*
I
llATl(lffALANiSDfii’E&k5,”~:FORAEW!AUIIE$
‘ka!lmM.:!6- Id.d
,~mzm~xI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- M.-
●
L-
TECJ4NI’CALNOTES
NATIONAL AEVISORY COM:ITTEE TOR JWRONA?JTICS
No. 330
--
●
WIND ‘TUNNELPRESSURE DISTRIBUTION TESTS ON
A SERIES 03’BIPLANE WING ZODELS ‘
PART 111. EFFECTS OF CHAEGES IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS
03’STAGGER, GAP, SWZEP5AGK, MD DEOAL/LGE
By Montgomery Ki~ight and Richard W, XoyesLmgley Menorid. Aeronautical Laboratory
FILE (XXV
Washington ~‘-Eecezker, 1929
,. .
,. .-
..- . -- ..- --
.
, .—
ERRATA
NATIONAL ADVISoRy COMWTTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.
TECHNICAL NOTE NO, 330.’
‘JTtNDTUNNEL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION TESTS ON
A SERIES OF BIPLANE WING EODEIJS.
PART 111. EFFECTS OF CHtii!GESIN VARIOUS CONBINATIONS
OF STAGGER, GAP, SWEEPEACK, AND DECALAGE.
On Fisy-mes 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19, after the word
‘Iinonoclazne,f!insert IIwit’noutsweepback.f[
,-
,
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.
●
✎
TECHNICAL liOTENO. 330.
WIND TUNNEL PRESSURE DISTRIBUT ION TESTS ON
A SERIES OF BIPLANE WING MODELS.
PART 111. EFFECTS OF CH~G~S IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS
OF STAGGER, GAP, SWTXPBACK, AND DECAIJAGE.
By Montgomery Knight and Richard W. Noyes.
Summary
This preliminary report furnishes information on the ch~es .
in the forces on each wirg of a biplane cellule for vazious com-
binations of stagger and gap, stagger and sweepback, ~t%’ger ~d _
decalage, and gap and decalage. The data were obtained from
pressure distribution tests made in the.atmospheric wind tunnel
of the Langley Mew.orial Aeronautic&l Laboratory. Since each
test was carried up to 90° angle of attack, the re~fits maY be —
used in the study of stalled flight and of spinning as well as
in the structural design of biplane wings.
This preliminary report presents the res~ts of wind t~nel ,
pressure distribution tests which were made in order to determine
the magnitude and disposition of the normsl air loads on two wing .
models axranged in different biplane combinations. The effects
of various combinations of stagger md gap, stager ~d sweeP-
.
.
.
N.A.”C.A. Technical Note No. 330 2
baok, stagger and decslage, and gap and decalage were investi-
gateed. Two previous reports, Part I and Part 11 (See References),
covered the effects of variations c$fdihedral, overhsng and each
of the above factors taken separately. A more complete presen-
tation of the results of the entire investigation and an ana3Y-
sis from the standpoints of spinning, stalled flight, and struc-
tural design-of biplane wings will be published at a later date.
The tests were made in the atmospheric wind tunnel of the
Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory. A complete descrip-
tion of the models, apparatus,
in working up the test data is
and will not be r~’peatedhere.
each wing. Figure 1 shows the
the pressure orifices.
Te
method of testing and procedure
given in Pat I (Reference 1)
The Clsxk Y profile was used on
wing plan-form and location of
Stls
The biplane arrangements tested were divided into four
groups as follows: .
1. Variations in stagger &nd gap.
(Decalsge = O, dihedral = O, meepback = 0, over-hang ‘- 0“)
Gap/chord StWEer
11
.75 -o: :g +25 per cent chord
+50 per cent chord: 1.25 0
1.25 +25 per cent chord; 1.25 +5o per cent chord
.
.
