NASA

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

NASA TM X- 72681

CO CM

id
r--

EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING LEADING-EDGE FLAP DEFLECTION ON WING BUFFET AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS By Blair B. Gloss, William P. Henderson, and Jarrett K. Huffman

April 16, 1975

(NASA-TM-X-72681) EFFECT OF C A N A R D POSITION AND WING L E A D I N G - E D G E FLAP DEFLECTION ON WING BUFFET AT T R A N S O N I C SPEEDS (NASA) 92 p HC $4.75 CSCL 01C
G3/05

N75-23559 Unclas
22167

This Informal documentation medium is used to provide accel erated or special release of technical information to selected users. The contents may not meet NASA formal editing and publication standards, may be revised, or may be incorporated in another publication.

.1
II B II

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER,.HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23665

M M fi 1 'I I ][ I M IJi

I 1

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

r-WS.A TM X-72681
Titt-i ana Subtitle

i
E. aeporx Date

EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING LEADING-EEC REFLECTION ON WING BUFFET- AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS
Aufhorfs)

April It, 1975

&. Performing Organization Code

Blairi.B. Gloss, Willian^'P. Henderson, and Jarrest K. Huffman y

8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No. 9 Psr forming Organization Name and Address

505-11-21-02
11 Contract or Grant No.

NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23665

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Memorandum

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

i "

Rational Aeronautics and Jpace Administration J -;rshincton, D. C. 205^6

: 'i5. Supplementary Notes \ I

Final release of special information not suitable for formal publication.

16. Abstract

A generalized wind-tunnel model, vith canard and ving planform typical of highly maneuver-able aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure j -u;-r,el at Macft.numbers from 0 7 ) to 1.20 to determine the effects of canard .? location and Vring leading-edge fc'lap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics. The major results of this investigation may be summarized as follows. The addition of 4 canard above the wing chord plane, for the configuration with -.siding-edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to obtain substantially] higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet onset occurs than the .: on figuration with the canard off and Heading-edge flaps undeflected. However, the addition of the canard did not substantially affect the lift of the wing at which, buffet onset occurs, for the configurations vith the leading-edge flaps undeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substantially lower for the canard ! ving configuration than the wing alone configuration. The lew canard configuration generally displayed the poorest buffet characteristics. Deflecting the wing j leading-edge flaps substantially improved the wing cul'fet characteristics for canard-off configurations. The addition of the high r.-anard did net appear to substantially improve the wing buffet characteristics o? the wing with leading| edge flaps deflected.

17. Key Words (Suggested by AuthorWI (STAR category underlined)

18. Distribution Statement

JB

Aircraft - , t > Close-coupled- canard wing Buffet Highly maneuverable aircraft

19. Security Oaaif. (of this report)

Unclassified-Unlimited

20. Security Clsnif. (of this page)

21. No. of Pages

22. Price'

Unclassified

Unclassified

90

$4.75

(The National Technical Information Service, Springfield. Virginia 22151 'Available from ] ' ' (STIF/NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility, P.O. Box 33. College Park. MD 20740

I I

I t

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

EFFECT OF CANARD POSITION AND WING LEADING-EDGE FLAP DEFLECTION ON WING BUFFET AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS

By Blair B. Gloss, William P. Henderson, and Jarrett K. Huffman

SUMMARY

A generalized wind-tunnel model, with canard and wing planform typical of highly maneuverable aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 to determine the effects of canard location and wing leading-edge flap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics. The major results of this investigations may be summarized as follows. The

&adition of a canard above the wing chord plane, for the configuration with leading-edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to obtain substantially higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet onset occurs than the configuration with the canard off and leading-edge flaps undefleeted. However,

the addition of the canard did not substantially affect the lift of the wing at vbieh buffet onset occurs, for the configurations with the leading-edge flaps undeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substantially lower for the canard ving configuration than the wing alone configuration. The low canard configuration Deflecting the wing

generally displayed, the poorest buffet characteristics.

leading-edge flaps substantially improved the wing buffet characteristics for canard-off configurations. The addition of the high canard did not appear to

substantially improve the wing buffet characteristics of the wing with leadingedge flaps deflected.

U it

INTRODUCTION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently conducting wind-tunnel investigations to provide a data base for the use of determining the desirability of employing close-coupled canard surfaces on highly maneuverable aircraft. The use of canards offers several attractive features, such as

increased trimmed lift capability and the potential for reduced trimmed drag. (Refs. 1-6) In addition, the geometric characteristics of close-coupled canard

configurations offer a potential for improved longitudinal progression of crosssectional area; this improvement could result in reduced wave drag at low supersonic speeds. References 7-11 present the results of several additional inves-

tigations of close-coupled canard wing configurations at subsonic and transonic speeds. Since the maneuver and performance capability of aircraft engaged in

air-to-air combat is often limited by flow separation manifesting itself as wing buffeting (reference 12), the present study was conducted to determine the effect of close-coupled canard surfaces on wing buffet onset characteristics at transonic speeds. A generalized wind-tunnel model which had a wing buffet

strain gage installed in one wing was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 at angles of attack from -Uo to 20 at 0 side slip.

SYMBOLS

The International System of Units with the U. S. Customary Units presented in parenthesis, is used for the physical quantities in this paper. and calculations were made in U.S. Customary Units. Measurements

The data presented in this

report are referred to the stability axis system with the exception of axial force and normal force which are referred to the body-axis system. 2 A 'aspect ratio (2.5), b /S b c C
A

wing spang 50.8 cm (20 in) wing mean geometric chord, 23.32 cm (9l8 in) axial force coefficient, Axial force qS w

C,,
-

drag coefficient, **

qo w

?.

lift coefficient, L^ft

'
qo
W

C. C
M,WSG .

wing lift (main balance lift - canard balance lift) root-mean-square moment of wing bending gage
;
qSwC

M q S 5T
v z

free-stream Mach number

2 free-stream dynamic pressure Ib/ft 2 2 canard area (exposed), 288.71 cm (UU.75 in )

reference area of wing with leading and trailing edges extended to plane of symmetry, 1032.26 cm (160.00 in ) :. ;. ' verticalftlistance between the chord planes of the canard and wipg, positive up. angle of attack, deg.
leading-edge sweep angle of wing, deg.

a
A

A^ 6

;leading-edge

sweep angle of canard, deg.

leading edge flap deflection (positive direction leading

edge down), deg.

ORIGINAL PAGB IS. OF POOR QUAZJT3

DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

i^-

A sketch of the general research model showing the wing leading edge flap locations and wing buffet strain gage location is presented in figure 1. Table I contains the- pertinent geometric parameters associated with this model. The untwisted wing planform used on this model had a leading edge sweep angle, A , of hk, and a 6i*A006 airfoil section at the wing root (the root of w the wing is taken at the intersection of the fuselage and wing) which varied linearly to a 6kAOOh airfoil section at the tip. When the wing leading edge flaps were "deflected for the present investigation, the deflection angles were as presented in the schedule shown below. The wing buffet ,"gage was aligned

Flap
- I II III IV V

<5, deg. 1* 8 12 16
20

along the fifty percent chord line as indicated in figure 1. The canard had a leading-edge sweep angle of 51-7 and an exposed area (S ) of 28.0 percent of the wing reference area (S ). The canard was tested c w in a position of l8.5 percent of the wing mean geometric chord above and below the wing chord plane (z/c = 0.135 and -0,185 respectively). Fuselage fairings Thus, there

were required to fair the canard mounting brackets into the body. were two fuselage configurations:

body fairings on the top for 2/5- = 0.185

and body fairings on the bottom for z/c = -0.185 (see figure 1.) The canard was untwisted and had uncambered circular arc airfoil sections.

