Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
N A S A TECHNICAL NASA TM X- 72681
MEMORANDUM
COidCMr--
EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING
LEADING-EDGE FLAP DEFLECTION ON WING BUFFET
AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS
By Blair B. Gloss, William P. Henderson,and Jarrett K. Huffman
April 16, 1975
.1
(NASA-TM-X-72681) EFFECT OF C A N A R D POSITION N75-23559AND W I N G L E A D I N G - E D G E FLAP DEFLECTION ONWING BUFFET AT T R A N S O N I C SPEEDS (NASA) 92 pHC $4.75 CSCL 01C Unclas
G3/05 22167
This Informal documentation medium is used to provide accel erated orspecial release of technical information to selected users. The contentsmay not meet NASA formal editing and publication standards, may be re-vised, or may be incorporated in another publication.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER,.HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23665
II B II M M fi 1 'I I • ] [ • I M IJi I 1
r-WS.A TM X-726812. Government Accession No.
i
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
Titt-i ana Subtitle
EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING LEADING-EECREFLECTION ON WING BUFFET- AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS
E. aeporx DateApril It, 1975
&. Performing Organization Code
Aufhorfs)Blairi.B. Gloss, Willian 'P. Henderson, andJarrest K. Huffman y
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9 Psr forming Organization Name and Address
NASA Langley Research CenterHampton, Virginia 23665
10. Work Unit No.
505-11-21-02
11 Contract or Grant No.
• 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
i Rational Aeronautics and Jpace Administration" J-;«rshincton, D. C. 205^6
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Technical Memorandum
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
: 'i5. Supplementary Notes\I
Final release of special information not suitable for formal publication.
16. Abstract
A generalized wind-tunnel model, vith canard and ving planform typical ofhighly maneuver-able aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure j-u;-r,el at Mac ft. numbers from 0.7?) to 1.20 to determine the effects of canardlocation and Vring leading-edge •fc'lap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics.The major results of this investigation may be summarized as follows. Theaddition of 4 canard above the wing chord plane, for the configuration with-•.siding-edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to obtain substantially]higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet onset occurs than the.: on figuration with the canard off and Heading-edge flaps undeflected. However,the addition of the canard did not substantially affect the lift of the wing atwhich, buffet onset occurs, for the configurations vith the leading-edge flapsundeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substantially lower for the canard !ving configuration than the wing alone configuration. The lew canard configurationgenerally displayed the poorest buffet characteristics. Deflecting the wing jleading-edge flaps substantially improved the wing cul'fet characteristics forcanard-off configurations. The addition of the high r.-anard did net appear tosubstantially improve the wing buffet characteristics o? the wing with leading-| edge flaps deflected.
JB17. Key Words (Suggested by AuthorWI (STAR category underlined)
Aircraft -, t>Close-coupled- canard wingBuffetHighly maneuverable aircraft
18. Distribution Statement
Unclassified-Unlimited
19. Security Oaaif. (of this report)
Unclassified20. Security Clsnif. (of this page)
Unclassified21. No. of Pages
9022. Price'
$4.75
'Available from •(The National Technical Information Service, Springfield. Virginia 22151
' ] '(STIF/NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility, P.O. Box 33. College Park. MD 20740
II It 1
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING
LEADING-EDGE FLAP DEFLECTION ON WING BUFFET
AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS
By Blair B. Gloss, William P. Henderson,and Jarrett K. Huffman
SUMMARY
A generalized wind-tunnel model, with canard and wing planform typical of
highly maneuverable aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure
tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 to determine the effects of canard
location and wing leading-edge flap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics.
The major results of this investigations may be summarized as follows. The
&adition of a canard above the wing chord plane, for the configuration with
leading-edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to obtain substantially
higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet onset occurs than the
configuration with the canard off and leading-edge flaps undefleeted. However,
the addition of the canard did not substantially affect the lift of the wing at
vbieh buffet onset occurs, for the configurations with the leading-edge flaps
undeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substantially lower for the canard
ving configuration than the wing alone configuration. The low canard configuration
generally displayed, the poorest buffet characteristics. Deflecting the wing
leading-edge flaps substantially improved the wing buffet characteristics for
canard-off configurations. The addition of the high canard did not appear to
substantially improve the wing buffet characteristics of the wing with leading-
edge flaps deflected.
U it
INTRODUCTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently conducting
wind-tunnel investigations to provide a data base for the use of determining
the desirability of employing close-coupled canard surfaces on highly maneuver-
able aircraft. The use of canards offers several attractive features, such as
increased trimmed lift capability and the potential for reduced trimmed drag.
(Refs. 1-6) In addition, the geometric characteristics of close-coupled canard
configurations offer a potential for improved longitudinal progression of cross-
sectional area; this improvement could result in reduced wave drag at low super-
sonic speeds. References 7-11 present the results of several additional inves-
tigations of close-coupled canard wing configurations at subsonic and transonic
speeds. Since the maneuver and performance capability of aircraft engaged in
air-to-air combat is often limited by flow separation manifesting itself as
wing buffeting (reference 12), the present study was conducted to determine
the effect of close-coupled canard surfaces on wing buffet onset characteristics
at transonic speeds. A generalized wind-tunnel model which had a wing buffet
strain gage installed in one wing was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic
pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 at angles of attack from -Uo
to 20° at 0 side slip.
SYMBOLS
The International System of Units with the U. S. Customary Units presented
in parenthesis, is used for the physical quantities in this paper. Measurements
and calculations were made in U.S. Customary Units. The data presented in this
report are referred to the stability axis system with the exception of axial
force and normal force which are referred to the body-axis system.
2A 'aspect ratio (2.5), b /S
b . wing spang 50.8 cm (20 in)
c wing mean geometric chord, 23.32 cm (9«l8 in)
C axial force coefficient, Axial forceA qSw
C,, drag coefficient, ——**- . •• qo
wI
•?. lift coefficient, L^ftL ' qo
W
C. wing lift (main balance lift - canard balance lift)
C root-mean-square moment of wing bending gageM,WSG . ; qSwC
M free-stream Mach number
2q free-stream dynamic pressure Ib/ft
2 2S canard area (exposed), 288.71 cm (UU.75 in )
5 T reference area of wing with leading and trailing edgesv extended to plane of symmetry, 1032.26 cm (160.00 in )
z :.• verticalftlistance between the chord planes of the canard;. and wipg, positive up.
a ••' angle of attack, deg.
A leading-edge sweep angle of wing, deg.
A^ . ;leading-edge sweep angle of canard, deg.
6 leading edge flap deflection (positive direction leadingedge down), deg.
ORIGINAL PAGB IS.OF POOR QUAZJT3
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL i -
A sketch of the general research model showing the wing leading edge flap
locations and wing buffet strain gage location is presented in figure 1.
Table I contains the- pertinent geometric parameters associated with this model.
The untwisted wing planform used on this model had a leading edge sweep
angle, A , of hk°, and a 6i*A006 airfoil section at the wing root (the root ofw
the wing is taken at the intersection of the fuselage and wing) which varied
linearly to a 6kAOOh airfoil section at the tip. When the wing leading edge
flaps were "deflected for the present investigation, the deflection angles were
as presented in the schedule shown below. The wing buffet ,"gage was aligned
Flap
- IIIIIIIVV
<5, deg.
