.

REPORT No. 800

EFFECTS OF SMALL ANGLES OF SWEEP AND MODERATE AMOUNTS OF DIHEDRAL ONSTALLING AND LATERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING-FUSELAGE COMBINATION

EQUIPPED WITH

SUMMARY

PARTL4L- AND FULL-SPAN

By JDROW TEPLITZ

Te8ts of a wing$ueelage combiruu%nincorporatirq NACA66-seriee airfoil sect% were conducted in the NACA 19#ootpremure tunnel. The ?k#88’@ath &&L&d _k?8t8 wi#h J@8

neutral and wn”thpartial- andfuh%pan doubb 810ttedJ7apsde-jlected to deiq-mim the ~eci% of (1) varialti of wing eweepbetween –4° and 8° on std?ing and lateral8tabWy and controt?aharacteri.sticeand (9) varizztti of dihedral betwem 0° and6.76° on hztero?8ta/dity characthtim

Deflection of the $ap8 rwticeubly reduced dihedral e~ect.Sweepbmk increased considerably the efectioe dihedral and de-crmed tb adwr8e effeci of ji’ap deflection on dihedral effect;eweepfonoard reduced the e~ective dihedral and inimu.eed theadver8ee$ect of jfap dejteciion. More famrable WLriationeofe$ective dihedral &h li~ coejici.ent were obtained witheweepback.

Stalling charactenkticewere I?e388aiiqWory with woeepbackthun with normal weep or sweepforward in thatthepoint ofinitial 8ta+?Jmoved owtboani,but increased maximum lift coeji-W8 were ~tt?d fOT every jhp Cd’&k. Ai?qon e$eCi&-nes8 was reduced abotd 10 percent with eweepbazk and jlapsm?utrd &d varied litth with sweep with the jiaps dq?ecied.

Agreemeni @h theoy tom notedfor the qfect of chunges indihedral angle on lateral stability charact-. The testrewlt8 8h0wed that the change in 810pe of the curve of rolling:

moment coejlcient against angle of yaw Wnzeapproximately0.000$6 per degree c?wngein geometric dihedral angle.

INTRODUCTION

MnJIy of the effects of sweep and dihedral on lateral sta-bility have been determined in previous theoretical andexperimental investigations. (See, for example, references1 rmcl2.) However, the applicability of these results to air-planes having wings of low-drag sections and/or equippedwith such high-lift devices as double slotted flaps is uncertain.

In order to provide information relative to this problem,tests were conducted in the NACA 19-foot pressure tunnelon a wing-fuselage combination provided with partial- andfull-span double slotted flaps and incorporating NACA66-series airfoil sections. The investigation, conducted ata Reynolds number of approximately 3X 10°, included stall-ing and lateral-stability and control tests covering a rangeof sweep angle from —4° to 8° and a range of dihedral anglefrom 0° to 6.75° with flaps neutral and defleci%d.

DOUBLE SLOTTED FLAPS

MODEL AND APPARATUS

The model used for tie present tests was the bare wingand fuselage of a 0.2375-scale model of an attack-bomberairpkme. The wing of the model for the normal-sweepcondition is of NACA 65(216)–215, a=O.8 section at theroot and NACA 65(216)–215, a=O.5 section at the tip.The root incidence is 2° with respect to the fuselage refer-ence line and the tip incidence is 10. The geometric washoutis 1° and the corresponding aerodynamic washout is approx-imately 1.3°. The aspect ratio is 9.08 and the taper ratiois 2.21. No wing-fuselage lillets were used for these tests..General views and principaJ dimensions of the model aregiven in iigure 1. ~

The wing sweep was changed by rotating each panel aboutan axis on the 20-pert-ent chord line and 5.4 percent of thesemispan outboard of the plane of symmetry. At the normaldihedral angle of 4.5°, three sweep settings were tested:normal sweep (20-percent chord line straight), sweepforward(– 10-percent chord line straight), and sweepbacli (110-percent chord line straight). The sweep of the 25-percentchord line for the three conditions was approximately —10,—4°, and 8°, respectively.

