"...... ::ii.......i:i' ............! ! ::: ..... :,, :, i .... ..:i :I

.C_.__I_ ::i!''' ! .... :i ' :! i':" i:" : ::i ' :" :' " :"i: '::..... :"i ii: ii _: ,ii i;I: , . i i : ! ! !

, I _ : _ : , . .

:t :,: i _ , ! _ "I:_ I i _-: :, i i1"ii!i:: !!!i : .... _

PER"i!ii li., _...., ,....,, ', I....

- ::'I"L .!....... i i , ; i

T:"!i:ii i:T:::li_l_ i i ::: " :i • - : " : i i

' i ! ;

............ I:: I , , , ' i :

1::1:::i:::::,..................', 0 ::: , , , : if: ',..,{::.: :i:. ::i I i '_ " ',: 1.: '', i" ' , : I

::::::'i:.:'::: : :i .::l:::: i I

• :::::if:::::::. !:: ; ::!:i _CH NUMBER : l.. _i ;i ;_ _ _i;: I..11. :;rI: I "-I ""1:: ! I

Figure 3-21a E205 Lateral-Directional Characteristics

O Cy_ vs. _ and Mach No.

73

: , j , , , ) : i' .... :" :i:2) i)::. :.i i 2::i U:.::::_;::::::_:_.:::_::_: : .: RIGID SIDESLIP DERIVATIVE. i i : :!....':::i::i:::":::'::", ! _REF 308.86 ......FS I :: ! ;-:!: i1:.....i : : ::: _ 145 WL : i !:" .1::::. ) :.:- : ::,::; , .: r.... , : ! :

c_:.....6- I.......):.......:: i.. :i: .................... [:...... 11 :i ....... : _ . : ! ! i

T

:1_ !iiiiii: ::'::....! ' :4: _......... : _ : : i M,=I6.............. I '........'....:I" I : I : l : I_ I I "- _i!ii_.,_..,:!!i:;!.::_::',::_--i:i 1_,,;i i _! i I ' ' I : • : M-O 6__._:r.,_,_.,,vnn2.,. ...... ' ....... ':._::i:.:,, ._ : , :) , • . . "............. :" " " ...... " l ' ; ' ' i...... ...... i .......... ;n_r_..ii_!:.::........................................

...... I ' ' ' '

• i : • :- • :.. :.:- " : ; :: : .: : :i : /.:::: ::: : ; : " "• . _ ., ,. .,. ;- ; .... , | _ • : ':t:. :! :'! i::: :: i : ::: :::' ! : : " ::: ::'7i :: :::!i:ii: :::!'-"!. ! : : i ' ::: . . I .... 1. ' ......

!i: i:!i:iii:! _ili'•"•:i!:!:!:im •::i•.• :i : ........ _........... ' i_........ I 1"" ,,

:::_: ii:::::.0.!: .... _ i ::i:l !i i0 I i:::i::il::.!: i " i 20:::• i

.........t.....:,: : :,.... :: , :_r----_D.GI

i ': : : : : + " l : : : : F : : I : .... ¢m : ' ; :

..' . _ .i :::T:::.!: ..! .:!:: : : . ..... :: .. ', :............... i , ' i i : i i i : ) :..,.. 0•*. ', ... 1 : • i : i i

...... _ ' ' i _ : : i : :

!Ii_ ::t::i:: !i:_,- i: '•_ i •_, :_ _,' t• i _ ! : i !. L. ' ....... i " I : , ": ":', : : : ; ::

.... ! 0 W ! _ .... ' 1 ' : : " i : ::i: :: ::::. i : ! : i I : : i ! ', ; i :: ! :

": : ': " : : :' " ' 1 ' _ : 2 i

): :_:_:: 1:::::_: _ !TTI :MACHNUMBER! , _ i : :

Figure 3-21b

Cnfl vs. el and Mach No.

74 0

0 i : i i l i IREF 308.86 FS i _ l i Z j

..... : ; oC - 0 _ : : ; :i I ' - :"I : : ' i I [ :

i ::i i I : I i I i i I ! , _ E i : i L,,=:'_ '

t nn_, ] :: t : _ i .: .i .L_i.L ; _ -'/T:--T: M=0.8, 0.9_'": I T'vv"I T { : _ M-I.6, 2.0 !'i1"T'/i : I , : " !