1*8
121620
along the fifty percent chord line as indicated in figure 1.
The canard had a leading-edge sweep angle of 51-7 and an exposed area
(S ) of 28.0 percent of the wing reference area (S ). The canard was testedc w
in a position of l8.5 percent of the wing mean geometric chord above and below
the wing chord plane (z/c = 0.135 and -0,185 respectively). Fuselage fairings
were required to fair the canard mounting brackets into the body. Thus, there
were two fuselage configurations: body fairings on the top for 2/5- = 0.185
and body fairings on the bottom for z/c = -0.185 (see figure 1.)
The canard was untwisted and had uncambered circular arc airfoil sections.
U 11 I 11 U
^-"oent at th
"***•«»** « ta_..to
to be a-*- -" iUsei««e station 59..
Cffl
S r
APPARATUS, TESTS AND CORRECTIONS
This investigation was conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure
tunnel which is a continuous-flow facility (ref. 13). Forces and moments
were measured by two internally mounted, six-component strain-gage balances;
the relative locations of these balances are shown in figure 1. One balance
measured the loads on the forward part of the body (shaded area in figure l)
and is called the canard balance. The second balance, which was housed in the
aft section of the model measured the total loads and is referred to as the
main balance. There was a small unsealed gap between segments of the fuselage
in order to prevent fouling.
Tests.were made at Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.90, 0.95, 1.03 and 1.20. The
angle-of-attack range was from approximately -h to 20° at 0° sideslip. Angles
of attack have been corrected for the effects of sting deflection due to
aerodynamic load. All axial-force measurements obtained on the main balance
were corrected to a condition of free stream static pressure acting on the
base of the model. All tests were made with boundary-layer transition fixed
on the model by means of a narrow strip of carborundum grit placed on the body,
wings and canards, using the methods outlined in reference Ik.
The wing-root bending-gage technique used in this paper to obtain wing
buffet information is described in reference 15.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION»
The flap deflections that were employed in this study were chosen so that
the data obtained in'this investigation would be compatible with the data
B I I I I I M I
presented in reference 12. As reference.12 points out these flap deflections
do not necessarily represent an optimum.
The use of the canard balance and main balance made it possible to separate
the wing lift (CT ___) from the total lift (CT ) of the configuration. Since*••- Jj,JJlr L7
the total lift of each configuration was a strong function of the lift on the
forebody (ahaded area of figure l), the buffet gage data (C,, TIC,0) is presentedM, wbu
versus ving lift coefficient (C nT-,). Presenting the data in this mannerIj,iJl.r
permits the study of the effect of canard location on wing buffet onset in terms> • '
of wing lift only. Of course the total lift coefficient of the configuration,
at which buffet onset occurs is a very important consideration, and thus, the
buffet gage data is also presented versus total lift coefficient.
Table II defines the configuration code that is used for the tabulated
results presented in Table III. The data in figures 2 to 16 show the effect'.>,
of canard height and wing lead'ing edge flap deflection on the longitudinal} i
aerodynamic.characteristics and wing buffet characteristics for Mach numbers
from 0.70 to 1.20.
The aerodynamic parameters presented in these figures are some of those
which are usually utilized to predict buffet onset (reference 15). Among theseo
parameters is a presentation of axial force coefficient (C.) versus sin a.
Reference l6 points out that for subsonic attached potential flow, the axial2
force coefficient should vary linearly with sin a. The implication from this
and reference 15 is that buffet onset should occur when C is no longer a linear< •"•1 . 2
function ofiisin a. It should be noted that the axial force coefficients are
obtained from the main balance and thus include the contribution of the fuse-< -t
lage and canard as well as the wing. However, the canards have a symmetrical
airfoil section, are geometrically smaller than the wings and have sharp
i Ji I ii 1 1 I X 11 JL IL 11 Ji1 i I I
leading edges; thus, the canard production of axial force should be small
compared to that of the wing. In addition, since leading edge suction is &
function of potential lift and since the fuselage doesn't produce significant
levels of lift (reference H), it is assumed that the fuselage would not con-
tribute significant amounts of'thrust as compared to that of the wing. There-
fore, the trends of the C curves are primarily influenced by the leading
edge thrust of the wing.
When examining the buffet gage data (C TTOP)» buffet onset is assumed toM, WSG
occur when the value'of C _r increases above a previous relatively constantM, WSG
level. It should.be noted, however, that for the Mach number 0.70 data for
all configurations, the value of C ._., changes with angle of attack throughoutM , WDvJ ,
the complete angle-of-attack range. This may be due to inadequate stiffness
in the model support system, canard buffet exciting fuselage bending or some
other cause'.; This inadequate stiffness may also be a dominant factor causing
a fairly significant level of-"output from the buffet gage even at low angles
of attack at other Mach numbers. It is felt, therefore, that the CM^WSQ data
at a Mach number of 0.70 for all configurations should only be used in a
qualitative manner. .•
The discussion presented herein will be limited to the buffet character- .
istics since the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for models of these
configurations are rather fully documented in references 1-6.
^ . Effect of Canard Height
Figures 2 through 6 present longitudinal aerodynamic and wing buffet
characteristics for the high canard (z/c = 0.185), low canard (z/c = -0.185)
and canard off configurations for Mach numbers fros 0.70 to i.20.
Shown below are the approximate wing lift coefficients (C „-,) and totalL,DIr
configuration lift coefficient (C_) at which buffet onset appears to occur as( -Ij
determined from the wing buffet gage data, C., „__ (figures 2-6).M, WSG
Lift Coefficients At Buffet Onset
Leading-Edge Flaps Undeflected
.
M
1.201.030.950.900.70
High Candard
CL,DIF
i-..
o.'fu0.670.^370.3^
—
CL
1.030.930.550.52
—
Low Canard
°L,DIF
0.390.3U0.36
—— •
CL
0.6l0.510.52
——
Canard Off
°L,DIF
0.800.770.310.28
— —
CL
o.Qk0.800.320.29
— —
The supersonic data* (M = 1.20 and 1.03) in the above table shows that the
vine lift (CT _.T1?) at which buffet onset appears to occur is significantlyJj,UJ-r
higher for the high canard and canard off configurations than the low
canard configuration. At the Mach numbers 0.95 exid 0.90 (figures k and 5)
buffet onset occurs at slightly higher values of wing lift for the canard
high and low than for the canard off configuration. For those configurations'«.• . >'
and Mach numbers where the lift coefficient at which buffet onset occurred
could not be determined with some confidence no data are presented in the
above table. The high canard configuration'produces significantly higher
total lift coefficients (CT) at buffet onset than the other configurations.' L>
Since canard buffet onset could be a limiting factor to the total lift,
8
ORIGINAL PAGE 18OF POOR QUALM
fi 1 1 M M I I I I 11 I IL 11 11 I £
some caution should "be exercised in directly using the total lift coefficients
(C ) at which "buffet onset occurs. As can be seen from the data in figures
2-5 the wing buffet intensity for the high canard configuration is significantly
lower than that of the other configurations. In addition, generally the wing
buffet intensity for the high canard configuration increases at a lower ratei x
after buffet onset occurs than that of the other configurations. Since there
is apparently a leading edge vortex on the wing in the presence of the high
canard (references k, 5 and 6), a gradual increase of wing buffet intensity
after buffet onset occurs should be anticipated (see reference 12).
