RESEARCH MEMORANDUM -

THEEFFECTOFANOPERATINGPROPELLERONTHEAERODYNAMIC CHARACTEXSTICS AT HIGH SUBSONIC SPEEDS OF A .MODEL ,. :,’ .e.

OF A VERTICAL-RiXNG AIRPLANE HAVING AN UNSWEPT ‘_ ..; : 5 WING OF ASPECT RATIO 3

. r+il By Fred B. Sutton and Donald A. Buell

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif.

CLASSIFICATZON CHANGED

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WASHINGTON November 15,1954

L

NhcA RM A52Ei06

NATIORALADVISORY FORARRORAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMoRfl-NmM

THEEEFFECT OFANOPERATIRG~OPEUXR ON THE AELROD-YNAMIC CRARACTFRISTICSATRIGRSDBSONIC SPIZEDS CFAMODEI,

OFAVEECICAL-RISXDRAVINGANUNSWEPT WINGcIFASPECT~IO3

By Fred B. Sutton and Donald A. Buell

SUMMARY

An investigation wa6 conducted in the Amee 12-foot pressure wind tunnel to determine the effect of an operating propeller on the aerody- namic characteristics of a model of a vertical-rising airplane having an unswept wing with an aspect ratio of 3. Wind-tunnel tests were conducted through a range of power coefficiente at angles of attack up to 16O and at Mach numbers from 0.50 to 0.92. The Reynolds numberwaa constant at 1.7 million.

Lift, longitudinal force, pitch, and roll characteristics, determined w3th and tithout power, are presented for the complete model and for various combinations of model components. Result8 of an inveetigation to determine the characterietice of the dual-rotating propeller ueed on the model are given also.

INTRODUCTION

The large t&-u&i available with turbine-propeller propulaion systems has made possible the construction of fighter-type airplanes capable of vertical take-off and relatively high .subsonic forward speeds. The bves- tigation discussed herein w&a made of a model of such an airplane. The airplane configuration was aerodynamically conventional with the exception of an interdigitated tail on which all the movable control surfaces were located. Longitudinal, lateral, and directional control were achieved by appropriate combinations of movements of these four control surfaces.

Tests were conducted through an angle-of-attack~range at several power coefficients (incluafng propeller windmilling) to determine the effect of the operating propeller on the.LLft, drag, and pitching-moment characteristics of the model. The effect of windmZ.lling propellers on

2 NACA RM ~52~06

the effectiveness of the longitudinal and lateral control surfaces was also investigated. Data are presented in this. report without analysis and they pertain only to model characteristics in near horizontal flight attitudes and at comparatively high speeds.

NOTATION -

The results of the investigation are presented in the form of standard NACA coefficients of forces and moments and are referred to the conventional stability axes. The coefficients and symbols used are defined as follows:

lift lift coefficient, e ss

rolling-moment coefficient measured about the center of~gravzl.ty, rolling moment

W

pitchfng-moment~coefcient measured aboutthe center of gravity, pitching moment

s=

cp P power coefficient, -

pnsD5

T thrust coefficient, - pn2D4

CX

'zd

b

b'

longitudinal-force coefficient, -$

propeller-blade-section design lift coefficient

dQ3 aPan, ft

propeller-blade width, ft

C

5

C.G.

wing chord, ft

mean aerodynsmk wing chord,

center-of-gravity location (See fig. 1.)

sy2 c%y

r,"" c dy' ft

D propeller diameter, ft .

h maximum thickness of propeller-blade set tion, ft

-

l

.-

.

r

NACARMA52EO6 k 3

J

. M

n

P

R

r

9

S

T

.v

1 X

0 Y

a

B

8

propeller advance4iameter ratio, -&

free-stream Mach number

propeller rotational speed, r-pa

model-motor shaft power, f-t-Xb/sec

propeller-tip radius, ft

propeller-blade-section radius, ft

free-stream dynamic pressure, $ PV2, lb/sq ft

w-ing area, sq ft

propeller thrust, lb

free-stream velocfty, ft/sec

longitudinsl force, parallel to stream and positive in a thrust direction, lb

lateral distance from plane of symmetry, ft

angle of attach, deg

propeller-blade angle, deg

control-surface deflection with respect to a section of the fixed surface taken perpendicular to the hinge line of the movable surface, deg

aileron deflection, positive when lift is decreased on the right tail surface and increased on the left tail surface. (The con- trol surfaces were deflected differentially to the same angular magnitude.)

8e

rl

n

elevator deflection, positfve to increase lift on tail

%J propeller efficiency, - CP

free-stream mass densitv of air. sluas/cu ft I- I Y I

4 MXRMA52EO6

MODELANDAPPARKMJS

The investigation was conducted in the Ames 12-foot pressure wind tunnel using a l/10-scale.model of the Lockheed m-1 airplane supplied by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. The model had an unswept wing with an aspect ratio of 3.07 and a taper ratio of 0.327. The wing employed HACA 65A206 sections. The prototype-airplane contours were slfghtly modified at the base of the model fuselage to accommodate a sting-type model support. Figure 1 and table I present dimensions and details of the model and figure 2 shows the model mounted in the tunnel test sectfon. _

-. -

The six-blade dual-rotating

activity factor per blade of 140

and was designed by the Curtiss-Wright Corporation spec-ificall$ for vertical-take-off airplanes. Figure 3 presents propeller plan-form and blade-form curves.

