Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
'1\ 3 1176 01331 2500 ] , ~ \ PEN00248
NASA TECHNICAL NOTE
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION
OF THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE X-24A LIFTING BODY AIRCRAFT
by
Kenneth W. Mort
Ames Research Center
and
Michael D. Falarski
U. S. Army Aeronautical Research Laboratory
NASA TN D-5932
NA TlONAl AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • AUGUST 1970
r
ERRATA
NASA Technical Note D- 5932
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE X-24A LIFTING BODY AmCRAFT
By Kenneth W. Mort and Michael D. Falarski
August 1970
Page 1: Delete the word "CONFIDENTIAL" at the top of the page, delete the asterisk
after the title, and delete the notation "Title, Unclassified" at the bottom of
the page.
NASA-Langley. 1970 Issued 8-26-70
1. Report No.
NASA TN D-5932 4. Title and Subtitle
1 2. Government Accession Nc.
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE X-24A LIFTING BODY AIRCRAFT
7. Author(s)
Kenneth W. Mort and Michael D. Falarski
9. Performing Organization Name and Address NASA Ames Research Center and U.S. Army Aeronautical Research Laboratory Moffett Field, California 94035
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date August 1970
6. Performing Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.
A-2823 10. Work Unit No.
124-07-02-34-00-21
11. Contract or Grant No.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Technical Note
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
The aerodynamic characteristics of the X-24A aircraft were investigated in the Ames 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. The aircraft was tested over an angle-of-attack range of _4° to +32°, an angle-of-sideslip range of _6° to +6°, for several longitudinal, lateral, and directional control settings, and for Reynolds numbers ranging from 20. 7X 1 0 6 to 41.6X 1 0 6 . (Most of the data were obtained at a Reynolds number of 32.4X10 6 .) Results were obtained with the landing gear both up and down. With the landing gear up the maximum lift-to-drag ratio achieved was 5.2 untrimmed and 4.4 trimmed. With the landing gear down the maximum trimmed LID was lower by an amount which varied from 0.8 to 1.8, depending on the upper flap deflection. In flight, lowering the landing gear would require a longitudinal control change of 7° to 1 0°, depending on the angle of attack, to maintain a constant lift coefficient or forward velocity. A limited comparison with l/5 scale-model longitudinal results showed very good agreement.
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s»
Lifting body Subsonic aerodynamics, aircraft
18. Distribution Statement
Unclassified - Unlimited
Subsonic aerodynamics, missiles and space vehicles
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 58
*For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151
22. Price*
$3.00
b
Cz
Cy
D
I
L
q
R
S
V
reference span, 10ft
drag coefficient, ~
NOTATION
rolling moment rolling-moment coefficient, qSb
lift coefficient,~s 't hi t ff" t pitching moment pI c ng-momen coe lClen, qSl
Yawing-moment coefficient. yawing moment , qSb
side-force coefficient side force , qS
drag force, lb
reference length, 23 ft
lift force, lb
free-stream dynamic pressure, psf
VI Reynolds number, ki t" 't nema IC VISCOSI Y
reference area, 162 fe
free-stream velocity, fps
angle of attack, referenced to lower surface (see fig. 2(a)), deg
angle of sideslip (see fig, 2(a»), deg
differential flap deflection, (left side) - (right side), deg
average deflection of upper flaps, deg
average deflection of lower flaps, deg
average rudder deflection, deg
average flare of all four rudder sections, deg
iii
control deflections were measured in a plane perpendicular to the control hinge line. See figure 3 for the sign conventions and figure 2(c) for the reference position for all controls except the rudders, are referenced to the flared position.