i
Effect of Wing Leading-Edge Flap Deflection - Canard Off
The data in figures 7-11 present the effect of wing leading edge flap
deflection on wing buffet onset. Shown below in Table II are the approximate
wing lift 'coefficients (C_ ___) and total configuration lift coefficients• > LijlJlr• • _ /
(C ) at which buffet onset appears to occur as determined from the wing buffet
gage data.i CM wg(, (Figures 7-11)
Lift Coefficient At Buffet Onset
M
1.201.030.950.900.70
Flaps Undeflected
CL,DIF
0.80j 0.77: 0.31i), 0.28J" —
cL
0.8U0.800.32,0.29
.-*
Flaps Deflected
cL.DIF
Greater than 1.0Greater than 1.1
0.900.59
—
L
Greater than 1.1Greater than 1.2
0.9U0.62*•••
A;; i~ rlncLicated in the above table, there is no indication cf buffet onset for
the :::on:C'ig-;ir3,tion with the leading edge flaps derlc-ctod. at Mach numbers of
1.20 -and 1-03 in the angle of attack range tested. There are significant
gains in the lift coefficient At which buffet onse'c occurs for the flaps de-
flected configuration over the flaps undefleeted configuration at Mach numbers
of 1.20, 1.03, 0:95 and 0.90. Comparing the buffet onset' data for the high
canard, flaps undefleeted, configuration with that for the canard off, flaps
deflected configuration (data in figures 2-5 with that in figures 7-10), it is
.•;:--:eci ".:.;.r.;t deflection of the leading edge flaps: , c=s?;--.rd off, allows higher
attainable lift coefficients without buffet onset than was indicated by adding
the high canard to the wing with leading edge flaps undefleeted. This is not
surprising since the close-coupled canard configuration creates a favorable
f?.ov f ield .yhich allows the formation of wing leading edge vortices and the''•• >/
leading edge flaps function to maintain attached flow. Leading edge vortices
V.= -'"e been shown previously to result in an early indication of buffet onset
vbieh after onset occurs does not increase in intensity as rapidly as the
configuration with the leading edge flaps deflected. And in fact, the buffet4
intensity increases much faster after buffet onset occurs for the flaps
deflected, canard' off, configuration than for the high canard, flaps undefleeted
configuration.
It is interesting to note that for the Mach numbers of 0.95, 0.90 and 0.70
2there are regions where C is a linear function of sin a for the flaps deflected
i . 'configuration (fig. 9c-llc). J'As mentioned earlier this linear region is that
) iregion over which buffet free' operation might be anticipated- Lower surface
»
separation on the leading edge flap is the probable cause for the apparent lose
of leading edge suction at the lower angles of attack (The angle of attack at
ssssss
which C ceases to be linear with sin a is the point at which the wing is,/i. i.
assumed to start losing leading edge suction). The apparent "buffet free regions
as indicated by the axial force data in figures 7c-llc are presented, for the
configuration with leading edge flap deflected, in the table below. By comparing
tRegions of Buffet Free Operation As Determined
By Axial Force Data
M
••
i; 1.20
1.031 0.95
0.900.70
Leading Edge Flaps Deflected
cL.DIF
.-
_ — —0.20 •»• 0.770.20 -»• 0.730.31 -* 0.65
c°L
_•...0.21 •»• 0.810.21 •* 0.760.32 -»• 0.69
the lift coefficients at which buffet onset occurs for the flaps deflected
configuration as determined by the wing buffet gage data and axial force data,
it is seen that the axial force data predicts a smaller buffet free region than
the wing buffet gage data. (The wing buffet gage data, figures 9c and lOc, for
Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90 indicate a lower lift coefficient limit of lessi..'
than 0.0 fotf'. the buffet free region for the flaps deflected configuration.)
<Effect Of Wing Leading-Edge Flap Deflection - Canard On
The data in figures 12-16 present the effect of wing leading edge flap
deflection on wing buffet onset for the configuration with the high canard on.
For the Mach number of 1.20 (figure 12) there is no indication of buffet onset
11
i I 1 1
frcsi x,hs buffet gage data for the flaps deflected configuration. For a Mach
number of 1.03 (figure 13) the buffet gage indicates buffet onset occuring at
approximately the same lift for both configurations (high canard; flap deflected
and. flap undef lected ) .
-; ; 2The buffet gage data as Veil as the axial force versus sin a data show
«no region of buffet free operation for Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90 (figures
lU and 15) for the leading edge flaps deflected configuration. Both C
and C data seem to indicate mild buffet over a rather large lift range forf\
~.he flaps deflected case. The mild buffet is indicated by a slow rate of
change of buffet intensity (C,. .__ data) and a slightly nonlinear region forM, Wou
2the C versus sin a data. The buffet gage data shows a sharp increase in
buffet intensity for the flaps deflected configuration at wing lift coefficients
approximately the same as those for the off-wing leading edge flaps deflected•'••
configuration for Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90. (Compare the data in figures
? and 10 with that in figures ll+ and 15) Thus adding the canard to the flaps
deflected wing did not substantially alter the wing lift coefficient at which
there is strong indication of buffet onset.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A generalized wind-tunnel model, with canard and wing planform typical of
highly maneuverable aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pres-W ;
sure tunnel 'at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 to determine the effects of canard) *+
location and wing leading edge flap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics.
The major results of this investigations may be summarized as follows:
12 ORIGINAL PAGE JSOF POOR QUALITY!
1. The addition of a canard above the wing chord plane, for the config-
uration with leading edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to
obtain substantially'higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet
onset occurs than the configuration with the canard off and leading edge flaps
undeflected. However, the addition of the canard did not substantially affect
the lift of the wing at which buffet onset occurs, for the configurations with
the leading edge flaps undeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substan-
tially lower for the canard wing configuration than the wing alone configuration.
2. The low canard configuration generally displayed the poorest buffet»
characteristics.
3. Deflecting the wing leading edge flaps substantially improved the
wing buffet characteristics for canard off configurations.
^. The addition of the high canard did not appear to substantially
improve the wing buffet characteristics of the wing with leading edge flaps
deflected.
13
REFERENCES
1. McKinney, Linwood W. ; and Dolly-high, Samuel M.: Some Trim Drag Consider-ations for Maneuvering Aircraft. J. Aircraft, vol. 8, no. 8, Aug. 1971,pp. 623-629. .
i
2. Dollyhigh, Samuel M.: Static Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics ofClose-Coupled Wing-Canard Configurations at Mach Numbers From 1.60 to2.86. NASA TN D-6597.
3. Gloss, Blair B.; and McKinney, Linwood W.: Canard-Wing Lift InterferenceRelated to Maneuvering Aircraft at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TM X-2897,1973.
i<. Gloss, Blair B.: Effect of Canard Height and Size on Canard-Wing Inter-fererfce and Aerodynamic .Center Shift Related to Maneuvering Aircraft atTransonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7505, 1971*.
5- Gloss, ,Blair B.: The Effect of Canard Leading-Edge Sweep and Dihedral Angleon the Longitudinal and Lateral Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Close-Coupled Canard Wing Configuration. NASA TN D-78lU.