The model, including the propeller, was constructed of aluminum alloy with the exception of the fuselage air-intake ducts which were sealed off.and faired with a lead alloy. Model control-surface deflec- tions were amated with interchangeable control surfaces-machined to predetermined angles. The model-propeller blades could be adjusted manually to any desired angle. The surfaces of the wing, body, and tail were filled, painted, and polished smooth.

-.

*

- . - -.

Model power was supplied by two water-cooled induction motors mounted in tandem in the model fuselage. Each motor developed a maximum of 36 horsepower at 12,000 revolutions per minute. A continuous speed control for the two motors was obtained by the use of a variable- frequency power supply--common to both motors. Each component of the dual-rotating propeller was directly driven by one of the model motors. Propeller speed was measured bymesns of a tachometer on the front motor (rear propeller) used in conjuncti.on with an electronlc.frequency- measuring device. It was .assumed that both motors turned at the same speed.

A sting-type model-support system was used with a wire-resistance strain-gage balance of the flexure-pivot type enclosed in the model fuselage to measure lift, longitudinal force, side force, pitching moment, rolling moment, and yawing moment. Angle,of attack was measured visually by means of a cathetometer.

NACA RM ~52~06

TESTSAND PROCXDURFS

Test Ranges

5

The characteristics of the model were investigated over a Mach number range of 0.50 to 0.92; Reynolds number was constant at 1.7 million. Several power conditions were investigated at various propeller-blade angles through an angle-of-attack range of -4O to +8O at each Mach number.

A summary of the power-on tests for several model configurations is presented in table II. The power coefficFents could not be exactly duplicated for the different model configurations as the tunnel tempera- tures and model-motor efficiencies could not be accurately predetermined. The power-coefficient values presented in table II are the averages of the values measured through sn.angle-of-attack range.

Propeller Calibration

Propeller calibrations were made by testing the propeller in com- bination with the model fuselage less the pilot's cab (fig. 4). Forces were measured through Mach number, angle-of-attack, model power, and propeller-blade-angle ranges which included the test ranges of the power-on model investigation. The'progeller thrust coefficient was deter- mined from the following relation:

where

Cxp = Qpropeller operating - CXpropeller off

The shaft power of the model motors was determined by measuring the input power to the motors and applying-corrections for the motor losses. Inter- ference effects between the body and the propeller were neglected and the efficiencies presented are the propulsive efficiencies of the propeller- body combiaation.

IWX RI4 A52Fi06

.

Tunnel-Wall Interference c

Corrections for the induced effects of the tunnel walls resulting from lift on the model were made according to the methods of reference 1. The corrections added to the angle of attack and longitudinal-force coefficient were as follows:

A4 = 0.2078 cL

acx= -0.00363 cL2

No corrections were made to the pitching-moment coefficients as calcu- lations by the method of reference.1 indicated the corrections to be negligible. .- II

The effects of wind-tunnel-wall constraint on the model-propeller slipstream were evaluated by the method of references 2 and 3. These effects were indicated to be negligible.

The effects of constriction of the flow by the tunnel walls were evaluated by the method of reference 4. The following table shows the magnitude of the corrections:

Corrected .Uncorrected Corrected Mach number Mach number %ncorrected

0.500 0.500 1.001 .700 :;;2 1.002 .800 1.003 .850 -847 l.OcA . go0 ,894 1.006 .g20 .g12 1.008

Sting Interference

In order to correct partially the longitudinal-force data for sting interference, the pressure was measured at the base of the model fuse- lage and the drag data-were adjusted to correspond to a base pressure equal to the static pressure-of the free stream.

- *--

.

-L

NACA RM ~52~06 7

FEXXILTS

Figures 5 through 10 show the characteristics of the dual-rotating propeller. Because of the small thrust available at Mach numbers of 0.90 and 0.92, only one power condition in addition to propeller wind- mU.lFng was investigated at these Mach numbers. The fairing of propeller- performance curves for these conditions (indicated by broken ties) is based on propeller-performance data obtained at lower Mach numbers. Figures IL through 16 show the effect of power on the aeroaynanric char- acteristics of the model fuselage. The effects of power on the aerody- namic characteristics of the complete model are shown in figures 17 through 22, and power effects on the aerodynamdc characteristics of the model with the tail removed are presented ti figure 23. Figure 24 shows longitudinal control-effectiveness data for several elevator deflections and one combination of elevator and aileron deflections. RoU character- istics of the model are presented in figure 25 for one aileron deflection and for a combination of aileron and elevator deflections. Figure 26 presents aercdynamic characteristics for several combinations of model components with the propeller removd, and figure 27 shows the aerody- namic characteristics for the body alone, the body and cab, and the body and tail.

