NASA TECHNICAL NOTE

14
PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGN
\

OF LOW-PITCHING-MOMENT AIRFOILS \ /

Raymond L. Burger
Langley Reseurcb Center
Humpton, Va. 23665

4.
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE A D M l2
N.
& T-
RATlON . WASHINGTON, D. C.
i t

,AUGUSH975

f
ii
 TECH LIBRARY MFB. N M

1. Report No.
NASA TN D-7982
4. Title and Subtitle
I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date
PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGN O F LOW-PITCHING- Aueust 1975
MOMENT AIRFOILS 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) i 8. Performing Organization Report No.

L- 10114
P Raymond L. B a r g e r
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-06-31-02
Y

NASA Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r
Hampton, Va. 23665
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note
I 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
~~

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546
15. Supplementary Notes
I

16. Abstract
T h r e e approaches to the design of low-pitching-moment a i r f o i l s a r e t r e a t e d . T h e f i r s t
method d e c r e a s e s the pitching moment of a given airfoil by specifying a p p r o p r i a t e modifica-
I
tions to i t s p r e s s u r e distribution. The second procedure designs an airfoil of d e s i r e d pitch-
I ing moment by p r e s c r i b i n g p a r a m e t e r s in a special f o r m u l a f o r the Theodorsen +function.
The t h i r d method involves a p p r o p r i a t e camber-line design with superposition of a thickness
distribution and subsequent tailoring. Advantages and disadvantages of the t h r e e methods
I
I
I a r e discussed.

x
rp
17. Key-Words (Suggested by Authoris) 1 18. Distribution Statement
Airfoils Unclassified - Unlimited
Design
Low -pitching-moment airfoil
Subi e c t Cate gorv 0 1
19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified I 20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified
21. NO. of Pages

22 I 22. Price'

$3.25

E
 PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGN OF LOW-PITCHING-MOMENT AIRFOILS

Raymond L. Barger
Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

T h r e e approaches t o the design of low-pitching-moment airfoils are treated. The

first method d e c r e a s e s the pitching moment of a given airfoil by specifying appropriate
modifications to i t s p r e s s u r e distribution. The second procedure designs a n airfoil
of desired pitching moment by prescribing p a r a m e t e r s in a special formula for the
Theodor s e n €-function. The third method involves appropriate camber-line design
with superposition of a thickness distribution and subsequent tailoring. Advantages and
disadvantages of the three methods a r e discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Low-pitching-moment airfoils find application primarily as helicopter rotor blades;

but m o r e recently some attention h a s been given to the advantages of low -pitching-moment
sections for a "span-loader" vehicle. For such applications a s y m m e t r i c airfoil could con-
ceivably be employed, but cambered a i r f o i l s can offer significant advantages. The usual
difficulty that is encountered in the design p r o c e s s s t e m s from the fact that the airfoil
shape and performance are sensitive to the p a r a m e t e r s that control the pitching moment.
F o r example, an airfoil with z e r o pitching moment but with moderately s m a l l positive lift
at z e r o angle of attack deviates significantly from a symmetric section. Similarly i f one
attempts to modify the lower surface of a n airfoil to reduce the pitching moment, while
retaining the upper- surface shape and p r e s s u r e distribution, he generally finds that sub-
stantial modification is required even for s m a l l reductions in pitching moment.
In this paper t h r e e approaches to the problem of designing low-pitching-moment air-
foils are treated. Generally these methods utilize equations o r procedures that are already
in the literature but that have apparently not been heretofore applied in a systematic man-
n e r , with the required modifications, to the specific problem of designing low-pitching-
moment airfoils.

SYMBOLS

Ao,Al,A2 r e a l coefficients

a
 ,

b2 modulus of a complex quantity (see eq. (7))

C chord length

cZ section lift coefficient

C section lift coefficient at z e r o angle of attack

270

Cm pitching- moment coefficient about the q u a r t e r - chord point

Cm, a c pitching-moment coefficient about the aerodynamic center

cP airfoil p r e s s u r e coefficient

c17c2 cl/R and c2/R2 a r e coefficients in the complex Fourier expansion

of *(@)

!2 complex quantity (see eq. (6))