6. Gloss, Blair B.: Effect of Wing Planform and Canard Location and Geometryon the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Close Coupled CanardWing Model at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7910.
7. Behrbohm, Hermann: Basic Low Speed Aerodynamics of the Short-CoupledCanard Configuration of Small Aspect Ratio. SAAB TN-60 Saab Aircraft Co.(Linkoping, Sweden), July 1965.
6. Lacey, David W.; and Chorney, Stephen J.: Subsonic Aerodynamic Character-istics of Close-Coupled Canards With Varying Area and Position Relativeto a ,50° Swept Wing. Tech. Note AL-199 Naval Ship Res. & Develop.Center. Mar. 1971.
''.• >'9. Ottensoser, Jonah: Wind Tunnel Data on the Transonic Aerodynamic Character-
istics of Close Coupled Canards With Varying Flanform Position andDeflection Relative to a 50° Swept Wing. Test Rep. AL-88, Naval ShipRes. & Develop. Center, May 1972.
10. Krouse, John R.: Effects of Canard Planform on the Subsonic AerodynamicCharacteristics of a 25° and a 50 Swept Wing Research Aircraft Model.Evaluation Repi AL-91, Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center, May 1972.
11. Lacey» David W.: Transonic Characteristics of Close-Coupled Canard andHorizontal Tail Installed on a 50 Degree Sweep Research Aircraft Model.Evaluation Rep. AL-8 Naval Ship Res. and Develop. Center, Aug. 1972.
ORIGINAL PAGE 13OF POOR QUAUTYf
H I ' l l J l M I I l K I L l L l t l l l i l i l
12. Ray, Edward J.; McKinney, Linwood W.; and Carmichael, Julian G.: Maneuverand Buffet Characteristics of Fighter Aircraft, NASA TN D-7131, 1973.
13. Schaefer, William T., Jr.: Characteristics of Major Active Wind Tunnelsat the Langley Research Center. NASA TM X-1130, July 1965.
Ik. Braslow, Albert L.; Hicks., Raymond M.; and Harris, Roy V., Jr.: Use ofGrit-Type Boundry-Lager-Transition Trips on Wind-Tunnel Models.NASA.'TN 0-3579, 1967. '
t15. Ray, Edward J.; and Taylor, Robert T.: Buffet and Static Aerodynamic
Characteristics Of a Systematic Series of Wings Determined From ASubsonic Wind-Tunnel Study. NASA TN D-5805.
16. Polhamus, Edward C.: A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge DeltaWings Based On A Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy. TN D-3767.
15
TABLE I
GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL
Br-dy length, cm (in)
Wing
A ::
b/2, cm(in) ;
Leading edge sweep angle, deg.
c, cm(in)
Airfoil Section j
5 , cm(in)
Root Chord, cm(in)
Tip Chord, cm (in)
Maximum thickness, percent chord at -
Root •...
Tip ; •
Canard "-
b/2, cm(in)
Leading edge sweep angle, deg
2 2S , cm (in )c
Airfoil Section
Root chord, cm (in)
Tip chord, cm (in)
Maximum,'thickness, percent chord at
Root ';• *'•*
Tip
16
96.52(38.00)
2.5
25. 0(10.00)
kk
23,32(9.18)
NACA 6UA Series
1032.3(160.0)
29.79
6.78(2.67)
6.0
17-25(6.79)
51.7
288.73( .75)
Circular arc
17.92(7.05)
3.59(1.1*1)
6.0
U.o
TABLE II
:TEST CONFIGURATIONS
Configuration Number
1
2
3
Canard
On
Off
Off
On
On
z/c
0.185
0.185
0.185
-0.185
0.185
Wing flaps
deflected
deflected
undeflected
undeflected
undeflected
17
U it I M I I I ' 1 I I I 1 1 1
TABLE III
TEST DATA
Symbols used in the tabulated data are defined as follows.
CONFIG.
MA.CH NO
Q
BETA
ALPHA
CN
CA
CM
E./FT
TEMP
CMWSG
CL
CD
L/D
configuration number (see table II)
Mach number2
free-stream dynamic pressure, Ib/ft
(1 lVft2 = 97-88 N/m2)*
angle of sideslip, deg
angle of attack, deg
normal-force coefficient
axial-force coefficient
pitching-moment coefficient
Reynolds number per foot xlO
air temp in wind tunnel, °F
wing mean "bending moment coefficient
lift coefficient
drag coefficient
lift-drag ratio
18
II fl 1
Page Intentionally Left Blank
>r -r — • -• in «I I I
o o ""» *o <- - inoeo
^ m ^ i n m o D - o ^ m - f o ^ u N Q Om -* in o -o i«, f- j- m o o m o jn
Q O co • Q <01
'-' in m r\j cc tn *Of»- ,0 GO »^ — <« O
'
• • • •
s,uoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
if a > ^ r « o k — — ^
r g ( s i r g ^ r s j r s 4 ^UOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
oooooooooocooo
--^—*OOOO
Ou
O
u.zO
H-OOOOOOOOOOO — --r
u. — -• — — — — — — — — -. —U.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • *
IO<3}'.