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Moffett Field, Calif., May 6, 1952

REFXRENCES

1. Silverstein, Abe, and White, James H.: Wind-Tunnel Interference with Particular Reference to Off-Center Positions of the Wing and to the Downwash at the Tail. &A Rep. 547, 1935.

2. Glauert, H.: The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. American ed., The Macmillan Company, N.Y., 1943, pp. 222-226.

3. Young, A. D.: Note on the Application of the Linear Perturbation Theory to Determine the Effect of Compressibility on the Wind Tunnel Constraint on a Propeller. R.A.E. TN No. Aero. 1539, Nov. 1944.

4. Herriot, John G.: Blockage Corrections for Three-Dimensional-Flow Closed-Throat Wind Tunnels, with Consideration of the Effect of Compressibility. NACA Rep. 995, 1950. (Formerly NACA RM Ap28)

8 NACA RM A52EK%

TABI I.- GECTVETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OY‘TBE MODEL

wing Span,in. ........ ..- ............... 33.0; Rootchord,in. ................. ..- ... 16.20 Tip chord, in. . Mean aerodynamic ih&d, in. ..................................

5.30 11.65

Aspect ratio. ........................ 3.07 Taper ratio .. :-. I- ; ......... : ........ Area,sqft ........................ ";'~~ . Dihedral of wing reference plane through &O-percent chord,

deg ........................... -5.0 Incidence, root and tip, deg ............... Length, wing-tip armament pods, in, ............ 16% Diameter, wing-tip armament pods, in. ........... 1.80 Airfoil section, root and tip ...... -. ...... NACA 6511206

Tail Span.in. ........... ; ............. 14.70 Root chord, in. . ; .................... 8.50 Tipchord.in. ...................... 3.20 Mean aerodynamic chord, in. ................ 6.25 Aspect ratio .... -. ........ ; -. .......... 3*55- Taper ratio ..... :. ......... ; ........ 0.376 Total area, 4 surfaces, sq ft ............... 1.69 Total area, 4 fixed surfaces, sq ft ......... -. .. ‘1.36 Total area, bmovable surfaces, sq ft ........... 0.32 Incidence (angle in vertical plane) between fuselage

reference line and intersection of all chord planes, deg . -4.0 Sweepback angle, quarter chord, deg .... : ....... 30.0 Airfoil section, root and tip ... ; ........ NACA 65~007

l =

l

8 , * .

Tunnel bwb density

no. altttuae ft

0.50 22,100 .50 22,lao .50 22,100 .50 z2,loo

.-i-o 31,500 l 70 31,500 -70 31,500 l 70 31,500 -70 31,500

.80 35,100

:g ;;,tp; 2

-85 36,500

:g ;f5~:~ >

:g ~;~~Fl >

:g ;2~~ , Equivalent f'ul

Ilade angle, coIYflgLlratlon aeg Equivalent Fig.

it 0.75 r/R cP,v fuU-scale no, *av &a. hpl

z 0.84 -56 zg

;; 1.25 -94 1650 2700 17(b) 1.02

co:

- - - - 25 - 3

;; $2 4100 3100 18(a) 18(b) - -89 - E a79 2750

1.32 r50 WE/ l 8J3

60 1.13 2150 18(c) : :

- - m I---I --I --”

mm- I-,-I -,I -mm

- " 25 - - - - - m

;; .‘@ 22

3150 3350 lpa) 19 I b) -- .81. 55 2800 19(b) -73

2: 1:g 3150 3700 N4 -73

60 -97 2700

I m 25 - -

I I I

4e0 23(e) -63 4050 - - - l---l --I ---

25 - - - -

G- - -

4150 123(f)l 053) 3500 I

_ . _ -... _ _.

25 3 c 7 l- Bcale horsepower ms c!alcLiLateCl Tar afmuned alq.Lme altltuclea CorreepoMlng To

TABLE II.- SUMMARY OF THE MODEL POWEFi-ON TESTS

Fbpeller 1 Complete model I Ml-off model 1 Simulatea yaw -I

the tur!nel-density altitudes and a model scale of l/10.

10 NAOA FtM A52EO6

c

11

Figure 2.- Themodelhthe Ames IQ-foot pressure whdtunuel..

I = . 1 .

.lx? I I I I I I bh? I

f0

.a9

.06

‘7

.#

a?

0 0 1 .i

.8

.6

.4

,P

n - .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

froMi of tip radhs, r/R

I

figure 3.- ?hm - fom) and bl& -form curves for the dual -rotothg ,orop&v.

Figure 4.- !Che model propeller in the Ames l2-foot pressure wind tunnel.

, . .

, I

. .