3H.A.C.A. Technical l?oteNo. 330
2. Variations in st~qger and sweephack.
(Gap/c~o;~ = ;: ~decalage = O, dihedral = O, over-=
Note: Stagger is”aeasured at midspan. —
Sweepback Stagger
h)10~ upper wing +5o per cent chord
: 5 upper wing +25 per cent chordo 0
: * 5: lower wing -25 per cent chorde 10 lowe2 wing -50 per cent chord
*Not run.
3. Variations in stagqqerand decalage.
(Gap/chord = ;, ~dihedral = O, sweepback = 0, over-hazi g=.
●
~ecalsge
o+25 per cent chord+50 pcr cent chord
o+25 per Gent chord+50 per cent chord
.
.
H.A.-C.A. Technic s,l.Eote No. 330 4
4. Variations in ~ap mG decslage.
( Stagger = 0, dihedral =hang = O* )
Decalage.
O, sweepback
Gap/chord
.751.601.25
● 751.001.25
O, over-
Each test was made at angles of attack of -8°, -4°, 0°,
+4°, 8°, 120, 140, ~60, ~80, 20°, 220, 25°, 3.0, 35°,
40°, 50°, 60°, 700, 80°, and 90°. The dynamic pressure<
q, indicated by the ‘IservicellPitot-static tube, was maintained
at 4,09 lb. per sq.ft., corresponding to an average velocity of.
very nesxly 40 m.p.h. and to a Reynolds Number of about 150,000.
P.esults
The results are presented in four ~roups of comparison
curves from which may be determined the magnitude and point
action of the semispan normal force on each wing for each com-—
bination of stagger ~d gap, stagger and sweepback, stagger and
decal-age, and gap and decalage tested. The angle of attack
range covers most of the angles
flight. Following is a list of
which are plotted against angle
likely to be encountered in
the comparison curves, all of
of attack. (The first, second,
.
.
N.A.C.A. Technical Note No. 330 5
third, and fourth flogurenumbers zefer to the stagger-gap group,
stagger- sweepback group, st~ger-dec~~e group, ~d gap–
deca,lage group, respectively. )
Fi=gures 3, 12, 21, 30: Normal force coefficient for‘ cellule.
Yibgures 4, 13, 22, 31: Normal force coefficient forupper wing.
Figures 5, 14, 23, 32: Ilormal force coefficient forlower wing.
I’igures 6, 15, 24, 33: Ratio of load on each wing toload on cellule.
Figures 7, 16, 25, 34: Longitudinal center of pres–sure for upper wing.
Figures 8, 1~, 26, 35: Longitudinal center of pres-sure for lower wing.
Figures 9, 18, 27, 36: Lateral center of pressure ofupper wing.
Fiagnes 10, 19, 28, 37’: Lateral center of pressure oflower wing.
In order to show the general nature of the interference ef- —
fects on two biplane wings, each tigure, with the obvious ex-
ception of Figures 6, 15, 24 and 33, has superimposed upon it
the corresponding monoplane curve for the maximum span wing
without dihedral, or sw,eepback.
The accuracy of the results may ‘tieinferred from the fact
that the aver~e deviation of the curve points on the figures
from a mea value was-within 2 -per cent. This was determined
.
.
?J,A.C.A, Technical Note ITo. 330 6
fzom check tests, fairings, and integrations.
In interyeting the results of this wind tuiinel investiga-
tion, the low Reynolds Nmter of the tests [150,000) and the
fact that the results have not beeq corrected for tunnel wsll
effects, should be kept in mind. While the scale effect will
doubtless change the absolute value of the coefficients, the
relative changes produced by variations of each pair of factors
will probably hold for Reynolds Numbers greater than that of the
tests.
LanQlev ~e~!orial Aeronautical Laboratory,‘-- Iritional Advisory Committee for Aer&autics,
Langley. Fieid, Vs., November 8, 1929. -
.
● Re f e re nc e s
1.
2.
Knight, Montgomery Wind Tunnel Pressure Distributionand ** Tests on a Series of”Biplane
Noyes, Richard W. Wing Models. Part I. Effectsof Changes in Stagger and Gap.H.A.C.A. Technical dote No. 310,1929.