M local Mach number

M, f r e e - s t r e a m Mach number

pb basic lift distribution

R radius of c i r c l e into which an airfoil is mapped by the Theodorsen

transformation

t maximum thickness

X, Y Cartesian coordinates

yb mean-line ordinate

a section angle of attack

P negative of the angle of z e r o lift

2
 I 2Y amplitude of a complex quantity (see eq. (7))

phase angle

E function relating angular coordinates of near-circle and exact-circle

airfoil transformations

I
rl =Y -P

transformation variable (see eq. (10))

angular coordinate f o r points mapped f r o m airfoil surface onto a c i r c l e

function relating radial coordinates of near-circle and exact-circle

airfoil transformations

average value of +, L12T0(@)

d@
2n 0

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Inasmuch as t h r e e distinct approaches to the low-pitching-moment airfoil design

problem a r e discussed in this paper, an initial comparison is perhaps appropriate to pro-
I
vide orientation and avoid possible confusion. The f i r s t method is an application to this
specific design problem of the design technique that has been described in reference 1.
This technique is applicable both to subcritical and supercritical airfoils. The design is
effected by modifying an initial airfoil and providing an analysis of the modification on
each iteration.
The second and third methods represent the full-thick-airfoil theory and the thin-
airfoil superposition theory, respectively, applied systematically to the low-pitching-
moment design problems. They a r e both essentially incompressible, and in both c a s e s
i the design is initiated by specifying a s e t of p a r a m e t e r s that determine certain airfoil
characteristics. The p r e s s u r e distributions a r e obtained by an independent analysis
k program.
All three design procedures are inviscid, but in each case an allowance f o r boundary-
1
layer effects can be made. T h i s problem has been discussed for the first procedure in
reference 1. For the other two methods, a rough estimate of the displacement thickness
I

3
!
effect can be obtained by a judicious u s e of the thickness distribution controls in the design
process. However, i f the p r i m a r y boundary-layer considerations are l o s s of lift and
i n c r e a s e in pitching moment, it is a simple matter t o overestimate the lift and underesti-
mate the pitching moment in specifying the design parameters.

DE SIGN BY PRESCRIBING PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION VARIATION

The f i r s t method to be described is applicable to airfoils that have approximately the

desired characteristics but require a reduction in the magnitude of the pitching moment.
The designer p r e s c r i b e s a change in the known p r e s s u r e distribution of the original air-
foil in such a way that the pitching moment will b e changed in the desired manner without
destroying the favorable characteristics of the airfoil. The usual procedure is to shift
some of the loading f r o m the rear forward by prescribing changes to the p r e s s u r e distribu-
tion along the lower surface and possibly to the rear of the upper surface.
This method h a s the advantage that by working directly with the p r e s s u r e distribu-
tion the designer can avoid those adverse f o r m s of p r e s s u r e distribution that a r e condu-
cive, say, to flow separation o r to shock formation. Furthermore, he can indirectly con-
t r o l the r e s u l t s of a specified change in the p r e s s u r e distribution; that is, whether it will
d e c r e a s e the pitching moment, the lift, etc. However, the effects of a prescribed change
on Cm, cl, t/c, etc. are more difficult to control in a p r e c i s e manner; and consequently
a number of zttempts may be required to obtain closely specified values f o r these param-
eters. If the thickness is altered slightly in the design process, it can be adjusted by
the incompressible method of reference 2.
Figure 1 shows two variations of a basic airfoil that w e r e obtained by this procedure
with the use of the design technique of reference 1. The lower-surface p r e s s u r e distribu-
tion was altered so as to unload the airfoil near the rear. To compensate f o r the conse-
quent loss of lift the loading w a s increased in the middle p a r t of the lower surface. In the
f i r s t variation (fig. l(b)), the pitching-moment coefficient remained constant a t -0.025
while the lift w a s increased by more than 25 percent. In the second variation (fig. l ( c ) ) ,
the lift remained virtually constant while the pitching moment w a s reduced in magnitude
to the more acceptable value of -0.010.
In this example, the decrease in thickness ratio r e p r e s e n t s a significant alteration
to the geometry of the original airfoil. It is generally true that moderate changes in pitch-
ing moment a r e associated with relatively l a r g e changes in airfoil shape especially if the
lift coefficient is held constant. F o r this reason, it is often preferable to s t a r t with a
design that has near zero, or even positive, pitching moment, and then, if necessary,
tailor that design. Such a procedure is discussed in the next section.

