i nasa · nasa memo 2-20-59a uo! o i o_ o nasa memorandum full-scale wind-tunnel investigation of a...
Post on 22-Dec-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NASA MEMO 2-20-59A
uo!
oI
o_
O
NASA
MEMORANDUM
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF A JET FLAP IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A PLAIN FLAP WITH BLOWING
BOUNDARY-LAYER CONTROL ON A 35 °
SWEPTBACK-WING AIRPLANE
By Kiyoshi Aoyagi and David H. Hickey
Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, Ca/if.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANDSPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON
March 1959
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980228317 2019-02-03T05:11:10+00:00Z
_UT-[T_ _ _UTm a_% wo_J p.z_tu_op _$_ J-o %0.[' £%TOOIOA q_Tq _ _UT%aa. _° £q
_UT_ a_% %noq_ UOT%_InO_Ta a_% sas_oaOUT d_I3 %o.['o_AL "ooTAoP %3!I-q_T_ _
s_ d_I& %o.P _ _uTsn pesodo_d oA_q (9 pu_ [ "s3e_) s_o%_T%SeAuI I_aO_es
os_a_ouI %uoToTJJooo-%3II oq% _%uoEm40_%%_ _oI3 0% _oT_[d %_q% u_q% ssoI s_
%_aTaTJJooa um%uomom Z%T_ as_o_auI %_aToTjjooo-%JTI jo a%_l 0T4% EIgno_%IV
•%UaTOyJJooa mm%uomom %a._-_UT_OIq _42T _ %uaToTJJOoo %3TI Jo a_oSOUT
spT_ 23TI-_gT_ $o 8%8o2 IOUUm% puT_ %ooJ-0_ Xq -09 o_% &o %_d sV
M01AOfl_OH&MI
"_T_3
s_ ssaUaAT%aOJ$o d_IJ %oP I_%UOmTaodxo pu_ po%_mT%sa Jo uosT1_dmoo
"%sa_o%UT 3o suoT%ooIJaP d_IJ UT_Id
0_% %_ XIa%e_dos UOT%_OoI _o_%T_ %w _UT_oIq o2 moI_odns aq o2 punoj
s_ d_I3 UT_Id _ 3o snTp_£ OUTI-Og_I_ oq% pu_ o_°po _UTIT_% oq% uoomzoq
"po%uoso_d
o_ _%_p %3II _q% fl _o _%_odom sty% mo_ "ou_Id_T_ 9u!_-xo_q%do_s o_[
pu_ snTp_ ouTI-O_uT_ _q% %_ XI_noou_%InmTs _UT_OIq _oq%o_ OUTU_o%op
0% op_m s_ UOT%_gT%sOAUT %uososd oq_ "so_o_OUT 23TI poonpo_d _%ooj&o
X_ooq% pu_ s%UOmT_Odxo £oq%0 "IO_%UOO moX_I-Za_punoq q%Tm POZTI_ _£ %_E2
0_2 %_ 9UT_oIq pas_omOUT 2_q% u_oqs oA_ SUOT%_BT%SOAUT snoTAomd
XZV_T
XaXOTH "H pTA_6 pu_ T_Xov TqSOXTN £ff
ZMVIJUIV OM_i-NOVH&J_¢T
o_ V _0 _0_&M00 ESAVI-X_V_]0H
MI d-Vl_ $Zf V _0 _OI&VOI_KAMI _SMM_A-(IMI_ 241VO_-_qfl_
V6d-0g-8 14fI(]A_V_0NS]_I
_[OI,I,VH_IMI_I(IV ZOV£T (IMV TOIJ_flVK0_{SV qVM01gVM
.CA
Do%
_/q
_/.e_
u_ds %T_ aad %$TT¢%uoTaTJjaoa %J!:T I_UOTSUa_Tp-o_%
%j :£a%aum_s Jo ou_Id o_ T_TT_a_d paoqa d_TJ
%j _£a%aum_s jo au_Id 0% T_TI_a_d paoqa _uT_
IOm%Itoa xoX_I-Xm_puno q
%j :u_ds _uTa
q0
o
flo
/-a
I a
0
Oqff
q
_OI&V&O_
"paPnTOuT OST_ sT £_oaq%
I_UOTSUo_Tp-o_% _oaj paATxop s%Tnsex T_Oy%_aoaq% q%T_ s%Tnse_ I_%Ua_
-Taadxo Jo uosTa_d_oo V "_'0 0% 0 _o_j s%ua:aTIiaoa um%ua_o_ $o agu_a
paaomoo pu_ 901x_" q jo xoqumu spIou_o_ _ %_ po%onpuoa oxam s%sa% oq_
•SaTZSTao%a_x_qo asaq% uo s_ua_agu_aa_ d_ij SnOTII_A JO %aajja aq% 9uTpa_gaa
suoTsnlauoa aIq_TIOa n_ap 0% aIqTssod_ T s_ _.y %_% po%anpuoa s_m %s0%
aq% qaT_ %_ paads iouun% _o I 0_% Jo asn_ooq a_a_ T os oao_ suoT%aoxaoa
_%_p %snxq% oq% _pouT_%qo oJon _%_p %uo_o_-_uTqo%Td pu_ _ap q_noq%TV