The data presented are referred to the wind axes for all force coefficients and to the body axes for all moment coefficients.
iv
CONFIDENTIAL
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE X-24A LIFTING BODY AIRCRAFT*
Kenneth W. Mort Ames Research Center
and
Michael D. Falarski U.S. Army Aeronautical Laboratory
SUMMARY
The aerodynamic characteristics of the X-24A aircraft were investigated in the Ames 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. The aircraft was tested over an angle-of-attack range of _4° to +32°, an angle-of-sideslip range of _6° to +6°, for several longitudinal, lateral, and directional control settings, and for Reynolds numbers ranging from 20.7XI06 to 41.6X106. (Most of the data were obtained at a Reynolds number of 32.4X 106.) Results were obtained with the landing gear both up and down. With the landing gear up the maximum lift-to-drag ratio achieved was 5.2 untrimmed and 4.4 trimmed. With the landing gear down the maximum trimmed LID was lower by an amount which varied from 0.8 to 1.8, depending on the upper flap deflection. In flight, lowering the landing gear would require a longitudinal control change of 7° to 10°, depending on the angle of attack, to maintain a constant lift coefficient or forward velocity. A limited comparison with 1/5 scale-model longitudinal results showed very good agreement.
INTRODUCTION
Many studies have been conducted in developing lifting reentry vehicles (lifting bodies) capable of gliding to a specified recovery site, and of making a horizontal landing. Flight vehicles using three different configurations have been built to investigate atmospheric flight characteristics prior to and during the landing maneuver. Two of these configurations were designated M2-F2 and HL-IO. (See ref. I for results of flight testing the M2-F2 and refs. 2 and 3 for results of wind-tunnel testing the M2-F2 and HL-IO.) The third configuration is the X-24A lifting body. Wind-tunnel tests were performed on a 1/5 scale model of the X-24A configuration and the results were reported in reference 4. To determine if scale and viscous effects at full-scale Reynolds numbers introduced unacceptable aerodynamic characteristics, the X-24A aircraft was tested in the Ames 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. Results of this investigation are presented herein.
*Title, Unclassified
VEHICLE
The X-24A aircraft is shown in figure 1 installed in the test section of the Ames by 80-Foot Wind Dimensions and geometry are given in figure 2. The aircraft had upper flaps that could be moved together for longitudinal control for lateral control and lower flaps that could also be moved together longitudinal control and differentially for lateral control. The sign convention used for the control surface deflections is illustrated in figure 3. As shown in figure 2(c) the vehicle also had two sets of rudders, an upper set and a lower set. The control system of the aircraft was designed to use the lower flaps for longitudinal and lateral control and the upper rudders for directional control. However, the effects of all the control surfaces were included in the investigation.
TEST PROCEDURE
The aerodynamic characteristics were obtained by setting dynamic pressure and sideslip angle and varying either angle of attack or control position. The effects of Reynolds numbers from 20.7X 106 to 41.6X 06 were determined at one longitudinal control setting and zero sideslip. The effects of Reynolds number at this condition were found to be small and were assumed to be small at other test conditions. Therefore, the remainder of the investigation was performed at a Reynolds number of 32.4X 106 (dynamic pressure of about 59 psf). Testing was performed with the landing gear both up and down. The mounting arrangement with the gear up is shown in figures lea) and l(b) and with the gear down in figures l(c) and led).
REDUCTION OF DATA
Corrections
No tunnel-wall corrections were applied to the data presented since the estimated magnitude of these corrections indicated they were insignificant.
The data were corrected for tares due to the unshielded portion of the struts (see fig. 1 (a)). These tares were obtained in the following manner. The lower sections of the forward unshielded struts were tested while mounted on the tunnel support struts without the aircraft or upper sections of the struts. (The entire unshielded section of the rear strut was tested in this manner.) The upper sections of the forward unshielded struts were tested while suspended from the aircraft with the aircraft mounted as shown in figure 1(e). (The upper section of the strut is not shown in this figure.) Therefore the tares include the interaction between the struts and aircraft and the interaction between the fairings and struts. (The effects of the free ends during the tare testing were not accounted for; however, estimates indicate that they were small.) With the landing gear up the
2
tare values used were: ~CL = -0.054 sin <x, ~CD = 0.045 - 0.048 sin <x, and ~Crn = -0.006; with the landing gear down the values were: ~CD = 0.012 and ~Cm = -0.0036. (All of these coefficients are referred to the wind axes.)