The dihedral setting of the wing was changed by rotatingeach panel about an axis located on the 20-percent chord lineand 7.6 percent of the semispsm outboard of the plane ofsymmetry. Three dihedral settings, 4.5° (normal dihedral),0°, and 6.75°, were tested at the normal sweep. All mech-anism to change the wing sweep and dihedral angle washoused within the wing and fuselage.

The modal was equipped with double slotted flaps ex-tending horn the fuselage to 65 percent of each semispsn.The deflection was 55° for all runs with the flaps deflected.Flap details are given in figure 2.

The full-span-flap installation consisted of the doubleslotted partial-span flaps and “flaperons” or flap-ailerons.Flaperon details are given in figure 3. In the configurationswith flaps retracted and partial-span flaps deflected, theaileron is of the simple slotted type. For the configurationwith full-span flaps deflected, the aileron hinge point wasmoved rearward and down, the ailerons were drooped 25°,and van= were installed ahead of the ailerons. For theailerons-deflected tests, the ailerons were deflected di&r-entially horn the neutral positions of 0° and 25°, rightaileron up 12° and left aileron down 9.3°. The vanes

467

.. .. . ,,.,, -.’ .— .,.. . . . . . . —. . —- —. . . . .

468 REPORT NO. 80 O—NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI’lT’EE FOR AERONAUTICS

remained tied in relation to the wing when the drooped aile-rons were deflected. The deflections correspond to ap-proximately 60 percent of full deflection of the sealed aileronsused on the airplane.

The investigation was carried out in the NACA 19-footpressure tunnel with the air in the tunnel compressed to anabsolute pressure of 35 pounds per square inch. The modelwas mounted on the single-strut support system (fig. 4),which for these tests permitted an angle+f-attack rangefrom —9° to 16° and an angle-of-yaw range from —30° h

30°. Force and moment characteristics were measured by asix-component, electrically recording balance system. Roll-ing moments were also measured by a resistance-typewire strain gage mounted on the support strut. Rollingmoments measured by the strain gsge have been presentedin preference to those measured by the balance system.

TESTS

The wing-fuselage combination was tested with the flapsneutral and partial- and full-span flaps deflected at eachof the three sweeps-normal, forward, and back. Thesetests were made with the wing dihedral in the normal posi-tion, 4.5°. Each configuration was tested at zero yaw withthe ailerons neutral and dii%mntially deflected through theavailable angle+f-attack range. At several constant anglesof attack, yaw tests were made through a range of angle ofyrm from —6° to 28°. In addition, stall studies were madefor each cm.figuration. The action of wool tufts attached tothe upper surface of the wing and flaps was recorded by meansof sketches, photographs, and motion pictures.

With the wing sweep in the normal position, the modelwas tested with the flaps neutral and partial- and full-spanflap deflected at dihedral angles of 0° and 6.75°. Eachconfiguration was tested at zero yaw with ailerons neutral

o through the available angle+f-attack range and an angle-of-yaw range from —6° to 28° at the same constant angles ofattack used in the sweep tests.

For each of the several flap deflections, therefore, pitchand yaw tests were made to give comparable results forthree sweep conditions at the normal dihedral setting and forthree dihedral settings at the normal sweep.

Because of structural limitations of the model and supportsystem, the tunnel airspeed was changed with flap deflection.The test dynamic pressures and corresponding Reynoldsand Mach numbers are as follows:

Maid Conagm-ation!111

J’ 36X1W CL12: ;

55al .10

25 28 .cm

The changes in Reynolds and Mach numbers are believed tobe sufficiently small that the results may be compareddirectly.