"%uaTaTjjaoa um%ua_o_ q%T_ uoT%_T_A s%T pu_ %JTl uo ST %aodaa sTq% jo
s_s_qd_o aq_L "/Ia%_dos OOTAa p xoq%Ta u_q% _o%_:aaua_ %JTI _ s_ OAT%OOjjo
aao_ aq pTno_ snIp_a d_TJ oK% %_ IOa%UOa a_,X_I-Xa_puno q _UT_OIq _%I_
d_TJ ogPa-_UTTT_a% UT_Td _ pu_ d_IJ %a_ aq% ,:o uoT%_uTqmoa aq% JT auTm
-_a%ap 0% _'0 jo oT%_a _od_% pu_ q6"q jo oT%_a _aods_ q%_n _u$_ _a_q_do_s
o_[ _ q%T_ ou_Id_T _ u_ uo uaN_%xopun s_ uoT%_:_T%saAuT %uosaad o_LL
"(_ "jaa) TOa%UOO xa£_l-Xa_pmoq _uT_oTq Z%T_ d_T/ o_po
-_uTIT_% _ 0% pax_d_oo uo_ ao%_xaua_ %JTT %uaT_,_JJau_ u_ sT d_Tj %oC oq%
_aOAO_O_ _(0"T U_ SS0I dO) agU_X %u_TDTJJ_OO _m%ua_o_ mot oq% %V "ogpa
8
C_
d5
momentum coefficient,wj/g
q_S Vj
variation of lift coefficient with flap deflection, per radian,
cffor-- = i
C
two-dimensional flap lift-effectiveness parameter
FG gross thrust from engine_ ib
g
q
S
Sf
vj
W
wj
X
Z
A
C_
5f
_f
_j
__j
acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/sec 2
dynamic pressure, ib/sq ft
wing area, sq ft
wing area spanned by flaps_ sq ft
jet velocity assuming isentropic expansion, ft/sec
weight rate of flow, ib/sec
weight rate of flow per unit span, ib/sec
distance along airfoil chord normal to wing quarter-chord line_ in.
height above wing reference plane defined by quarter-chord line
and chord of the wing section at 0.663 _, in.
sweep angle, deg
angle of attack of fuselage reference line_ deg
flap deflection, measured normal to flap hinge line (given as
in ref. 9), deg
flap deflection measured parallel to the plane of symmetry (given
as 5 in ref. 9), deg
angle of trailing-edge jet, measured normal to the trailing edge,
deg
angle of trailing-edge jet, measured parallel to the plane of
symmetry, deg
4
Subscripts
f flap
j jet
te trailing edge
u uncorrected
free stream
MODELANDAPPARATUS
Figure i is a photograph of the model mDuntedin the Ames40- by80-foot wind tunnel. The model tested is th_ sameas that reported inreference 2. Major dimensions of aerodynami_ importance are showninfigure 2.
Wing
Plan form and airfoil sections.- The wing had a quarter-chord sweep
of 35 ° , aspect ratio of 4.94 , and a taper ra_io of 0.50. Airfoil sections
normal to the wing quarter-chord line were m_dified NACA 0012-64 and
0011-64 sections at the root and tip, respectively. Coordinates of the
airfoil sections at two semispan stations ar_ given in table I.
Flap and nozzles.- Details of the wing _nd flap are shown in figure
3. The blowing BLC flap of reference 2 was ceplaced with a flap equipped
with blowing nozzles located both at the fla_ radius and at the trailing
edge. Chordwise location of the nozzle at the flap radius as shown in
figure 3 was used throughout the tests. Hig_-pressure air for blowing
entered at the root and thence into the holl_w flap which acted as a
plenum chamber for both nozzles.