11 I

11 U

^-"oent at th

"***** t a _..
to be a-*- " iUseie station

to

59..

Cffl

APPARATUS, TESTS AND CORRECTIONS

This investigation was conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel which is a continuous-flow facility (ref. 13). Forces and moments were measured by two internally mounted, six-component strain-gage balances; the relative locations of these balances are shown in figure 1. One balance measured the loads on the forward part of the body (shaded area in figure l) and is called the canard balance. The second balance, which was housed in the

aft section of the model measured the total loads and is referred to as the main balance. There was a small unsealed gap between segments of the fuselage in order to prevent fouling. Tests.were made at Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.90, 0.95, 1.03 and 1.20. The angle-of-attack range was from approximately -h to 20 at 0 sideslip. Angles of attack have been corrected for the effects of sting deflection due to aerodynamic load. All axial-force measurements obtained on the main balance

were corrected to a condition of free stream static pressure acting on the base of the model. All tests were made with boundary-layer transition fixed on the model by means of a narrow strip of carborundum grit placed on the body, wings and canards, using the methods outlined in reference Ik. The wing-root bending-gage technique used in this paper to obtain wing buffet information is described in reference 15.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The flap deflections that were employed in this study were chosen so that the data obtained in'this investigation would be compatible with the data

B I I I I I M I

presented in reference 12. As reference.12 points out these flap deflections do not necessarily represent an optimum. The use of the canard balance and main balance made it possible to separate
the wing lift (CT ___) from the total lift (CT ) of the configuration. *- Jj,JJlr L
7

Since

the total lift of each configuration was a strong function of the lift on the forebody (ahaded area of figure l), the buffet gage data (C,, TIC,0) is presented
M, wbu

versus ving lift coefficient (C

n -,). T

Presenting the data in this manner

I , J . j i l r

permits the study of the effect of canard location on wing buffet onset in terms > ' of wing lift only. Of course the total lift coefficient of the configuration, at which buffet onset occurs is a very important consideration, and thus, the buffet gage data is also presented versus total lift coefficient. Table II defines the configuration code that is used for the tabulated results presented in Table III. The data in figures 2 to 16 show the effect '.>, of canard height and wing lead'ing edge flap deflection on the longitudinal } i aerodynamic.characteristics and wing buffet characteristics for Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20. The aerodynamic parameters presented in these figures are some of those which are usually utilized to predict buffet onset (reference 15). Among these
o

parameters is a presentation of axial force coefficient (C.) versus sin a. Reference l6 points out that for subsonic attached potential flow, the axial 2 force coefficient should vary linearly with sin a. The implication from this and reference 15 is that buffet onset should occur when C is no longer a linear < " 1 . 2 function ofiisin a. It should be noted that the axial force coefficients are obtained from the main balance and thus include the contribution of the fuse< -t lage and canard as well as the wing. However, the canards have a symmetrical airfoil section, are geometrically smaller than the wings and have sharp

i Ji I ii 1 1 I X 11 JL IL 11 Ji1

i I I

leading edges; thus, the canard production of axial force should be small compared to that of the wing. In addition, since leading edge suction is &

function of potential lift and since the fuselage doesn't produce significant levels of lift (reference H), it is assumed that the fuselage would not contribute significant amounts of'thrust as compared to that of the wing. There-

fore, the trends of the C curves are primarily influenced by the leading edge thrust of the wing. When examining the buffet gage data (C occur when the value'of C level.
r M, WSG TTOP M, WSG

) buffet onset is assumed to

_ increases above a previous relatively constant

It should.be noted, however, that for the Mach number 0.70 data for

all configurations, the value of CM ,. . changes with angle of attack throughout _, WDvJ , the complete angle-of-attack range. This may be due to inadequate stiffness in the model support system, canard buffet exciting fuselage bending or some other cause'.; This inadequate stiffness may also be a dominant factor causing a fairly significant level of-"output from the buffet gage even at low angles of attack at other Mach numbers. It is felt, therefore, that the CM^WSQ data

at a Mach number of 0.70 for all configurations should only be used in a qualitative manner. . The discussion presented herein will be limited to the buffet character- . istics since the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for models of these configurations are rather fully documented in references 1-6.

^.

Effect of Canard Height

Figures 2 through 6 present longitudinal aerodynamic and wing buffet characteristics for the high canard (z/c = 0.185), low canard (z/c = -0.185)

and canard off configurations for Mach numbers fros 0.70 to i.20. Shown below are the approximate wing lift coefficients (C , and total -)
L,DIr

configuration lift coefficient (C_) at which buffet onset appears to occur as ( -Ij determined from the wing buffet gage data, C., __ (figures 2-6).
M, WSG

Lift Coefficients At Buffet Onset Leading-Edge Flaps Undeflected

High Candard
M
C

Low Canard
L,DIF
C

Canard Off

L,DIF
i-..

L,DIF

1.20

o.'fu
0.67
0.^37 0.3^

1.03 0.95 0.90 0.70

1.03 0.93 0.55 0.52

0.39 0.3U 0.36

0.6l 0.51 0.52

0.80

0.77 0.31 0.28

o.Qk 0.80
0.32 0.29

The supersonic data* (M = 1.20 and 1.03) in the above table shows that the vine lift (CJj,UJ-r ) at which buffet onset appears to occur is significantly T _.T1? higher for the high canard and canard off configurations than the low canard configuration. At the Mach numbers 0.95 exid 0.90 (figures k and 5)

buffet onset occurs at slightly higher values of wing lift for the canard high and low than for the canard off configuration. For those configurations '. . >' and Mach numbers where the lift coefficient at which buffet onset occurred could not be determined with some confidence no data are presented in the above table. The high canard configuration'produces significantly higher

total lift coefficients (CT) at buffet onset than the other configurations.

'

L>

Since canard buffet onset could be a limiting factor to the total lift,

ORIGINAL PAGE 18 OF POOR QUALM

fi 1 1 M M I

11 I

IL 11 11 I

some caution should "be exercised in directly using the total lift coefficients (C ) at which "buffet onset occurs. As can be seen from the data in figures

2-5 the wing buffet intensity for the high canard configuration is significantly lower than that of the other configurations.
ix

In addition, generally the wing

buffet intensity for the high canard configuration increases at a lower rate after buffet onset occurs than that of the other configurations. Since there

is apparently a leading edge vortex on the wing in the presence of the high canard (references k, 5 and 6), a gradual increase of wing buffet intensity after buffet onset occurs should be anticipated (see reference 12). i Effect of Wing Leading-Edge Flap Deflection - Canard Off

The data in figures 7-11 present the effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on wing buffet onset. Shown below in Table II are the approximate

wing lift 'coefficients (C_ ___) and total configuration lift coefficients >_ LijlJlr / (C ) at which buffet onset appears to occur as determined from the wing buffet gage data.i CM
wg(,

(Figures 7-11)