COEFFICIENTS AND SYMBOLS

The coficients and symbols are defined as follows:

c.c.c.cmc.c,a

$r

c+

Cw

G=*

6

RlMwhere!2bs

cDYlMivL

(wliftcm.ffkie~t $

*U coefEcient-@/@)lateral-force cmflicient (Y/@S)pitching-moment coticient (M/@i”E)yawing-moment coefficient (N/gi%)rolling-moment coefficient (L/qSb)angle of attack with respect to fuselage reference

line, degreeaangle of yaw, degreesdihedral angle, degreesslope of curve of rolling-moment coefficient against

angle of yaw (ac,~)slope of curve of yawing-moment coefficient ngainst

angle of yaw (acn/a*)slope of curve of lateral-force coefficient against

angle of yaw (acy/a+)control deflection, degreesReynolds numberMach number

dynamic pressure, pounds per square footwing span, feetwing area, square feet (normal sweep, 30.488

sq ft; sweepforward, 30.611 sq ft; sweepbnck,29.722 sq ft)

mean aerodynamic chord (1.920 ft)

latmal forcepitching momentyawing momentrolling moment

Subscripts -aileron

;U 65-percent-spanr right1 leftmux maximum

double slotted flaps

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All data are refereed to the stability axes, of which theZ-E& is in the plane of symmetry and perpendicular to therelative wind, the X-axis is in the plane of symmetry rmdperpendicular to the Z-axis, and the Y-axis is perpendicularto the plane of symmetry.

Moments were compuhd about centw+f-gravity locations25 percent behind the leading edge of the mean aerodynamicchord and 5.3 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord above

DFFIWCS OF SWEEP AND DIHEDFUL ON STALLING AND LATERAL CHARACTERISTICS 469

= .-

4J-—————-—-——-—-——-=I

,~ =$=i “- ---. -_-v~: J~i)

.-- ---

.- q:-----

~&---- ___

//0-pezent chord Iihe straight, swvepbuckpos;fion20-percenf c&rd lihe sfmighf, mrmuf sweep pos#/on

-10-p ercenf cAord Ike stm)>bf, swcepf~d pasifkw

k

_ Whg feference line 0/’~ 76 °diA9dm/

.4’ ~Guml l.—TWng-fudagemmbfrdon.

Flop i-ei%xied Fbp &flecW 56°

FmuRE2.-DotaIfs off!&~tP doubleslotted nap on wfng+rmlegemmbfnatfon. (Dbnensloneare gfvenh ~t wingchord,I18Mrebactd.)

Naw7c7/ pcw%n D-oqoed podim

r W% C8f%f8t7Co/;ne

r[?;:;~p=-”A.M .... ~finm..mjtifml~if.n,bwn 2.0FIOURE 3,—Ddd19oftlap+dkon on wfng-fnsdagemmblnat!on. Akon ti”vel, up W fromneutral and down 15° fromnentml. (Dimensions are gfven h prcent of normal wing Cbnrd.)

.

470 wm’ORT NO. SOO—NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTS

(a) Front viaw.

(b) Rwr tieW.

nxrm L—m+mlage mmblnationmormbd onMat .mP~ -m in NAOAl~mt P* t~el. .Xqmamt-smm doublesbttai ML8rlaleatedb5”.

EFFECTS OF SWEEP AND DIHEDR4L ON STALLING AND LATERAL CHAR4fXERIS!HCs 471

t

20-percent chord line of normol sweep

❑ Yukv hnnion..

‘“Norm6] sweep ““””

L=L, ?

MA.C ~~~.~q5_------- -—-——— -----—-_—_

l+

.NUT : .

M+- .C@ I\ J Fuse/o~e reference line—.

I o

I

---1sWQepfOflWOrd

------- --- --_.-- M.A.C,23.165

i-

~----- -----------

6.6 L91i [

~ J 8

w

‘e T G

—. R7seloae referenc9 /f’ne

‘ Sweepbock

L

MA. C 23.165---- ————--

[

----:J— ----- -_ —--—34-

-1 ~n—

1? -P 1 -..--,--7 ~ference fi~e.-

:~

IhOURE5.-SkeWmwtng dlegmm&owingkations of meaneerodynamlorhord,kmmion,and centerofgrevity. (Alldfmendonsare in looked.)

the fuselage reference line. Figure 5 shows the eilect ofsweep on the location of the mean aerodynamic chord andcorresponding assumedcenter-of-gravity locations. It shouldbe noted that the vertical location of the center of gravityremained constant with variations in dihedral.