Accuracy of Measurement
The various quantities measured were accurate within the following limits which include error limits involved in calibrating, reading, and reducing the data.
Angle of attqck ±0.2° Angle of sideslip ±0.5° Free-stream dynamic pressure ±1/2 percent Control surface settings ±0.5°
Force or Coefficients at
moment R = 32.4XI06 (q = 59 psf)
Lift ±51b ±0.00052 Drag ±31b ±0.00031 Side force ±31b ±0.00031 Pitching moment ±200 ft-Ib ±0.00091 Yawing moment ±IOO ft-lb ±0.00I05 Rolling moment ±300 ft-lb ±0.00314
RESULTS
Table 1 is a complete index of plotted test results. The data presented in figures 4 through 9 show the effects on the basic longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the following parameters: Reynolds number (fig. 4); upper and lower flap setting for three rudder flare settings with the landing gear up (figs. 5,6, and 7); upper and lower flap setting with the landing gear down (fig. 8); and angle of sideslip (fig. 9). Also shown is a comparison with the 1/5 scale model results of reference 4 (fig. 10). Longitudinally trimmed characteristics determined from figures 5 through 8 are shown in figure 11. Figure 11(a) shows the effect of upper flap deflection, figure 11 (b) the effect of rudder flare, and figure 11 (c) the effect of the landing gear.
The lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics are presented in figures 12 through 16. These figures show the effects of varying sideslip angle and angle of attack (fig. 12); upper rudder deflection (fig. 13); lower rudder deflection (fig. 14); differential upper flap deflection (fig. 15); and differential lower flap deflection (fig. 16). These results were investigated for upper flap settings
3
from -15° to -30°, lower flap settings from 10° to 30°, and rudder flare angles of -9°, 0°, and 9° for all controls except the lower rudders. The aerodynamic characteristics of the lower rudders were only examined with the landing gear down, upper flaps at _20° and -30°, lower flaps at 20°, and rudder flare of 0°. The results are presented for these ranges only if there were significant effects of these variables.
DISCUSSION
Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics
The effect of Reynolds number was examined for an upper flap setting of -20°, a lower flap setting of + 10°, and a rudder flare setting of _9° with the landing gear up. From the results shown in figure 4, it is evident that for the range investigated the effect of Reynolds number was small. In view of this it was assumed that the effects of Reynolds number would be small at other test conditions and hence the remaining results were obtained at one Reynolds number, 32.4X106
(dynamic pressure of 59 psi).
Comparison with 1/5 scale model of reference 4- The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft (extrapolated to -10° orf using data from figs. 5(a) and 6(a)) and a 1 /5 scale model (ref. 4) are compared in figure 10 for an upper flap setting of -5°, a lower flap setting of 0°, and a rudder flare setting of -10°. Agreement is good; the only significant differences, which are small, are a shift in the angle of attack required for the same lift coefficient, which is about 1 0, and a shift in pitching-moment coefficient at the same lift coefficient, which is equivalent to less than 5° of lower flap setting.
Trimmed aerodynamic characteristics for the X-24A aircraft- The maximum trimmed lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) was 4.4 (fig. 11 (a)), but the corresponding longitudinal control settings would not provide for an adequate longitudinal control margin for maneuvering. A usable L/D would probably range from about 3-1/2 to 4. As a point of reference, this glide performance may be compared with that achieved by the M2-F2 aircraft (ref. 2) and the HL-lO aircraft (ref. 3) which were designed for the same mission. The maximum L/D from wind-tunnel test results of these aircraft with the controls in the flight test configuration was slightly greater than 3 for the M2-F2 and about 3-1/4 for the HL-lO.