Lift Coefficient At Buffet Onset Flaps Undeflected

M
1.20

Flaps Deflected

C L,DIF
0.80

cL
0.8U
0.80

cL.DIF
Greater than 1.0 Greater than 1.1

1.03

0.77

0.95
0.90 0.70

: 0.31 i), 0.28 J"

0.32
,0.29
.-*

0.90 0.59

Greater than 1.1 Greater than 1.2 0.9U 0.62

*

A;; i~ rlncLicated in the above table, there is no indication cf buffet onset for the :::on:C'ig-;ir3,tion with the leading edge flaps derlc-ctod. at Mach numbers of 1.20 -and 1-03 in the angle of attack range tested. There are significant

gains in the lift coefficient At which buffet onse'c occurs for the flaps deflected configuration over the flaps undefleeted configuration at Mach numbers of 1.20, 1.03, 0:95 and 0.90. Comparing the buffet onset' data for the high

canard, flaps undefleeted, configuration with that for the canard off, flaps deflected configuration (data in figures 2-5 with that in figures 7-10), it is .;:--:eci ".:.;.r.;t deflection of the leading edge flaps: , c=s?;--.rd off, allows higher attainable lift coefficients without buffet onset than was indicated by adding the high canard to the wing with leading edge flaps undefleeted. This is not

surprising since the close-coupled canard configuration creates a favorable f?.ov f ield .yhich allows the formation of wing leading edge vortices and the '' >/ leading edge flaps function to maintain attached flow. Leading edge vortices V.= -'"e been shown previously to result in an early indication of buffet onset vbieh after onset occurs does not increase in intensity as rapidly as the configuration with the leading edge flaps deflected.
4

And in fact, the buffet

intensity increases much faster after buffet onset occurs for the flaps deflected, canard' off, configuration than for the high canard, flaps undefleeted configuration. It is interesting to note that for the Mach numbers of 0.95, 0.90 and 0.70 2 there are regions where C is a linear function of sin a for the flaps deflected i. ' configuration (fig. 9c-llc). J'As mentioned earlier this linear region is that ) i region over which buffet free' operation might be anticipated- Lower surface separation on the leading edge flap is the probable cause for the apparent lose of leading edge suction at the lower angles of attack (The angle of attack at

ssssss

which C ceases to be linear with sin a is the point at which the wing is
,i /.
i.

assumed to start losing leading edge suction).

The apparent "buffet free regions

as indicated by the axial force data in figures 7c-llc are presented, for the configuration with leading edge flap deflected, in the table below. By comparing

t Regions of Buffet Free Operation As Determined

By Axial Force Data
M

Leading Edge Flaps Deflected

.i

cL.DIF
;

c L

1.20 1.03

0.95 0.90 0.70

0.20 0.77 0.20 - 0.73 0.31 -* 0.65

_.. . 0.21 0.81 0.21 * 0.76 0.32 - 0.69

the lift coefficients at which buffet onset occurs for the flaps deflected configuration as determined by the wing buffet gage data and axial force data, it is seen that the axial force data predicts a smaller buffet free region than the wing buffet gage data.
i..'

(The wing buffet gage data, figures 9c and lOc, for

Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90 indicate a lower lift coefficient limit of less than 0.0 fotf'. the buffet free region for the flaps deflected configuration.)

< Effect Of Wing Leading-Edge Flap Deflection - Canard On

The data in figures 12-16 present the effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on wing buffet onset for the configuration with the high canard on. For the Mach number of 1.20 (figure 12) there is no indication of buffet onset
11

i I 1 1

frcsi x,hs buffet gage data for the flaps deflected configuration. For a Mach number of 1.03 (figure 13) the buffet gage indicates buffet onset occuring at approximately the same lift for both configurations (high canard; flap deflected and. flap undef lected ) . -; ; 2 The buffet gage data as Veil as the axial force versus sin a data show no region of buffet free operation for Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90 (figures lU and 15) for the leading edge flaps deflected configuration. Both C

and Cf\ data seem to indicate mild buffet over a rather large lift range for ~.he flaps deflected case. The mild buffet is indicated by a slow rate of change of buffet intensity ( , .__ data) and a slightly nonlinear region for C. M, Wou 2 the C versus sin a data. The buffet gage data shows a sharp increase in buffet intensity for the flaps deflected configuration at wing lift coefficients approximately the same as those for the off-wing leading edge flaps deflected
'

configuration for Mach numbers of 0.95 and 0.90.

(Compare the data in figures

? and 10 with that in figures ll+ and 15) Thus adding the canard to the flaps deflected wing did not substantially alter the wing lift coefficient at which there is strong indication of buffet onset.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A generalized wind-tunnel model, with canard and wing planform typical of highly maneuverable aircraft, was tested in the Langley 8-foot transonic pres-

sure tunnel 'at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 to determine the effects of canard ) *+ location and wing leading edge flap deflection on the wing buffet characteristics. The major results of this investigations may be summarized as follows:

12

ORIGINAL PAGE JS OF POOR QUALITY!

1. The addition of a canard above the wing chord plane, for the configuration with leading edge flaps undeflected, allowed this configuration to obtain substantially'higher total configuration lift coefficients before buffet onset occurs than the configuration with the canard off and leading edge flaps undeflected. However, the addition of the canard did not substantially affect

the lift of the wing at which buffet onset occurs, for the configurations with the leading edge flaps undeflected, but the wing buffet intensity was substantially lower for the canard wing configuration than the wing alone configuration. 2. The low canard configuration generally displayed the poorest buffet characteristics. 3. Deflecting the wing leading edge flaps substantially improved the wing buffet characteristics for canard off configurations. ^. The addition of the high canard did not appear to substantially improve the wing buffet characteristics of the wing with leading edge flaps deflected.

13

REFERENCES

1. McKinney, Linwood W. ; and Dolly-high, Samuel M.: Some Trim Drag Considerations for Maneuvering Aircraft. J. Aircraft, vol. 8, no. 8, Aug. 1971, pp. 623-629. . i 2. Dollyhigh, Samuel M.: Static Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of Close-Coupled Wing-Canard Configurations at Mach Numbers From 1.60 to 2.86. NASA TN D-6597. 3. Gloss, Blair B.; and McKinney, Linwood W.: Canard-Wing Lift Interference Related to Maneuvering Aircraft at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TM X-2897, 1973. i<. Gloss, Blair B.: Effect of Canard Height and Size on Canard-Wing Interfererfce and Aerodynamic .Center Shift Related to Maneuvering Aircraft at Transonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7505, 1971*. Gloss, ,Blair B.: The Effect of Canard Leading-Edge Sweep and Dihedral Angle on the Longitudinal and Lateral Aerodynamic Characteristics of a CloseCoupled Canard Wing Configuration. NASA TN D-78lU.

5-

6. Gloss, Blair B.: Effect of Wing Planform and Canard Location and Geometry on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Close Coupled Canard Wing Model at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7910. 7. Behrbohm, Hermann: Basic Low Speed Aerodynamics of the Short-Coupled Canard Configuration of Small Aspect Ratio. SAAB TN-60 Saab Aircraft Co. (Linkoping, Sweden), July 1965.