Tlm angle of attack, drag coefficients, and rolling- andyawing-moment ceefficienti due to deflected ailerons havebeen corrected for jet-boundary eilects. Since all resultsme essentially comparative, no tare corrections have beenapplied.

I’or convenihce in locating the results, table I is included.

LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS

Lift and drag,-The effects of changes in sweep and dihe-dral on lift and drag are shown in figures 6 and 7, respectively.

For every flap deflection, the greatest angle of stal andthe highest value of C~= were noted for the configurationwith sweepback. Although this eilect differs from thatnormally expected for sweptback wings, it should be empha-sized that the amount of sweepback in the present teats wasrelatively small. Possibly contributing to the eflect of

del~yed stall in the case of the eweptback wing were de-creased Mow and slower progremion of stalling. A veryslight decrease in the lift+cnrve slope was measured withsweepback for every flap deflection; whereas, with the full-apan flaps deflected, sweepforward showed a slightly higherEft+curve slope than normal sweep. Because the sectionprofiles were altered when the wing sweep was changed, theangle of attack for zero lift was changed with sweep. Sweep-back caused the angle of attack for zero lift to be shiftedpositively. Slightly higher increments of lift coefficientdue to partial- and full-span-flap deflection were measuredwith sweepforwaxd. %veepback showed a slight reductionin drag coefficient at moderate and high lift coefficients.

kcreasing the wing dihedral increased C- slightly.With partial- and full-span flaps deflected, slightly lowerdrag was measured with the smallest dihedral.

Pitching moment,—As shown in figure 6, the slopes of thepitching-moment-cmflicient curves are practically unaffectedby small angles of sweep. These pitching-moment coefbientswere computed about center-of-gravity locations 25 percentof the mean aerodynamic chord behind the leading edge of themean aerodynamic chord and at a fixed location above thefuselage reference line. It should be noted that the introduc-tion of sweep on a particular airplane might have a beneficialeffect on the static longitudinal stability bemuse of an effec-tive rearward shift of the aerodynamic center with respect tothe cents of gravity.

Stall,+ltaUing characteristics generally became 1sssdesir-able as the wing was swept back. The effect of sweep on thestalling characteristics as shown by the tuft behavior is pre-sented in iigures 8 to 10. The efFect of sweep with flapsneutral is shown in figure 8. It is seen that the point ofinitial stall moved outboard with sweepbnck. In the con-figuration with sweepforward, stalling started at the wing-fuselage juncture and moved outboard; in the configurationwith normal sweep, stalling started at approximately 50 per-cent of the semispan whereas, with sweepbacli, stallingstarted at 60 to 85 percent of the semispan and spreadinboard and outboard.

Stalling occurred in approximately the same manner whenthe 65-percentispan flaps were deflected (@. 9). Strong in-flow over and ahead of the ailerons was noted in each sweepconfiguration.

The eflect of sweep on the stalling characteristics with thefull-span flaps deflected is shown in figure 10. In the con-figuration with normal sweep and full-span flaps deflected, astalled condition extending to 85 percent of the semispanoccurred very rapidly. Stalling again started at the wing-fuselage juncture on the configuration with sweepforwardand full-span flaps deflected. An almost sudden still overthe outboard 50 percent of the semispan occurred withsweepback.

For the cordigurations with normal sweep and sweep-forward the flaps, which were stalled at low angles of attack,tended to nnstall and remain unetalled throughout the high-lift range. Flow behind the flap brackets was always poor;in addition, though the flap breaks were sealed, stallingoccurred at the flap junctures.