Rudder flare had a large effect on the lower flap setting required for trim (fig. 11 (b )). Each degree increase in rudder flare requires approximately a 1 ° decrease in lower flap deflection to maintain the same trimmed lift coefficient. Because of this relationship and because of the lower flap travel limitations, large reciuctions in the maximum-trimmed lift coefficient occurred with increasing rudder flare. The more negative upper flap setting (ou = -30°) allowed higher. maximum-trimmed lift coefficients to be attained.
The landing gear had a large effect on the trimmed results (fig. 11 (c)). With the landing gear down there was a large increase in drag coefficient which caused a large reduction in L/D. For example, with an upper flap setting of -20° and a lift coefficient of 0.3, the drag coefficient was increased by over 70 percent reducing the L/D from 4 to 2.3. In addition, the presence of the landing gear required a large reduction in lower flap setting to maintain lift coefficient (about 10°
4
with 0u = -200 and CL = 0.3), indicating that the nose-down pitching moment caused by the landing gear was large. (The reduction in trim drag due to the decrease in lower flap deflection was negligible. )
Lateral-Directional Aerodynamic Characteristics
With sideslip or lateral-directional control deflection an abrupt change in the yawing-moment coefficient and rolling-moment coefficient occurred at angles of attack near 20 0 (See, e. g., figs. I2(a) and 13Ca).). In some cases, the coefficients changed signs. Tuft studies indicated that this was due to separation of the airflow on the upstream-outboard fin very similar to that which occurred on the HL-l 0 aircraft (ref. 3). Examination of the data indicates that the angle of attack at which separation occurred was sensitive to anything that affected the aerodynamic loading of the fin. In every case this angle of attack was larger than that at maximum L/D; thus separation would probably not occur during normal trimmed flight but might occur during maneuvering flight.
The following significant features concerning the lateral-directional control data should be noted. The yawing moment produced by the upper rudders (fig. 13) was accompanied by adverse rolling moment (Clo /eno :::::; -0/2)) that was about the same level as for the M2-F2 and HL-IO
r r aircraft. Comparison of the data in figure 14 with figure 13 shows that the yawing moment produced by the lower rudders is accompanied by less adverse rolling moment at low angles of attack, but that this yawing moment varies more with angle of attack. At angles of attack below about 150 the rolling moment produced by both the upper and lower flap systems was accompanied by very little yawing moment (figs. 15 and 16). The lower flaps are only about one fourth as effective as the upper flaps for controlling roll.
The effect of sideslip on the control effectiveness of the differential upper flaps, differential lower flaps, and upper rudders was examined at sideslip angles up to 60, but was found to be insignificant; hence the data are not presented.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
With the landing gear up the maximum L/D achieved was 5.2 untrimmed and 4.4 trimmed. At the trimmed L/D of 4.4, the control settings required did not provide a margin for maneuvering. A usable value would probably range from about 3-1/2 to 4, which is slightly higher than that for the M2-F2 and HL-IO lifting body aircraft.
Lowering the landing gear caused a large nose-down pitching-moment increment and a large increase in drag, and consequently, a large reduction in L/D. At an upper flap setting of -200 and a CL of 0.3 the lower flap setting would have to be reduced about 100 to trim the aircraft and maintain CL. For these conditions the L/D would be reduced by 1.7 because of the drag increase.
Longitudinal results for one control setting were compared with those obtained from testing the 1/5 scale wind-tunnel model of reference 4. Very good agreement was shown.
5
With sideslip or lateral-directional control deflection, separation of the airflow on the upstream-outboard fin occurred at angles of attack near 20°. This separation was very similar to that which occurred on the HL-lO aircraft. Abrupt changes in the lateral-directional data occurred with this separation; however, the angle of attack at which separation occurred was larger than that at maximum LID. Thus, separation would probably not occur during normal trimmed flight but might occur during maneuvering flight.