.2

.I

-0

-.I

-.2

-J

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IT

‘rn.2 2.4 2B 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6

--dr’uanW rohb , J

(a.l u=o”

Figure 5.- Choracl8ristics of the dual -rotating propeller; MpO.50

.-.

up

I f 8

4.0 .4

‘3.0 .3

2.0 .2

0”

\

\

OLC-0 :o

E! ,E -,,

I I I, ( , -.2

-.3

.8

0

I T2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 34 36 3.8 4.0 42 4.4 4.6

Aahnce-mter mth , J

lb) a, 4O

F/gum 5.- Continued.

. .

4.0

I 0

. .

.4l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , .8

m I - .6

6s \

-2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4

Adwze-diameter rath , J

Id a,8’

figure 5.- Continued.

-.3 2

.8

!.2 2.4 2.6 2B 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

Advance-diomefer ratio , J

(d) a, 12”

Figure 5.- Continued:

P m

c .

. r b

4.0 .4 .8

t33 . 3.0 .3

.6

c- 3

.4

.2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2

Adwnw-dbeftv r&b , J

(8) a, 16’

Fi&t.ve 5.- Concluded.

4.0 I

.4 .8

.3 .6

.2 .4

.I .2

-0 0

‘. I

,.2

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5D

(al a, 00

Figure 6. - Chorocferi~iCs afthe dual-rotating prOplIer. hf, 0.70.

,

. I

I

4.0

04 3.0

.4 .8

.3 .6 b

.2

.I

-0 0

-.I

-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-.3 pqy=1

2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 44 4.4 4.6 4.8 50 Admmwhme~ rallip, J

lb) a,4’

Figure 6.- Confhw8d.

. I -2

-.3 20 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6

Ad&me-dhmettw rtn% , J

Figure 6.- Continued.

. . . . .

2.8 32 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 Advance-dim&v mth , J

(d) a, 12’

Figure 6-- Concluded

.4 .8

.3 .6 63

2 .4 .f

s

.I .2 G

-0

-.I 1 -a

-.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6

Advance-diameter raftb , J

fd a, 0”

fipm iT - Cbamcterisfics of ihe dual-mtating pmpeI/e~ M, 0.80.

. , ,’ i

.4

.3

.2

oh

%- .I -9 0 E :

I o-+--o B i!

/ E -.I

I I I \I I I I I

.8 Ii

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 Athnm-a!!~ rati # J

(4 a,d”

Figure 7.- Continued.

3.0 OQ

-3 .6

6 .2 .4

8 ii

.I

-0

-.3 0

-.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8

,4o’vm-dimfer rvlrb , J

’ c

fcl a,8’

Figure 7.- thnchied

, I .

4.0

043.0 *

3 - 2d i u

I .4

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I I I

III I I

%

.6

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 Aahnm-dimetw Mb , J

F/gum 8.- Churocterfstics of #e duaJ- mtatlng propeller. At, 0.83.

.3

.2

I . .

-0

2.4 2.8 32 3.6 4.0 4.4 46 5.2 5.6 6B Advome-diamefe rati , J

(bl a,4’

F/gum 8.- Confhued.

.

, , I

I .

~&WI? 8.- cbncfuded.

w 0

3.0

op

.3 .6

.2 .4

.I .2

-0 0 I I I I I \ ‘\

‘\ \ -.I \-

\ \ \ h \ ---dm=. . . n I

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.6 50 5.2 5.4

Advance-dianwtw ratio , J

Id a, 0’ .

F&n-e 9. - C&uctwistics of the &&rvtatihg propel/e. AI, 0.90. s ??A

. .

.3 .6

.2 .4

3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6

Adwnce-dtatmtev mtio , J -EiQ-

01 a, 4O

Figure 9.- Continued.

.

-3 - 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2

Advance-dtimeter ratio , J

(cl a,8O

Figt~n? 9.- Concluded.

‘&I 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 46 5.0 5.2 5.4

Advance-diimetev mti0 , J

f@ a) O*

Figure IO.- Clwracteristics of the duakrotatfng propeller. M, 0.92.

ii

I I I I I I I I I I I I l I 11, I,, I I I I J ;.o 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 50 5.2 5.4

Aabnce-diametw ratio , J

lb) 0,4’

figure IO.- Continued.

, . 1 I

L

1 .

-I: I ”

- ‘“2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4~9 5.2 5.6 6D

Admce-t&meter r&O , J

(13 a,8’

F&we IO.- Gmcluded

.I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 72 0 .2 .28 .24 -20 .I6 .I2 .08 .W 0 Longihrdnol-fbtce coefficien,, C, Lift coefficient, CL Pifclring-moment coeh%ient, Cm

1uM&,,50° -=vi

Ftgure Il.- 738 effect of power on tie fongitudha/ chamcteristics of the model fusebge. M, 0.50. k? sl

. I

l .

Longitudinal-force coefficient, C’ Lift coefficient, CL Pi/thing-moment toe #Went, Cm

Longitudinal-tWw coefficient, G, Lift coeffhient, 15, hkhing-moment coetXcient, Cm

-

figure l2.- ?Be effect of power on the /ongitudinal chamcteristics of the model fusekrge. M,O.?O.

. . \ ,

. .