Kntght, Kontgornery lYind Tunnel Pressure Distributionand .. Tests on a Series of Biplane
Noyes, Richard W. Wing Models. Part II. Effectsof Changes h Decalage, Di~e~ajSweepback, and Overhang. N.A.C.A.Technical i{oteNo. 325, 1929.
—
. ,, .
E
1
14.4511 >J’ig,l wing Ehowing orifice loc~ti ns
7 .,
I
.
.
N.A.C.A. Technical
+ 50% +2$
Note No.330
O% Stagger
Fig.2
- —— —=—.—- .=_———_//-/ /y/(’\ ‘k\ -—————-—————
,
.
G/c = 1.25
_—— ——-— _// / .——_- — — -,-/
\\
/
(’ /‘\+--L.–————G/c = .75
Fig.2 wing model arrangements used in tests on the effectof stagger and gap.
.
.
.
●
,
,
.
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.3&4
Fig.3
c!?
Fig.4
1.4
1.2-
1.0- t
.0 !/#I
-6 /I1
.4
.2 .75u_w_ 25._.75. = 50., . .---- ------
/‘125.—.— Ow– –“ — --—o-—-
0 125.-=-25._ -.— -——-=——-125. . 50. s. ‘-- ‘-i+
s
‘.2-l& o“ 10“ 20° 30” 40° 50= 60” 70° 80” 90”Angleof attack,d
Effectof stagger and gap on cellulecoeff~cientofn-al force,1.4
/ “
1.2— — — —
Lo‘ ,
, 1,.8 I( \\ ~- .-;
w “.. , \‘,
.6 \. \: \
&\ [\ i.‘;
.4 < \ \ \ ‘J
Y’ 1,>.2 \,\
~), \\,
\io- \
#Y\t .4
TN-.2
Y_loO (-JO10° 20” 30” 40” 50” 60’ 70” 80” 90”
Angle ofattack,dEffectofstaggerand gap on upper wingcoefficientofnormalforce.
●
s
.
.
.
●
.
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.5&6
.
1.6
M)
& L2/UK
. /: Lo I
jf
~ .8 iEas .6 Iho II
2 -4w.+u I 757.gap 0% stagger @—- —.++ .2 75._w_ 25._ .._ .
——~— —+ ’75M ,* 50,. “Q1
----- -—--—.125.—s.— O t,—–“ — --—&—
so 125,t_~_25._ _“_ .——-e —— -125. . 50 “ t, —-- —--+
-.2 II I I II I-10o 00 10° 20° 30” 40° 50” 60” 70° 80” 60”Angle of attack,a
Fig.5 Effeciof siagger and gap on lowerwing coefficientofnormal force.-.2a-
0j
3 $j 20 IE +.
M s
H 1se Loo
—-:+ —--1
1.201 I-10’ 0° 10° 20” 30° 40° 50” 60” 70” 80° 90’
Angleof attack,dFig.6 Effectof staggerand gap on wing loadratio.
+
*
●
✎
*
.
.
N.A.C.A. Technical Noie No.330 Fig. 7
1
x
Trail- “ing -1edge
Leadingedge
‘-
20‘
*10- Monoplane ———
757.gap O%stagger~75U 4’ Es. “ —— a
-.~. .
75” “ 501.-— -“–— -----125. . 0. ,,__ —-; I
II25. . 25. . ——-=
90 -125. . 50.-— ,--— —-- +
I80
70l!!
60
R50
t30
\,\ .
20 \,‘.
1 I \\, \ \
>
\ $10 \
!
! \,)\I \
+-0 \ ., 1! \) I
1
10 \ \I
20 \ \1
\I
30 !I 1
t . I
40-10% 0° 10° 20” 30° 40° 50” 60° 70°, 80° 900
Angle”ofatiack,dFig.7 Effectofstagger and gap on upper wing longitudinal
centerofpres5ure.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.8 810
Traihng1 I t
edge-loo .