Ames Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Moffett Field, Calif., 94035, April 8, 1970
REFERENCES
1. Pyle, Jon S., and Swanson, Robert H.: Lift and Drag Characteristics of the M2-F2 Lifting Body During Subsonic Gliding Flight. NASA TM X-1431, 1967.
2. Mort, Kenneth W.; and Gamse, Berl: Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the M2-F2 Lifting Body Flight Vehicle. NASA TM X-1588, 1968.
3. Gamse, Berl; and Mort, Kenneth W.: Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the HL-lO Manned Lifting Body Flight Vehicle. NASA TM X-1476, 1967.
4. Dagold, R. G.: Results of a Low Speed Investigation of 20 Percent Scale SV-5P Vehicle in University of Maryland Wind Tunnel, Tenth Series. Martin Baltimore Div. Rep. No. ER 13884, Nov. 1965.
6
TABLE 1.- INDEX TO FIGURES
Type of data Purpose ou, OZ, orf, Landing
deg deg deg Figure
gear
Longitudinal, basic Effect of Reynolds number -20 10 -9 Up 4
Effect of longitudinal
control -5 Varied -9 Up 5 (a) -10 (b)
-15 (c)
-20 (d)
-25 (e)
-30 (f) r---5 0 6 (a)
-10 (b)
-15 (c)
-20 (d)
-25 (e)
-30 r-- (f)
-10 9 7 (a)
-20 (b)
-30 (c)
-5 -9 Down 8 (a)
-10 (b)
-20 (c)
-30 (d)
Effect of sideslip -20 10 -9 Up 9 (a)
Down (b)
Comparison with ref. 4 -5 0 -10 Up 10
Longitudinal, trimmed Effect of upper flaps Varied Varied -9 Up 11 (a)
Effect of rudder flare -20,-30 -9,0,9 Up (b)
Effect of landing gear -20,-30 -9 Up&Down (c)
Lateral-directional Effect of sideslip -5,-20 0,20 -9 Up 12 (a)
-20 10 -9,0,9 Up (b)
-20 10,20 -9 Down (c)
Effect of upper rudders -20,-30 20,10 -9,9 Up 13 (a)
-20,-30 10 -9 Up (b)
-20,-30 10 -9 Down (c)
Effect of lo\ver rudders -20,-30 20 0 Down 14
Effect of differential -20,-30 10 -9 Up 15 (a)
upper flaps -20,-30 10 0 Up (b)
-20,-30 10 -9 Down (c)
-20 10 0 Down (d)
Effect of differential -30 20,10 -9 Up 16 (a)
lower flaps -30 10,20 -9 Down (b)
7
(a) Three-quarter front view.
Figure 1.- Vehicle mounted in the Ames 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel.
9
(b) Three-quarter rear view.
Figure 1.- Continued.
10
......
......
(c) Three-quarter front view with landing gear down .
Figure 1.- Continued .
...... N
(d) Three-quarter rear view with landing gear down.
Figure 1.- Continued.
(e) Alternate mounting system.
Figure 1.- Concluded.
13
......
.j::>.
-f3
v
67.1
66
Fuselage station-Y5/\ /25 /' 22.2
v
----------r- Fuselage <l ------=~==::;;;~;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;r:::r-f I
13°
I I I I I o 00 ~ ro 00 100
Scale in inches Reference dimensions : ~ = 276 in
s = 162 ft2 b = 120 in
Moment reference~
T 26.4
I
2.5 I I I I I I
! I II 81.8
~~~ , J ~
Fuselage station 250
1.5
/i;;:--~
,/'F
~----------
283
175 195 214
Angle of attack referenced 275/1 294.5
283 to this surface.
25.9
All dimensions in inches
(a) Overall dimensions.
Figure 2.- Aircraft dimensions.
I, 68.7---1
Fuselage <l
I-' tn
Fuselage stations
275
235 175 rr---
195
2751 1//
235 195
175
(b) Sections.
I I I I I I
o 20 40 60 80 100 Scale in inches
Figure 2.- Continued.
I--' 0\
I \ I
Fuselage sta.