I8

16

14

4

044-6 ‘2 I h e ul

.04 0 -.04 :018 72 0 .2 .2;r .20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 ~04 Longitudinal-tbtre coefficien/, C, Lift coeffich?nt, CL Mching-moment coefh?xiW, Cm

lWB,,,,55”

Figure 12.-Continued.

I8

16

0 prop. off 0 Windmill

I I 1-1.1 I I . I , I

6 I I 1 1111 I I I

4

2

0 .04 0 -.04 508 0 .2

IL 24

z .I6 .08 .04 0 44

Longitudina/- force coefficisnC, C, Lift coefficient, CL Mching-moment coefi%ienf, C,

IcL+!~~~~, 60.

Figure 12.- Concluded.

. l 1

2 I \, \ I I

\:\ . \-

al-2 Oo- - d ~08 Longitudhol- force coefficient, C,

72 0 .2 Lift coefficient, CL

.I6 .f2 .08 .04 0 z.04 Wtding-moment coeffkient, C,

figure N.- The effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model fusehge. M,O.80.

8

6

oI’d”“““‘L”““““““” .04 0 44 -.a? 72 0 .2 .20 .t6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -04

Longihniinol- force coefficient, C, Lift coefficknt, CL

lbU& R, 55’

fipure l3.- Continued.

Mching-moment coefficient, C,

. . . I

.

____--- --- - -.--- -

, I

.04 0 -.04 449 72 0 .2 LonghWinol- force coefKicien4 G, Lfft coeflkient, CL

.20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 44 Rtching-moment coeftklent, C,

Figure f3.- Continued.

34 o- -.04 72 tr .2 .I6 .I2 .08

c

Longitbdinol- force coefficient C, Lift coefficient, CL Mcbing-moment coefkient, Cm

/dlflo,,,, 6!7

figure f3- Concluded.

, . I

f4

0 .04 0 704 48

Longibdinal-lbme coefficient, C, 72 0 .2

Lift coefficient, CL -20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 704

titching-moment coefflcienf, C,

T

figure l4.- Tr)e effect of power on the longitudinal chomcteristics of the model fuselage. A4,0.85.

b P 10 3

0 .04 0 704 48

Longitudinal- foxe coefficien/, C’ 72 0 .2

Lift coefficient, CL .20 .I6 .I2 -08 .04 0 704

Hching-moment coefticient, C,

pg7

figure l4.- Continued.

. .

. .

IO

h %8 3

5 6

ii “04 d P p-

\ \ T J

\‘r , 0-L II .04 0 -.04 da8 52 0 .2 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 ~04

Longitudnol- force coeffic/ent, C, Lift coeffkient, CL Pitching-moment coet%kient, 6,

Figure /4.- Concluded.

I f I

0 0 :04 708 72 0 .2 .I2 .08 .04 0 ~04

Longitudinal- force coefficient, C, Liff coefficient, CL Mching-moment coefficient, C,

-57

figure 15~ 73e effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model fuselage. M, 0.90. E

l , 1

M I

0 994 708 72 0 .2 Longitudinal-force coefficient, C, Lit7 coefficient, CL

.I2 .08 .04 0 704 Pitching-moment coetWcient, Cm

v

figure t5.- Con tinued.

Longit%

W$rsRr650

figure IS- Concluded.

UI 0

8 I

6 \

\

4 P I \. I

2- I \ I I \ \,

0-d + 4 0 -.04 708 72 0 .2 .I6 ./2 -08 .04 0 -.04

dinal- force coeftkient, C, Lift coefficient, CL Pitcling-moment coefficienf, Cm

Long&d/L

figure l6.- 7

1 44 a? -.2 0 .2 71 -force coeMcient, C, LM coefficient, CL Pitching-moment coefkient, C,

v

la)B, pJR’ 55* .

!e effect of power on the longltudinol chamcteristics of the model fuselege. A#, 0.92.

I . \ I

.

I ‘,\ -a

00 :: h 0 ~04 708 72 0 .2 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04

Longitudinal- force coefficient, C’ Lift coefficient, CL FV?ching-moment coeffcient, C,

v

tbh&5R, 60’

figure l6.- Contin ued.

t

Longitudinal -force coefficient, 6” Lift coefflcienl, CL Mching-moment coehkieni, C,

(CA&,, 65’

t7gunr l6.- Concluded.

.8

“.08 .04 0 -04 ~08 :lP .I6 .I2 -08 .04 0 -.04 $8 712 -.I6 720 Longitudinal-force coefficient, Cx Pitching -moment coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 ’ 8 t2 Angle of ott’ock, a, dy

wqQ*J~R , 50°

Figure /7.- The effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model. M, 0.50.

. .-

i.0

.8

.6

-4

3

0

-.2

-.4 .08 .04 0 -04 -.08 ;lP .I6 ./2 .08 .04 0 -.04 -08 ;f2 ;I6 ~20

Longlludlnal- force coefficienf, 15, Pftchfng -moment coefficient, C, -8 -4 0 4 8 l2

. Angle of attack, a, deg

.8

.6

I.04 0 104 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 ./6 .I2 .08 .04 0 ~04 ~08 -92 96 -.PO Longitudinal-force coeficlen4 C, Pitching -moment toe fflclent, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of attack, a, deg

hd#q~ . 75 R #m”

Figure l8.- The effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model. M, 0.70.