‘)

FIOUBE6.—VarIatlonof CD,a, and C. with CLforsavamlmvwpand nap mmlgoratlons. 1%.4.6°.

3.0

2R

26

24

22

20

1.8

G~.1.6

t..

$ /.4$’

$ /&4

Lo

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

FIowm 7.—Varfatlonof CD,., and C. with CLforSW@ d~~~l 011~~P mnfimtlom. No~l swW..

+-1w

.SWepfirwOrd

n P n 0 n

a= 6.8” a-//. I”CLB1289 CL.L22

a=/2.7“ a=143’CL=/.30 CL=I.96

u “/582“c~-/.33#

b v b

M

❑ n\ El,,;</,’$,

Wstilld C20ssf/ow h t’he ~:;:;;: Intenmtkntly; ./, ...

‘J dkz’b? C/ Umbw$ ❑ c$w:$fy.,;~,,;’:’,;,. .#olkd

Fmurm 8.-6L9UdlagmmsforsovorfdswmpomlItlona 3fa=00;5.-0°; l’u4.5°;R=3.6Xl@ JUSO.12,

.

Normo/ sweep

&.4II cc-zo”

CL=2./6

v

n n \

a-/L30cL‘2.46 v.a=//.8”

~-2.05

ICc-zo”CL=2./3l) J

CC*8.1”cL=2.22

b

I a =10.2”CL=2,96

Ida=/LO”cL‘2./8 1)I a =/2. 00

CL = 2.//

...3

J-,&jt-,

SweephckP n n

\ + I

u-1.6” a-9.0”CL=/.60 ~.2./8 cc. /2.2” e =/9.2 “

v b

CL=2.38 C’=.%#&=/4. o”

o CL-2.20

J v

•1 •1,L Crossflow /n /heU?.vWed\ ~ O?kccfionOforrows

F!aum 9.-9lnll dlngrarnaforeworal swcopmndltlons.❑❞✌✌✌✌✌✏✌✌t~’+$~,h?krmifintly●.,~//,; fi. ~,,/, ,, stoned./,, ,,,,, E!s!!lcompletely

siol/ed

8,M-M”;?.-@; 1’=4,6”;Rs3,1X1W M#O.10,

k.d

.

Normal sweep

a=-Z8°cL=/,26

SweePfirwordn ~ n P

\

a=-4,6*CL=/.49

a=/0./”cL=2.73

a=lk~”cLn2.40

a=/4.3° a=/6.4*cLn2.50 G =/.’6.9

d d V

SweepbockP 4 ~

\ \/ ?.: I .W ~

47 I

LhSlbuy hfcoay

a=2.4” a-/0. 4”CL-2.00 CL=26/

a=12.6” a~/3. 6“

U 1

CL=2.7S

L

CL=277

b \l

•1 Lkwto/kd ❑h Crossflow,h thu

m

%Jj~~ Intermittently+1 Utiect?bn.fomows ,,,,,,.,:::,,;;,,,,,. Sh/&?d

::2+/,,, M Cmplerdysh?lled

ROUEE1O.-EM1diagranufOrsevaal sweepCondltkms. tm=55°; t.=fi” (drmped+W@rrmmndltlon); I’-4.5”;R$s2SXl@;Jf$s0.09.

EFFECTS OF SWEEP AND DIHEDRAL ON STALLING AND LATERAL CHARACLTUUSTICS 477

LATERAL CHAEACTEEISTIC9

The results of the tests to determine the eflect of sweep onaileron control are presented in figure 11. Rolling-moment,yawing-moment, and lateral-force coefficients due to ailerondeflection have been corrected for model asymmetry. Theyaw-test data me presented in figures 12 to 17 and cross plotsshowing the most signifhmt results are given in figures 18and 19.

