Copy ~,

RM A55F06

RESEARCH MEMORAN DUM

ADDITIONAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN COMPUTED AND MEASURED

TRANSONIC DRAG- RISE COEFFICIENTS AT ZERO LIFT

FOR WING- BODY- TAIL CONFIGURATIONS

00
By George H. Holdaway ~ !i
Dd
Ames Aeronautical Laboratory
Moffett Field, Calif. Na ~

&~
2 &
& z
~ f9 {g
5 ~ ~
~ ~
I-j ~ if~
t<
(.) ~ .. ~
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT
~
t.: f::1
~J
'-
This material contains informal1on affecting the National Defense of the United States within the me~ 0
of the espionage laws, TItle 18, U.S.C., Secs. 793 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which In ::t:: r~"'
manner to an unauthorlzed person Is prohibited by law. E-; .....

NATIONAL ADVISORY COM MITTEE !!

FOR AERONAUTICS
WASHINGTON
-.,;
August 15 J 1955, )2l'
~

~ (ON FI DENTIAL
lK
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

ADDITIONAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN COMPUTED AND MEASURED

TRANSONIC DRAG-RISE COEFFICIENTS AT ZERO LIFT

FOR WING -BODY- TAIL CONFIGURATI ONS

By George H. Hol daway

SUMMARY

Additional comparisons between comput ed wave-drag coefficients by

the method of NACA RM A53Hl7 and measured values of drag rise from sub-
sonic to supersonic speeds at zero l ift are presented. The effect of an
airfoil section modification was investigated for a wing plan form having
45 0 of sweepback and an aspect ratio of 3 . Comparisons for triangular
wings of aspect ratios 2) 3) and 4 indicat e that the theory is valid for
triangular wings with aspect ratios as large as 4 with airfoil sections
as thick as 5 percent of the local chords .

INTRODUCTION

The computing method of reference 1 has been effectively used to

estimate the effect of fuselage alterations on zero-lift drag-rise coef-
ficients at transonic speeds for wing-body- tail combinations (refs. 2
and 3). This report makes further comparisons of the theoretical comput-
ing method with available experimental results) showing effects of wing
plan-form changes) and the effect of an airfoil - section change on a wing
of given plan form .

An indication of the effect of changes in wing plan form on the

accuracy of the computing method was investigated by comparing measured
drag-rise coefficients with calculated values for three triangular wings
of aspect ratios 2 ) 3) and 4. The f r ee-fall tests of these wings were
with identical fuselage-tail combinations and covered a Mach number range
of 0.84 to 1.12.

The effect of an airfoil-section change was investigated with a wing

plan form having 45 0 of sweepback) an aspect ratio of 3) and a taper ratio
of 0.4. The object of tbis portion of the investigation was to determine
CONFIDENTIAL
2 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

i f the computing method can be used to predict small changes in drag-r i se

coefficients du e to small changes in the model area distribution. The
wing a irf oil-section change consisted of i ncreasing the leading-edge
r a dius and addi ng f orward camber to improve the high lift characterist ics
a t low speeds. These wings were tested (ref. 4) in t he Ames 6- by 6- foot
supersonic wind tunnel at high subsonic (M = 0 .6 to 0 . 9 ) speeds and super-
soni c (M = 1.2 to 1. 9 ) speeds.

SYMBOLS

A aspect ratio

An coefficients defining the magnitude of the harmonics of a

Fourier sine series
drag at zero lift
zero-lift drag coefficient, QSw
theoretical wave drag at
zero lift
zero-lift wave-drag coefficient,
zero-lift drag-rise above
zero-lift drag-rise coefficient, subsonic level

c local chord measured parallel to plane of symmetry

c' local chord of the design airfoil sections

c mean aerodynamic chord of the total wing

1 fuselage or body length

M free-stream Mach number

N number of terma or harmonics used in the Fourier sine series

n a harmonic of the Fourier sine series

Q free-stream dynamic pressure

s projection of Sa on a plane perpendicular to x axis

Ss areas formed by cutting configurations with planes

perpendicular or ObliQue t o t he x axis

S' (x) derivative or slope of S curves a s a function of x

Sw total wing area

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 3

x distance measured fro.m the nose of the model along the x axis

x,y, z Cartesian coordinates as canventianal bady axes

B angle between the z axis and the intersect ian af the cutting
planes X with the yz plane
(See ref. 1 far descriptive sketches and detailed definitians.)

maximum wing thickness to. chard ratio

cp transfarmatian af the length x to. radians, arc cas (1 - ~)

X a series af parallel cutting planes tangent to. the Mach cane
(At M = 1.0 these planes are perpendicular to. the x axis .)

angle in the xy plane between the intercept af t he cutting

planes X and the y axis, arc tan (~M2- 1 cas B)

MODELS AND TESTS

Triangular- Wing Madels

The three triangular wings af aspect r a tias af 2 , 3, and 4 were all

tested with the same fuselage - tail cambinatian. The details af the models
are given in f i gure 1 a nd t able I. The equatia n in figure 1 far the fuse-
lage radii up to. st atia n 1 39 . 4 is for a fineness-ra tio-12 Sears-Haack body
(minimum drag far prescribed valume and length ). The radii for the remain-
ing partian af the fuselage are given in table I.

The aspect-rat io-4 wing had airfoil sectians (NACA 0005 streamwise)
which were almast identical with the NACA 0005-63 sections used for the
aspect-ratio-2 and - 3 wings. Note further in table I that the wing areas
were essentially equal ( 30 sq ft) vlith different mean aerodynamic chords
of 5.19, 4.31, and 3 . 66 feet for the wings having aspect r at ios af 2, 3,
and 4, respectively .

The experimental investigations were conducted by the free-fal l

recoverable-model technique. The tests of these wings hav e been reported
fully in references 5, 6 , and 7. The tests covered the Mach number range
from 0.86 to 1.12 with corresponding Reynolds numbers af abaut 1,500,000
to. 3,000,000 per faat ( 8 , 200 ,000 to. 16,500 , 000 for t he mean aeradynamic
chard af the wing with an aspect ratio of 4 ).

The estimated accuracy of the measurement of the drag coefficients

far the triangular wings was CD = 0.001 which includes a 2- percent error
in dynamic pressure, q, due t o the possible error in Mach number of
M = 0.01.
CONFIDENTIAL
4 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

Swept-Wing Models

Two swept-wing models were tested (ref. 4) to determine the effect

of an airfoil section modification. The basic swept-wing model is shown
in figure 2, with a sketch of the leading-edge modification which was
tested on the second model. The local chords were increased approximately
2 percent by the modification. The fuselage, including the cut-off portion
(fig. 2), is for a Sears-Haack type body having a fineness ratio of 12.5.