.

, I

I

.8

-.2

,

--.04 0 704 ~08 -a/2 -.I6 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 ~20 Longlfudinal-force coefficient, G, Pitching-moment coefficient, 6,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angfe of attack,. 0; deg

Figure El.- Gonthwed.

.8

-.4 .04 0 -04 -.08 -.I2 -.I6 .I6 ./2 .08 .04 0 -.04 708 712 ~16 Longitudinal- force coefficient, Gx Pitching-moment coefficient, G,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of ottock, a, deq

IdBoa 75 R ,6Q’

Figure I8.- Concluded.

LOI , , , , , , , , , , 1 , , , , , , I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I

“0 ~04 ~08 -.I2 ;/6 ./6 ./2 ~38 -04 0 ~04 ~08 -,I2 y/6 ~20 Lonqitudlnol- force toe ffc/enl, Cx Pitchllng -moment coefflclent, G,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of attack, a, deq .

Figure 19.- The effecf of power on the lt?nglfudinol choracterist/cs of /he model. M, 0.80.

.8

I i i i i I

.~V

0 -04 -.08 -JP -J6 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 -.04 ~08 712 716 720

Lonqitudinoi- force coefficient, G, Pitching -moment coefficient, G,

-8 -4 0 4 8 12

Anqfe of ottock, a, deg

161/oa75R, 55” Figure /9.- Continued.

.

_

, I ,

.8

d .6 ?

/- s

I /

3 .4 kwlllllll~llll d

dd I I I I I I I Ml I I I I

--0 704 ;08 712 716 .I6 ./2 .08 .04 0 -,04 708 -.I2 -.I6 720

Lonqitudinu / - force toe f&/en f, G, Pftching-moment coefficient’, G, -8 -4 0 4 8 12

Angie of attack, a, deq

(cl lo,75 p 60° F&we /9.- Concluded

-.2 \\I\, I/ VA

74 rq 3 f$ C'

0 ~04 708 -.I2 ;I6 .I6 .J2 .08 .04 0 -.04 708 -.J2 -.I6 720

LonqJtudinaJ- force coefficient, Gx PifchJnq-moment coefficient, G, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of ottock, a, deg

FJqure 2O.- The effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model. tW, 0.85.

.

J.0

.8

Prop. oft . . .

?2

74 0 704 ~08 -.JP y/6 .J6 al2 .08 .04 0 -.04 ~08 ;J2 -.J6 ~20

Lonqitudinol- force coefficient, Gx Pitching-moment coefficient, G, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of attack, or deg

Figure 20.- Concluded

.8

.6

-.4 I I I

76 0 ~04 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 .I6 .J2 -08 .04 0 -.04 708 -.I2 -.J6- ~20 -.24

LonqJtudinaJ- force coefficient, G, Pitching-moment coefficient, G,,, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of attock, a, deq

B 0.75R’ 600 Figure 2J.- The effect of power on the Jonqifudinal characteristics of the model. M, 0.90.

,

J.0

.8

.6

q Windmill d Cp,; 0.98

01 / j / i / / / /

-.2

-.4

-.6 -0 ~04 -.08 112 116 .l6 .J2 .08 .04 0 ;04 708 :I2 -.J6 ~20 -.24

Longitudinal- force toe fciclent, G, Pitching-moment coefficient, G, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of ottock, a, deq

B 0.75R J60” Figure 22.-The effect of power on the longitudinal characteristics of the model. M, 0.92.

.8

.6

‘:08 .04 0 ~04 -.08 -.I2 0 -.04 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 L ongltudinal -force toe fficien f, C, Pitching -moment coefficient, Cm

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of oltack, a; deg

(al M, 0.50

Figure 23.- The effect of power on the longifudinal characteristics of fhe model, tail off.

P 0.75R ’ 55f

.8 I I I I I I I I I I I , , , I

n I-l I I I I I*1 I I I I I Il.clt7”

‘TO4 0 ~04 ~08 -,/2 0 -.04 ~08 1J2 ;J6 Lonqitudina J - force toe fficent, G, Pitching -moment coefficient, G,

-8 -4 0 4 8 J2 Angie of attack, a, deq

fbJ I#, 0.70

figure 23.- Continued,

..- . -- -. ._..

.8 I I I I I I I I I

llllllllAlllllllll IdMl I I I I ldxl I I I I I I I I-TM I I

.6

.4

.2

0

-.2 I I I I I I I

--?04 0 704 ~08 -./2

I ,,,,,,,I, I,,

I I I I I I I

Lonqifudinul- force coefficient, G, -8 -4 0 4 8 J2

Angle of atfuck, a, deq

Pitching -moment coefficient, G,

figure 23.- Continued,

.