Engine and Ducting
A J-57 turbojet engine was installed in the airplane to provide high-
pressure air to the jet flap and for BLC. ALr was bled off the high-
pressure compressor stage of the engine, and the flow was regulated by
valves located at each flap duct.
Instrumentation
Measurements to obtain the momentum coefficient.- Weight rate of flow
to each flap was obtained by measurement of total and static pressure and
temperature in the duct leading to each flap. These same total pressure
and temperature measurements were used to compute C_. Because there was
no provision to determine C_ values at the flap radius and trailing-edge
nozzles separately_ relative C_ values at each nozzle location were
determined by the ratio of the nozzle areas.
Measurement of thrust.- The gross thrust of the engine was obtained
in the same manner as described in reference 2.
TESTS
Range of Variables
Momentum coefficient.- The investigation covered a range of momentum
coefficients from 0 to 0.24 and flap jet pressure ratios from subcritical
to approximately 5.8. All tests were made with the horizontal tail off
at a Reynolds number of 4.5×I06_ based on the mean aerodynamic chord of
8.22 feet. This Reynolds number corresponds to a free-stream dynamic
pressure of i0 pounds per square foot.
Nozzle height.- When total blowing was employed either at the plain
flap radius or trailing edge, the nozzle heights were 0.045 and 0.030
inch_ respectively. When a jet flap combined with a plain flap with BLC
was tested_ that is_ blowing at both the trailing edge and flap radius_
a nozzle height of, respectively_ 0.030 and 0.010 inch was used. The
relative weight rate of air flow and relative momentum coefficient values
with the above nozzle openings were approximately 75 percent and 25 per-
cent, respectively_ of the total weight rate of air flow and total
momentum coefficient.
Plain flap deflection.- The model was tested with the jet flap
combined with the plain flap deflected 0°_ 30°_ and 45 ° . Tests were made
with BLC over the flap radius at flap deflections of 30°_ 45°_ and 60 °
with and without the jet flap.
Jet flap angle.- Jet flap angles tested were 0°_ 45 °, and 90 ° measured
with respect to the flap chord line. The jet flap angles discussed in
this report will be referred with respect to the flap chord line regard-
less of the plain flap deflection.
6
Method of Testi:_ig
Lift.- The major portion of the data were obtained by varying momen-
tum coefficient at 0° angle of attack for :_he jet flap, plain flap_ or
the jet flap combined with BLC on the plai:1 flap. In addition, data were
obtained through the angle-of-attack range with fixed values of momentum
coefficient.
Engine thrust calibration.- The gross thrust of the engine was com-
puted as described in reference 2.
CORRECTIONS
Effects of Wind-TunneL Walls
The following correction for the effect of wind-tunnel wall inter-
ference was made:
: _u + 0.639 ]L
Effects of Engine OF_ration
Lift data obtained from the wind-tunnel balance system were corrected
for effects of engine thrust as follows:
total lift F( sinCL : q_S %3
RESULTS AND DISC[SSION
Variation of Lift With Momertum Coefficient
at 0° Angle of Attack
The variation of CL with C_ with t_e jet flap at several plain flapdeflections is shown in figure k. The jet flap is defined in this report
as a high-velocity air jet located at the trailing edge of the plain flap
and ejected at an angle _j to the chord line of the plain flap whetherthe latter is deflected or not.
Jet flap at Sf = 0°. - A major part cf the lift obtained from the
jet flap without the plain flap deflected was realized when the jet was
deflected 49 ° as shown in figure 4(a). For this model_ little gain was
realized by increasing jet deflection to 90 ° . This finding is supported
7
by trends shown in the two-dimensional data presented in reference 4.
Data from reference 6 for an unswept, untapered wing with full-span jet
flap_ with the nozzle located on the upper surface, and with a trailing-
edge radius that was much larger than either that of the subject model
or the model of reference 4 showed increasing lift increments up to
_j = 86 ° . It appears possible_ therefore, that the subject model was
limited in lift because of the poor (from a jet flap effectiveness
standpoint) trailing-edge configuration.