J
 DESIGN BY SPECIFYING €-FUNCTION PARAMETERS

A second procedure f o r the design of low-pitching-moment airfoils is based on a

formula used in reference 3 for the E-function of a c l a s s of airfoils. Basically, this
formula

E ( @ ) = A1 s i n ($I - 61) + A2 s i n (2$I - 62) (1)

represents a simplified €-function with only two Fourier components specified in t e r m s of

the amplitudes and phase angles. F o r this E-function, the angle of z e r o lift -p is approx-
imately determined f r o m the relation

p = E(T) = A1 sin 6 1 - A2 s i n 62

The conjugate function to E(@) (see ref. 3, eqs. 11 and 12, where the notation is slightly
different) is

where +o is the average value of +. In o r d e r to compute the pitching moment, two

complex numbers a r e needed:

c1=-
RJ:7r
7r +(@) ei@d@ = AIR c o s 6 1 + i A l R sin 6 1 (3)

and

c2 = - "," I:'+(@)
e2i@d @ A2R2 c o s 62 + iA2R2 sin 62
= (4)

where R is the radius of the circle into which the airfoil is mapped by the Theodorsen
transformation. Now the real number a is related to R by

i R = ae*o

L and the complex quantity g defined by

c2

5
is represented in polar f o r m as

in accordance with the procedure of reference 3. Then the pitching moment about the
aerodynamic center is given by (see ref. 3, eq. 51)

P)

It is c l e a r that the value of Cm,ac depends on the angle q = y - P ; specifically,

cm,ac = 0 when q = 0. Now one can e x p r e s s q = y - /3 f r o m equations (2) and (7) i n
t e r m s of AI, A2, 61, 62, and +o by means of equations (3) to (6). Thus a unique
airfoil can be determined by specifying the five p a r a m e t e r s AI, A2, 61, +o, and q
in the equation

y - P - q = O (9)

and solving it for 62. This highly nonlinear equation is solved by interval halving.
Varying each p a r a m e t e r produces a c l a s s o r family, of airfoils. The value of q
chosen controls the pitching moment according to equation (8). The selection of the other
p a r a m e t e r s r e q u i r e s some c a r e . Although varying any one of these p a r a m e t e r s influences
to some extent all the airfoil characteristics, each individual p a r a m e t e r has a dominant
influence on a particular property of the airfoil.
The value of A1 provides the basic thickness distribution, which is then modified
by the choice of A2. The effect of varying A1 can be seen in the example shown in fig-
u r e 2(a). ( F o r all the airfoils shown in fig. 2 the pitching moment about the aerodynamic
center is essentially zero.) Very small values of A1 yield a shape very much like an
ellipse, whereas l a r g e values produce negative thickness near the trailing edge.
When A2 is varied, the distribution of thickness is modified, as shown in fig-
u r e 2(b). The magnitude of A2 also influences the extent to which the second t e r m in
equation (1) affects the airfoil performance. Since this t e r m is the one that involves 62,
j
equation (9) may not be solvable f o r 62 if A2 is too small. On the other hand, l a r g e
values of A2 (relative to A i ) tend to produce impractical distorted airfoil shapes. T h i s i
effect is seen in figure 2(b) where f o r A1 = 0.1 and A2 = 0.06, the airfoil becomes too
thin in the 75-percent chord region. The p a r a m e t e r +o affords a control over the max-
imum thickness (ref. 2), as is seen in figure 2(c).

The p a r a m e t e r 6 1 primarily controls the lift, as indicated by figure 2(d), where

varying 61 f r o m 0.1 to 0.9 radian h a s the effect of changing p f r o m 0.0027 to