. I

” I

I

:4,

.8

7 704 ;08 -.J2 -.J6 0 -.04 ~08 -.J2 -./6 ~20 LonqJtud+wJ- force toe ffi&wt, G,

-8 -4 0 4 8 J2 Angle of atfack, a, deq

PJtchinq-moment coefficient’ G,

(dl M, 0.85

Figure 23.- Continued.

.8

-.2

.

-.4 0 ~04 708 -./2 -.I6 0 -.04 ~08 -;f2 -.I6 720

Longitudinal-force coefficient, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C, -8 -4 0 4 8 12

Angle of ottock, a, deg

lel M, 0.90

Figure 23.- Continued.

. .

.8

74 0 ~04 708 -12 -.I6 -.20 .04 0 -.04 708 112 716 720

Fftcblng-moment coefficient, C, Longitudinal- force coefficent, Cx

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of attack, u, deg

Figure 23.- Concluded.

I I’

-I r

I

o se *O*, 8~pOo1pfO~.0ff =-So, &=O*,ptvp. off

A 4 =-So, 8, = 6’ ,propoff =-I,?‘, &O” pindmill,

-,I2 -.I6 ./6 ./2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II

.08 .04 0 -.04 708 :/2 ~16 ~20~~ Long//udina/- force coefficienr: C, Piiching-moment coefficieni, C, I I -

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 0 0 Angle of attack, a; deg

Ia) hi, 0.50 2

F&we 24. - Longifudiiwi-contra/ &oract%Gti~s of fhe model.

.

. L . Ei

.8

.6

-4

.2

0

-.2

Y.4

,c .V

0 ~04 ~08 :I2 716 .I6 .I2 -08 .04 0 -a04 ~08 ~12 ~16 720 Longitudinal- force coefficfent’, Cx Pitching-moment coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 I 0

I- O

Angle of oh’ock; a, deg

(b) h’, 0.70

F&e 24- Continued.

I.2 0 8, no*, 8, “OO, prop. off A 8, g-6”, 8g 6*,prcrp. off a rn 8, =-so, 8, ‘00, prw. off v 8, =-/2*, 8, =O*, windmM, 0 8e =-/P, 8, =oq prop. off 6% .75R =55* I I I1

I I I I I I I I I I III I I I III .8

.6

0

-.2

-.4

8 ,=-SO, 8, =P and

8, r-6*, au = 6’ I I I t I I I I

I.. -- , w _ w ” -&“““““I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 704 708 ~12 -./6 .I6 .f2 .08 .04 0 -.04 :08 112 716 720 v Longitudinal- force coeficient, C, Pitching-moment coefftcieni, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 0 I

Angle of oftuck, a, deg

(c) A/, 0.80

FTgure 24. - Continued.

. ,

0 8e =O”, 6, =O*, prop. off u se p-6*, 8, = o*, prop. off

A8 e*-6*,8,- G”,pro~. off V 8eci20, S,=O*, whdmiil,

.8

.2

I IYY’xId I I I I IXET[ I I lF!!I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

- -

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I 8 e p-6”, Se 10’ and

8, 8-6s & = 6* I II I I,,,,,,,,,,,,

se =C 8qaObI I I I Id,+24 8,=0” I I I I

I I I I I I I I t I I I I i I

I I

I I I I 1.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I

r ” I4

-do I i i i I I r i I i ,

704 ~08 -.I2 -./6 ./6 .12 -08 .04 0 -a04 -08 ~12 116 720 -K@J7- Longitudinal- force coeficient, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 I I 0 0

Angle of attack, a, deg

(d) h#, 0.85

Fm 24.- Continued. 2:

/.2t 1 1 1 ) 6 0 8, =o*. 8” no*. oroo. off A 8, =-6”. 8,s 6’.prvp.off

ndmill. r y rr ,

u 8: =-So, 8, -O*, prop. off *” _.

. v 8; 9-120, s,=o*, wil - 0 8, =+C 8, R O", PfOp, Off 84mw55*

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .8

-.4

-.6 0 704 ~08 -./2 -./6 ./6 ./2 -08 .04 0 -.04 708 -.f2 ;I6 720

Longitudinal- force coefficient, C, Pitcbing-moment coefficient, C, I2

I

T

-8 -4 0 4 8 I

0 0 Angle of affuck, a; deg

2 (el M, 0.90 $

Figure 24. - Continued. B (r\

l

.8

.6

-.4

76 0 ~04 -.08 712 96 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 104 ~08 -;I2 716 7207397

Longitudinal- force toe fficen( C, Pitching -moment toe friicenr; C, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

I I 0 0

Angle of attack, 0; deg

iv hf, 0.92

Figwe 24. - Concluded,

.028 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ,&&a

I I I I I1 I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I.1 I

, L LY ,.024 0 M -2 ,$ mo

* ! -c 0 0.50 r-i?? , 0 .70

S=fP”, @o: Prop.off 0 -60 -- 4=l2: s=O: Windmill

v-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 l0

Angie of attack, a, deg

Figwe 25-Roll cbmwcten!s%s of the model. Angle of yaw, 09

, I , .