Jet flap combined with plain flap.- Without trailing-edge blowing,the plain flap deflected 30o has near theoretical lift as shown in fig-
ure 4(a). Applying trailing-edge blowing gave lift-increment increases
similar to that obtained from the jet flap with the plain flap undeflected
except at _j = 0°. Although the lift due to momentum coefficient issimilar, the lift due to the plain flap is maintained_ giving a substan-
tial AC L compared to the jet flap throughout the momentum coefficient
range tested. As was true with the jet flap_ lift increments due to
momentum coefficient were greater for the jet deflected 45 ° and 90 ° than
for 0°, and lift increments with 45 ° and 90o deflection were almost equal.
Data with the plain flap deflected 45 ° were obtained only for the
jet flap deflected 45 ° (fig. 4(a)). With no blowing at the trailing edge,
the plain flap lift increment was below the theoretical value_indicating
a condition of flow separation at the plain flap radius. Because of this
condit±on, the lift with trailing-edge blowing was considerably less thanthe expected values for a 45 ° flap deflection.
Jet flap with BLC plain flap.- The variation of lift with momentum
coefficient for the combination of the jet flap and several deflections
of the plain flap with BLC is shown in figure 4(b). The jet flap
deflected 45 ° gave the highest values of CL at any momentum coefficient
for all three plain flap deflections. With the jet flap deflected 45 °
the lift differences between the three plain flap deflections at higher
C_ values are approximately equal to the difference in theoretical liftsfor the three deflections without a jet flap.
The approximate effect of BLC on the plain flap combined with the
jet flap is shown in figure 4(c). For the case of the jet flap with BLC
plain flap, momentum coefficient at the trailing edge was determined by
taking 75 percent of total momentum coefficient values shown in fig-
ure 4(b). As would be expected, the plain flap deflected 30o showed
little effect of BLC. With the flap deflected 45°_ the effect of BLC
was substantial at low momentum coefficient values. However, at the
high momentum coefficient values_ the effect of BLC was diminished since
lifts were nearly identical with or without blowing at the plain flap
radius.
8
Comparison of lift with total blowing at the plain flap radius, total
blowing at the trailing edge s and blowing distributed between the two
locations.- Figure 4(d) presents data showing the best jet flap config-
urations for the three plain flap deflect:ions from figures 4(a) and (b)
and data obtained with total blowing at t_le plain flap hinge-line radius.
With the plain flap deflected 30o , the je_ flap gave the highest increase
in lift of the three flap blowing arrangei_ents tested. With the plain
flap deflected 45°_ the divided blowing s;rstem was better at the lowvalues of momentum coefficient because of the need for boundary-layer
control; but at the high values of momentum coefficient_ the jet flap
was just as effective as the divided blowing system. With the plain
flap deflected 60°_ the divided blowing s;rstem was better than blowing
entirely at the plain flap radius. The g_in in lift, however_ was small.
No data were obtained with the jet flap a_ 60 ° of plain flap deflection.
The lift increment due to blowing distributed between the jet flap
and the plain flap radius was large at 30_ of plain flap deflection and
decreased to a small value at 60° of flap deflection when compared to
that obtained with total blowing at the plain flap radius.
Effect of Angle of Attack
The foregoing discussion (at _u = 0_) would also be applicable at
other angles of attack less than CLmax _s shown by the typical resultsin figure 5.
Comparison of Calculated a_d Experimental
Jet Flap Effectiveness
References 7 and 8 present a rheoele_tric analogy solution of theory
for an airfoil with blowing. Two-dimensi_nal solutions for several blow-
ing methods are included. These results _ave been used with adjustments
for finite aspect ratio and partial span plain flap calculated from ref-
erence 9. Details of the method used to _alculate AC L are outlined in
the appendix. Calculated estimates are c_mpared with experimental data
in figure 6.
Jet flap with plain flap undeflected.- Agreement between experimental
and calculated results range from good at low momentum coefficient values
to fair at high values with the jet flap _eflected 45 ° . At a momentum
coefficient of 0.14, the highest value tested, the calculated result is
about 70 percent of the experimental AC_.
9
Jet flap ($j = 45 ° ) with plain flap deflected.- With the plain flap
at 30o , both theory and experiment show the same lift with no blowing_
but theory shows lower lift increments with momentum coefficient than
experimental results.
Since separated flow occurred initially over the plain flap radius
with the plain flap deflected 45 °, experiment shows a flap lift increment
well below theory with no blowing. At the higher C_ values_ there is
good agreement with theory. It would be necessary to limit BLC to that
required to establish flow attachment throughout the jet momentum range
over the plain flap radius in order to make a completely valid comparison.