I { , 235.1 \ \
243.6' \
\..o'tllet ~\O~
Rudders
rI+--~ f-- 29.6-1
A-A
(c) Control surface detail.
Figure 2.- Concluded.
Upper
flap !\~6 , '~==-jCS--<----¥
-I-
34.I~
All control surfaces shown at zero deflection.
All dimensions in inches.
o 20 40 60 80 100
Scale in inches
+8r
+8rf
Figure 3.- Sign convention for control surface deflections.
+8 f} Upper r rudder
+8rf} Lower rudder
17
I-' 00
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5·
CL .4
.3
.2
.1
0
-.1
-.20 .1 .2 .3 .4
CD -4 0
.5 .6
4 8
R x 16~
30 20.7 59 32.4
.04 0 -.04 Cm
12 16 20 24 28 32 0 u, deg
Figure 4.- Effect of Reynolds number on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics with landing gear up; 0u = -20°, 0t = 10°, 0rf = _9°.
2 4 LID
6
...... \0
.8
.6
CL .4
.2
o
- 2 IUW!f!tJH-!tff-. 0 .2
Co .4
-4 o 4 8 a, deg
12
o
16 20
(a) 0u = _5°
-.04 -.06 Cm
-2 o 2 LID
4 6
Figure 5.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for several longitudinal control settings with the landing gear up and orf = -9° .
N o
1.0 IlWWHWMMWllllMllmmtl!IDltmm~
.8
.6
CL .4
.2
o
- 2 . 0 .2 CD
.4
-4 o 4 8
.02
12 16 20 24 a, deg
(b) 0u = _10°
Figure 5.- Continued.
o -.02 -.04 Cm
28 32 o 2 LID
4
N ......
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.2 0 .2 .4
CD
-4 0
.04 .02
4 8 12 16 20 24 a, deg
(c) 0u =-15°
Figure 5.- Continued.
o -.02 -.04 -.06 Cm
-2 o 2 LID
4 6
N N
CL
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
o
-.2
-,4 o .2 .4 .6 CD
-4 o 4 8
.04 .02 0 -.02 -.04 -.06 em
12 16 20 24 28 32 0 2 4 at deg LID
(d) 0u == _200
Figure 5.- Continued.
N <.A
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.20 .2 .4
Co -4 0
.04 .02
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 a, deg
(e) 0u = -25 0
Figure 5.- Continued.
o -.02 -.04 Cm
-2 o 2 4 LID
N ..j::.
1.0
31
• deg
"
.8
.6
.4
CL
.2
0
-.2
-4 '0 .2 .4
CD -4 o 4 8
.06 .04
12 16 20 24 a, deg
(f) Ou = _300
Figure 5.- Concluded.
.02
28
o Cm
32
-.02 -.04 -.06
-2 o 2 4 LID
N U1
1.0
.8
CL .6
.4
.2
0 .2 .4 0 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.08
Co Cm
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 2 4 6 a, deg LID
(a) 0u ::: _5°
Figure 6.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for several longitudinal control settings with the landing gear up and orf::: 0°'
N (J\
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.2
0 0
<>
0 .2 .4 CD
-4 0
.04 .02
4 8 12 16 20 Q, deg
(b) 0u = _10°
Figure 6.- Continued.
o Cm
24
-.02 -.04
o 2 LID
4
N '-.1
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-2 . 0 .2 .4 Co
-4 0 4
.02 0 -.02 -.04 -.06 Cm
8 12 16 20 24 o 2 4 6 ct, deg LID
(c) 0u =-15°
Figure 6.- Continued.
N ()O
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.20 .2 .4
Co -4 0 4
.02 0 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.08
8 12 16 20 24 28 a, deg
Cd) 0u == _200
Figure 6.- Continued.
Cm
'-2 024 LID
6
N \0
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.20 .2 .4
Co
-4
.02 0 -.02 -.04 -.06 Cm
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 o 2 4 a, deg LID
(e) 0u = -25 0
Figure 6.- Continued.
tN o
"'.