6. Lacey, David W.; and Chorney, Stephen J.: Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Close-Coupled Canards With Varying Area and Position Relative to a ,50 Swept Wing. Tech. Note AL-199 Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center. Mar. 1971. ''. >' 9. Ottensoser, Jonah: Wind Tunnel Data on the Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Close Coupled Canards With Varying Flanform Position and Deflection Relative to a 50 Swept Wing. Test Rep. AL-88, Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center, May 1972. 10. Krouse, John R.: Effects of Canard Planform on the Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 25 and a 50 Swept Wing Research Aircraft Model. Evaluation Repi AL-91, Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center, May 1972. Lacey David W.: Transonic Characteristics of Close-Coupled Canard and Horizontal Tail Installed on a 50 Degree Sweep Research Aircraft Model. Evaluation Rep. AL-8 Naval Ship Res. and Develop. Center, Aug. 1972.

11.

ORIGINAL PAGE 13 OF POOR QUAUTYf

H I ' l l J l M I I l K I L l L l t l l l i l i l

12. Ray, Edward J.; McKinney, Linwood W.; and Carmichael, Julian G.: Maneuver and Buffet Characteristics of Fighter Aircraft, NASA TN D-7131, 1973. 13. Schaefer, William T., Jr.: Characteristics of Major Active Wind Tunnels at the Langley Research Center. NASA TM X-1130, July 1965. Ik. Braslow, Albert L.; Hicks., Raymond M.; and Harris, Roy V., Jr.: Use of Grit-Type Boundry-Lager-Transition Trips on Wind-Tunnel Models.

NASA.'TN 0-3579, 1967. ' t

15. Ray, Edward J.; and Taylor, Robert T.: Buffet and Static Aerodynamic Characteristics Of a Systematic Series of Wings Determined From A Subsonic Wind-Tunnel Study. NASA TN D-5805. 16. Polhamus, Edward C.: A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Based On A Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy. TN D-3767.

15

TABLE I GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL

Br-dy length, cm (in) Wing

96.52(38.00)

::

2.5

b/2, cm(in) ; Leading edge sweep angle, deg. c, cm(in) Airfoil Section 5 , cm(in) Root Chord, cm(in) Tip Chord, cm (in) Maximum thickness, percent chord at Root ...
Tip

25.^0(10.00)
kk

23,32(9.18) j NACA 6UA Series 1032.3(160.0) 29.79 6.78(2.67)

6.0

Canard

"17-25(6.79)

b/2, cm(in) Leading edge sweep angle, deg

2 2 S , cm (in ) c

51.7
288.73(^.75) Circular arc 17.92(7.05) 3.59(1.1*1)

Airfoil Section Root chord, cm (in) Tip chord, cm (in) Maximum,'thickness, percent chord at Root '; *'
*

6.0 U.o

Tip
16

TABLE II

:TEST CONFIGURATIONS
Configuration Number Canard
On

z/c
0.185 0.185 0.185
-0.185

Wing flaps deflected deflected undeflected undeflected undeflected

1 2 3

Off Off
On On

0.185

17

U it

M I I I' 1 I I

1 1 1

TABLE III TEST DATA

Symbols used in the tabulated data are defined as follows.

CONFIG. MA.CH NO
Q

configuration number (see table II) Mach number free-stream dynamic pressure, Ib/ft (1 lVft2 = 97-88 N/m2) * angle of sideslip, deg angle of attack, deg normal-force coefficient axial-force coefficient pitching-moment coefficient Reynolds number per foot xlO

BETA ALPHA
CN CA CM

E./FT

TEMP CMWSG
CL CD

air temp in wind tunnel, F wing mean "bending moment coefficient lift coefficient drag coefficient lift-drag ratio

L/D

18

II fl 1

Page Intentionally Left Blank

o o "" *o <
--inoeo

>r -r - in I I I

^m^inmoD-o^m-fo^uNQO m -* in o -o i, f- j- m o o m o jn Q O co

'-' in m r\j cc tn *O f- ,0 GO ^ < O

Q< 01

'

s,
uoooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

^ ^ r s g rsjrs f ag>(Ori rOo^OO4 ^O O O O O O O O UO O

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooocooo

--^*OOOO

u.
O

u
H - O O O O O O O O O O O --r

z
U.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

u. - ^ -.

^ *

.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0/3

UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I I I I I I I I
oooooooooooooo I I I I 1

i* * * * * r r r i r i r r

UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

III

O
<3

o z x
oooooooooooooo

z I

rMO^Aoo3>r- ^ > r * c o x o o s m
intAstm<N o o ^ ^ m o m ^ oooooooooooooo

}. '

r r r r r i*

I I I I I I

* CM -* o ca *

i *r

p -r oj i ; i i
<OOOOOOOoCOOOOO ^-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO U J * * * * * * * * * * t COOOOOOC^OOOOOOOO

<ooooooocoooooo ^-oooooooooooooo
^ * COOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooo ^-oooooooooooooo
(UOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOO-50OOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooo

PAGE BLANK NOT 2 PAGE IS

G < r~ *T

I I I

^;tTi.r'N;pnco< i l i

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

a - . O O ^ C T - O O O O O O O
X . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O
O

a-

o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o I I I

O O
i O

i o
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

in CD - o

I I I I I I I
j-coo

ocooooooooo I I I I I I I I

* -^ .^ r\j

< O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O C O O O O O O O O

<ocoooOoooooooo t-oooooooooooooo
0:00000000000000

O O O O O O O O -* <M rg ft f* o

O O O O O O O O < ** f

<f\ -o o <y
00 <7* O O O

o o o o o o o^o o o o o o o o
OOQOOOOOOOOOOO

uoooooooooooooo
CJOOOCOOCOOOOOO

uoooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

Q. 'fOO^a i ^-<7 1 F^- -O O-O-Of*-

* t
UJ*MOOOOOOOOOOOOO

LU-.-. O O O . O O O O O O O O

-- --oooo -j^r
2 O O

a
y rr* **i wi r^ <

11.OOO OOO O O O O O O O O

o
fTt O
I I I I I 1 I t

tn
0"

I O

/* or r-i m o f
iAw>mcoc' "coo^^-

oooooooooooooo

ooooo
i i i i l

% ^ r IA in -

> ry o o ' t i

fSJ

-j ^ <N < I I

< O O O O o O O O ^ J C O O O O U

xoooooooooooooo

<

'

'

t-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO CDOOOOOOOOOOOO OO

< oooooooooooooo
O O O O O O C .'^

00 --^ CT- !T> .*- -* O ' ;O O C7* (NJ ^

o 1 o - ^ o o -v o o p^UC O vT O -O ->O C O -0 *O -O O O -O o o o - a o O ' O ' C JD so -o -c *o o

ORIGINAL, PAGE US

O >0 ^ O O*-* "V t

I I I

.3- fv ^ GO o CT- o> r- '-f I I

I I

O3OOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo

O O,O O O O O O O O O O j(\J(\(C\JCJ(NJPgi-gpgfsj(Mf\(rg
2 J3

U-OOOOOO

o o

o O

O O

I I I I I i i I i I

o o o o o o o o -I I I I I I

X O

O O O O O O O O O O.OOOO

I I I I I I I

ooooooooooooo I I t I i I I

_)-t(M I < I I

< O O O O O O O O O C3OOOO .1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

<OOOOOCOOOOOOO 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O COOOOOOOOOOOOOO