This was not possible with the subject model because of the ducting
arrangement.
In summary, for the subject wing, the calculated lift increments due
to blowing, based on the method outlined in the appendix with the jet flap
deflected 45 ° , give fair agreement with what was found experimentally with
the plain flap undeflected and good agreement with the plain flap
deflected 30° . Agreement was good only at high momentum coefficient
values with the plain and jet flaps deflected 45 ° .
CONCLUSIONS
For equivalent values of momentum coefficient and at the plain flap
deflections of interest, blowing at the trailing edge and at the hinge-
line radius of a plain flap produced values of lift greater than could
be realized by blowing separately at either location. At the low plain
flap deflection_ the combination of jet flap and plain flap with boundary-
layer control provided a large increase in lift increment_ but at the
high flap deflection_ the increase over that obtained with blowing
entirely at the plain flap radius was small. When compared to the
combination of jet flap and plain flap without BLC_ the addition of
boundary-layer control on the plain flap to the jet flap increased lift
at low values of momentum coefficient but made little change at high
values of momentum coefficient.
Comparison of theoretical and experimental jet flap effectiveness at
a jet angle of 45 ° ranged from fair to good depending upon the momentum
coefficient.
Ames Research Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Moffett Field, Calif., Nov. 20, 195_
i0
APPENDIX
THEORETICALCOMPUTATIONOFJET FK%PEFFECTIVENESS
Reference 7 presents two-dimensional solutions of blowing airfoil
theory. Lift coefficient with any combinati]n of jet flap or plain flap
can be calculated. Two-dimensional circulatLon lift is expressed asfollows:
-_j(sho_ asin ref. 7)
(_hownas 0 in r_f.7)
cz = -_- + 8f + _jf/c = _ f/c f/c : o
Variation of cz/_ , cz/$f, and cz/_j with cb as obtained from reference 7
is presented in figure 7. For c_ values b,_tween 0 to 1.0_ variation of
cz/_j with c (ref. 6) for blowing at the trailing edge is shown in
figure 8.
The method presented in reference 9 was used to apply the above
equation to a three-dimensional wing. This 11odification makes use of
the variation of lift coefficient with flap _[eflection (CL_ I : bCL/_Bf)for c_/c = i and the effective change in two--dimensional angle of attack_
d_/d_: (_cz/_)/(_c_/_). The resulting eq:_ation for three-dimensional
circulation lift consists of the sum of the :'ollowing three parts:
c<_>c 1 _ (1)f/c : _ 2-7c_ _7.--7
for increment due to _. The first two comp_)nents in the above expression
represent d_/dB.
(2)
ii
where the first componentmodifies the conventional theoretical plainflap lift increment of reference 9 to allow for the increased effective-ness due to blowing.
( )of/c
where the first two factors are
12_ 57.3 CL__l (3)
= O
d_/d5 due to the jet flap.
In addition, the lift from the jet reaction must be included. This
is C times the sine of jet angle. Since comparable experimental data
were obtained at _u = 0°, the lift increment due to _ would be elim-
inated. The lift increment due to blowing would then be the following:
:[L(c /Sf)c : cf/c
/_J)cf/c 1 _J CL__I ] + (C_sin__j)(cz = o 2_ 57.3 (4)
For the jet flap, the first term of the above equation would be eliminated.
The following values were used to calculate jet flap effectiveness
for the subject wing:
1.44 (from cross plot of fig. 5, ref 9)
0.58 (from curve for theoretical plain flap effectiveness,
fig. 3, ref. 9; average plain flap chord ratio of 0.23
perpendicular to flap hinge line)
_f
5. tan -I (0.695 tan 5j)--j
Values of cZ/_ , cz/6f, and cZ/5 j
and the conversion from c_ to C_ref. l)
Sf cos2AfC_ = c_7
tan -I (cos Aftan 5f) = tan -I (0.895 tan 6f)
were obtained from figures 7 and 8,
was obtained by the relationship (from
12
REFERENCES
lo
1
.
.
1
6_
o
.
.
Kelly, Mark W., and Tolhurst, William H.. Jr.: Full-Scale Wind-
Tunnel Tests of a 35 ° Sweptback-Wing Airplane With High-Velocity
Blowing Over the Trailing-Edge Flaps. NACA RMA55109, 1955.