:: 2-t ::1 i l-J-_ I;/ __T--h I T-T-I--T-TPER I { i I i, i, T t i _/T .'//./_ , : • ' .___,___.__...,_..__

7DEGj_ 6o2!:!i1 i.,:.'i.!/F!I ; :. . !TI i :_- i I T'_ .:--I ! i 2/////i :: i I : _ i i i : j ; i ; _

, £ I _ I ]--T_-£-I £1:-T-F-"T .............:--;....i--T;....i i . 2 /.,_ . 2 l : .... _ . ] . i !

: : • [ ' ' ' ! : I " : " - ....

I :.!!- !-I'-.....:I:. * I_ I l . I ' _ : , ' . i : :,_

il__ ;12......-DEC- :: :. ! I " ,_"+_ :: :: ! i i . :. ': _ I !

_i _= , _ _ _ 1-2- __--....:...._....,__--_j.._2._.

:i _ I 0 i t ! ! i i J. i : _ :! 1 2 , ! J

' : I [ : . " , : • : ' : )

Figure 3-21c

O Cl_ vs. _ and Math No.

75

! ::----~. ! ;

j

! I !.,,,!J

1"'-~ ,I

I I'

I,.

i. ;

I, --- . -

I'-REF 308.86 FS,

I ,145 WL !.. , ,,

I I r--!--" ":T': - .• I

I1 .j,i

,I 1 ! !i

.1'.:. l 1. 'j:' ":'j":: :::.! ... ··.:1 i.02

, ,1 I ! !-'" .1 I

I 1 ! Ii

. 1 . -.: ~ i : .

i

f--;"'-'-!-'-'-:"-!-'-'-~ O~·_-+-+-+-......;.;.-+-~-+-+-+-......;.;.+......;.;.-+---+-...J--+---+----f-......;.;.-

-"-+--:--1 ---,------+----,.-h- 2 -~._-i 0 i 1

I '1.. 1 1/

I -.004/:

i I /"!'", .... .. , ;~

I C , :~--, i~ n6VT

1

1.,i

.. . .. j-.002

:-

: PER :~ --+-c-i---+-

I~-+--'---t-~t-_:__+--:--+---:--+---'---+-~---+--'----1--~t---'-+--

r---i-DEG-+-~ 0 -"--+.....-+-----+-.....-+----+-........+---+----+-.-..-+----+-~I__~r-:---t-~+_~+----._~-~. --+-~---+___:___j-~t-_:__~-:-_+_-_+----:--+--'--+--'-~---

I__~I__~I__~!-'-'-;.... 0 ""';""-1----';""-1----';""-1----';"":-I-~, ~. .. I . :. 2f--------7-+.-,-r---:--t-....,.-r--;--+---:---r---:-_i_ MACH NUMBER -"1.---+---t---:--t--

i : • I ! i'I. I I

r- . :. I

.-----i- PER +-.....:.-r--'-l-~+--+--+-~-+-...:--+-....:...--+--'----I---'--+-.....;....-+----'--+----,--I---

----i- DE;G-+ b . --+--;'-+~--I~i!-:-+-+--+----I~-I_-+_......+_~_+_~-+---'--I .1

o 1 : 2f-..--+--,--t------...,..----- I -----+---"--!---+--.,.-,-+--, I' --:-.-+---:-~.-+----:--t,~ I -.-f-....,:-t--.,....--t---+-~_+__..,___+____r__+-.,..J-._t_MACH NUMBERI·--~- ---1

i I ; I : :: .Figure 3-21d

Vertical Tail Effectiveness

76

~r_-r-,-"'.-"..+I--'--·-"+1-"-"'-"+,,~--, I, I

i " ~- '-'--''''-:'-+''':'-+--:-''i, i

i,

.1.

~-I---+---+--+--+-~---'--j-......,.-REF 308 • 86..-: 145,- '-':i' i

'-~"-rl-- --.:f--.:......-f----'--+-~--+.......:.- - ---'--- .--...:..... ·-·..;.---+---,·-+·--·t"--f---':'---~...~;.- ,.' .--.:.... i, :

I ,! if I~-l-...;.......+---+--+-+--+-;--:--+~---t---;---t--,----;-------r-----;-r---:- ~-·1--,·-t--'.....,-...~..-.. -- ·· ..·1

f----'-~"-+--'--'-'-'-'-+......;..-t-.:....;..----+·--l--;-t..:.:- -·--f---f-·-"·+"-·'''r·-~·-+~~'-''~·-''·.....JIii .' Ii'.,o I!'i I I ~ :

f-'--+--';"-+---:-+-~ l'---t..----+--- -lL--t-T'-i-r--z-~I _..:.:....+~-+----;--I--.;..-...-t--;--+--:--j--:-+i---:+--+--1--:-_____ --- i-.._' ....1.-.. __ .L.... L __ .- ~r ! I • • -_. -r-:--; \ 1 ! ,1--:-....;f.--,--!---..;.-4~-+-,..-:--+-;--+~---;- MAeH NUMBER :1 ::!:' , I' , .' I, I I~~'-t----i--4--':'---j-;.-t-':"""+-"";"""+---'--:-r : : ~- --:-1-~·_-tl·..--·_·'t'·-;..---ji- ..~-..l