Effeat of flap deflection on 04.—Deflection of the doubleslotted flaps mused anoticeable reduction in effective dihedral(fig. 19). For the normal-sweep condition, the loss in C% wasapproximately 0.00066 or about 2%0 effective dihedral andwas affected only slightly by a ohange in flap span. Theeffect of partial-span split flaps on C% was feud to be n@-gible (reference 2). It appears, therefore, that the effects offlap deflection on C4 depend upon the type of flap underconsideration. .

Effeot of sweep on aileron effectiveness,-With the flapsneu~l, sweepback caused a reduction in aileron effectivenessamounting tQ approximately 10 percent, whereaa a slightincrease in aileron effectiveness was noted for the oon@ura-tion with sweepforward. There was little d.i.tlerenoeinaileron effectiveness with sweep for the two arrangementswith flaps deflected. Little differences in yawing momentdue to aileron deflection with sweep were noted. Yawingmoment due to aileron deflection was adveme with flapsneutral, beoame favorable with partial-span flaps deflected,rmd was more adveme with the full-span flaps deflected.

Effeot of geometrio dihedral on Cl~.—The variation indihedral edect 0% with dihedral I’ is shown in figure 18.The change in C4 per degree dihedral change averagedappro.xirnately 0.00026, which is the value predicted bytheory (reference 1).

Effeot of sweep on CQ.—AS shown in figure 10, sweeP-back increaaed the eilective dihedral for all flap conditions.The increase in effective dihedral ailorded by the changefrom sweepforward to sweepbaok varied from less than 2°for flaps retraoted and high speed to more than 9° for full-span flaps deflected and low speed.

%veepback noticeably reduced the loss in eilective dihe-dral caused by deflection of the full-span flaps. The lossdue to deflection of the full-span flaps averaged approxi-mately 40,”2ji0, and 1° for swee~forward, normal sweep, andmveepback, respectively. The combination of sweepfor-ward and full-span flaps deflected resultid in an effectivedihedral of approximately – 1°.

A further advantage of sweepback is shown by the fact‘that the effective dihedral increases with lift coefficient forall three flap conditions with sweepback. Inasniuch as theadverse effect of power on dihedral effect ordinarily increaseswith decreasing airspeed, a favorable power-off variationof C4 with 6!Z as shown by the sweptback wing would behigldy desirable. With normal sweep and sweepforward,U,t remained essentially constant over the C~-range for thetwo arrangements with flaps deflected; with flaps retracted,however, a less desirable variation existed; that is, C4 de-creased with incensing lift coefficient.

Directional stability.—A consistent increase in the un-stable directional-stability slope Ca$ of ,-the wing-fuselagecombination accompanied increasing chhedral. The in-

s4311c-5&31

stability increased with angle of attack. This effectispre-

dicted- and explained in reference 1. Because the contribu-tion of the fuselage and the wing-fuselage interference eifectswere not determined, no correlation can be mad6 between thetheoretical and test values of C=~as affected by dihedral.

Tho dlect of sweep on C~Jwas mall ~d irr@ar. Flapdeflection generally caused Cm+to increase, though the effectwa9 small.

Lateral force.— C=+ was found to increase slightly withdihedral and angle of attack; tip deflection, however, almostcompletely erased the eilect. Sweep apparently had noeffect on Cy+.

CONCLUSIONS

Wind-tunnel teats of a wing-fuselage combination in-corporating NACA 65-series airfoil sections were made todetermine the effects of small angles of sweep and moderateamounts of dihed.rid on stalling and lateral characteristics.The following conclusions may be drawn from the results ofthese tests.:

1. Sweepback caused an appreciable increase in positivedihedral effect; sweepforward caused a reduction. “

2. The increase in dihedral efTect caused by sweepbackvaried favorably with air speed, in that it increased with lift ‘coefhcibt.

3. Deflection of double slotted flaps resulted in a notice-able reduction in effective dihedral; sweepback decreased andsweepforward increased this eifect.