.OOOOOOOOOOOOO 0/3
I I I I I I I
ooooooooooooooI I I I 1
OmO
ozx
UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i* * * * * r r r i r i r r
oooooooooooooor r r r r i*
Om
ozI
UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I I I I
r M O ^ A o o 3 > r - ^ > r * — c o x o o s mi n t A s t m < N — o o ^ ^ m o m ^o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
I I I I I I
•*• CM -* o ca *
i * r
p -r oj i; i i
< O O O O O O O o C O O O O O^-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOU J * * * * * « « * * « * * * tC O O O O O O C ^ O O O O O O O O
<ooooooocoooooo^-oooooooooooooo^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • *COOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
«oooooooooooooo^-oooooooooooooo( U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O - 5 0 O O O O O O O Ooooooooooooooo
2 PAGE ISPAGE BLANK NOT
I I I
G —< r~ *T — —« ^ v C f f f f
^;tTi.r'N;pnco<i l i
o
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a -• —. — O O ^ C T - O O O O O O OX . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ou
OOa- o o o o oo ooooooooo
I I I
OO
i O
I
io
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
I I I I I I I
— in CD -« o
ocoooooooooI I I I I I I I
j - c o o — •
I I I
—• »* -^ . r\j
< O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ot - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O D O O O O O C O O O O O O O O
<ocoooOoooooooot-oooooooooooooo0:00000000000000
OOOOO O O O -* — <M rg ft f*» o O O O O O O O O — < ** f
• — <f\ -o o <y• 00 <7* O O O
o o o o o o o^o o o o o o o oOOQOOOOOOOOOOO
uooooooooooooooCJOOOCOOCOOOOOO
uoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Q. 'fOO^ai^-<71F«^- -O O-O-Of*-I * • t •LU-.-. — OOO.OOOOOOOO UJ*MOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-- — --oooo — — -j^r
2OO
y rr* **i wi r^ <
2a
11.OOO OOO O O O OOOOO
ofTtO
I I I I I 1 I t
Otn0"
oooooooooooooo
IO
•/* or r-i m o fi A w > m c o c '" coo^^-%• ^ «r» IA in -o o o o oi i i i l
> ry o o '
t i
« I • fSJ
a-j ^ <N< I I
< O O O O o O O O ^ J C O O O O
U J < * * * * * * * * ' * ' * *xoooooooooooooo
< oooooooooooooot-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CDOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O C . '^
00 --^ CT- — !T> .*- -* O —' ;O O C7* (NJ ^
o — o -^oo — -v — o — o p^U-C1 O vT O -O ->O C O -0 *O -O «O O -O• o o o - a o O ' O ' C JD so -o -c *o o
ORIGINAL, PAGE US \
O >0 O O*-*"V • • t • •
I I I.3- fv GO o CT- o> r- '-f
I I —
I I
O 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O Ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O O,O OOOOOOOOOj(\J(\(C\JC»J(NJPgi-gpgfsj(Mf\(rg
U -OOOOOO
2J3o o
o
oO O
O
I I I I I i i I i Ioooooooo — --
I I I I I I
XO
OOOOOOOOO O.OOOO
I I I I I I Iooooooooooooo
I I t I i I I
1 1
_)-t(M I< I I
< OOOOOOOOO C3OOOO.1— O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
< O O O O O C O O O O O O O1— O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U li
.j co r- |I I
OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOo a o o o o.o o o o o o o o
*ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
j a> o o —» " c* "• o o — -^ o o- —» f\j rj fv ^NJ fN(V\) rg 'v rsj <N rvj CNJ INJ
Oo o
uU.O OOOOOOOOOOOOO
omo
ozXo
oocooooooooooo
I I I I * I I I I I
oooooooooooooo
oin x
oooooooooooooo
i I
— O — --J •* O >*• 33 O -- O O
—I -4 M (NJ
^ooooooooooooooJ3OOOCOOOOOOOOOO
<oooooooooooooo>-oooooooooooooo
) O O O O O O
*- ooocc oooooooooU J « > » « * * * « » « « « » *tooooooooaoooooo
-C -C i ^J O -O O >O J O ..•> J3" "
POOR g
II fl I 1 M M M i 'I 1 11 I M tt I I I 1
_i o co i aa o t~ <o ir\ <t (-> i —
i o co-i II
u o o o o o o o — • —i
.O CO » r» ^- — ro o^ O CO lA o CT1
m»S '< \ i t f%*^ * r *> * - * *O f^>OO< ' ' JOrg-J — - 4 i M ^ r - - j i n o i f t a 3 - -O Q O O O O O O — —" r\i r>J <N O
—<o _
• ,1 .- .j — * O — (M (*> »T»
•," ' I* " ' * '03 JO O
I
v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O
u_2O O
u
I I I I I I I I I I
oooooooooooooo
oo
ozXu
- O -Ti "71 O O O C7* O l^ (V O O*
ooocooooc-ooooI I
<toooo6ooooooooo^—ooooooooooooooU J » t c t » « * > « « « * * *03OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
a • •J^CM< I I
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L U * « t » » * » » » « « t »a D O O O O O O O O O O O O O
in -^ r* -r^ r*". -H co o CT* %i- -^
J rvj ^ .*\j rvj f
II li 1 1\
M H i 11 I 1L I JI I i I I
Q m - o o o —
jo-eo iI !
-H »^ tr* O «£ rsi f*t CD ru (sj— (NO-O — O-
( M O O m C D * - * ^ * * ^ - * !
O O O O O O O O — — i
i — o r\i —i cc
in o> ,0
ooooooooooooooooooooooo'oooooo
f*%fr'(\J'Nj<Njpn>^-knh-GOOsOOruoooooooooooo-<oooooooooooooooo
oo
ZOu
ooCT- ooooooooooooooo
I I I I I I I I
oo
ooooooooooooooo
Io
oooooooooooooo
oZ
4z:
f S I ( > > ; u ^ ' Ju — — -looooooooo—'oocooooooooooo
I I I
<oooooooooooooof-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
•aooooooooooooooK O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(EOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
rv. *NJ» tn in
(NJ r\)in u~i
_j co f»-l t
COO — --fin m O ^•c f- O tn CO O f-
N. in o IT sooo o o o oo— -^<
^*(C O — <M "> O
ooooooooooooooo*-»ooooooooooooo uoooooooooooo oo
oooooooooooooouoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
— OOO OOOO
Ou
U.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oocooooooooooooI I I I I I I I I I I I
oooooooooooooo
O«>O
I-'o-
i i i i i ( I t > i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
& oooooooocoooooo• • * • • » • * • • • • * • •
I I I I I I I I I t I I i I
o
Iu
<ooooooooooooooh - O O O O O O O O O O O O C O
<oooooooooooooo>-ooooooooooooooxoooooooooooooo
<oooooooooooooot-oooooooooooooo(EOOOOOOOOOOCOOO
x-^ oen O **,•
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ O -O 'rt -O
II fl 1 1 M 1 fi M X It I I I I i 1 I
I ^ 0* <O *
ooooooo—
u^ooooooooocooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooo
i— ^-co^r^^f^—
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
J----OOOOOOOOO — OO- 1
Q. «* 9* -O vfN -O •* <z * * . * * • •UJ-^OOOO-^-^' • UJO k^O<OOOO*«^^<
»-O-«— — — OOO — — — — — '-oooooooooooooo
x o o o o -- *M*-*- in i*- > -o * o oooooooooooooo-^o
oooooooooooooo
(*> jrOOoo-^'N'OJ'^^^u^^-oooo uoooooooooooooo
o•zI
oz
ooooooooooooo o
t—oooooo — oo — — — ooooooocoooooooo
O—— 'V — — — — — — OOOOrsjoooooooooooooo
^ -, — _ rg r
<ooc: oooooooooooN- C C . C O O O O O O O O O O OU J * • * • • • • • * • • • • •( C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O
<oooooooooooooot-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOU J « * * » * « f » * » » « « »(COOOOOOOOOOOOOO
< coooooonoocooo^•ooooocoooocoooCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O O *O O -O -C O
-• C* O O O T J1 J- -O O IT.
oooooooooooooo
OOOOOOO-—<
<**i <x> -* o <? -* & -f •*
oooooo. ooooooooooooooooooooooo O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O
oooooooooooooo
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
oo
zo
o- •oooooooooooqooo
i io
Oo
OOOOOOOOOt t f f * * * * *
I I
—'—'-"-J—•-> — -4—'OOOO—"OOOOOOOOOOOOOO < >_)O — — -•OOOOOOOOO—'x: o o o o o o o o o c o o o o
T i l l * "
—. ^ — -j rvl (NJ< I I i ^ -< -- t\j INJ
<toooooooooooooofc-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'COOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
< o o o o o o o o o o o o o ot - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
m o o o o o o o c o o o o o o
U fi 1 11 li Ji fi Jl I I IS Ji I iA.
R§*g
uc
touo>
•4J
0)
6.*H4^
V
u
• iH
COc.2COc
0)TJO
JSCO
01• iH
o>(U
0)t(
"H-
U li I I
CANARD
O OFFa ''ONO ON
O.IBb
•0.186
fc
fcri
IB
lie
Is
IRC
.us
.002
n
o-^
— <a
""!