&‘1 .— —+--
1:‘. 90 Monoplane —— —— —--~ I “
I 7570gap O% stagger..
II.- -
~ 80 1!75“ “ 25. * —— ——a75,1-–*”— 50# * ------ -------~II 125,~_,*._ou * -—-:—-— +
% 1I 125“ “ 25. ,, ——-w——- ! -~ 70 \ 125.-—,#-‘ so“-–-‘, —--
t!
—-. — .
uL
c.+
j 40m3
-} .--—
0~~
,—.- ...—.—..,-
Lea:- 20--10° o“ 10” 2@ 30” 40° 5r 60° ’70” 80° 90”ingedgeat O Angle of attack,c1
Fig.8 Effectof stagger and gap on lower wing longitudinalC.P.Tipat10fO
$70
d,
/; 60I.A
:L_-.---
2
Q)u~ 30 “ Monoplane — — — —Q 75% gap O% stagger u 1G
1+
75* . 251u lU —— ——1
a‘; 20 75a.-–* -50.
-1
------x------.
u’ -125,.._U 0“ :: !— —“—125“ m 25M
: ](-J
.,! ,
_J’- J ––,::-—-. ‘125.--*A”’50* ,~
—--u t ~! :..-..-, ....-%
t
Ro~tflQIO* 0°
I I10° m“ 30° 40° 50° 60”
Angle of attack,d70” 80° 90”
Fig.10 Effectof stagger and gap on lower wing lateralC.P.
*
●
✎
✎
●
b
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Fig.9
140
130 II;
120 Monoplane —————75Z gap O% stagger ~75= II 25. . —— ——0
— —i.
110- 751.—”—50W- –“”— ------- ------—-&—-
125. ——-u——-Tip 100 125,,—: —50. — –,*” —--+---
..- 6
90.,
& ‘! I i
~ 80f I 1’
I1 !
+ /
.: 70 //
II 1 1H 1 ! ! !
al f0 :
.; 40 I
c
% 30
b !
10
Root O 1
‘IO,
-20
+oe fJa 10” 20” 30° 40” 50” 80” 70” 80° 90°Angle ofattack,ci
Fig.9 Effectof stagger and ga on upper wing lateralf!?centero pressure.
..:
.
.
,
N.A.C.A. Technical Note No. Fig.11.—— —— ————— —— ___ __
//”/—-----P* ----/
I
‘v-
-. 1— -
—------—-----\
\ .-——.—— ——. — ———.-._.
‘-_ 1---- ,Upper 10o sweepback - -‘- -
i_-_—_— — ————— ——_—_ .
,4 -— ——_
‘!-—__—___r
===---- - ——— — ~–
-~
t
. —-–——— ‘~\ -~ ~\ --—_—————————-———__ ~––––––––—–––––’
-—_Upper 50 sweepb;c; — — ~ +25$ stagger
i>--— ————— ———— —————
//
I-~–
\\
\ _— _ —.— ——— —— [O% atagger
< ‘O~s~eepb~ck
i~fl-–---:::::-:::: --:J ------ ------’._—— —
‘+
“(Not run)-a- -‘~: _ z~-
\,~L~-
1--=————— ———————— —-—— __
‘-—— _ ——_ [Lower 5° sweepback ~ -25$ stagger
I~——— ——— ———— ———— —
“/---- i//
_—=
‘-
II “J._--- \--- _-
(7 --- -- -“- \-- _-- _-q
~_ - 1- - -\ —------ !
\ I_-
*-——— ————— ———— ——— —=-_---- 1
- -_
Lower 10° sw$ep~~~k- --- -_
Fig .11 Wing model arrangements used inof stagger and sweepback.
.
tests
stagger
on the effect,
.
.
.
.
.
*
,—
N.A.C.A. TechnicaINote No.330 Figs.12&13
1.4 .
L2 ,
J{
i:
~- 1.0-
%w /.8 d
zIII
.L. \ \\\
G\
&-.,
2.6 /i I
* J/
0 .4 I;,+u.- .2 ———w+ 0% stagger-—0@8 0. ,10° “ ,* lower II
?!