The basic wing had an aspect ratio of 3, a leading-edge sweep of 45 0 ,

a taper ratio of 0.4, and NACA 64A006 airfoil sections perpendicular to
their own quarter-chord line. The wing plan-form area was 2.43 square
feet and the mean aerodynamic chord was 0.956 feet.

The modified wing had a leading-edge sweep angle of 45.3 0 and modified
airfoil sections as indicated by the ordinates listed in table II along
with the corresponding ordinates of the basic wing. The change in wing
profile consisted of an increased leading-edge radius with some camber
added to the forward portion of the airfoil sections. The modified
ordinates extended rearward to 40 percent of the l ocal chords, c', of
the basic airfoil sections.

The tests and experimental procedures are reported in detail in

reference 4 for these swept-wing models. The tests pertinent to this
report were obtained in the 6- by 6-foot wind tunnel at a Reynolds number
of 2 , 900 ,000 based on the mean aerodynamic chord of the basic wing. The
subsonic tests ranged from M = 0.6 to 0.9; the supersonic tests from
M = 1.2 to 1.9.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Triangular-Wing Models

Available experimental data on three wing plan forms having aspect

ratios of 2, 3, and 4 enabled a comparison to be made with theoretical
computations in order to further assess the range of applicability of the
theory.

Computations.- The computations of wave-drag coefficients for these

models were performed in the same .m anner, with the same cutting planes,
as the examples given in reference 1. This discussion is concerned
primarily with the effectiveness of the 24 harmonics of a Fourier sine
series in satisfactorily representing the slopes of the area-distribution
curves. Prior to obtaining the slopes of the area curves, the wing volumes
for each cutting angle were checked to ensure that the volumes for each
wing were equal to the integrated area of the wing area distributions
shown in figure 3.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 5

The degree of convergence of the Fourier coefficients in the summation

N

L
n=l
nAn 2 used in the calculation of the theoretical drag coefficients

was checked as was done in reference 8 , and the results are shown in
figure 4 for the three triangular wings. Data points are shown for the

f lve cutt ing ang1 es in the xy plane of ~ = 0,0 8 .1,11.
0 40 ,17. 80 ,and
28 .~. As discussed in reference 1, the computation of the drag coeffi-
cients at M = 1.00 used only the final summation (N = 24) for 0/ = 0 0 ,
but the M = 1.14 computation, for example, used all five final summations .
For each wing the 0/ = 0 0 (M = 1.00) curve shows a lack of convergence,
and perhaps a larger number of terms should be used, although this would
tend to increase the theoretical drag and the disagreement normally
obtained at a Mach number of 1.00 between theory and experiment.

A more direct evaluation of the effectiveness of the 24 terms of

the Fourier series, in representing the original machine-computed slopes
of the area- di stribution curves, was obtained by checking the slope curves
by utilizing the equation :

I
24

Sf (x) = An sin ncp

n=l
where the values of An are those computed in determining the wave drag.
An example of this procedure is shown in figure 5, where the Slope curves
for the aspect-ra tio- 3 wing were satisfactorily checked. As might be
expected from the discussion on convergence, the sharp peak of the
~ = 0 0 (M = 1. 00 ) curve is not matched by the 24-term solution.

The result s of the theoretical calculations for the triangular-wing

model s are shown in figure 6, and as would be expected the higher aspect
ratio wings also have the higher wave drag .

Comparison of theory with experiment. - The results of the experiments

and computations for the three triangular- wing models are compared in
figure 7. For the asp ect-ratio-2 and - 3 wings (figs. 7( a ) and 7(b)), the
computations predi cted the drag-rise coefficients at supersonic speeds
exceptionally well. For these tW0 wings the differences between the
calculated and experimental values are generally less than 5 percent, and
actually are less than the experimental scatter .

The comparison for the aspect -ratio- 4 wing is made in figure 7(c).
The data points indicated by circles were obtained during oscillating
flight and were used in the original comparison with theory for this wing
(ref. 1). Subsequent experiments and detailed inspection of photographs
of the model in flight proved that the original data were not for a clean
configuration . The photographs showed that the rear hanger used to support
the model had not 'retracted (see fig. 8). The new subsonic drag coef-
ficients are now in agreement with values for the aspect-ratio-2 and - 3

CONFIDENTIAL
6 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

wings, and the new comparison between experiment and theory is consistent
with the other tests of reference 1 in that the theory is somewhat low at
supersonic speeds. In this case the maximum deviation of the theory
occurs at M = 1.12 and is about 12 percent, which is well within the
20- percent value stated in reference 1. It is interesting to note that,
although reference 9 suggests a value of A(T) ~/3 of unity as the limit
of applicability of the area rule (ref. 10) for rectangular wings, this
triangular wing has a value of A (T)~/3 equal to 1.47 and the theory is
still applicable.

Comparison of experimental results.- Of interest, although of second-

ary importance to this report, is a comparison between the experimental
results for the wings of different aspect ratios (fig . 9). As was men-
tioned previously, all three models have similar drag coefficients at
subsonic speeds. The apparent progressive increase in the drag-divergence
Mach number with increasing aspect ratio would not be generally expected
due to the decrease in leading-edge-sweep angle with increased aspect
ratio. However, for most swept wings without bodies, the critical pressure
coefficient occurs first on the root airfoil section (ref. 11). Mounting
swept wings on a body of finite, but not infinite, radius decreases these
distortion velocities (e. g ., ref. 12). In the case of this report, the
wing-body interference might cause the increase in drag-divergence Mach
number with increased aspect ratio. Further analysis and investigation
are required before any definite conclusions are drawn.

Swept- Wing Models

This section of the discussion is concerned with the evaluation of

the computing method for estimating drag changes due to relatively minor
profile changes. For both the basic and modified airfoil sections the
rounded noses (fig . 2) result in area distribution curves which have
infinite slopes when the cutting planes are parallel to the wing leading
edge. Thus for this wing plan form and Mach numbers equal to ~ or
greater, linear theory, on which the computing method is based, is ba'si-
cally unsuited for computing the effect of small changes in leading-edge
radius, because a rigorous application of the theory will give absurd
answers (infinite wave drags). However, previous exp.erience with subsonic
leading edges has shown that computations limited to 24 harmonics smooth
out slight discontinuities in the area-distribution curve. Thus, it would
be of interest to apply the computing method for the entire range of test
Mach numbers and determine the shape of the sharpened airfoil sections
defined by the 24-term solution at the higher Mach numbers. The computa-
tions and comparisons above a Mach number of .J2 would strictly apply only
for the sharpened (both basic and modified) airfoil sections.