Kelly, Mark W., and Tucker, Jeffrey H.: Wind-Tunnel Tests of Blowing
Boundary-Layer Control With Jet Pressu:'e Ratios Up to 9.5 on the
Trailing-Edge Flaps of a 35 ° Sweptback-Wing Airplane. NACA RM
A56GI9, 1956.
Dimmoek, N. A.: An Experimental Introduction to the Jet Flap. NGTE
Report R. 175, Brit. Ministry of Supply, July 1955. (Also available
as NGTE M. 255, May 1955 and British M(_S C.P. 344)
Jousserandot, P.: Summary of the Systematic Tests of Supercirculation
by Blowing at the Trailing Edge of a Profile in Incompressible Flow.
David W. Taylor Model Basin Aero Rep. I_81, Washington, July 1955.
Chaplin, H. R.: Preliminary Investigati_n of a Jet-Flap Wing Config-
uration. David W. Taylor Model Basin Aero Rep. 896, Washington_
April 1956.
Lockwood, Vernard E._ Turner, Thomas R., and Riebe_ John M.: Wind-
Tunnel Investigation of Jet-Augmented ]'laps on a Rectangular Wing
to High Momentum Coefficients. NACA _r 3865, 1956.
Malavard_ Lucien C.: Recent Development_ in the Method of the Rheo-
electric Analogy Applied to Aerodynamic:s. Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 24,
no. 5, May 1957, PP. 321-331. (Also a_ailable as IAS preprint 699,
1957)
Poisson-Quinton, Ph., and Jousserandot, ]_.: High Lift and Control of
Airplanes by Circulation Control. Tra_Ls. by G. Boehler, ONERA,
July 1955. (Also available as Eng. StiLdy 186, School of Eng.,
Wichita Univ.)
DeYoung, John: Theoretical Symmetric Sp_.n Loading Due to Flap Deflec-
tion for Wings of Arbitrary Plan Form _t Subsonic Speeds. NACA
Rep. 1071, 1952. (Supersedes NACA TN $!278)
13
TABLE I.-- COORDINATES OF THE WING AIRFOIL
QUARTER-CHORD LINE AT TWO
(Dimensions given in
SECTIONS NORMAL TO THE
SPAN STATIONS
inches)
WING
Section at 0.491 semispan
x
0
.119
.239
.398
.597
.996
1.992
3.984
5.976
7.968
11.95215.936
19.92o
23.904
27.888
31.872
35.856
39.840
43.825
47.809
51.793
55.777
59.761
a63.745
83.681
Upper
surface
o.231
.728
.943
I. 127
1.320
i. 607
2.104
2. 715
3.121
3.428
3.863
4.157
4. 357
4.480
4.533
4. 525
4. 444
4. 299
4. 051
3. 808
3. 470
3. 066
2. 603
2.079
-. 740
Lower
surface
Section at 0.$63 semispan
x Upper
surface
o -o.o98
Lower
surface
- 0. 307
-. 516
-. 698
-. 895
-i. 196
-i. 703
-2.358
-2.811
- 3.161
-3. 687
-4. 064
-4.364
-4.573
-4. 719
- 4. 800
-4.812
-4. 758
-4.638
-4.452
-4. 202
-3.891
-3.521
-3. o89
Leading-edge radius
1.202, center at
(1.201, 0.216)
.o89
.177
.295
.443
.738
1.476
2.9524.428
5.903
8.855
11.8o6
14.758
17.71020.661
23.613
26.564
29.516
32.467
35.419
38.370
41.322
42.273
a47.225
63.031
.278 -0.464
.420 -.605
.562 -.739
.701 -.879
.908 -i.089
1.273 -1.437
1.730 -1.878
2.046 -2.176
2.290 -2.401
2.648 -2.722
2.911 -2.944
3.104 -3.102
3.244 -3.200
3.333 -3.250
3.380 -3.256
3.373 -3.213
3.322 -3.126
3.219 -2.989
3.074 -2.803
2.885 -2.574
2.650 -2.302
2.374 -1.986
2.054 -1.625
.321
Leading-edge radius:
0.822_ center at
(0.822, -0.093)
aStraight lines to trailing edge
14
15
A-21242
Figure i.- Photograph of the model in the Ames 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel.
