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