«
<*=:
IB '
O
as —
-•o-^
-
eft—
~~^^Xtfe
•
..'• -"
-<X•»•&
...
- ,
=&&
^
— ^y
~" — '
-" iiP*
Pi
L- . .„ .
....
-0^
tJ~-~
r~ •
a
j.....
— &-
.
r
;-
...r
i i
j ..
H-t
i. .... . .
I L
\~" l "
i
Ii
1T 1
i
!'4
^s^<Ff
I
]/
'
/>
•,
/
V
i
^
^
_
rj
,
^^
'*»^^
^ y^3
.
-2
•&0 -4J) -S.O 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1S.O 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 M.O -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0'
Alpb»4e|. Alphufee.
Figure 2.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics andwing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at aMach number of 1.20.
IKS
fe
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
Z/CBAR
0.1SS0.185
•0.186
.010
.008
.006
.004
.OK
0
•te-<,
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
-.01
-.02
-.09
-.04
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.4 -2 0 2 .4 .6 & 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8'
Figure 2.- Continued.
.08
.06
CANARDO' OFFD ONO ON
Z/GBAR0.1850.185
-0.185
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN2(ALPHA)
..< cFigure 2.- Continued.
SHEET 101 TYPE I TEST 870RUNS 1 6 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U fl 11 Ji I I l Ji 1 1 I I
IBS
te
fe=i
IK
fccr
'M.WSG
,010
.008
.006
.004
.002
OD
O
CANARDOFFONON
Z/GBAR0.1850.1S&
•0.185
.8 1.0 1.2 1,4 1,6
L.DIF
0Figure 2.-Concluded.
SHEET 101 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 1 6 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CANARD Z/CBAR
O OFF 0.186
D ON 0.186
O ON -0.186
fcri.<W
0
P:
0
.:.,
^
^
*
"
— \
-• •—
°
^
*a^
*N-*;
„
°
-9T
^~v^
^
1
^>'-o~y.
— o=
^
J
^ — p--cy
1
-
^^T-O-J-iCj
• • • •
-o ,
.
Pn
r^o-o-t
•" • 1
^
"
— 1
h •""
i
.
^^
^
•
K
i
//
*>..
j#
-. .
X\f$
~
/*-£&
-^
,x"
'A^
/u
-^
^
•6.0 -10 -2.0 0 2.0 10 60 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0
ALPHABEG. ALPHAJ3IC.
Figure 3.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics andwing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undetected at aMach number of 1.03.
IBS
ft*
fcsi
Its:
IBS
IBB
dor
CANARJ3
O OFFQ ONO ON
Z/CBAR0.185
0.185
•0.185
: .6
.1
o
-.1
-.2
.010
,008
.006
.004
.002
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.08
-.4 -.2 0 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-.09
Figure 3.- Continued.
.08
.06
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
Z/GBAR0.1850.185
•0.185
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.10O1 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 3.-Continued.
SHEET 103 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 17 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
]] I 'I H M I I I 1 li I M ii li 2 1 1 £
tesi.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
-.4 -.2 0
D
Z/GBAR0.1850.1S5
-0.1S5
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6GL.DIF
Figure 3. -Concluded.
SHEET 102 TYPE 1 TEST 870
RUNS H 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
Z/CBAS.O.IKOlftf.
•0.186
XI7
.OS
JO!
Jll
0
-.01
-.02
-to -2.0 o 2j> to ej> ao 10.0 12.0 uo ie.o 19.0 200 22.0 210 -w -to -M o 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 . u.o no lao 20.0 22.0 24.0
Figure 4.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics andwing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at aMach'number of 0.95.
tees
He:
IBS
IRC!
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
Z/CBAR0.1850.185
-0.185
-.4
-JS
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.08
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-.09
Figure 4.- Continued.
he;
.08
.06
.04
CANARDO OFFD ONO ON
Z/CBA&0.1850.185
•0.185
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16
figure 4.-Continued.
SIN(ALPHA)
.18
SHEET 103 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 18 3 '24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II £ 1 S I 'I 'I' I 'I 11 i li i U £ i
1,
tea
tea
Ks-
.010
.008
.006
'M.WSG
O OFFD ON<> ON
0.1850.185
•0.185
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-.4
LJOF
DFigure 4.- Concluded.
SHEET 103 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 1 0 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
fc
fees!
IBS
tar
Figure 5.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics andwing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undetected at aMaeh number of 0.90.
less
tes
fcS!
fts:
CANARDO OFFQ ONO ON
Z/CBAR0.16&0.185
-0.185
••U.WIC
-i
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
.08
.07
M
.05
M
.03
.02
.01
I
-.01
-.OJ
-.09
-.04
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.08
- .4 -20 2 .4 £ 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 J 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1'C,
Figure 5.- Continued.
.08
.06
.04
TCANARDO OFFD ON<> ON
Z/GBAR0.1850.185
•0.185
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
') Figure 5.-Continued. .
SHEET IOH TYPE I TEST 670RUNS 1 9 H 2 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U fl Ji I i 1 I £
Z/CBAR
ted
te:
M,WSG
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
oaO
OFFONON
0.185•0.185
DFigure 5.- Concluded.
SHEET 104 TYPE 1 TEST 690
RUNS 1 9 4 , 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IK
te=
frsi
ISC
CANARD Z/CBARO OFF 0.1»O ON 0.1(6O ON -O.lre
Ire!
Figure 6.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics andwing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at a Machnumber of 0.70.
IK
pr:
)«=
CANARJJ
O OFFD ONO ON
.002
-.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Figure 6.- Continued.
.08
.06
.04
CANARDO OFFD ON<> ON
Z/GBAR0.1850.185
-0.185
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
< .
SIN(ALPHA)
' CFigure 6.-Continued.
SHEET 105 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 2 0 6 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II fl a li M M M 1 M JT ii I 1 II Ji 1 1 y v1L A.
ten .010
.008
M,WSG
IBSS
OD
OFFONON
0.1B&0.185
•0.185
DFigure 6.-Concluded.
SHEET 106 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 20 6 26 0 0 0
tea
fe
frsi
te
HE:
tec
JHB
Li FLAP
O UNDHFLTn
D DEFLTD
CH.W
m
n
D
Q
-^-c
r
;
^ L
.
s*-v\\
\
"-* — —
Q
\o-\
\
,1"-
-o —
\
l-u.^§k—
-c--_
T+-
<>-!
^
-"°
,
N
,
i>
,
1
. .
L
'"
J
..1
r
. .
^• ;-
K
1. ...
L- .
i
^_x
X
Xkxl!
x7
J
^x^
- s:'FT
*S,^^
^cr-^
•^8^ j
-4.0 -JjO 0 SD 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1S.O 14.0 16.0
ALPHAJ5EC. ' ALPHADEG.20.0 210 84J>"
Figure 7.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 1.20.
fc
Ifcs
-.1
-.4
-3
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
UF_ FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
Xfts
"X
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -.2 0 2
<a.6 A IS> 1.2 1.4 1.6
.08
.07
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.06
-.06
-.07
•.08
-.09
Figure 7.- Continued.
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
.08
.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 7.- Continued.
SHEET 109 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 12 I li M li I M i I MI 11 I 1 1
tea
IK
fes
.008
.006
.004
.002
O UNDJLEL'II)D DEFLTD
-.4 -.2 0 .2 ,4 .6 .8
^L.DIF
1.2 1.4 L%
Figure?.- Concluded.