16
233.38
/
All dimensions in inchesj
u_ess othe_se noted
\
\
//!\\
_eep (quarter-chord llne) 35.00 °
Aspect ratio _.94
Taper ratio 0.50
Twist 2.0 °
DihedrLl i .0°
Area 306.10 _ ftIncidence (root) 1.0 °
Airfoil section (root) _CA 0012-6_ (modified)
Air/oil section (tip) NACA 0011--64 (modified)
Ratio of _ area spanned 0.367
by flaps to total wir_
el_e reference line
0 ._-__ __--
116.8)
Figure 2.- General arrangement of model.
17
--_Fuselage censer line
Fuselage outline
c/4 line
Flap
Unsealed line
Center of flap
rotation
Section A-A
19.70
Nozzle
J height
Figure 3.- Details of wing and blowing nozzle arrangements.
:1_8
b.0(D
O'L_O'_ C_x...-._"
.r'-'_
io
\
oJ O
\o_
\,\
co
o
o
03,-4!
%
O
4-J
',D .-=t
r.D
cO
Od
t_ Q) O•_-I _ OJcJ (L:, •
i).o ,43H
r _ .H
._ cH .--_ OJ
L) r--I _ •
(J _ _ 0 .H 0
E_CPl _--_ _d -_
(2) I:_ °
. o,.I .H .+D -1• _ .H
-_ ..,
I _ ,-I .H• -I_ _.H "c:_
r H .H _• "_-_ I:_
• -I_-I-'_ , , _ _ _ oH
_ 4J •
o -_ _: O
c.)
' ' H c_
o
' H OI ._1
u- co
O -H°
g >• |
O (1)
hi?
i9
\
t--I °
_ oo oO --._"
0Q)
omO
rd
04
0Od
C
\
o_
rd
[]
0
O.,o
co xo _ o4
c_J;--4
%
0 "_
o _
°r-t
• _
0 _• 4J
°r-t
0
_3,--4
._ O__ °
0(M
',D
0
00
.r4
+_
oo
i
%
b_°_t
20
+mr.-4++_+
r-lO
r.j
\ \
\\
\
o
II
+.H
r-I
\\
\\
O
\
oo
I1
o
0
o
H
II
_J
0 .r-_
.q
• *rl
,d
.H
oo
°H
0_J
.
,-4¢H
---4 -H
,--t
@
r--I• © +tD
0
o
-oo
0 _
00
.H+._
oo
I
bO*H
21
o.rl
hO.H
Or_D
,-1
r-_ ,-t
r-tml
_-10 O
11 II
"_ °r'_ 0r-_
r--t r-t
r---I _
r-I r_ r_
00
_0II
0"L_
II
CO
o0
II
oo
co ,.0 .._ e,/
%
0
0
o -_o
0
0
o
t
0
0
0
.Hc_
,-i
.H
c_,-4
.f-_
c_
oH_
t o
..-I
r.D
.r-I
0
0
.H
_0
r.D
0r.D
I
I1)
.H
22
o
m
+_
ooII
o_ _
o
.H 0 0
II IIr._ _ .f,-_
._ee
ouO
\
%
.--.1"
r-4 J
\
0
r-I
%
o..,o
_-I
o
o
__rx_D
r-I,-_
O
oO
oJI-4
o
oDO
00._"
_._ 0
oDO
'_,o0
o
:::1.o
o',0
H
co
0m_
o
Q Q
\
_i o
r-i
0
)0
.'-I
.,-Ioo
II
_H _S_O
OO
O
_O.r-I
o°r-t 4_
c_ _.H
°H
_3_ d
4_ -H
r_)
0
oo .Ho +_
II
.H
O-H
!
i1)%
_0.,--t
23
I\\
\
o .._
\
\\
"X\,\,
\\\
Z_%
r-t r-t
r_
cj
iIIi
-[cd 0
o
co
0
c_e
o
_ °
r--t_ _ •
rj r--t
0
0o
0
_:k r--t
0_d
,.0r-t
(xjr-t
0
0
0
(D@4
'.0r-'t
\ •
,-4
\ 0
\ •0
x,, 0_ cq 0 0
©
g_)
24
Percent chordI0
I I00 c_/_
//5/j .o"// // _o
c_lsj 5
/ / Air floa
3
2
l
/
0
0 1
Figure 7.- Variation of
Air flo'¢
2 ;3 )4 5
cb
reference 7.
obtained from
25
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
.8
.4
0 .2
Figure 8.- Variation of
Air flow
cZ/5 j with c_
_ . 5j
.6 .8 l.o
obtained from reference 8.
NASA - Langley Field, Va A-!l_ 7
top related