U li

.j co r- | I I

OOOOOOCOOOOOOOO

o a o o o o.o o o o o o o o

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

- f\j rj fv ^NJ fN(V\) rg 'v rsj <N rvj CNJ INJ

j a> o o ^ "^c* " o o -^ o o

o u
U.O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

o m o
I I I I * I I I I I

o in

o
o
oocooooooooooo
X

z
oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

i I

O --J * ^ O >* 33 O -- O O
I -4 M

^ (NJ

^oooooooooooooo
J3OOOCOOOOOOOOOO

<oooooooooooooo >-oooooooooooooo
) O O O O OO

*- o o o c c o o o o o o o o o U J > * * * * tooooooooaoooooo

-C -C i

^J O -O O >O J O .> J3

"

"

POOR g

II fl I 1 M M M i 'I

1 11 I M tt I I I 1

_i o co i aa o t~ <o ir\ <t ( -> i

i o co -i I I

u o o o o o o o i

mS'<\itf%*^*r*>*-**Of^>OO<''J Org-J -4iM^r--jinoifta3-O Q O O O O O O " r\i r>J <N O

.O CO r ^- ro o^ O CO lA o CT1

<o

_
^,1

.-^.j * O (M (*> T

03 JO O

," ' I* " ' * '

O
v . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo

u_
2 O

o o
I I I I I I I I I I

o z u
oooooooooooooo
X

- O -Ti "71 O O O C7* O l^ (V O O*

ooocooooc-oooo I I

a J^CM < II
<toooo6ooooooooo ^oooooooooooooo
U J t c t * > * * * 03OOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L U * t * t aDOOOOOOOOOOOOO

in -^ r* -r^ r*". -H co o

CT*

%i- -^
J rvj ^ .*\j rvj f

II li 1 1
\

M H i

11 I 1L I JI I i I I

Qm-ooo jo-eo i I !

-H ^ tr* ^ O

rsi f*t CD ru (sj

( N O - O O-

(MOOmCD*-*^**^-*! OOOOOOOO i

i o r\i i cc

in o> ,0

ooooooooooooooo oooooooo'oooooo

oooooooooooo-<oo oooooooooooooo

f*%f r '(\J'Nj<Njpn>^-knh-GOO s OOru

o o

Z O

o o
CT-

ooooooooooooooo III I I I I I

o o

ooooooooooooooo

o
I o
oooooooooooooo
z:

u -looooooooo' oocooooooooooo

>

>

'

I I I

<oooooooooooooo
f-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

aoooooooooooooo
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (EOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

tn in

rv. *NJ

in u~i

(NJ r\)

_j co fl t

in m O ^c

COO --f

f- O tn CO O f-

N. in o IT soo
o o o o oo -^<

^*(C

O <M "> O

ooooooooooooooo *-ooooooooooooo

u o o o o o o o o o o o o oo oooooooooooooo

uoooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

OOO O O O O

u
U.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oocoooooooooooo I I I I I I I I I I I I

O > O

&

i i i i i ( I t > i
I-' o-

oooooooocoooooo
I I I I I I I I I t I I i I

* * *

o I u
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooo

<oooooooooooooo
h-OOOOOOOOOOOOCO

<oooooooooooooo >-oooooooooooooo xoooooooooooooo

<oooooooooooooo t-oooooooooooooo
(EOOOOOOOOOOCOOO

x-^ o en O **,
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

O O ^ O -O 'rt -O

II fl

1 1 M 1 fi M X It I I I I i 1 I

I ^ ^ 0* <O *

ooooooo

i ^-co^r^^f^

u^ooooooooocooo oooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo

Q. * 9* -O vfN -O * ^ <

J - - - - O O O O O O O O O OO 1 -

z * * . * *

UJ-^OOOO-^-^'

UJOk^O<OOOO*^^<

- O - OOO

'

-oooooooooooooo

x o o o o -- *M*-*- in i*- ^> -o * o o ooooooooooooo-^o

(*> o

jrOOoo-^'N'OJ'^^^u^^-ooo uoooooooooooooo

t o oo o oooooocoooooooo

o
oooooooooooooo

z I

z
ooooooooooooo o o 'V o o o O o s O o o o o o o o O OoO ro j

^ -, _ rg r

<ooc: o o o o o o o o o o o
N- C C . C O O O O O O O O O O O U J * * * ( C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O

<oooooooooooooo
t-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO U J * * * f * (COOOOOOOOOOOOOO

< coooooonoocooo ^ooooocoooocooo

CDOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

- C* O O O T J1 J- -O O IT.
O O *O O -O -C O

oooooooooooooo

OOOOOOO-<

<**i <x> -* o <?

-* & -f *

oooooo. o o o o o o o o o oooooooooooooo

OOOOoOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

o o

z o

o-

oooooooooooqooo i i

o
OOOOOOOOO

I I

''-"-J-> O O4 ' O OOO O OOOOOO - OOO OO "

< x:

>_)O - O O O O O O O O O ' ooooooooocoooo

T i l l * "

. ^

-j rvl (NJ

< I I

i ^ -< -- t\j INJ

fc-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

<toooooooooooooo

<oooooooooooooo t-oooooooooooooo

'COOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

mooooooocoooooo

U fi 1 11

li Ji fi Jl

I I IS Ji I

i A.

c
to u o>
0)

4J

.*H 4^

6
V

u
iH

c .2 CO
c

CO

0) TJ O

*g

JS CO
iH

01

o>

(U

0)

t(

"H-

U li I

CANARD

OFF
O.IBb 0.186

a ''ON O ON
.us

fc
fcri

j.

IB
lie

o-

""!

<*=:

O ^

-o-^ ~~^

..' -"

Ht
^~"^ '
-0^

^Xtfe ^-<X &

Is
IRC

...

P tJ~-~ i

i . .... . .
I L "

\ ~"l

-, r~
i

'

I i

a
L- . . .

^
r

y^
3

...

1
I

j.....
....

rj

. r

! '4
V
/> /

^ ^

^ ' ^ *

.002

<a
-4J) -S.O
0

IB
2.0

' as eft
4.0 6.0 8.0

=&&
10.0

^y

-"^i ^iP*
16.0

&- ;-^
18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0

] /

n
&0

<Ff
1S.O 14.0
Alpb4e|.

s^^
M.O

-2.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

-2

,
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0'

8.0

Alphufee.

Figure 2.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at a Mach number of 1.20.

IKS

O D O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.1SS 0.185 0.186

.08

fe

.07 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 .01 0

-.01 -.02 -.09 .010 .008 .006 .004

.OK 0

-.04 -.05 -.06 -.07

te-<,
-2 0 2 .4 .6 & 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4

-.4

1.8'

Figure 2.- Continued.

CANARD O' OFF D ON O ON

.08

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.185 -0.185

.06

-.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 -.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN2(ALPHA)

.<

Figure 2.- Continued.

SHEET 101 TYPE I

RUNS 16 1 22

TEST 870
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

fl

11

Ji I

I l

Ji 1 1 I I

IBS

te

CANARD O OFF D ON O ON

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.1S& 0.185

,010
fe=i
IK

.008

.006
'M.WSG

fccr

.004

.002

.8
L.DIF

1.0

1.2

1,4

1,6

0 Figure 2.-Concluded.

SHEET 101 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 6 1 2 2

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O D O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.186 0.186 -0.186

1

.<W

fcri

-. .
"

h ""

.:.,
-

" ^ ^

P:
0

*a^

^
^

*N

-*;
^ ^

^~v^

o=

^^
T-OJ-iCj
1

^^

r^o
-o-t

*>..