I I-.2 I f I I 1“1
-1o” o“ 10° 20” 30” 40” 50” 60°. 70” 80” 90”Angle ofatiack,ci
Fig.12Effectofstaggerandsweepbackon cellulecoefficien~of“normalforce.
Fig
ti02
1
1
!.4 I k/ -.~/-.
..2 -, - / ‘
// -
●
,.0 ~ t
\
.8 \ . ‘\\~. \
\\
.6M’
\ \\ f
\\ \ \
.4\ 1. . \\ \\ \\
) \ \.2 J
\
/, \ : ?\\,
\
o \\ \
/.1 ! \\
# \ F72
-10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70” 80° 90°
.
.13 Angle ofattack,aEffectofstaggerand sweepback on upper wing coefficientof normal force.
—.—
.
.
.
.
●
✎
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs. 14&15
1,6
L4
k 1.2c?=.3 1.0~ I
:
z .8‘ “ 1: I
.-U
●4w .2–-lw— Monoplane’$;-—————— —
@ OOsweepback 07.stagger Q—80 # upper wing +257@stagger-- A
1:”—u : —+ som~ u— -------)i—— ..l&r- :_ .-50 “_ _@ -—-J=
3-.2 4
-1o” 0° 108 20” 30” 40° 50” 60” 70° 80” 90°Fig.14 Angle of attack,dEffectof stagger and sweepback on lower wing coefficientof normal force.
-.20
0 I
J
anb 5“ “ “ upper wing + 257.st~serz 1.00 lo*- * ~ w s’ ‘:50’9‘ “
10” M . -50. ,, ———
1.20-10 o“ 10” 20” 30° 40,0 50” 60° 70= 80° 60°
Angle of aiiack,o!Fig.15 Effectofstaggerand sweepback on wing loadratio.
●
.
.
t.A.C.A.TechnicedNote No.330 Figs.16&19.
Trail~100 mI
1
ingt
I1
edge 1-. I !
‘“l—m—tit1 I 1 1 1 I , ,
I II ti I
I“\.I● , ,
( I 1 1 \ \ ,7 \,
t.5 20 \
&
~\
+\ \ i,
“~ 10 \\
\* t\ y
2 \\1
I I I
(-0 t1
Leading11 _.
edge _lo‘, ,
1 !I1
,. I
— -Monoplane‘“’———— ~1
0“sweepback-20 ~. . .
O% stagger I I ~ \upper wing +257. stagger— -A;
– -IoO—-“-— “* ;~; ‘m -----x’
-~y~ 10’. “~oe “2O.l”yol‘——.
70° tjo” 90°Fig,16
‘-1Angle of attack, d *
Effectof~staggerand sweepback on upperwinglongitudinalC.P.
.-
u~+QJmm 40b-’110 fd I -10” 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60” 70° 80” 90°~ R%otatO Angle ofattack,d
.Fig.19Effectofstaggerandsweep backonlowerwinglateralC.P. ‘
●
b
.
.
b
.
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.17&18
TI I I I
Monodan~I I I I I I I I I
II 0°s-;eepback 07.stagger —“o—
5°––“ “~ upper wing + 25% stagger— -A-—,, “ ,< +50M ~ -------
;:: ,* ,*!
Io;er . –50’” n, ——— ?
1
11
Fig.17 Effeciof staggerand sweepback
!
1
11t
\
b.9
II
wins lateral,C.,P. / I 1I/ 1I I
J ! 1I
,0
. . . .
.
+50$ mtaggex +25$ stagger 0$ Etagger--- —. —._ --
.
.
●
n
.
N.A.C.A. TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.21&22
1.4
-.2
Fig. 21E Hect
\ _ _
t 1/I ‘y+ 3° decalage, O% sta~~er 3
II 3° u 50 u . —--—+ --—--,I I
-109 0° 10° 20° 30° 40” 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°Angle of attack,d (Upperwing)
of staggerand decalageon cellule coefficient of normal force.