Computations.- Details of these computations are somewhat different

than those of reference 1; therefore, some explanation of the procedures
used is desirable. A Mach number of 1.5 was selected for the example
computation.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 7

The computations were .made from the area distributions determined

for the low-speed model (ref. 4) which will be referred to as the "full-
scale" model in this report. Presented in figure 10 are the full-scale-
model area distribut ions used in the computation of the wave-drag coef-
ficients for a Mach number of 1.5. These area distributions were
determined for cutting planes in only one quadrant of e because of the
symmetry of the model, and thus only five cuts were made at equal 22.50
increments of e. The corresponding intercept angles (~) in the xy
plane were 0 , 23.20, 38.40, 46.0 0 , and 48.2 0 The ~ = 0 cut was also
used to compute the wave drag at M = 1.0, and the cutting angles of
0/ = 0 0 , 23.20 , and 38 .40 were also used to estimate the wave drag at
M = 1.28. To estimate the wave drag at a Mach number of 1.9 an additional
cut was made for 0/ = 58.25 and this area curve (fig . 11) was used with
the curves obtained for the M = 1.5 computation converted to new angles
of e.
N
The degree of convergence of the summation ~ nAn
2
is shown in
n=1
figure 12 for the basic and modified wings for the five cutting angles
for Mach number 1.5. Reasonable convergence of the series for the 24
terms is indicated for the three smaller cutting angles, and the solution
probably is valid (see ref. 8). As was expected, particularly for the
mndified wing, the series for the ~ = 460 and ~ = 48.2 0 cuts (super-
sonic leading edges) show rather slow convergence (fig. 12(b)) and indicate
that the solution is questionable.

The validity of the computations was investigated by .m aking check

solutions of the slope curves of the area distributions. As before, the
check points were computed from the An values derived in the drag compu-
tations. The limiting of the solution to 24 terms resulted in little
smoothing of the S'(x) curves for the Mach number 1.00 cuts for these
wings (fig. 13(a)). On the other hand, 24 terms did not define the sharp
peaks of the ~ = 46 cuts for both wings (fig. 13(b)). Thus the 24-term
solutions for Mach numbers greater than the ~ are not for rounded airfoil
sections, but for wings with sharp leading edges of the type shown in
figure 14 for ~ = 460 These nose fairings are r .e quired primarily for
cuts near the sweep angle of the wing leading edge, and the effects of
these fairing s (slight volume change) are relatively small at other cutting
angles.

L
24
2
The values of nAn were plotted against e as shown in figure
n=1
15and the areas under the curves were integrated to obtain the wave-drag
coefficients:

CONFIDENTIAL
8 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

for the two wings. This figure illustrates the large peak values of the
summation which occur when the cutting planes are parallel to the wing
leading edge. Slight rounding of the peaks produc es very little change
in the integrated area. In spite of these difficulties in the M = 1.5
computation , at each value of B the summation for the modified wing
(with a sharp leading edge, fig. 14) is greater than that for the basic
wing and there is no question as to the lower theoretical drag of the
basic wing. For higher Mach numbers such as the M = 1.9 computation,
the fairing toward the peaks covers a smaller range of B.

Although the sting-mounted models did not have complete Sears-Haack

bodies (fig . 10(a)), in the computations they were initially considered
to have such; then the forebody wave-drag coefficients were estimated by
subtracting a correction of 0.0004. This correction was det ermined from
the difference between the computed wave-drag coefficients for the complete
fuselage and the computed forebody coefficients for the cut-off fuselage.
CD '(Sears- Haack body) - CD '( cut- off Sears-Haack forebody)
o 0 = 0 .0036 _ 0.0032

The wave-drag coefficient of the cut-off Sears-Haack body was computed

as follows: The area curve of the cut-off body was divided into two parts
by plotting the area distribution of a von Karman ogive with its infinite
cylinder having a cross-sectional area equal to the base area of ,the, cut-
off Sears-Haack body. To the wave-drag coefficient of the von Karman
ogive was added a computed (method of ref. 1) coefficient for the second
part of the area- distribution curve for the cut- off Sears-Haack body. It
was necessary to alter slightly thj.s second or remaining area distribution
to produce zero slope at the point of cut-off. This approximation was
felt to be justified since the total correction was small.

Comparison of theory with experiment.- Figure 16 presents the experi-

mental zero-lift drag coefficients from wind- tunnel data for the swept-Wing
models with the computed wave- drag coefficients added to the subsonic level
of the experimental data. The coefficients are all forebody values and,
as described previously, the theoretical values (based only on area distri-
butions, no evaluation of the slight camber) were computed at Mach numbers
of 1.00, 1.28, 1.50, and 1.90. The computations for M = 1.50 and M = 1.90
are for the sharp-nose sections of figure 14. The difference between
computed and experimental values of the drag- rise coefficients for the
basic wing were generally less than 20 percent of the experimental values
for the supersonic Mach numbers of 1.2 to 1.9. Comparable agreement for
the modified wing occurred from Mach numbers of 1.2 to 1.5.

The difference in drag-rise coefficients between the basic and modi-

fied wings as indicated by theory (sharp-nose sections) and experiment is
influenced by the difference in camber. The effect of the slight camber
was estimated, using an equivalent flap and the procedures of reference 13
(applicable to wings with supersonic leading edges). Mach numbers of 15
and 1. 9 were selected to illustrate the added drag rise of the modified
CONFIDENTIAL
2K
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENT IAL 9

wing over the basic wing as shown in figure 17. The agreement between
theory and experiment at M = 1 . 5 is better than .m ight be expected with
the assumptions involved. At a Mach number of 1.9 the theory under-
estimated the increase in drag-rise coefficient due to. the modification,
but the theary did show an increase and the percentage increase is very
similar to. the percentage increase in the experimental values. This graph
also. illustrates the unresalved prablem that the experimental drag caef-
ficients increased from M = 1 . 5 to. 1.9, whereas all companents af the
thearetical values, including the effect af camber, decreased.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A further evaluatian has been made af the theoretical computing methad

af reference 1 far predicting zera-lift wave- drag caefficients. The cases
examined were three triangular-wing models af aspect ratios 2, 3, and 4,
and a basic and a madified airfail sect ian an a wing plan farm having 450.
af sweepback.