4. Sweepback moved the point of initial stall outboard andcaused a slight increaae in maximum lift caeflicient.

5. Sweepback caus~d a reduction in aileron effectiveness ofapproximately 10 percent with tips neutral. With partial-or full-span tlaps deflected, sweep caused no noticeable ohangein aileron effectivenew.

6. Standard theoretical methods for predicting the effectsof dihedral changes on lateral- and directional-stability de-rivatives appear valid and unaffected by changes in wingsection. For the”wing plan form used in the present tests,an increase in the lateral-stability derivative C+ of 0.00026per degree change in geometrio dihedrid angle was noted.Increasing dihedral increased the directional instability ofthe wing-fuselage combination.

7. The effects of dihedral on the remaining aerod~amiccharacteristics appeared to be unimportant. The presenttests indicnted a slight inorease in the value of maximum liftcmflicient with increasing dihedral. Increasing dihedralalso caused a slight increase in the value of the lateral-forcederivative Cr~ with flaps retracted; little effect was notedwith flaps deflected.

LANGLEY ME~ORIAL AERONAUTIC LABORATORY,

NATIONAL ADVISORY Commmr ED FOR AERONAUTICS,

LANGLEY FIELD, vA., ~fi lb, 1944.

WFERENCE

1. Pearson, Henry A., and Jon=, Robert T.: Theoretiwd Stability andControl Charaotarietiea of Winge with Various Amounts of Taperand Twist. NACA Rep. No. 635, 1938.

2. Bamber, M. J., and House, R. O.: JWnd-Tunnel Investiition ofEffect of Yaw on Lateral-Stability Characteristics. I—Four .N. A. C. A. 23012 Wings of Various Plan Forms with and withoutDihedral. NACA TN No. 703, 1939.

478 REPORT NO. 80 O—NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMmEE FOR AERONAUTICS

L4

12

I.o

.8

.6

4

.2 ii I I I Ill I I I I I I I I I 1

I I’wf’d I I I I

28

26

I I I I I I I I I I I

I # , , , .

I I I 0 Ill

24

22

20

L8

1s

1.4

I 141 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ?P❑

,[1 I I I I T1l-11

“ “

II I

CllH –

124 -4 ~ ~ * ,2 f6_04 D3 .02 .010. .Oi .04 “o .040 -J -2 -.3 -.4. zAngleof oifa%.

‘%%%%’ %%.ZMW ‘Z%zi%%!Pit&ing-mazM+

~.+ Coeft%imf, CL

(a) a/u.=&;3%=.-w’;&,-e.3%Rs3.13XWM-U(b) JrU=M”;a., =–1P; d.l-gs; Rs3.lXl@ .U=O.1O.

(0) aru-% a%dw; a.,&4.W; R=28XW ~== am.Fmm 11.—Effeotofsweepon affemncontrol. r4.JV.

. . .. . . /

Angle of~, ye&g

(8) a-O.W. (b) a=&P. (0) a-11.1”.FrouRE12-Vrui8tlon of C., Cl, Cr, and Cf+with # for throodlhcdralcondltlorm 81UEO”;&,=~.l-@; normalswrap; R-3.6Xl@; fif=O.lZ. ,

%co

,

g

I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii? t.n,

!a) (i)I II I , 1 I T,HIIIII III $L#&_L+

“-’5” o 5 10 /5 a 25—— —

-5 0 5 10 f5 2D 25 * o 5 10An@ ofyoMW deg

(a)U=-6.W. (b) a-1.~. (0) a-6.@.

Fumnm13.-Variat1onof C., Cl, C%,and CI,wltb # forlhrcodllmdralmnditbm. Jru-tin; J+-&,= W’;nocmnlsweep;Rz=3.IXK%~sO.10.

.’_

3‘mw

(8) a--6.4”, (b)a-2CY.

hNRE 14,—Variationof C., CI,CY,and CLwith # for thrw rllhotlralcondltlorw ~fu=6@;8%=d.1-Z&; normalSWWP;lZ=$28Xl@;iiI=O.&J.