/^

,x"

'A
" 1 /* -^

-^

-&

/# /

j\f

^>' ^ -9T -o~y. --cy p

2.0
10 60

-o^,

^
Pn^
20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0

6.0

-10

-2.0

8.0 10.0 ALPHABEG.

12.0

14.0

18.0

18.0

^^
-4.0

^K
-2.0
0

2.0

4.0

6.0 8.0 10.0 ALPHAJ3IC.

13.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

Figure 3.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undetected at a Mach number of 1.03.

IBS
: .6

O Q O

CANARJ3 OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.185 0.185 0.185

.08 .07 .06 .05 .04

ft*

fcsi

.1

.03 .02 .01 0

Its:

o -.1
-.2

-.01 -.02 -.03

.010

-.04 -.05 -.06 -.07 -.08 -.09 1.6

,008

.006

IBS

.004

.002

IBB
-.4 -.2 0 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 -.4 -2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4

dor

Figure 3.- Continued.

O D O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.185 0.185

.8 0 .6 0

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

O1

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 3.-Continued.

SHEET 103 TYPE RUNS 17 2

1 23

TEST 670 0 0

]] I 'I H

M I I I 1 li I M ii li 2 1 1

O D O
tesi
.010

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.1S5 -0.1S5

.008

.006

.004

.002
0 -.4

-.2

.2

.4

.6
G

.8
L.DIF

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

D Figure 3. -Concluded.

SHEET 102 TYPE 1

RUNS H 2 2 3

TEST 870
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CANARD

O D O

OFF ON ON

Z/CBAS. O.IK Olftf. 0.186

XI7

.OS JO! Jll

-.01 -.02

-to

-2.0

2j>

to

ej>

ao

10.0 12.0 uo

ie.o 19.0 200

22.0 210

-w

-to

-M

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0 12.0 . u.o

no

lao

20.0 22.0

24.0

Figure 4.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at a Mach'number of 0.95.

tees

O D O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.185 0.185 -0.185

.08 .07 .06 .05

He: IBS

.04 .03 .02

IRC!

.01 0

-.01

-.4
-JS

-.02 -.03 -.04 -.05 -.06 -.07 -.08

.010
.008

.006

.004

.002

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.09

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Figure 4.- Continued.

he;

O D O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBA& 0.185 0.185 0.185

.8 0 .6 0 .4 0

-.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 -.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

figure 4.-Continued.

SHEET 103 TYPE 1 RUNS 18 3 '24

TEST 670 0 0

II 1 S

I 'I 'I' I 'I 11

i li i U

i 1 ,

tea tea
Ks-

O D <>

OFF ON ON

0.185 0.185 0.185

.010

.008

.006
'M.WSG

-.4

.8
LJOF

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

D Figure 4.- Concluded.

SHEET 103 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 0 3 2

TEST 670
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

fc
fees!

IBS tar

Figure 5.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undetected at a Maeh number of 0.90.

less
tes
fcS!

O Q O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.16& 0.185 -0.185

.08 .07 M

fts:
.05 M .03 .02 .01 I

-.01 -.OJ

-i
.010

-.09 -.04 -.05 -.06 -.07

.008 .006
U.WIC

.004 .002

-.08

-.4

-20

.4

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.4

-.2

.2

.4 C,

.6

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.1'

Figure 5.- Continued.

TCANARD O OFF D ON <> ON

.08

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.185 0.185

.06

.04

-.02
-.04

-.06

-.08

.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

')

Figure 5.-Continued. .

SHEET IOH TYPE I RUNS 1 9 H 2 B

TEST 670 0 0

fl

Ji

1 I

Z/CBAR

o a
ted
.010

OFF ON ON

0.185 0.185

te:

.008

.006
M,WSG

.004

.002

D Figure 5.- Concluded.

SHEET 104 TYPE

RUNS 19 4,

1
26

TEST 690
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IK
te=

O O O

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/CBAR 0.1 0.1(6 -O.lre

frsi
ISC

Ire!

Figure 6.- Effect of canard position on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for the model with the leading edge flaps undeflected at a Mach number of 0.70.

O D O

CANARJJ OFF ON ON

IK

pr:
.002

)=

-.4

-.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.4

-.2

.2

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Figure 6.- Continued.

O D <>
.08

CANARD OFF ON ON

Z/GBAR 0.185 0.185 -0.185

.06
.04

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

<.

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)
'C Figure 6.-Continued.

SHEET 105 TYPE 1

RUNS 2 0 6 2 6

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

II fl a li M M M 1 M JT ii I 1 II Ji 1 1

1L

v
A.

O D
ten

OFF

ON ON

0.1B& 0.185 0.185

.010
.008

M,WSG

IBSS
D Figure 6.-Concluded.

SHEET 106 TYPE 1 TEST 670 RUNS 20 6 26 0 0

tea

O D

Li FLAP UNDHFLTn DEFLTD

fe
frsi

-^-c
^
L

te HE: tec
r

s\
*-v

\\
"-* o-\

^ \

-o -c--_

<>-!

i>

, N,

..1. .
..

1. ...

^8^ j
^cr-

L- .

^x
x7
1

-^s:' FT

^ *S, ^

L _x

JHB

CH.W

Q n
-4.0

;
-JjO
0 SD

,1
6.0 8.0

4.0

"-

l-u. ^k
12.0

T+-

-"
18.0 20.0 22.0

'"

-6.0 -4.0

;^

kxl
!
2.0

K
24.0 -2.0
0

10.0

14.0

16.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1S.O

14.0

16.0

20.0

210

84J>"

ALPHAJ5EC.

'

ALPHADEG.

Figure 7.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 1.20.

fc

O D

UF_ FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.08
.07

Ifcs

.06

.04

.03

.02

-.1

.01

X fts
-.4

-.01

"X

-.02 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.06 -.07

-3
.010

.008

.006
.004

.002

.08 -.09

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.4

-.2

.6

IS>

1.2

1.4

1.6

<a

Figure 7.- Continued.

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

-.02

-.04

-.06

.08

.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 7.- Continued.

SHEET 109 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 6 1 1 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 12 I l i

M li I M

i I MI

11 I 1 1

O D
tea

UNDJLEL'II) DEFLTD

.008

IK
.006

fes

.004

.002

-.4

-.2

.2

,4

.6

.8
^L.DIF

1.2

1.4

L%

Figure?.- Concluded.

SHEET 109 TYPE RUNS 16 11

1 0

TEST 670

tea
O [J

L.E. FLAP UNDEFl.TD DEFLTD

tea

.Uti

teri

tec

<. *

^ ^^

\ \ ^^Ss
\
~^- "O

"
;.

'

,..

' '/

- 0

-^

"O ~

*--

-o ,

'

"1

\ N

k
\ _j
_ ~

'

'

-- J

1
....

I J

-xtJ*

,x ^EJ >

xO-~

, f K/ 31 X */ Y
4.0 E.O 10
AUHA.DEG,

Q
*==
0

"

-n

^r

-o-.

-~n

^f. /S

-O^
140

"~
16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0

rr

O
-4.0 -2.0 ^
.4

6.0

-10

-2.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0 10.0 12.0 ALPHABEG.