. I. . . I

I

~+-I--+-....Jr-+'---..:.-+--:--:----'-+--'-'-t--:--+-:-r--t----;------'--r---+--:---t-~-t-__:_I---.- __.~ ~: ...;..--L ..... jI ,

1------:--+----:..4--+-+--:-+-+--i-+-...;.-T---~rrl--+--t---;----t-·--;----+-_+-·-.. ----I..-.... ·-11-·-:-- !" I

Figure 3-21e

Aileron Effectiveness

77

4s,.OIO STRAKI[lSTRAK Jr

lIZ.lll4

• 0 II.|l| 41,111 41.111

I_111,,-I. III 14 IFI.rJQ lll.lliO

" ; l II'VIIfW'Oq_9"_CALI[ ViCTOr. MODF.t..

1 ¢OI4FIGURA.T_ F..-10_

t

Figure 3-22 * Three View Drawing of E205 Wind Tunnel Ho_el 78

• • •

@

@

Figure 3-23 VEO-Wing 0.0939-Scale V/STOL Fighter Model

79

Figure 3-24 Cross-sectional Area Distribution of E205Wind Tunnel Model

• • •

~

-~ ,

__ 0 JllJ~=_ .=, ..~~~~i5!&1=~ c=~~ I e:.-".65a ----L

HORIZONTAL 'AHA-BD MIQ-POSITION)THEa. AREA (I PA"IEL) .3390 FT" .0315114&SPAN 1.t611N .184111MAC '.1'17 IN .185ML.E. SWEEP 45'T.E. SWEEP e"zt/TIP CHORD S.f>3I1N .000tMROOT CHORD 'U'l151N .Z49MDIHEDRAL CJ'HINGE LINE e F.ll. Z4.414

8.L. 8.IZe.W.L. IS.581

HINGE LINE ~WEEP "46'ASPECT AATIO (I PANEL) 1.08AIRFOIL C!! CR NACA-E.4AOOS

CT NACA-E.4J1\OO&

.105114

.z4SM

.044M

.4168111

.O~M"

.ZZZ'"

.164M

.Z930M&1.023M.3295M

~.I541 FT"40.Z70IN'Z.Q'3IN40'3.'06

16.651O'O'

3.57.1'166

NACA.-64AZ04

~THEa. AREASPANMACt..E.SWEEP"TlPCHORDROOT CHORDINCIDENCEDIHEDRALA~PECTRATIOTAPER RATIOA.IRFOIL

--------------W.L'lll'tO I I I I I I I I I I

I. 4Q.Z'70 01

,. 1I0.T74 .1

VERTICAL TAlL

THEO. AREA .4188FT"SPAN e..'SIIN,MAC "7.Z56 INL.E. ~WEEP 4"7"50'"TIP CHORD 4.14411'1ROOT CHORD 'l.63eINASPECT .RATIO I.Z7HINGE LlNE@F.S. 49.110HINGE LINE SWEEP O'TAPER RATIO .43AIRFOILGl CA s.s·l.al-cONVEX

CT 4.0"/. BI-CONI/EX

F...• • .aco

ILlIZS

lA_."I

u.lIn _no.e.AI 49JI0 I li6i llD

lIZ.1I110I

Figure 3-25 Three View Drawing of R104 Wind Tunnel Model 81

S-IIIE1III .000SQ-~ALE V/:'TOL MODELRALlS CONFIGURATION R-I04 llIMULA"TlON

oo50

Figure 3-26 Cross-sectional Area Distribution of RI04Wind Tunnel Model

, • • •

Figure 3-27 Photo of R104 Wind Tunnel Model

O

Figure 3-28a Variations in CANARD Location for E205 and

RI04 Wind Tunnel Models O

Figure 3-28b Variations in Strake Shape for E205

Wind Tunnel Model Q

84

• • •

WI_ C_dfl_D

A_ 2. 7 2. d_

c_ 32Z. 98" 9S'. _,

_ " _,\ ' - _

J

oo €_ _" _ --I-"1 , ,, I

• i/I _ , !

FIGURE 4-i RECOMMENDED E205 CANARD AND WING PLANFORM CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

ID

ID

ID