The camputing method is apparently valid for triangular wings with

aspect ratias as large as 4 with an airfail section 5 percent thick. For
the triangular-wing madels tested, 24 harmanics af a Faurier sine series
were adequate to. represent the slape curves af the madel area distributians
and hence to. compute the wave - drag caefficients. The errars af predictian
in each case were cansiderably less than the 20 - percent value stated in
reference 1.

The basic theary is inapplicable to. area distributians which have

extreme slapes ar an extreme discantinuity in slape, bath af which accurred
for the swept-wing madels at Mach numbers abave 1.4. The camputing method
smaathed the area distributians and qualitatively predicted at all Mach
numbers the increase in wave drag far the relatively minar prafile change.
Far supersanic speeds up to. M = 1.5, the quantitative predictians af the
drag-rise caefficients far the swept-wing madels were again within 20 per-
cent af the experimental values.

Ames Aeranautical Labaratary

Natianal Advisary Cammittee far Aeranautics
Maffett Field, Calif., June 6, 1955

REFERENCES

1. Haldaway, Gearge H.: Comparisan af Thearetical and Experimental

Zera-Lift Drag-Rise Characteristics of Wing-Body-Tail Combinations
Near the Speed af Saund. NACA RM A53Hl7, 1953.
CONFIDENTIAL
10 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

2. Carmel, Melvin M.: An Experimental Transonic Investigation of a 450

Sweptback Wing-Body Combination With Several Types of Body Indenta-
tion With Theoretical Comparisons Included. NACA RM L54I 07a , 1954.

3 . Holdaway, George H.: An Experimental Investigation of Reduction in

Transonic Drag Rise at Zero Lift by the Addition of Volume to the'
Fuselage of a Wing-Body-Tail Configuration and a Comparison With
Theory. NACA RM A54F22, 1954.

4. Graham, David, and Evans, William T.: Investigation of the Effects

of an Airfoil Section Modification on the Aerodynamic Character-
istics at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds of a Thin Swept Wing of
Aspect Ratio 3 in Combination With a Body. NACA RM A55Dll, 1 955 .

5. Bright, Loren G.: A Flight Investigation at Transonic Speeds of a

Model Having a Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 4. NACA RM A54L27,
1 955
6. White, Maurice D.: A Flight Investigation at Transonic Speeds of a
Model Raving a Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 3. NACA RM A55D18,
1955.

7. White, Maurice D.: A Flight Investigation at Transonic Speeds of a

Model Having a Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 2. NACA RM A55F21,
1955.

8. Alksne, Alberta: A Comparison of Two Methods for Computing the Wave

Drag of Wing-Body Combinations. NACA RM A55A0 6a, 1 955 .

9. Spreiter, John R.: On the Range of Applicability of the Transonic

Area Rule. NACA RM A54F28, 1954.

10. Whitcomb, Richard T.: A Study of the Zero-Lift Drag-Rise Character-

istics of Wing-Body Combinations Near the Speed of Sound. NACA
RM L52H08, 1 952.

11. Kuchemann, D.: Design of Wing Junction, Fuselage and Nacelles to

Obtain the Full Benefit of Sweptback Wings at High Mach Number.
R.A.E. Rep. No. Aero. 2219, British, 1947.

12. Byrd, Paul F.: Theoretica~ Pressure Distributions for Some Slender
Wing-Body Combinations at Zero Lift. NACA RM A54J07, 1955

13. Frick, Charles W., Jr.: Application of the Linearized Theory of

Supersonic Flow to the Estimation of Control Surface Character-
is't ics. NACA TN 1554, 1948.

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 11

TABLE 1.- DIMENSIONS OF TRIANGULAR WING MODELS

Wings
Aspect ratio . . . . . . . 2 3 4
Area, sq ft . . . . . 303 31.4 30.0
Mean aerodynamic chord, ft . 519 431 3.66
Airfoil sections, NACA streamwise . 0005 ... 63 0005-63 0005
Fuselage
Fineness ratio . . 12.4
Maximum diameter, in . . . 170
Nose boom diameter, in. . 1.50
Fuselage radii at stations behind the theoretical ordinates

Fuselage station Inches

140.0 7 23
150.0 710
160.0 6.60
165. 0 6 34
1896 510
1956 450
201 .6 3 20
204 .6 230
2105 o
Horizontal-tail surfaces
Area, sq ft 6.0
Aspect ratio . 4.5
Taper ratio 0.2
Airfoil section, streamwise NACA 65-006
Sweep of streamwise 0.25 chord, deg 45.0
Vertical-tail surfaces
Area, sq ft 31
Aspect ratio . . 51
Taper ratio 0.22
Airfoil section, perpendicular to the line of their
own 0.25 chords (c'j4) . . . NACA 65-009
Sweep of c'j4 line, deg . . . . . . . . . . 45. 0

CONFIDENTIAL
12 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

TABLE II. - COORDINATES OF THE AIRFOIL SECTIONS USED FOR THE 45 0 SWEn' WING
[All coordinates are referred to the chord of the NACA 64A006 section, and
are in terms of percent of that chord . Asterisks indicate ordinates that
are identical to those of the NACA 64A006 section . Sections are perpen-
dicular to the 39 . 45 0 sweep line (c'j4) . J
Basic sections Ordinates of modified sections
Station NACA
64A006 Upper surface Lower surface
ordinate
-150 - 1 38 -1 . 38
-1.25 - 0 . 60 - 2 . 065
-1.00 - 034 - 2.315
-0 . 75 - 0.145 - 2 . 49
- 0 .25 0 .16 -2 . 75
0 .00 o 0 .29 - 2 .855
0 .25 0 395 - 2 955
0 50 .485 0 . 49 - 3 . 04
0 75 . 585 * - 3 .10
1.25 739 - 3 . 22
25 1 . 016 - 3 . 40 5
50 1.399 - 3 . 615
75 1 . 684 -3 70
10 1 . 919 - 3 .74
15 2 .283 - 3 . 655
20 2 557 - 3 . 445
25 2 757 - 3 .245
30 2 . 896 - 3 .105
35 2 977 - 3 . 025
40 2 999 - 3 000
45 2 . 945 *
50 2 . 825
55 2 . 653
60 2 . 438
65 2 .188
70 1 90 7
75 1.602
80 1 .285
85 967
90 . 649
95 331 ,
100 . 013
Modified section:
Leading- edge radius = 1.19
Center of leading-edge circle x = -0.31
y = -1.33
Basic section:
Leading- edge radius = 0.24
CONFIDENTIAL
 L0 9 Wing airfoil section: NACA 0005 -63 (streamwise)
~:x>