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
CL .4
.2
0
-.2
-.4 0 .2 .4
CD
-8 -4
.6 .06 .04 .02
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 a, deg
(f) Ou = _300
Figure 6.- Concluded.
o -.02 -.04 -.06
Cm
32 -2 o 2 LID
4
Vl to-'
1.2
1.0
.8
CL .6
.4
.2
o .2 Co
.4
4 o 4 8 a, deg
12 16 20
o -.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 Cm
(a)ou=-lO°
o 2 4 6 LID
Figure 7.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for several longitudinal control settings with the landing gear up and Orf = 9°.
t.N N
CL
1.2.~~ __ ". 1.0
.8ml+~ .6_
.4
.2
-.: o .2 .4 .02 0 -.02 -.04 -,06 -.08 Co Cm
-4 o 4 8 12 a, deg
16
(b) Ou = _200
20
Figure 7.- Continued.
24 28 -2 o LID
2 4
0-l 0-l
CL .6
.4
.2 .4 CD
-4
.6
o 4 8
.04 .02
12 16 20 24 28 a, dElg
(c) 0u = -300
Figure 7.- Concluded.
o -.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 em
32 --2 024 LID
VI .f::>
.8
.6
CL
.4
.2
o .2 CD
.4
-4 o 4 8 cr, deg
o -.02
12 16 20
(a) 0u :::: _5°
-.04 -.06 Cm
-.08
o 2 LID
4
Figure 8.- Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for several longitudinal control seetings with the landing gear down and orf:::: -9°.
tN (J1
.8===0 8, 'odegEE ..... . 6
CL .4
.2
o
-.20 .2 .4
Co -4 0 4 8 12
a, deg
.04
16 20
(b)8u ::;:-10°
Figure 8.- Continued.
.02
24
o -.02 -.04 Cm 28 0 2
LID 4
(,N C]\
CL
1.2
1.0
.8"'"
.6
.4
.2
0
-2 . 0 .2 .4 CD
-4 0 4 8 12 a, deg
.04 .02
16 20 24 28
(c) Ou == _200
Figure 8.- Continued.
o -.02 -.04 -.06 Cm
-2 o 2 4
LID
tN '-l
CL
.6
.2"
0
-.2
-.4 0 .2 .4
CD -4
.04 .02
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 a, deg
(d) 0u = _300
Figure 8.- Concluded.
o -.02 -:04 -.06 Cm
-2 o 2 LID
4
.9 0-1 00
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4 CL
.3
.2
.1
0
-.1
-.20 .1 .2 .3 .4
Co -4 0 4 8 12 16
a, deg 20
(a) Landing gear up.
24 28
.04 0 -.04 Cm
o
Figure 9.- Effect of sideslip on :Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics; 0u = -20°, 0z = 10°, Orf:::: -9°.
2 LID
4
04 !,Q
CL
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-.2 0 .2 .4
Co -4
.02 0 -.02 -.04 Cm
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 o 2 4 Cl, deg LID
(b) Landing gear down.
Figure 9.- Concluded.
..,. o
1.0 ."L""""""UL .. LLL.i..
-6 I Source
Full I 32.4 Ex tropo loted using .8~~ figs 5(0) and 6(0)
6.5 Ref 4 ~.Ol .
... ~
.6
CL .4
.2
o
o 8 12 o 2 4 6
a, deg Cm LID
Figure 10.- Comparison of 1 IS-scale results with estimated full-scale results at 0u = -S°, O{ = 0°, and orf = -10°.
..,. I-'
CL
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
-.1 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 2 3 4 5 o 10 20 30 40
a, deg LID at, deg
(a) Effect of upper flap setting with the landing gear up and 0rf;:: -9°.
Figure 11.- Trimmed (ern = 0) aerodynamic characteristics .