SHEET 109 TYPE 1
RUNS 16 11 0
TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tea
tea
teri
tec
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFl.TD[J DEFLTD
*==
.Uti
0
0
<.„ *
- 0
Q
-^
n
^^^\
^\
\
Ss~ -
_ ~
"O
_j
Q "
\N
"•O— ~
H
-n 1-O^
-o — ,*-- •
'
k
r
-
\N
-o-.
"~
N'
-~n
- ;.
P "1
«
1
1
-- J
'
....
Orr
^f.
^
/S
/
X
••
X
Y
,*/
K/31 f
" '
,x£>
^
,..
xO-~
^EJ
' '/
^
I
-xtJ*•J
.4•6.0 -10 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 140 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 E.O 10 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0'
ALPHABEG. AUHA.DEG,
Figure 8.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 1.03.
tea
*s*
fee
IBS
L.E. FLAPO UNDEH.TDO DEFLTD
(«=
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.H -.2 0
.010 -
.008
.006
.004
.002
-.4 -.2 0-.09
Figure 8.- Continued.
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
Y SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 8.-Continued.
SHEET 110 TYPE I, TEST 670RUNS 1 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u i i -I x ii a i •
fca
IE;
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0-.4
L.E. FLAPO UNDJLFIJDD DEFLTD
-.2 0 .4 .6 .8 1,2 1.4
DFigure 8.-Concluded.
SHEET 110 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS H 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
tea
tes
tec
He
fca-
(feed
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTD
D DEFLTD
pas
.US
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
XII
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.06
-.06
-.07
-.08
-.09
.010
.008
.006
.004
uta
0•6
-o
o
D
O
** '
^C
-c
D
^
t *
X.
>
\,
>-
£=
.
K\o-_^
\
I
&=-Q
H,\
-c\ — .
V\v
& .•a —
s,\
-0
!
\.\
A
|
iL L
hv jNT>H1 :
i
-o—-o—
-O"
^f
!
!
-—
!
; It -t -j- -i-- -
•&1
_
e
r~ •J
—
£
^^
\_.. ..
.-'' '.i^
/i'
^>^CJ
n^rr^^
^^
-^^y^
0 - 4 - 0 - 2 . 0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6,0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 S2.0 2<
ALPHABEG. ALPHABEG.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
2
0
•3
-.4.0
Figure 9.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.95.
fe-
te.6
i
.4
a
2
.1
0
-.1
•2
•3
•A
•*
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
L£ FI.APO UNDEFLTVD DEFLTD
^
"NO —
^
O (
s
£=s
*^
±=cP
kj
=<f*-
sJJll!
:
_ J_ _! ........
K^O.
— •-
^
1— — .
"C
o—
S
o— '
\\
^~0
_ —
^ \p^.\\\t)\\4 '
^\
\V
\
.08
.07
.06
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.08
.no.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
C,
Figure 9.- Continued.
.08
.06
.04'
.02
0
.02
-.04
•.06
-.08
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
rP
0-0
.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18< .
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 9.-Continued.
SHEET 111 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 1 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 li il li li li 1 it I It il li
.010
.008
fez
M.WSG
tea
L..E, f.1 AFO UNT).E3.'1,TDD DEFLTD
Figure 9. -Concluded.
SHEET 111 TYPE 1 TEST E70RUNS 1 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tea
LE. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
Ire*
fcsr:
jer.
n
o
0
o
^
J-
~~-c
*»^
^
. — <
[
\I
>— —
-^
\x\
1
\a-
^"
\
-^& — ,
-o —
\\
JO~
Vi\\
-o —
rr "
0 -1-o l
k,
N
<!--.
~Q — -
K -C, 1
k-X_
r-°-/^J-J
-o-i
1
-o5^
-tT^/~o'
^o-o
. .. _J
^
-o^J^0-0
- t"
-J
•
81
_
. ,
xC
^
Xr'X
x^s
^*/
ry- x^/
CIS"n"
ay-^
S
^<^-' ^o— --0-C
•6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 to 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 U.O 16.0 110 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0'
Alphas. AlphMleg.
Figure 10.-Effect of wing leading edge nap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.90.
tea
te
tea
l.». "I.APO UNDEn-TDCl PEH-TD
-.1
•2
•J
.010
.008
.008
.004
.002
xyx
-I .,-,3
Jrss4 .6 £ 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
i,
=^5^^
A-
an
.06
.06 '
.04
.OS
•re-
Mi
-.09
Figure 10.- Continued.
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
.06
.06
.08
.02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
.- cFigure It).-Continued.
SHEET 112 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 1 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U B I"' I li M 1 1 I 1 I li Jl Jt i
D£B,TT)
tea
fctt
fee
fcsS
Us-
-.4
L.DIF
fcr
Figure 10.- Concluded.
SHEET 112 TYPE 1 TEST G"70
RUNS 1 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0
tes:
lie:
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.06
-.06
-.07
-.03
-09
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
Li FLAPO UNDETLTDP DBFLTD
O
D
- • • -
^
I ;J
X^
r-— <
^
\
" 1
1
i >
\—
\\
t
i
i"~^~~
v
\ I \
1-;
.1..x
^^
}
|
;i K-d.v.J-o-
1
1
(
—M1
\
r- -L T
—
i
!
i
- 1. 4- '--|___
I T h. i_ \ _
i |
i
f—. ..j j_. .-.^ .^ ....-, r
• i 'l\
1 \ . ! L i 1 1
___*__ j__
! i"" ~ — ]
4 1 .1.I r1 : :
*~-
-,U. i .
.-
^— C-'
n£> i-^- 1 — —
I
Tf ~r-• r \ — ; "-*- -; }~ -
" "'••"i ; r i "•i _, J i i it
~t^r^f"
L> {ff^-''"0'
- —
4X0
xT
^<}
, ,
H
0D
^c^
J
1
—
^j/
s.
*•
.._.
XX
—
—
/^ ^
rr1
#*
-^,^-
u
1.4
u
1.0
.8
.6 C
.4
2
0
-.2
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0
ALPHAO>EG.
Figure 11.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.70.
Cm
<-•«.*
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -.2 0 2 .4
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
- . 4 - J O
Figure 11.- Continued.
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 11.-Continued.
SHEET 113 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 2 0 I B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 U Ji ]i i I 1 it I M Ji M i 1
tea
tea
fcci M.WSG
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0-.4
G UHDEFLTljD DEFLTD
ft ,2 .4 .6 .8
^ L.DIF
1.1) 1.2 1.4 IJ}
uFigure 11.- Concluded.
SHEET 113 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q O
te
He:
feci
ps-
.08
.07
.06
.06
.04
.02
0
-.01
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.06
-.06
-Sfl
-.08
-.09
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
n
LI. FLAPO UNDEFLTDO DEFLTD
O-
0-0
- -
<•\
—X
1
\-
^
1
R ,
^\
;
Q
!t
j
-~-a 1
1 n
il
_
-— 0-
°
•v
• -• —
_3 ;
\
0-..
__
.
^
_L __L.