●

I

I

!

[

ii

1.

I

Angle of ~w. y, deg

(a)a-O.F. (b) .=&r. (o)a-11.1”.

F1OURE15.—Varintionof C., Cl, Cr, C., md cLwfth # for* WCOPContitiom. %-O”; 6+-@@; r=4.@; RsL6xl@; ~=o.~

.

q% I I I I I I I T8

.8 ~ A4mdsweepl~qm./

i4_ Swep forwvrd

7.21111

~ .3veenbuck I A

;0 d — — L . L — — — —

O

r ,T (0)

‘Liiliiii iii. iiiiilll t+Lb I I 1 1 1 1I5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 5 /0 /5 20 25 -5 0 5 /0 15 PO P5

r. Angle of yti, Y, deg

(a) ccq-OV@. (b) U-lor. (o)a-O.W.-. FrouR~lO,-V&iatlon-ofC;, cl, c%,C., aod Cl with # [ort.brwSWOOPrandltbm~ &a-6&0;J%-J.I=O”; ~-4.&; R~3.lXIW ~~0.10.

.

.

.

1

0 4 1 I 1 I I I.05 I I I I

\*l-.ullllllllu.+-r

z.0 I

t“k

(a) a--6.i0. (b) .4.CP.F30UBB 17.—Variatlonof C, C’1,G, C., and CLWith#for threesweepconditions. 6fu-W; 3%-3.,-2P; r-4.&; R=%sxl~ ilfso.cra.

.

.W2 a,&g-*- .--.. ,

.001H- Flaps”&f;ect& 59 1 1 1

Ailerons nwmoJ;W,F. . .

/ ~ —--1.7---~..s-= - “’--6.0—

0

d-.001

.C@

, --m

.00/RLR “’M<’”Flops deflectid zzAllercws droqosd 2!7 ----

1,... --=54,.

.CM8

.007

Flops reh-odedAilerons ncumo~ 0“

.W flops dsflected 55”-----—-Ail~s wmo~ O“fl~ defkcfed 55”Ailerons oho~ ~“

.m

.004

*.i-

.00s

sweqo&z&r Jz<- ..-< ..Cu? t .

- -- - YA. -- - -- ---

/- ---- . ---- ,-.

.LW1 -- hcrmol sweep

..t /

Sweqo forntrd “‘-X- .,<-:. ~- -0

. --- ..-*. —-- —- -—

-.001

-.mo.4 .8 /! I@ 20 e4

Lift CQefficien< CL

~murm]&—Wmhtionof ci~ with I’forvmlom flap mnd[tlo~. Normal EWWP. FM UHB lrI.-Vnrid Ionof C1*with Ch,for variousmodol mnflmmtloos r=4.&.

0

IAm‘a

—— .—— — -—. -+. .—. .-.+.

4S6

o

AERONAUTICSREPORT NO. SOO—NATIONAL ADVISORY CO~ FOR

TABLE I.—PRESENTATION OF DATA

8WWPCamofents

1010101Ncau# &m&rd,

-+-l-wl-Maxfmml lfft-.. CD, a, and C. a@.& cL

Normal

Tuft stndy–.-_ .-----..—-—.--—----------

11(8) I ol-1310.al

Mk-On effectkeBless ---------- “’ C“rgiwd c“ NorI&Bj.&x&ard,4.5

12(c) lotol o I lLI.C., Ctia$d CL 13(a) lMlol 01-ELOI

IAterd sbibllfty-

+

Iu(a)lololol 0.8 I

lmlololol 6.7 I

I.Ated stabfllty.. C., Cl, CT C., and CLW&t #

NmYMJorforrd ,4.5

17(8) I ’55 1=1 ml-&41

WI ~TIT.l!a 66 ---------- 4-5

5s J’ 4’Am@fs.-..-..

Nom&sjfm#rd,

. stallaaganlxbcrus3p10t0fllgn.12to14.0crass plot of5@.16to 17.

,