I.0 o Wing, body 0 Wing, body,tail, winptippod vanes removed

.8 q Wing,body, cab A Wlng,body,tail v Wing, body, cab,toil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

34 0 704 -.08 -.I2 -.I6 .I6 ./2 .08 .04 0 -.04 ~08 -.J2 :I6 720 Longl)udinal-force coefficient, C’ Pitching-moment coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of attack, a; deg

(a) M,O.50

Figure 26.- The longitudinal characferistics of several combinations of model components. Repeller removed. ’

g, body, tail, wing-tlppod vanes removed

Longitudlna/- force coefflcent, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of uffuck, a, deg

(b) IQ, 0.70

Figure 26. - Continued.

, .

* M

Wing, body, tuil, wing-tip-pod vunes removed 1

104 ~08 ;I2 716 .I6 .I2 ,008 .04 0 -a04 ~08 -.I2 -16 720

.8

.6

Longifudinul- force toe fficlent, C, Fltching-moment coefffcient, C, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angie of attack, a, deg

(c)M, 0.80

figure 26 - Continued.

w

I

I.0

.8

o Wing, body 0 Wing, body, tuil, wing-tip-pod vanes removed q Wing, body, cab A Wing, body, toil V Wing, body, cob, foil

1~111111111~ 1111 I I I I I I IIIIIIIIlx4

-A I I IW I II81 I IT&I I I I I I I I I I I .04 0 704 ~08 -./2 -.I6 ./6 ./2 -08 .04 0 -.04 708 :I2 :I6 720

Longh’udinul- force coefficient, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C, -8 -4 0 4 8 I2

Angle of ah’uck, a, deg

ld) M, 0.85

Figure 26- Continued.

4 . ,

, .

.8

. -.6

1 7 -.04 ~08 ~12 -./6 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 704 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 -.PO -.24 ~28 Longhdlnol- force toe f’iclent, C, Pitching-momenf coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 Angle of attack, a, deg

(e) M, 0.90

Figure 26- Continued.

L

I.0 o Wing, body 0 Wing,body,toil, wing-tlppod wanes removed q Wing, body. cab A Wing, body, fail v Wing.body. cabJail I

,8I/ / -- -_ _.

/ IIIIII IIIIII IIIIII -. -_ r

._ /

.6

i i i i i/‘i i i

-.6 0 704 708 92 -.I6 .I6 ./2 .08 .04 0 -.04 ~08 -.I2 -.I6 720 ~24 ~28 ,ongitudinal- force coefficient, Cx fiiching -moment coefficient, C,

-8 -4 0 4 8 I2 Angle of Otto&, o, deg

(,‘l M, 0.92

Figure 26.- Concluded.

. .

IO

! ! ! ! 1 ! w ( ! lomy uione 1 1 1 1 )JJ 1 1 1 J/i-I

8

? 6 b 0 Body and loll 1 1 1 Iv,1 1 1 J/q 1 1

6- 4 YI I Yl I I I

. .

.04 0 -.04 ~08 .24 20 .I6 I2 .08 -04 0 04 708 -12 -./6

Longifudinaf- force coefficien{ Cx Pifching-moment coefficien/, C, -.4 -.P 0 .2 A

L fft coefficienl, CL

Figure 22- The longitudinal characteristics of the body alone, the body and Ml, and the body and cab. Propeller removed.

Cl Body and tail

.04 0 -.04 108 .24 .20 ./6 .I2 .08 .04 0 .04 708 ,/2 .I6

Longitudinal-force coefficent, Cx -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4

Lift coefficient, CL

Pitching -moment coefficient, C,

lb) M, 0.70

Figure 22 - Continued.

. I

8

-6 .L ?4 0 704 708 24 20 16 I2 D8 04 0 04 708 -12 -16

Longitudinal- force coefficent, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C, 74 -.2 0 .2 .4

lift coefficient, CL

(19 PI, 0.80

Figure 22 - Continued.

6

0

.04 0 704 ~08 24 -20 16 ./2 DB .04 0 104 708 -12 -J6

Longitudinal- force coefficfen f, Cx Pitchhg -moment coefficient, C,

-.4 -.2 0 2 .4 Lift coefficient, C,

Figure .? 7.- Continued,

. I .

8

9 6 h

t? 4 I I I1111 I I I I I I I I

I I I II I.7 1 I .24 -20 .I6 ./2 ,08 ,04 0 ?04 -.08 -./2 -~6

Longitudinal -force coefficient, Cx -.4 -.2 0 .2 .Q

Lift coefficient, CL

Pitching-moment coefficient, C,

tel M, 0.90

Figure 2 7. - Continued.

24 .20 .I6 .I2 .08 .04 0 704 508 712 -16 Longitudinal- force coefficient, C, Pitching-moment coefficient, C,

-.4 -.P 0 .2 .4 Lift coefficient, CL

(f/ M, 0.92

Figure 27.- Concluded.

. I .