_.t ^_
__ ' -1
-I—
~r~[ " ~i i-^—C &-- .... j.tra
141 — -t" • 1 •• •j
—
,
_ J i—
H• •
__J ,
I\- -T
; i
i j
—
, —
_
P/n
s
i
••-s!i —
—1I
i i
~f
,.-••
/o ,••'
a' ^
—
^//u^
^
>
^
^
.-
-
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0'
ALPHAJDEC. ALPHAJ)EG.
Figure 12.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 1.20.
lea
tea
fcs!
fee
*£
Its-
par
pas
UE.FLAP
DKSLTUJO
^ D
OJ-l-
4
'
Q
OCL<
2
n
43-O-
J
nJJ-~O-
s-o-
2
3-O4
.4
-oi!
M>n
.6
D-o —
a
£ 1
o-o
0 °
.0 1
-^
If-l2 1
Vft
'.4 I
r
.6
" --n
0"
L
4
nN,
U
2
fa.
~-o.
j
n
\\
"^tx
2
^
C
.4
I
\
\
b
6
^
^
-6 1
NX
JO 1
^N
q\
'i
2 A \ .8'OJ
Figure 12.- Continued.
.08
.06
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
•04<fc
.02
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 12,-Continued.
SHEET 116 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U fl i it i i
fed
KK
fcc!
(srr.
tsr.
M.WSG
.010
.008
.006
;o°4
.002
0-A
D
-
4 6 8*T «V/ *w
DFigure 12. -Concluded.
! 4>.« J
SHEET 116 TYPE 1 TEST 6^0
RUNS 1 6 0 0 0 0 O O Q O
LE. FLAP
O UNDITLTD
D DEFLTD
Itff
led
NSB
AW
0
u-
Cr
D-
— a-
-°
0-
-^T
^-— <
X
) ^
\\
° ^\
_
" — I
\
-n~__y=
\^\
Q
^C
\
^
H
-P
1 ~^_
KiN.
N
~~
'i;
tr"
-O-v
r "^
j.
-o— o
[_
cr"
n
I '
^
^
/
^
1
: X-^
xg^
/$/
^•/JXX
rr^fl^
•6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 160 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -8.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 210'
ALPHADEG. ALPHAJIEG.
Figure 13.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 1.03.
te-
tee
fcs!
UE. F( .".PO UtJEEFl.lPa
£ i
Jo •———•— - --
-.4 -2 0 2 A .6 R 1.0 13 1.4 1.6 -.4 -50 2 .4 .6 1.0 li L4 1.6
Figure 13.- Continued.
.08
.061
.04,
.02
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 13.- Continued.
SHEET 117 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U U I 11 M li I 1 K I li I li ii 1 I 1
tea
IBS
IRC*
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
O UNDE'lfLTDD DEELTD
-.4 -.2 .2 ,4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 L6
DFigure 13.-Concluded.
SHEET 117 TYPE 1 TEST 6"70
PUNS 2 T Q Q Q O
IBS:
*=:
!»«=
L.E. FLAP
O UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
.06
.04
.03'
.02
.01
0
-.01
•sa
•xa
-.04
-.06
-.06
-R
T
-^f=—fc~-^t:>r.~"'~ ~~— '••
I I J-
T: _.|_^._t
H i l l
-4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18JI 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Z2.0 24.0
! !-hi
:1±t
_r_
Figure 14.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 0.95.
ta L.L ¥
UK
lie:
fcc!
IK!
*=
*=;
{5T3
- .OS
CM.,
-.08
-.4 -2 0 2 A .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 -.4 -2 0 2 A .6 £ 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-.09
*==
Figure 14.- Continued.
.08
.06
I.04
.02<
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.10
L.E.FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 14.-Continued.
SHEET 118 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U f i I I 1 fl I I It I\
ii i I
fed
ted
tec
IBS.
UBS
*«
(j UNDEFLTD DEFLTL)
M.WSG
DFigure 14. -Concluded.
SHEET 118 TYPE 1RUNS 3 9 0
TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L.F. JLAP
V UNDEIT.TD
Cj DEFLTD
te
n
D-
J
•-G.
H
1
.„,
- — *
~— c
. .._ .
\
^1°<^
_i
_,
v ^ N
l~^-t- ~ ._
~9?=-— 0-"
....-.->-
, n.i • ••' f-
— -. -^
I 01 O
- i
i
P.... ...
.- ••'1
• ,n_ v_J
l_.
L
i
. . 1 |1 ^
L - .
" . " "1
I
L ' C
^
i x'
s'[.
_j
f'"
--
JJ
1
.ov"cr
. , . J
_.
,?-'
_
XJ^
x"^xV f
^
Figure 15.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 0.90.
tee!
tes
pass
l,li. H.AI'O I'NDETI-ITJD UEKUTD
-M.WSC
- . 4 - 2 0 1.0 12 1.4 L6
Figure 15.- Continued.
.08
.06
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
•04[j
(*-<=T>^-0—C
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.100 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 15.-Continued.
SHEET 113 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 11 i li li K li 1 it I ]f li li M I I
tes
tes
1 M.WSG
,010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
DEFLTD
•o=
-.4 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0Figure 15.-Concluded.
SHEET 113 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUNS 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IKS
tea
L.E. FtAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
.08
0
cr
D-
O
"U
^
— -c
^
^ — <
^
\>—
^^^
^°\
3t=— -
^L\,
&^
~~~O-\
\
H'
a9=
i
i
^J1
^\1
*&-
1
Tt
.. -
<v '
\
^
- 9=
\
'
^^
"•-<
^\
=^
•
^
VvN
L, J
j==-H
_|
-^— .
h-^^
K>-*--1
0-0
1 «
r/"o-<^
i.
•~1
crcr
. —
._.
j.
.
^
^^
V
. . .
1
1 ~|
X
f ^^
^^
&
^
Y*•? /•^%5°
,1•4.0 -tO -2.0 0 2.0 4.0 60 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0 -4.0 -IS 0 2.0 4,0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 1M ISJ> 20.0 JJ.O 24£
ALPHAJ1IG. ALPHAJ1ZG.
Figure 16.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristics and wing buffet for canard cm at a Mach number of 0.70.
tea
He:
Its: cm
-£
.010
.008
.006
.004
.003
L.E. FLAPO UNDKfL'n)D DBTLTD
(X.
<£&
O
fi
T... .. .
I I
$—
i—O
- -\>.\
t l -
-.4 -2 0 .6 .8 1.0 13 1.4 1.6 -.4 -20 2 .4 .6 1.0 1.2 1.4
sn
X
»
M
aa
j02
jOl
o
-.01
•M
-.03
-M
-.05
-.06
-.07
-.08
-.09
Figure 16.- Continued.
.OS
.06
.04
GA
-.02
-.04
-.06
-.08
-.10
L.E. FLAPO UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
SIN(ALPHA)
Figure 16.-Continued.
SHEET 180 TYPE 1 TEST 670RUNS 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 II II It M M 11 I H 11 I I U it ][ 1 "i' ;
fed
IfetM
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
0 UNDEFLTDD DEFLTD
Q
-.4 -.2 0 .4 .6 .8
^ L.DIF
1.0 1.2 1,4 1,6
DFigure 16.- Concluded.
SHEET 120 TYPE 1 TEST 670
RUMS 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