11.2 1 l.30~,
a vanei-----e
5
J
ISo
_ 1>//~
c: <,
",/
/
,/
c=5 .19

/
/ ,
7
NACA
=:>
65-006 ~~
j I
~
~
~
o
0\

2. 57

Note : Fuselage stations given in sta

inches, dimensions in feet 147 . 5
Q
3/ 4 Q

~
H
.
ro
= [1- \IX_10~2]
102-}
o
~
H

sta
o
End of theoretical
fuselage ordinates
~
~
~ sta ~
l1.81 x
sta
102.0 sta
139 . 4
150 . 5

I
NACA
65-009
sta
210.5

~~vane
l1\
o
1.417= 2r o N
f

(a) Aspect-ratio-2 wing.

Figure 1.- Models with triangular wings. All three models are identical except
for the wing.
f-J
LA!
 I-'
.j::"'
Wi ng airfoi l secti on: NACA 0005-63 (streamwise)
2.09

1 . 6 2 _______ NACA
a vane 65-006

~ I
L~7 I" s:, ~
r1

6.47 .1 \ - . t--.
C\J
l.C\
r1

0'\
Note: Fuselage stations given in
inches, dimensions in feet o
o \ ~ .Q.
o 0 4 o
45 ~
~
H

r
[ x-l02
ro= 1-( 102)
3/4

J H

sta
~ o End of theoretical
fuselage ordinates 45
0 ~
sta
150.5 / c' sta
sta
l1.81 x 102.0 sta
139.4
" ' 4"
NACA
65-009
210.5

-
I
~~
l.C\
o
1. 417=2ro
vane
C\.l ~
~
(b) Aspect-ratio-3 wing. ~
Figure 1.- Continued. ~
lo
0\
 Wing airfoil section: NACA 0005 (streamwise) s;
~
/ 2.0 9 ~
0;
Lsta c=3 . 66 ~

avane~rl
/ / o
0\
NACA
65-006

~, t
,, ~ I
i
r1
C\I \D

5.49 i

L[) .
0\

o Note: Fuselage stations given in

~~
o c o
inches, dimensions in feet o
~ 1+ ~
2J3/4
i~ ~
~
= 1_ (X-102 )
ro 102
sta End of theoretical
o fuselage ordinates

l1.81 x
sta
" 102.0 Sta
139.4
Sta
210.5
I
~~
lh
o
1. 417=2ro
vane 7
(c) Aspect-ratio-4 wing.
Figure 1.- Concluded.
~
\Jl

I
 t-'
(J\
Basic (NACA 64A006)

Modified
(See table II)
::;-,/2. '- _
- - - --
0 4'
.! C
}l39.45
0
4
c'

Airfoil Nose Sections

II o
..:::r
Airfoil sections
perpendicular to
NACA 64Ao06
1
4

;;'o:1A'~\: ----- . . . ,
C\J

{ - r:~
(Y'")
o
o
~
H
<C J_---- o
o
~
H
x
~ ~
~ ~
~ \ 1 \c=11.47 ~

Equation of fuselage radii f---15.43 'I I

18.01) ~ I "E 16. 20 ~.17--1
~ =[1_(x- 29. 75)2 l 3 /4
ro 29.75 J 46.93 ~ I

All dimensions shown in inches ~

59.50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ----1
.. I ~
~
;J>
Figure 2.- Swept-wing model. \Jl
~
o
0\
 ,
, . . , ~
'W

480 ~
I I j ~
Fuselage + tails
- - - - Aspect-ratio-2 wing ~
400 - - - Aspect-ratio-3 wing - ~
o
s:: - - - Aspect-ratio-4 wing 0'\
rl
0'
rI.l
~- 1'-:::"' .....
. 3 20 ~ ..\ , 1'\
\
CI)
rI.l

. //)
V i\' \ \\

~!
C\J \ \
Q)
H /
\ \

-
C\J /
240
~
I
0
r-i
C\J
/ I V -\ o
0 s:: /J L o
~ "-..... ~
H
0
rl
.j..) 1 /
/
f/ ~
~
~
0
Q)
rI.l
I
160
/'
V ~
~ rI.l
rI.l ~
u
0
H
80 V "-..........
~
V ~
V
/ ~
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Fuselage stat ion, in.

Figure 3.- Cross-sectional area distributions for the triangular-wing models.

f-'
-.J
 I-'
OJ

160

\jr
120 o 00 i-t-i-t--t-+-t--+---+--J
. o 8.1 0
~
~--I 0~ 11.4 0
'r!
17. 8 0 r-I-I-t--+-+--~---+----J-~
0'
V 28.7 0

rI.l
t.)
80 o
0
C\J O '0'0'~'U o

i
0
~
~ c::x:
AB'2'Q':2:~'2 ' ~
H
~
~ A

~W~ D ~~t;t "" . .~ .n . '" .

- t::I

~
V \07 . 'Cl .

~
~

~
40 oe
t-----+--4-J'.
~-j--r-+-~-+~--~~~
0

o 4 8 12 16 20 24

N ~
~
(a) Aspect-ratio- 2 wing.
~
N ;J>
Figure 4.- Variation of L nAn2 with N for the triangular-wing models for five Vl
n=l
cutting angles. lo
0\
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 19

f.'~
~ <D~~
~~
O<n ~[;>
o
-0-$ kl-r:::
"" v C\J

0$ <:][:>
~~
O~ <::][;>
\..0
o(J ~ rl
. .
O(J <::] [:> ao
~ 'd
.(.)4-
~ ..... r<J-C .r!
~
(!)
;j
~
oC <:] [) (Y)
I
-rl
.p
-oc k::1."" ..t::
., C\l
rl :z;
0
.r!
.p
~
0
0
~ cU

on---- ~ .p
H
I
~
.
C)

OJ [;> (!)
0.
(!)