2.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0'

Figure 8.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 1.03.

tea *s* fee IBS

O O

L.E. FLAP UNDEH.TD DEFLTD

.010

.008

.006
.004

.002

(=
-.4 -.2

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.H

-.2

-.09

Figure 8.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

.04

.02

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 8.-Continued.

SHEET 110 TYPE I,

RUNS 1 7 1 2 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

u i i -I x ii a

fca
.010

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDJLFIJD DEFLTD

.008

IE;
.006

.004

.002

0
-.4 -.2

.4

.6

.8

1,2

1.4

D Figure 8.-Concluded.

SHEET 110 TYPE RUNS H 1 2

1 0

TEST 0

670 0 0

tea
.US

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

tes tec He

.07

!
-o
**^'

_.. ..

.06 .05 .04 .03

^C
X. ^ > \,

fca(feed

.02 XII 0

o ^-c

K\
o-_

>-

-c\ .

H,

-.01 -.02 -.03 -.04 -.06

\
V

s,\

-
\. \ hv
1
i
L L

I
-.06 -.07

NT >H
:

1.6
!

1.4 1.2

i
-.08

pas

-.09 .010

r~ ; -t -j- -i-- - J I t

^y^ -^
^ n^ rr^ ^ ^

1.0 .8 .6 .4 2 0 3 -.4

.008 .006 .004

/
D O D =

CJ

uta

&=-

&^. a -0
8.0 10.0 12.0 ALPHABEG.

-o -O" & -o

^f

.-'' ^'.i i'

0 2.0

^>

^
12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 S2.0 2< .0

0 6 0 - 4 - 0 - 2 . 0

e
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0

-4.0

^^
-2.0

4.0

6,0 8.0 10.0 ALPHABEG.

Figure 9.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.95.

feL FI.AP

te
.6 i .4

O D

UNDEFLTV DEFLTD
.08 .07 .06 .06

a
2 .1 0 -.1 2 3 A *

"C

.04 .03 .02

^^

*^ ^

o ' ^~0

kj s
JJll !
: 1 .

^ \p^. ^

.01 0

\t)
\
4

-.01

\
'

-.02 -.03 -.04 -.05 -.06 -.07

.010 .008 .006 .004 .002

0

_ J_

_! ........

\V

"N O O

=<f*( =s =cP

K^O.

^
.2 0 .2 .4 C, .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

-.08
.no

Figure 9.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

rP
.04'

.02

0-0
0

.02

-.04

.06

-.08

.10

<.

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 9.-Continued.

SHEET 111 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 8 1 3 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 li il li li li 1

it I It il li

O D
.010

L..E, f.1 AF UNT).E3.'1,TD DEFLTD

.008
fez

M.WSG

tea

Figure 9. -Concluded.

SHEET 111 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 8 1 3 0

TEST E70
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tea

O D

LE. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

*^

^\

J-

. < > ^ x

Ire*

\ a-

\
\

-o
0 lK -o -1 -C,
1 -o-i

t"

^o-o

Vi

\
fcsr:
jer.

k,

. .. _J

k
-X_

-o5^

^
-J

<

-^ ay
CIS"

^-'

^o --0-C

~~-c

-^ 1

o
n
6.0 -4.0 -2.0
0

-^ JO~ ^"& ,

-o
rr^"

<!--.

~Q - ^J-J

r--/

-tT^ ^0-0 / ~o'

-o^J

Xr
xC

^ x^ */

ry- x
^/

n"

'X
0

81 ^
2.0
to

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

U.O

16.0

110

20.0

22.0

24.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0'

Alphas.

AlphMleg.

Figure 10.-Effect of wing leading edge nap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.90.

tea

O Cl

l.. "I.AP UNDEn-TD PEH-TD

an

te
i ,

.06 .06 .04 '

tea
xyx

.OS

re-

-.1
2 J

=^5^^
A-

Mi

-I .,-,3

.010 .008

.008 .004 .002

Jrss

.6

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.09

Figure 10.-

Continued.

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

.06

.08

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

.- c
Figure It).-Continued.

SHEET 112 TYPE 1

RUNS 1 9 1 4 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U B I"' I

li M 1 1 I 1 I li Jl Jt i

DB,TT)
tea

fctt
fee

fcsS
Us-

-.4
L.DIF

Figure 10.- Concluded.

fcr

SHEET 112 TYPE 1 RUNS 1 9 1 4 0

TEST G"70 0 0

O P

Li FLAP UNDETLTD DBFLTD

}

.08 .07
|

\
(

.06

tes: lie:

.05

-.04

I ;J

^
.03 .02 .01

X^

\1
r-

<

i>

O
0
-.01 -.02 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.03
-09

\
\

M
1
1.

r-

i . .J-o-^ K-d v

-L T i !

\ \ v
I

"~^~~

;
.1..
x

1 -

f. ..j
^ l\ ^

I T h_ . i_ \ i .-.^ | j_.
i
L

4- '--|___

.^ ....-,

'
I

1\ .
___*__ j__

C-'
""

n1 1 > -^- 1 i

f
i

4 1 .1. I r

.010 .008 .006 .004 .002

U.
D " 1

-,
1 :

^ - r \ ; "-*- -; }~ " "'"i ; r i " i _, J i i H t ^ 4X , , xT ~t

0

~r

. _.

1.4

rr^
1

-^,

^-

1.0

.8

#*
.6 .4

^r^f" {ff^-''"0'

^<}

L>

^j
/ ^c
0

s. ^
4.0

/
XX ^

2 0
-.2

*~-

^
0

^
2.0 6.0 8.0 ALPHAO>EG.

10.0

1 . 14.0 20

16.0

1 . 20.0 80

22.0

24.0

Figure 11.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard off at a Mach number of 0.70.

Cm

.010

.008

.006
<-.*
.004

.002

-.4

-JO

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

-.4

-.2

.4

Figure 11.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

.04

.02

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 11.-Continued.

SHEET 113 TYPE 1

RUNS 2 0 I B 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 U

Ji ]i i I 1 it I M Ji M i 1

tea tea

G D
.010

UHDEFLTlj DEFLTD

.008

.006
fcci

M.WSG

.004

.002
0
-.4

ft

,2

.4

.6

.8
^ L.DIF

1.1)

1.2

1.4

IJ}

u Figure 11.- Concluded.

SHEET 113 TYPE

RUNS 2 0 1

1
5

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 Q Q Q O

te

O O
.08 .07 .06 .06 .04

LI. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

O-

\
\ -R ,

< X
;
-0

!
t j

-t"

i
.-

__

He:
feci
.02

\ ^
Q

-~-a
n
i l

- 1

1
;

v -

0-..

. ^ ,

>

-.01

_3
_

\
_ J
' -1

-.02 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.06 -Sfl -.08 -.09 .010 .008 .006 .004 .002

_L __L.
_ _

,
-T

s
i

__J

_.t_ -I
^

H
I

\-

; i
,

I
i i

~f

^ ^ ^ ^

ps-

i
[
1
-4.0 -2.0
0

/u

^/

~r~ " i~ i
.... j. &-- tra
16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 14.0

s
P /n
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0
0

,.-

o ,'

/ a'

0
2.0 4.0 6.0

-^C

n
-6.0

8.0 10.0 12.0 ALPHAJDEC.