6
 0.03 radian. Notice, however, i n figure 2(b), that the variation of A2 h a s very little
effect on the lift.
Since five p a r a m e t e r s can be v a r i e d i n this design procedure, it appears that a wide
variety of shapes and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s is attainable. However, the fact that the €-function is
represented by only two Fourier components is a significant restriction. Furthermore the
availability of numerous p a r a m e t e r s is in one sense a disadvantage in that the designer
might spend a considerable time "toying" with the p a r a m e t e r s in a n effort to obtain exactly
some desired design characteristic.
These difficulties can usually be circumvented in actual practice. For example, the
airfoil shown in figure 3(a), which was designed by this method, w a s too thick near the
trailing edge. I t s other properties - lift, pitching moment, and maximum thickness -
w e r e satisfactory. Therefore a smooth analytic fairing was made, starting at the
0.60 chord station and proceeding to the trailing edge, so as to reduce the thickness i n t h i s
region while maintaining the same mean line. The resulting airfoil is shown in figure 3(b),
together with its p r e s s u r e distribution. (The viscous p r e s s u r e distributions in figs. 3 to 5
w e r e computed by the method of ref. 4.) The lift, pitching moment, and maximum thick-
n e s s are essentially unchanged, but the trailing-edge angle and consequently the p r e s s u r e
distribution near the trailing edge are improved.
Of course, not every a r b i t r a r y combination of p a r a m e t e r s yields a solution of equa-
tion (9). Furthermore, as h a s been seen, even those combinations that yield a solution do
not necessarily correspond to a practical airfoil shape.

DE SIGN BY GEOMETRIC SUPERPOSITION

P e r h a p s the simplest approach to the design of airfoils is to design the mean line
and then superimpose a thickness distribution on it. In reference 5 it is shown that, if the
variable e* is defined by the relation

x = -C( I - COS e*) (10)

2

then the basic lift distribution (that which is dependent only on the mean-line shape and not
on the angle of attack) can be represented by a Fourier sine series
G
Pb = 4 2
n= 1
An s i n (ne*) (11)

Then r e f e r e n c e 5 a l s o shows that the distribution of slope of the mean line dyb(8*)/dx
at the ideal angle of attack is the conjugate of Pb(67/4 provided that both functions a r e
extended to the interval (7~,2n)with dy/dx symmetric about 7~ and Pb antisymmetric

7
about T. The situation is s i m i l a r to that in thick-airfoil theory where the €-function can
be prescribed and its conjugate +
- t,bo can then be calculated t o determine the airfoil
geometry. Here, a basic lift distribution can be prescribed and the corresponding mean
line calculated. For a lift distribution expressed as a sine series as in equation (1l), the
conjugate of ~ b / 4 is

dyb
dx
= An COS (ne*)
n= 1
Naturally some experience would normally be required to design a lift distribution that
provided the desired lift and pitching moment as well as a reasonable mean-line shape.
However, a simpler, more direct approach is available. From reference 6, equa-
tions (4.7) and (4.8),it is seen that the lift coefficient a t z e r o angle of attack is simply

where

and the pitching-moment coefficient about the quarter-chord point is

Here A1 and A2 are the f i r s t two coefficients in the Fourier s e r i e s of equation (11).
Thus, in the design of a mean line, the lift coefficient can be controlled by specifying the
value of A1 and the pitching-moment coefficient is proportional to the difference between
A2 and A i . Specifically, A2 = A1 gives a pitching-moment coefficient of zero.
Families of mean lines can be derived by specifying various values of A1 and A2
in a simple 2-component lift distribution. However, it should be noted that l a r g e values
of A2 yield impractical distorted mean lines; consequently, l a r g e values of lift cannot
be specified if the pitching moment is required to be near z e r o o r positive. 1

F o r each mean line so derived, a family of airfoils can be obtained by specifying v a r - I

ious thickness distributions. It is in this phase of the design that the superposition proce-
dure of this airfoil theory displays i t s limitations. These limitations appear whenever the
assumptions of thin-airfoil theory a r e violated; specifically over the entire airfoil if it is
sufficiently thick and near the leading edge for any airfoil. The f o r m e r problem is not as
troublesome as the latter.
 F o r a thick airfoil the lift and pitching moment do not appear to be very sensitive to
thickness, even though the velocities due to thickness and camber are not simply additive.
Furthermore, a thick airfoil generally h a s a l a r g e leading-edge radius and consequently
a relatively smooth p r e s s u r e distribution. Therefore, desired adjustments i n the p r e s s u r e
distribution can be made fairly simply with a design m e a o d such as that of reference 1.
F o r thin airfoils, on the other hand, the superposition of velocities is valid except
I
near the nose. Low-pitching-moment cambered airfoils generally have a mean line with
considerable slope at the leading edge. T h i s l a r g e slope, together with a small leading-
edge radius, often r e s u l t s in a lower-surface suction spike near the leading edge. T h i s
effect is seen in the example of figure 4, f o r which the camber line is determined by
A1 = A2 = 0.025 and 4 = 0.0106, which correspond to = 0.15 and cm = 0.0, with
the NACA 65A010 thickness distribution (ref. 6, p. 369). The possibility of lower-surface
boundary-layer separation a t small negative angles of attack is introduced by this type of
lower-surface p r e s s u r e distribution. Furthermore, the modification of an airfoil to elim-
inate such a suction spike is not a minor modification, inasmuch as the required change in
local p r e s s u r e coefficient is large.
Of course, a certain amount of modification is possible, as shown by the example of
figure 5. At an angle of attack of zero, the lower surface of the original airfoil does not
display a high leading-edge suction peak, but it does have a kind of p r e s s u r e distribution
that rapidly f o r m s a spike a t negative angles of attack. Thus, by making the p r e s s u r e l e s s
negative in this region (fig. 5(b)), the performance at small negative angles of attack is
improved. The method of reference 7 was used to make this adjustment.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