..... -r:::
rf:
v CD rt.l
~
8
ao
.r!
~
........... fL!
..0
.. -----
o 00 0
-7
0
0 .
rl ~ CD t---

CD rl t--- CD
.. C
r l r l C\l

ooO<H> 0

o o o 0 o
\..0 C\J CD ..:;t
rl rl

CONFIDENTIAL
20 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

f."I
....... -$--~
0 ~ ~ ~
~
I""
n....-..r'~....
<:: $ ~ ~
~
..r.'t>- r' o
.... C\J

0 ~ :!] ~
....... ----$- ~
.0-

0 ED ~ ~

r$- la ....
'"
~ \0
rl
. .
~ ~ <:] ~ bO
~ '"(j

P-& ~. ''';
~
Q)
'"(j
~
0 ~ <:] [;> .::t rl
(\J I ()

-0-0- ~'" ~
rl Z 0
.,.;
~
0
+l
00 <:] [;> cO
I:)

~~ +l
H
I .
.::t
()
$<' ~ Q) Q)
p..
~
,... ..... CO rf.l ~
c:x: bO
.,.;
~[;> ......... !Z.t

---<
()
.<fm ..........
o 0 0 0
-7
0 rl .::t co t--
0 .. . ~
CO rl t--CO
rlrl(\J

000<][> ()

0 0 0 0 0
\0 (\J CO .::t
rl rl
T=U
U1 bs ' Gu vu :r
N

CONFIDENl'IAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENI'IAL 21

8
I I I
Check S I (x ) 1\1
6 ~~ -

. r~ 0
0 -----
00
8 .1 0

s::
.,...;
4 ~ \
---><"' ~.
~
'-'
-CI.l )~. N
2
s::"'
0
.,...;
.p ~ 0
;j
.0
.,...;
H 0 lfi' \ \
\ ~~ /
.p
rJ)
.,...;
'0 1. I
CIl
<I>
'\ 0/
,:-J Ii!~,
I
(.
-2
H
CIl
G-i
0
I~
/ \~ !l~' \ /
~~
\
<I>
p.
-4 F.' /
0
, ~
~ I
rl I
CI.l

I V
-6
El

-8
r6

-10

-12
o .4 .8 1. 2 1. 6 2.0 2. 4 2. 8 3.2
q> J r adi a ns

(a) Cutting planes for ~=Oo and 8 .1.

Figure 5 .- Check of the effectiveness of the solut i on of
the Fourier sine series ( 24 terms) to represe nt t he
curve s of SI(X) used in the wave-drag cal culati ons for
the a spect-ratio-3 triangular wing.
CONFIDENTIAL
22 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM A55F06

Check S I (x) 1jr

('j"
6 ~-+--~--~-+--4--+'~-+--4-~ f---
0
, ~
11.4
f 0 - - - - - 17.8

~ \
4 ~-+--~--~-+--~~y~--~.,-4---~-+--4---+-~--~--+-~

f.~J-G.... l

v
\I
\
-6
~

-8

-1 0 ~-+--4---~-+--4---~-+--4---~-+--4---~-+--~--~~

-1 2
0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2 .4 2.8 3.2

CP , radians
(b) Cutting planes for 'Ir=11.4 and 17.8.
Figure 5.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 23

8
I I
6 /~ Check S ' (x)
'" -

. ! ~ 0 28 .7

s::: ~ \
-rl
., 4
~W~\.;1'/
.--..
><
........-
-
CI)

., 2
J.Y:;
~

-rl
.p
;,( (.

.0
;::j

-rl
H
.p
0 l?
(fl
-rl /
(./ .
'd
cU .)\
Q)
H -2 \
cU
G-i r.(\ ~ 1\3-c,\ /
0
V \ \
~ /
<:)
Q)
p. )
0 -4
rl
(/) (~ .lj
V
-6

-8

-10

-12
0 .4 .8 1.2 1. 6 2.0 2. 4 2. 8 3.2
<P , radians

(c) Cutting planes for 'Ir=28.7 .

Figure 5.- Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL
 -- --~

f\)
+"

.04

bO
ro Aspect Area
H
'0 ratio sq ft
I
<l.l .03 2 30.3
l>- ---- 3 3l.4
ro 0
~A
(.)
--- 4 30.0
.p
.,

0
~
.r! .p
rl~
l<l.l
.02
1\, Q
0 Or!
'-.. o

-
H C)
~ 1---_ I-- _ ~
H

<l.l-rl
N~
~
'O<l.l
<l.l 0
--
f'.,

I'--
I-
- -
-
---
4
3
.pC) 2
~
ro
rl
;:::s .01 - ~- ~
C)
rl
ro
0

o
.84 .88 .92 .96 l.00 l.04 l.08 l.12 l.16

Mach number, M
~
Figure 6.- Theoretical results for the triangular wings by the method of ~
reference 1. ~
(;;
~
o
0\
 -~
~ --

s;
~
.04 ~
~
\Jl
';i]
o
~
0 0---0 Test 0'\
0 -- - --- Theory, ref. 1
"- .03
+>
s:: 1(.) <: ,(.) ~)ffi
<l.> K:1 .- 10-
'M
C)
~~
v
-T.)- :;;:;
I.:.J

-
'M
G-;
G-;
<l.>
0 . 02
(.) l 0

hi'
C)
0 o
0 bO
~
ell
~
(.)
~
~
'-' ~
~
'd (.)
~ -- --
H

~
+>
.,.,
G-;
. 01
0 (,:)
-- - -

~ ~
rl
I
0
~
<lJ
N

o
.84 .88 .9 2 .96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1. 16
Mach number, M

(a) Aspect-ratio-2 wing.