1.4-/ -- —
/
3
1,2 / ‘0~
:-1.0/ _. — .>_-/ / . >,; .6
m\
\ , \\.
w [i . ;o
~. I‘,
.4,
$ v‘ \\,.+ \o .2
vI
$ \QJ \ Y\
s o /[
\k
1-.2
-10° 0° 10” zo” 30° 40° 50”3?ig.22
60° 70° 80° 90°Angle of attack,o! (Upperwing)
Effectofstagger and decalage on upper wing coefficient of normal force.
●
.
●
!J.A.C.A.TechnicalNote No.330 Figs.23 & 24
ti
:4-(
1.4/-,f
1.2 /f w,
1.0
.8‘
Fig.23 Effectofsfagger”and.6 decalageon lower wingr I
/! toe. ff ic,ient of nOrrnal force.
.4 ! ‘1 7
II i, Monoplane —— —
.2 I 1 3“ decalage O‘%stagger~{ /# 3° ~ a——
3° * 50 m,0 I -3° s, -—-~-—-
/ ! –3°-3” :
1//50 * ,, —.. —+--—--—
-.2t
# A?gle of att–.4
:10 0° 10” 20” 30° 40° 50° 60” 70° 80° 90°~
-.20;I
,/,
.80 /f/y,,: nII
.10 ‘d
,./
1.20 =20
-10°‘ 0“ 10” 20° 30° 40° 50° 60” 70° 80° 90°Angle ofattack,a (Upperwing)
Fig,24 Effectof decalage and s~&ger ‘onwing 10ad ratio;
●
●
V.A.C.A.Technical Note No.330 Figs.25& 28
Trail -ing+100 Aedge
Qfl
IIMonoplane ———
&dl 3“decalage OZsiagger --0——
Leading -edge
JI 3° . 50 “
“ ----------- \ Iil I I-3”- —. 0 m—--1 -—-G !
!70
-3” ,, 50 “ “ —--
6011
30 -.-Y\.\..
\‘Y. ‘t
20 /t!
A\
\,\, “ \\IIi;“,
10\\, \Y ‘+
+0\ \ { b
-lo \ Fig. 25 Effect of decal ageI
IIand stagger on upp er \
-20 Iwing .Iongitudin+l C.P.. 1’
4A;gle of att;ck!d
,(U~er wing)
-3Q o. 10° zo” 30° 40” 50° 60° 70° 80” 90°
60~u
a
“Qlb
30RQot at,O
–10° 0“ 10° 20° 30° 40° 50” 60° ’70° 80° 90°Angle of attack,d (Upperwing)
Fig.28 Effeciof decalage and s+aggeron lowerwing lateralC.P.
I
Ill
m
b
●
iJ.A,C. A . Technical Note No. 330 Figs. 26& 27
.
xs
It 100 f60
II
50 J~
mu;$ 40 \
g)m !~mL .L 30 -CUEQ* Fig.27 Effectofdecalageu) and staggeron upper t
20
10
ITrail-ing-l00‘edge
90 H i:
II!
80 3° “ 25” _ _“ —— ——n3° ,* 50 ,* ** --------- -------
-3° 8* o.— – .* -—-G-—- --3° ,, 25. — – *, —— -~—— .-3” .
.
k\\+
& 50 \1
c . \\\..+
ii ,M
Lead-ing —edge =10” 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 600 70° 80° 90”
Angle ofattack,d (Upperwing)
Fig. 26 Effec+ of decalage and staggeron lower-winglongitudinalC.P.
*
4
N,A,C,A. Technioal Note N0,330
G/c=lo25
G/o =liOO
G/c = ,?5
●
✃
,
/--————’-—- -__—— ——— —_— -—_. _ _./1’ /R- ---—.‘- ___x. ‘. -\+3~~ -1-—-— ____ _>—. ——-.— ———— —_ _—— — —\-30 - -––-–
—————— — ——— —__ __
Fig.29 Wing model arrangements used inof gap and decalage.