T h r e e approaches to the design of low-pitching-moment airfoils have been discussed.

The f i r s t method is applicable to a wide variety of airfoil types in compressible flow; but
control of lift and pitching moment is indirect, by means of specifying appropriate changes
in the p r e s s u r e distribution and consequently several attempts are sometimes required to
obtain the desired values of the p a r a m e t e r s .

\
The other two methods which a r e essentially incompressible provide a closer con-
t r o l over such p a r a m e t e r s as maximum thickness, lift, and pitching moment, but the air-
1 foils generated fall within r e s t r i c t e d families and often r e q u i r e tailoring. This tailoring,
either to the geometry directly o r to the p r e s s u r e distribution, can often be accomplished
without significantly altering the values of the airfoil parameters.

9
 The design methods are essentially inviscid, but it is possible to make a n allowance
f o r the boundary layer with each method.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, Va. 23665
1
May 30, 1975

REFERENCES

1. Barger, Raymond L.; and Brooks, Cuyler W., Jr.: A Streamline Curvature Method f o r
Design of Supercritical and Subcritical Airfoils. NASA TN D-7770, 1974.
2. Barger, Raymond L.: On The Use of Thick-Airfoil Theory To Design Airfoil Families
in Which Thickness and Lift Are Varied Independently. NASA TN D-7579, 1974.
3. Theodorsen, T.; and Garrick, I. E.: General Potential Theory of Arbitrary Wing Sec-
tions. NACA Rep. 452, 1933.
4. Stevens, W. A.; Goradia, S. H.; and Braden, J. A.: Mathematical Model f o r Two-
Dimensional Multi-Component Airfoils in Viscous Flow. NASA CR-1843, 1971.
5. Allen, H. Julian: General Theory of Airfoil Sections Having Arbitrary Shape or Pres-
s u r e Distribution. NACA Rep. 833, 1945.
6. Abbott, Ira H.; and Von Doenhoff, Albert E.: Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publ.,
Inc., c.1959.
7. Barger, Raymond L.: A Modified Theodorsen €-Function Airfoil Design Procedure.
NASA TN D-7741, 1974.

10
 -1.5

-1.o

/" = leO
-.5

cP 0

.5

1 .o

1.5
0 1.0
x/c

(a) Original airfoil. t/c = 0.095; cI = 0.038; Cm = -0.025.

Figure 1.- Example of changing pitching moment and lift by prescribed

changes in the inviscid airfoil p r e s s u r e distribution at M, = 0.75
and a = 0.80.

11
II I1 111 111111 I I ,. ,,,_._ _.._ .. . .... _.

-1.5

-1.0 -

-.5
r
-
M = 1.0

Upper
surface 7

cP 0
-

.5

1 .o

1.5
0 1.o
./c

2
(b) First variation. c1 = 0.049; c, = -0.025; t/c = 0.091.
Figure 1.- Continued.
 -1.5

-1.0
- M= 1.0
/
- .5

C
P 0

.5

1 .o

1.5

c
(c) Second variation. cL = 0.035; c, = -0.010;
c
t/c = 0.090.
Figure 1.- Concluded.