Figure 7.- Comparison of experimental zero-lift drag coefficients for each tri-
angular wing with computed wave-drag coefficients added to the subsonic level
of the experimental data.
(\)
\Jl
 f\)
0\

.04

0

+>" .03
s::
<1>
orl
tl
orl
~
~
<1>
0
Q tl .02 Q
0 o
~ ~
bO
ro
H

i~ "d
+>
~
.,..,
r-i
I
. 01
i~
0
H
<1>
N

o
.84 .88 .9 2 .96 1.00 1.04 1. 08 1.12 1.16

Mach number, M

~
(b) Aspect-ratio-3 wing.
Figure 7.- Continued.
~
(;;
~
o
0\
 s;
.05 o Test, model pitching about a=Oo f;;
~ Tests, model at constant a (0 0 )
- - - - - Theory, ref. 1 ~
0;
'loiJ
0 .04 0'.
~
0

.p
.. \
\

I=!
~.'
\~ 0
(!)
.r!
W'~r-~ ~nim.!:J~ ~ .
- --- ---
() 0 0

.r; .03 ;(;2) C:P

c...-.
c...-.
(!)
0
f ~
r-
------

[?
()
Q Q
0
bO
o o
~ cU 0
. ~
H H
. 02 ~ H
'0
~ .p 0 ~:I
~ c...-.
.r; Co; (.
0 ';y.)
~ rl

0
I
0 ~v - - -- ~
H
(!)
N .01

o
.84 . 88 .92 .96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.16

Mach number, M
(c) Aspect-ratio-4 wing.
Figure 7.- Concluded.
r0
--l
 f\)
())

Q a
o o
~ ~
H

~ ~
~
~ ~

~
o

~
~
A-17133.1 lo
Figure 8.- Aspect-ratio-4 triangular-wing model in flight with protruding hanger. 0'\
 ~
~
~
.04 0;
lo
0'\
0
Aspect Area
~
(.)

.p .03
ratio
2
sq ft
30.3
",-
--
- --- ---
t-- 4
s::Q) -- -- 3 31.4 /"j ---- --- 1 - - - - 3
..-I
--- 4 30.0 " I 2
0
------
/
..-I /
G--t /
G--t /
Q) I
n 0 .02 n

~
0 0 I o
~ bO
I
~
H ro Y-
ti1
~
H
~ ./

~~
'Cl
~ .p
~

~ G--t
.r!
rl
.01 ~
I
0
H
Q)
N

o
.84 .88 .92 .96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.16

Mach number, M

Figure 9.- Comparison of the experimental zero-lift drag coefficients for the
triangular wings.

I\)
\0
 w
4000
o

~ V-- ~
Modified wing
I I ~
3200 I I
G /~
>=: ~
orl Basic wi ng - -
0' \
/} \
oJ

Ol

--- ~
CI)
2400

I-~ V-
~

roQ)
H
ro
/
0
0
~
H
~
~
.--i
ro
>=:
0
'M
.j..l
C,)
Q)
oJ
I
1600

/
/
V
/

'" ~searS-Haack

~
~

V<"'-
/
fUSjlage
Base for
sting-mounted
models
Q
o
~
H

i
~ / ~
oJ
Ol
0 800
H
() /
/ ~
/ "'"
o
./
80 160 240 3 20 400

Fuselage station, in.

48 0 560 '"
640
~
720

s;
(a) 6=90 0 , '41'=0 0 ~
Figure 10.- Area distributions for the basic and modified swept-wing, full-scale ~
0;:x:.
models for a Mach number of 1.5. \Jl
l
o
0\

l
 ~
~
4000
~
::t>
\Jl

3200
MOdified ling -
~ 1;/F\ ~
o
0'\

~} j
I I
s::
oM
Basic win --
\
~
0'
til
.,
2400
/l ...-- ~
/; ~
Cf.l ~

----
"
.,
roQ) ~
0 o
V ~ h\
H
0 ro o
~
H
'd
Q) ./ ~
1600 H
tiJ V ~
.j..)

~
()
Q)
'r.>
/ ~ I

~
0
H
p... V '\ I ~
8 00
/ ~
V
V
,/
/
""""~
o 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
Fuselage station, in.

(b) 8=67.5, t=23.2.

Figure 10.- Continued.
W
f-'
 LV
f\)

4000

MOdified ling
3200 I
Basic wing
I '"VI ~ ~
~
-ri

0'
fIl
2400
"'/;"
If ~
~
~
"
CI.l"'

cd"'
II ~
V- --..........
~ ~
IY ~~
Q Q
0
Q)
H o
~ cd
/' ~
H H
'd 1600
~ V ~ ~
~
Q)
.p
~ ()
Q) / ~
......,
~ 0
H V ~ ~
p...

800
/ ~
V
/ "- ~
V
o
lL 80 160 240 320 400 480 560
""
640
~
720

~
Fuselage station, in .

(c) 8=45, *=38.4.

~
Figure 10.- Continued. 0;
~
o
0\
 t,g1lr----l

~
~
4000 ~
;t:>
\J1
~
o
0'\

3200

s::
MOdified 'I ing -Ir v ~

~
~
or!
I ~ t-
0'
rI.l

(I)
~ 2400
1
Basic win g ----.,
1/
fj
-~
---.... ~ ~
~
~
y V-
Q qJ Q

~
0 (!)

~
H
H
qJ

'd .)
V ~~ H

(!) 1600
/ ~
~
.j..)
0

~
(!)
.,.....,
0
/ ~
V
H
P-o

800

/
V
/ '"~ ~
~
V
o
L
80 160 240 320 400
Fuselage station, in.
480 560 " I'---..
640 720

(d ) e=22.5 , w=46.00.
Figure 10.- Continued.
LA)
LA)
 w
-F

4000

3200
Mb1difie,d wing
~
ori
/ !:::::::::....

,
I I
~
0'
til

en 2400
Basic wing -
~ If ~
~

0
0
cO"'
ill

V
/;11
~
V--
---- ~ Q

~
t ~~
H
~
H
cO
H
'd
tiJ ill 1600 ~
V
~
.p
~

'" ~
C)
ill
.,....,
~ 0 / ~
H
V ~
~
p...

800 /
/ ~
/ ~
V "\
/ ~
o 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
~
Fuselage station, in. ~
(e) 8=0, ~=48.2. ~
;J>
\Jl
Figure 10.- Concluded. 'Ii]
o
0\
 ~
(")
;J:>
4000
~
~
I
~
o
Ch
3200

s::
orl

-
0'
Modified wing -
~
--
rJl
I I ;;.-- -::..=::-- ---- ~
c:tl 2400
~

........
win~ ~ // ~
BasiJ V-
cd
Q)
"-
V ~
0
0
~ I

/j
V V ~~ / r- Sears-Haack fuselage o
o
~ /
~
'd
.3 1 600
~
~
V
~
~
()
Q)
.,....,
0
If/
~
H
V '\ ~
f ~
p..,

800
V ~
/ ~
[LV ~~
~t::--
o 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
Fuselage station, in .

Figure 11.- Area distributions for the basic and modified swegt-wing full-sca le
models for a Mach number of 1.9 (8=0, *=58 .25 ).

lAJ
\Jl
36 CONFIDENrIAL NACA RM A55F06

1jr

1 200 t-----t o 0
o 23.2
o 38.4
l::. 46.0
1000 \l 48 .2

s:::
.
rl
0' 800
rf.l

C\J
s:1
c::x:
s:::
rl
~ W II 600
s:1 olxlV
(.) 0 r.'~ gO

200 ~~r-~--~---+---+---+---r---r--~--~--~~

o 4 8 12 16 20 24

N
(a) Basic wing.
N
Figure 12.- Variation of ~ nAn2 with N for the swept-wing
n=l
models for five cutting angles for a Mach number of 1.5.