1
tests on the effect
.—
* .
N.A. C .A. Technical Note No. 330 Figs.30 & 31
1.4-
/ \
g 1.0bo
.8zEkc .6 ,
+
: .4- [/
/v3° decalage 100% gap
2. .3”--.UI=”I=” .
.—— a— —--- ------- ------- ----—- “1—L—-—IC7—— -— ___ ,,
. 75*8 . _--—+ 7.. —1
, 1 1 I
-.2-10F 0° 10° 2(Y 30° 40° ‘ 50” 60= 70° 80° 9P
Angle of attack, d (Upper wing)Fig. 30 Effect of decalage and gap on cellulecoefficientofnormalforce.
1.4A / /“
/
~ 1.2 //Uz
///“ -.
g 1.0- /
M $’~
2 .8 t~ tE
1 \ ...!*I
/{,/ \l\
k !’% k.
~ .6 \Y~’ .
Ill‘\ \/ j--- -1%-I” %-=“N k \\
o \\‘‘, ‘\. \, ‘ ~, /
- :
.4i
z.-L
QJ %: .:1
-..71.-.. 1:
..+
; .2 /f@‘\ ,. ,
.- \ I ;,,/
al I I,.
80 ‘xr\--- ---
-..2_l@ 00 10” 20°Fig.31
30” 40” 50° 60” 70° 80” so”Angle of attack,d (Upperwing)
Effectof decalageand gap on upper wing coefficientof normal force.”
I
I,
I
r !?.A.C. A. Technical Note No. 330 Figs. 32 A 33
1.6
1.4f\
L2 fh iIu=w- 1.0 ,?~
.8;~
: .6 !
I%
0 .42.+ Monoplane ———-—-+
0 ) It 1 3“ d8 0/#$ -3° .
]00.—.,— -—-—o--—-/ .–3a—–,*. 125.. .. ——-- —_-/[ -3° . 75““ “ - --,—T--—-—
.2 —
d
O“ 10”‘ 20° 30° 40” 50” 60~ 70” 80” 90°Angle of attack,d (Upperwing)Fig.32
Effecfof decalage and gap on lower wing.coefficientofnormal force.–.20‘
b1J. -1
II
P?
jj $>
.60.; :
y * =j
d.0 .40 g ~:
.80 “ .20 :!’ Ix
o70° 80” 90°
Angle ofattack,ci(Upperwing)Fig.33 Effect of decalage and gap on wing load ratio.
—
9
*
N.A.C.A. Technical Note No.330 Figs.34&37
120
110
Trail-ing=AOOedge
90xc??
80~-
~ To
z
ukQG ,.-&6 40
%G.s 30d~“%C.20 “3 ,
10{\ ‘,\
1 \
I-20 ‘i
-1o” 0° 10” 20° 30” 40° 50°’ 60° 70° 80° 90°
.:w$&o.ti+$ 50*c-Q)Qd~ms-l
-10° 0° 10” 20° 30° 40° 50” 60° 70° 80° 90Angle ofaiiack,d (Upperwing)
Fig.37 Effec+of decalage and gap on lowerwing lateralC.P.
P
-..
.
,C. A. Technical Note No.330 Figs.35 & 36
Tip 100\ ~1
‘ Monoplane ‘—’—-, b
90— ~~~:lage 100% gap
.
Rooi
I ---
Leaing
‘TM lUU“ “ -—-—u ;’
0 75 ---,.
60
I m ,- —
30 I
I
20I I1
10‘:?
I11
I60 t-+
L--’2O4
I 1 1
\
20\
‘“l !I I Fhz. 35 Effect of decala.=e and =a~ onLI
10wer wins longI 1 I I I I I I
edgeI of attack,d (u
1 1 1 I 1 1 t
,Jpp~rwink)-1OI II 1 I
“ ,– 1 I t ,
-10° ? 0°~!oo ‘ 20° 30° 40” 50° 60° 70° 80° 9()0