13
 AI = 0.05

AI = 0.10

(a) Effect of varying the leading coefficient AI. A2 = 0.0; 61 = 0.0; qo = 0.1.
Figure 2. - Examples illustrating the influence of various parameters in the E-function
formula on the airfoil shape. q = 0.0.
 A2 = 0.05

A, = 0.04
L

(b) Effect of varying A2. A1 = 0.1; 6 1 = 0.5 radian; q0 = 0.1; computed values of P of 0.0173 f 0.0002.
Figure 2.- Continued.
 _-c-- -.---.-

#o = 0.14, t /C = 0.143

-_ _I_
__ __*_--
--------___I. -__I---

$
0
= 0.10, t / c = 0.108

#o = 0.06, t/c = 0.075

((*) Effect of varying 011 the thickness ratio. A1 = 0.1; A2 = 0.05; 61 = 0.9.
Figiwe 2.- Continued.
 61 = 0.9, p = 0.0300

--
6, = 0.5, p = 0.0173

bl = 0.1, p = 0.0027

(d) Effect of varying 61 with computed values of p. Angles in radians. A1 = 0.1; A2 = 0.05; qo = 0.1.
Figure 2. - Concluded.
 (a) Unmodified airfoil with corresponding p r e s s u r e distribution.
CZ = 0.10; cm = 0.00; t/c = 0.20.
Figure 3.- Example of tailoring airfoil by a n analytic fairing without altering design
parameters. P r e s s u r e s calculated by method of reference 4 a t M, = 0.1,
cy = 0, and a Reynolds number of 44.0 X 106.

18
 I l l 1
o Upper surface
M e r surface 1~~1'1

(b) Airfoil modified by reducing thickness aft of the 0.6 chord station
with corresponding p r e s s u r e distribution. cz = 0.10; c m = 0.0;
t/c = 0.20.
Figure 3 . - Concluded.

19
 lpper surface
L

C‘

“-e
”
...

...

..,

Figure 4.- Example illustrating p r e s s u r e distribution typical of an airfoil designed

by superimposing a thin airfoil thickness distribution on a camber line
designed f o r z e r o pitching moment. c ~ = 0.15;, ~ c , = 0.0; NACA 65A010
thickness distribution, P r e s s u r e s calculated by method of reference 4 a t
M, ’= 0.1, CY = 00, and a Reynolds number of 44.0 X lo6.
 f
I
Upper surface
Lower surface

H
1
i!
I

'I
i

L
. x/c
i

i .Ed

(a) Unmodified airfoil. C Z , =

~ 0.08; Cm = 0.00; t/c = 0.12.
Figure 5. - Example of tailoring airfoil designed by geometric superposition.
P r e s s u r e s calculated by method of reference 4 at M, = 0.1, ci = Oo,
and a Reynolds number of 44.0 X lo6.

21
 o Upper surface
Q Lower surface

. x/c

.lj '
x/c 1

(b) Airfoil modified by reducing lower-surface suction near the leading edge.
CZ = 0.08; Cm = 0.00; t/C = 0.12.
Figure 5.- Concluded.

22 NASA-Langley, 1975 L-loll4

I
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 5 4 6
.-
POSTAGE A N D FEES P A I D
- N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D
OFFICIAL BUSINESS * . SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 9300 S P E C I A L FOURTH-CLASS ‘RATE 451 ,
USMAIL
BOOK

758 001 C 1 U R 750718 S00903DS

DEPT O F THE AIR FORCE
AF WEAPONS L A B O R A T O R Y
ATTN: TECHNICAL L I B R A R Y (SUL)
K I P T L A N D A P B NM 8 7 1 1 7

If Undeliverable (Section 158

POSTMASTEK : Postal M n i l l l a l ) Do Not Returii
- -..

“The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be

conducted so as t o contribute . . . to the expansion of h i m a n knowl-
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. T h e Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination
of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”
-NATIONALAERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and
technical information considered important,
complete, and a lasting contribution’ to existing
knowledge.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a
contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS :
Information receiving limited distribution
because of preliminary data, security classifica-
tion, or other reasons. Also inciudes conference
proceedings with either limited or unlimited
distribution. ->
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and
technical information generated under a NASA
contract or grant and considered an important
contribution tq existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information
published in a foreign language considered
to merit NASA distribution in English.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
derived from or of value to NASA activities.
Publications include final reports of major
projects, monographs, data compilations,
handbooks, sourcebooks, and special
bibliographies.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
used by NASA that may be of particular
interest in commercial and other- non-aerospace
applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
Technology Utilization Reports and
Technology Surveys.

Details on the availability of these publications may b e obfained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20546