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 37

1jr

1200 t-----t
0 0
0 23.2 8.
<>
b.
38.4
8.
46.0 I. .
V 48 . 2
1000

s::
.
ori

0' 800
rI.l

(\J
s:: ~;J u 60 . .
~
c:x:
s:: H
hili
600 I---+-+---+--+(>- o-=-
. -t--o-=gl::::-.~v .
l Q<>
s::
A{)O

o 4 8 12 16 20 24
N
(b) Modified wing.
Figure 12.- Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENI'IAL NACA RM A55F06

30
Check S I (x) Wing
Bas ic
s::
rl 20
..
II
0
0 ------ Modified
:OJ~
I .

ir ,,\
><
'--'

Cf.l
10 .{.). A
V fd.~ ~
V"
s::"'
.,.,0 fi
.p
::s
.,.,
,0

H
0 V '\-J
.p
.,.,OJ ~ 9-
V
'd P'
rn
<V -1 0
}?- ~ ':) r:y. ~
H "\:.f"' r-:..

~
rn
~
0
<V
p.
0
-20 r" i
p
rl
Cf.l It.
1'1'
I'
\I
-30
o .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2 .0 2.4 2. 8 3.2

'P , radians

Figure 13.- Check of the effectiveness of the solution of

the Fourier sine series (24 terms) to represent the
curves of SI(X) used in the wave-drag calculations for
the swept-wing models.

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 39

~ 80 r--1---+--~--1---+-~i~
i --+---~~~~---L---L--~--L-~~~
-
(I)
Check S I (x) Wing

d : 0 Basic
j 60 r--1__-+__~__4-__+-~1~ __1-__+-__r-~_-_--_-~-_-_-~_M_O~d_i_f_i~e_d__~~
~ I
~ I
~ I

bell :
II
~ 4 0 ~-4---+--~--4---+-~~-4---+--~--4---+-~~~---+--~~
~ I
cO
Q) CI
H
cO
~
o
Q)
P-
o
rl
(I)

v~.~
- 20 L-~ __~__- L_ _J -_ _L -_ _L-~_ _- L_ _- L_ _~_ _L-~~~_ _-L__-L~
o .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3. 2
<P , radians

Figure 13.- Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL
-~---

g
Equivalent leading edges,

_ A ==== - ==
N=24, ~ = 46

= = =-:e:::= -~

rEaSie - Wing sec t ion

Modified-wing section

(a) Wi ng-t i p s e ct io ns.

a Q
o
~ ~
~
H

Equivalent leading edges, ___-----=~==~~==~~-==--==-=-~==~--------l ~

~ N=24 , ~=46 ---- --- ---
_--- ~
Basic-wing section

-~
--=-- -----
- --- -- ------------
Modified-wing sec t ion
~
( b ) Wing-root sections ( spanwise station 26 ). f;;
Figure 14 . - Equivalent leading edges effectively added to the airfoil se c tions ~
of the swept-wing models by wav e-drag computations limited to 24 terms of a 0;
Fourier sine series ( for M> J2 ) . ~
o
0\
6K
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 41

1600
/I
I
/1
1400 IIII
/1\
v-- 1Ji (Leading edge )= 45.33
1/
H"
1200 A I
I \
I \
I
,
\

/ \ (Leading edge) =45

I \
V- 1Ji
1000
L-':r- .....
,/ V,
s::
."
1 1\
'\
tJ' .-<.
u.l
800 ~ - ~\ 't. .... ~
~

"" -r-: --- --r.

~

..... .fi
C\J
d
~
........ -E
s:: b' ~ .J- .
,jOw ~
C\J d

600
e~90o ~

400

~ Basic wing, M= 1 .28

o----{] Basic wing, M=1.50
200 ~ Modified wing, M=1.28
l:s- - --l:. Modified wing, M~l. 50

o .4 .8 1.2 1.6
e, radians
24
L: nAn2 showing
Figure 15.- Plot of the wave-drag parameter n=1..
the peaks caused by cutting planes which are parallel to
the wing leading edge.
CONFIDENTIAL
 ~

0
.04
~
0
.. Basic Modified
+>
~
Q) 0 0 Test, ref. 4
ori -- ---- Theory, ref. 1
C)
ori
.03
G-i
G-i
Q)
0 . .
C)

bO
(1j
r--- --- . - - -_. --- ---- ---
I---F--- ~
',-
0 H .02 o
LTJ
.Jk c::> o

-
0 "d
~ ~ ~
~ $ H

~
"d
0
.0
~
~ 1 ~
~
Q)

~ H
0 .01
. --
.. .
G-i
+>
G-i
ori
. .-
r-l
1
0
H
N
Q) o
.4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Mach number, M
~
~
Figure 16.- Comparison of experimental zero-lift drag coefficients for the swept-
wing tunnel models with computed wave-drag coefficients added to the subsonic ~
level of the experimental data. Computed values above M=J2are for the sharp ~
nose sections of figure 14. lo
0\
NACA RM A55F06 CONFIDENTIAL 43

. 018 f____~--+-_+-~-~-4_-+_--~~f_____4~~--_+--~--~

.016
Exper i ment,
effect of
ic t io
0 .014
>=l
0
<l

.j..)"'
s::(J) .012
orl
0
orl
~
~
Q)
0
0 .010
Q)
rn
orl
H iment,
bO
1
wing
ell . 008
H
'd
.j..)
~
orl
rl
I .006
0
H
Q)
N

. 004

.002 f----- - l - - - - t - - + - -

o 1....-.--1._.....L.._...I.-_
M = 1.5 M 1.9
Ma ch number, M
Figure 17.- Comparison at two Mach numbers of the experi-
ment al and theoretical zero-lift drag-rise coefficients
of the basi c and modified swept-wing models including a
theor et ical estimate of the effect of the added camber.

CONFIDENTIA.L
NACA - Langley Field, Va.
CON FI DENTIAL

I
t

CONFIDENTIAL