42
.5 .4
.3
.2
.1
o
CL .7
.6
.5 .4_ .2
.1
o LID 8t ,deg
(b) Effect of rudder flare, orf.
Figure 11.- Continued.
.j:>.
ttl
.8
.7
.6
.5
CL .4
.3
.2
.1
o -4
8u ,deg
o 4 8 12 a, deg
16 20 24 o 2 3 LID
(c) Effect of landing gear with orf = -9°.
Figure 11.- Concluded .
4 5 o 10 20 30 40 81 ,deg
-"" .1 -""
Cy 0
-.1
.04
.02
Cn 0
-.02
.04
.02
Ct 0
o 10 20 30 -10 o 10 a, deg
20 30 -10 o 10
(a) Effect of longitudinal control setting with landing gear up and 0rf = _9°.
20
Figure 12.- Lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics for several sideslip angles.
30
""" til
.1
Cy 0
-.1
Cn
Ct
~(ffillilOOtl:l[ffillffii_lmllllffiltl#tlOOlllllt1:ffi;lil~HlI:llHI:f1HmIHml:l~Ym~1IMlfI11mnnnttfflmlilmllmltfmJ:l:lmll-lffil_jflUutmJt~lWIlIIIMHlII
() 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 a,deg
(b) Effect of rudder flare with landing gear up and 0u = -20°; .01 = 10°.
Figure 12.- Continued.
/3. deg
0 -6 0 -4 <> -3 6. -2 ~ 0 D 2 0 3
46
Cy
Cn
o 10 20 30 -10 a,deg
o 10 20 30
(c) Effect oflower flap setting with landing gear down and Ou = -20 0 and orf = _90•
Figure 12.- Concluded.
+:> '--l
Cy
Cn
C1
.1
0
-.1
.02
0
-.02
-.04
.02
0
-.02 -10 0 10 20 30 ··10 o 10
at deg 20
(a) Landing gear up.
30 -10 o 10 20
Figure 13.- The effect of upper-rudder control on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics; ~ ::: 0°.
30
-l'> 00
Cy
Cn
Ct
.1
0
-.1
.02
0
-.02
-.04
.04
.02
0
-.02 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 o 10 20 30
a, deg
(b) Landing gear down and orf = -9°.
Figure 13.- Concluded.
.1
Cy 0
-.1
.06
.04
.02
Cn
o
-.02
-.04
.04
.02
-.02
-.04 -10 o 10 20 30
a, deg
Figure 14.- The effect ofIower rudder control on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics with the landing gear down and orf = 0°.
49
50
.1
Cy 0
-.1
.02
Cn 0
-.02
.04
ct, deg
Landing gear up and 0rf = -9°.
Figure 15.- Effect of differential upper flap deflection on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics.
.1
Cy 0
-.1
.02
0
Cn -.02
-.04
.04
.02
Cl 0
-.02
-.04 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 o 10 20
a. deg
(b) Landing gear up and orf = 0°.
Figure 15.- Continued.
80 , deg o -20 o -10 <> 0 f:::, 5 b. 10 D 15 o 20 o 30
30
51
VI N
.1
Cy 0
-.1
.04
.02
Cn
0
-.02
.04
.02
CI 0
-.02
-.04 -10 o 10 20 30 -10 o 10
a, deg 20
(c) Landing gear down and orf = _9°.
Figure 15.- Concluded.
30 -10 o 10 20
(d) Landing gear down and orf = 0°.
30
U1 tN
.1
-Cy 0
-.1
.02 ml11lgn~1
Cn 0
-.02
.02
c~ 0
-.O~IO o 10 20 30 -10 o 10 20 a, deg
(a) Landing gear up.
Figure 16.- Effect of differential lower flap deflection on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics; orf = -9°.
30
.1
Cy 0
-.1
.02
Cn 0
-.02
10
54
20 o a, deg
(b) Landing gear down.
Figure 16.- Concluded.
10 20
NASA-Langley, 1970 - 20 A-2823