2.0

4.0

6.0 8.0 10.0 ALPHAJ)EG.

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0'

Figure 12.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 1.20.

lea tea
fcs!
JO

UE.FLAP DKSLTU

"

--n

fee
'

N,

fa.
n
U

Its^D
Q

0"

~-o.

\
^

"^tx
CI ^ \

JJ

-~O-oi!

-o o-o

-^Vft
L

NX

^N

q \ 'i

par pas
OJ-l- OCL< 43-O-

s-o2

3-O4

M>n
.6

0^

If-l '
.4 1 I .6 4 2

.4

1.0

12

.4

-6

1JO

12

\ .8'OJ

Figure 12.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

04<fc
.02
0

-.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 -.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 12,-Continued.

SHEET 116 TYPE RUNS 1 6

1 0

TEST 670 0 0

U fl

it i i

.010

fed

.008

KK
.006
M.WSG
fcc!

;o 4

.002
(srr.
tsr.

-A

*T

V/

*w

>. J

!4

D Figure 12. -Concluded.

SHEET 116 TYPE RUNS 1 6

1 0

TEST 6^0 0 0 0 O O Q O

O D
AW

LE. FLAP UNDITLTD DEFLTD

"

u- a-

-^T

\
\

Cr

^-^-

<)

^ ^ \

Itff
led

\^

^C

~^_

~~

[
-O-v

\ ^

'

Ki
N. N

r "^
'i;

/$ /
_

^X

rr^

fl^

xg^

-^
j.

:^

NSB
0

D-

0-

-n~_ _y=

-P

tr"
160

-oo
n

^ ^

cr"
-4.0 -2.0
0

^
-2.0
0

6.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0 10.0 12.0 ALPHADEG.

14.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

-8.0

-4.0

2.0

4.0

6.0 8.0 10.0 ALPHAJIEG.

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

210'

Figure 13.-Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 1.03.

UE. F( .".P UtJEEFl.lP

te-

i
Jo - --

tee

fcs!

-.4

-2

.6

1.0

13

1.4

1.6

-.4

-50

.4

.6

1.0

li

L4

1.6

Figure 13.-

Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.061

.04,

.02

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 13.- Continued.

SHEET 117 TYPE 1

RUNS 8 7 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U U

I 11 M li I 1 K I li I li ii 1 I 1

tea

O D
.010

UNDE'lfLTD DEELTD

.008

.006
IBS

IRC*

.004

.002

0 -.4

-.2

.2

,4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

L6

D Figure 13.-Concluded.

SHEET 117 PUNS 2

TYPE T

1 Q

TEST 6"70 Q Q O

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

.04

IBS:
.03'

! ! -h i

.02

.01

-R
I I J-

-^f=fc~-^t:>r.~"'~ ~~ '

:
-.01

1t
_r_

sa xa
-.04

T
:
H

_.|_^._t
i l l

*=:
-.06 -.06

!=
-4.0 -2.0
0

2.0

4.0

6.0

9.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18JI

20.0

22.0

24.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Z2.0

24.0

Figure 14.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 0.95.

ta

L.L

- .OS

UK
lie:
fcc!
IK!

*=
*=;

{5T3

CM.,

-.08

-.09

-.4

-2

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.8

-.4

-2

.6

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

*==

Figure 14.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E.FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

I
.04

.02<

-.02 -.04 -.06 -.08 -.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 14.-Continued.

SHEET 118 TYPE RUNS 3 6

1 0

TEST 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

fi

II

1 fl I \

It I

ii

fed

(j D

UNDEFLT DEFLTL)

ted tec

IBS.

M.WSG

UBS *

D Figure 14. -Concluded.

SHEET 118 TYPE 1 RUNS 3 9 0

TEST

670

L.F. JLAP V Cj UNDEIT.TD DEFLTD

te

. .._ .^

i
_

D-

-G. .,

\ - * <^ JH ^1
v^N

i
l_.

. . 1 | 1^

....-.->- -. -^

P.... ...

^
L - . 1

".""1

., .J

_.

_i
--

"cr

.ov '

,?-

x" ^
XJ^

JJ

_,

~^-t- ~ ._

, n. I ~9?=- 0-" i ' f- 1

0 O

-^i1

.-^'

L
I

s'[. f'"

L
,n_ v_J

'

C i x'

_j

Figure 15.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard on at a Mach number of 0.90.

O D

l,li. H.AI' I'NDETI-ITJ UEKUTD

tee!

tes

-M.WSC

pass

- . 4 - 2 0

1.0

12

1.4

L6

Figure 15.- Continued.

O D
.08

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

04[j

(*-< = T>^-0C

-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 15.-Continued.

SHEET 113 TYPE 1

RUNS 4 9 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 11 i

li li K li 1

it I ]f li li M I I

DEFLTD
,010

tes
.008

tes
.006
1

M.WSG

.004

o=

.002

0
-.4

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 Figure 15.-Concluded.

SHEET 113 RUNS 4

TYPE 3

1 0

TEST 0

670 0 0 0 0 0 0

IKS tea
O D
.08

L.E. FtAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

1
i

i
. . .
&

"U

cr

\^ ^ < > \

^
L

._.
\, ~~~O-^ \ ^J
Tt

\
^

1
.. -

"-< ^

j.
K>-*--1

_|

\
<v 1 ' \

~1
1

1 ^

~|

i.
\

'

'

\ ^

v
N -^ .
0-0

^%5 ? / Y*
.

L,

^^ ^
X

DO

-c

^^^ 3t=- &^ a9=

2.0 4.0 60

*&-

-^9= ^^

jh-^ o-<^ =^ ==-H ^

V
cr
-4.0

r/"

f ^^

^ ^ ^
0 2.0 4,0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ALPHAJ1ZG. 12.0 14.0 1M ISJ> 20.0 JJ.O -IS 24

0 4.0

cr
8.0 10.0 12.0 ALPHAJ1IG. 14.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 -6.0

-tO

-2.0

,1

Figure 16.- Effect of wing leading edge flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics and wing buffet for canard cm at a Mach number of 0.70.

O D

L.E. FLAP UNDKfL'n) DBTLTD

tea
sn
X

He:

aa

Its:

cm
j02

O
jOl

iO

t^l^-

o
-.01
M

f
T...

i .. .

-
.010

- -\>.

-.03
-M

.008

-.05 -.06

.006

<&
.004

-.07

(X.
.003 -.08 -.09

-.4

-2

.6

.8

1.0

13

1.4

1.6

-.4

-20

.4

.6

1.0

1.2

1.4

Figure 16.- Continued.

O D
.OS

L.E. FLAP UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

.06

.04

GA
-.02

-.04

-.06

-.08

-.10

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

.18

SIN(ALPHA)

Figure 16.-Continued.

SHEET 180 TYPE 1

RUNS 6 1 0 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 II II It M M 11 I H 11 I I U it ][

1 "i' ;

0 D
.010

UNDEFLTD DEFLTD

fed
IfetM

.008

.006
Q
.004

.002

0
-.4 -.2

.4

.6

.8
^ L.DIF

1.0

1.2

1,4

1,6

D Figure 16.- Concluded.

SHEET 120 TYPE 1

RUMS 5 1 0 0

TEST 670
0 0 0 0 0 0 0