_ JNCLAS!

::ii FIE[f°PY

- -., __ , BSiIRI~fE1P . ~ _~ RM A51D18

1

.- .

N-:_1!t&c;,.r~ ~.~

-

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

EFFECTS OF DOUBLE-SLOTTED FLAPS AND LEADING-EDGE MODIFICA TIONS ON THE LOW-SPEED CHARACTERISTICS OF A LARGE-SCALE 400 SWEPT-BACK WING WITH AND WITHOUT CAMBER AND TWIST

By Harry A. James and Jos9Iil K. Dew

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WASHINGTON July 23, 1951

S1' --a'lf'IC-""::-_-.,~

~- - RICTEO

UNCLASSiFIED

NACA RM A5lD18

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITI'EE FOR AERONAUrICS

RESEARCH Ml!M)RANDUM

-

~ltll!]I!JIIIDln:m~llllll~ll~

3 1176014259312

EFFECTS OF OOUBLE-SLOTTlID FLAPS AND ~ M:>DIFlCATIONS ON THE LOW-SPEED C&.RAOI'ERISTICS OF A LAIDE-SqALE 450 SWEP.r~ACK WING WITH AND WITEDUT CAMBER AND TWIST

By Harry A. James and Joseph K. Dew

An investigation has been conduc'bed, on two large-scaJ.e, semi span, wing-fuselage models with the 0.25-chord line swept back 450 to determine and compare the effects of partiaJ.-span, double-slotted flaps on the characteristics of a 450 swep~ack wing with and without camber

and twist. .An investigation was aJ.so conducted to determine the effects of various full-spanj leading-edge modifications on the characteristics of the models with and without double-elotted flaps.

The results show that partial-span, double-slotted flaps improved the high-lift and moment characteristic s on both wing models. The improvements in maximum lift coefficient were from 0.9 to 1.2 for the wing with no camber and twist, and from 1.1 to 1.4 for the wing with camber and twist; corresponding increases in the lift coefficient at which large variations in force and moment characteristics took place were aJ.so reaJ.ized. The increases, at zero angle of attack, in lift coefficient due to the dotible-slotted flaps were 0.62 for the wing with no camber and no twist, and 0.47 for the wing with camber and twist.

The results show that of the two wing models the one with camber and twist attained higher lift coefficients before the rate of drag rise increased abruptly, indicating that section stall was delayed to higher lift coefficients. The increase in this lift coefficient amounted to about 0.44 when the flaps were retracted and: about 0.28 when the flaps were extended.

The best leading-edge modification on the wing without camber and twist increased the lift coefficient at which there was an abrupt increase in rate of drag rise with lift coefficient by aqout 0.23 for

2

~ .... ,.-~-.-.,.---" •... ~,-.---- .. ---.""-~-.-. -NAGA RM A5lD18

the wing with flaps extended or retracted. For the cambered" twisted wing with flaps retracted - bher-e was practically no change. However J on

this wing wi thflaps extended an increase of about O.il was realized. •

The theory of NACA TN 2278, 1951, was satisfactory for predicting

the lift increment, at 00 angle of attack, due to the double-slotted flaps. The wing lift coefficient at which large variations in the force and

moment characteristics occurred cOl:'respon:ded -approXimately with the calculated onset of section stall.

INTRODUCTION

The applicat1_on of camber and twist to a swept wing was first of interest as a means of improving high-speed performance. It became evident, however, that the use of camber and twist to distribute the wing load more tmiformly at high speeds (low li:f.'t) would also improve the low-speed (high-lift) characteristics. Accord.ingl.y, an investigation at low speed was undertaken on a large-scale 450 s:wept-back wing of aspect ratio 6,. taper ratio of 0.5, 'and cambered and twisted for a design lilt coefficient of 0.4. The _lift, drag, and pitchiI:lg-m:>ment characteristics of this wing and one of similar plan form but without camber and twist were reported in references 1 and 2. Since flaps are conunonly employ~d to increase the lilt at low speeds, an investigation of the effectiveness of flaps on the two wings was undertaken and is reported herein.

The particular choice of flap type and area distribution used in this investigation resulted from the following reasoning. While the camber and twist chosen on the basis of high-speed requirements gave some improvements in the high-lift characteristics, it was anticipated that at low speed more improvement could be realized from further increases in camber and twist. Additional camber" to increase further the section max~ lift of the thin sections, and increased twist, to counteract the induced effects of sweep, together would enable all sections of the wing to reach high lifts and more sections of the wing

to reach their maximum lifts simultaneously. Such further increases in camber and twist at low speeds would be acceptable, of course, only if they could be eliminated at hIgh speeds.

Trailing-edge flaps p;resent a ~ans of effectively varying camber and twist in flight. By use of the theory of reference 3, it is possible to desi_gn a flap installation which provides a specified span loading distribution, which might otherwise be obtained by wing camber and twist. Analysis based on references 3 and 4 shows that a rough approximation of such a flap installation can be realized with a flap of partial span,

provided that the ~ift increment due to the flaps and the maximum lift ~

NACA EM A5ID18

3

of the flapped section are both su:f'ficiently great. Com;pu:ted span loadings show that, with this sort of com;promise, the two-dimensional maximum. lift of sections just outboard of the flaps wou1.d have to be exceeded if' significant gains in lift were to be realized. The B.DBJ.ysis of reference 4 indicates that such a circumstance did exist for the flapped wing considered in that reference. For the wing plan form under study, double-sJ..otted flaps extending from 0.2 semispan (Wing-fuselage juncture) to 0.6 semispan were therefore chosen in order to obtain high fl.ap-l.if't increments, high maxilmIm. section lifts, and an optimum. utiliza.tion of availabl.e section maximum. lilt. The flap sections were chosen

on the basis of data given in reference 5.

In addition to the tests described above, studies were also made

of several lea.d.illg-ed.ge modifications which, based on the resu1.ts of reference 2, were believed to offer the possibil.ity of :further improvements in the high-lif't characteristics of' the lmcanjbered, untwisted wing. These incl.uded various changes in l.eading-edge radius and camber designed to delay- or e] iminete separation of air fl.ow from the wing leading edge. The effect of increased l.eading-edge radius and. caIliber_ was also investigated in the case of the cambered, twisted wing although the analysis of reference 2 indicated llttl.e or no gain wou1.d be expected.

NOTATION

The data are presented in the form of standard NACA coefficients which are appl.icabl.e to a ful.l.-span configuration. Moments are referred to the quarter point of the mean aerodynam:ic chordl. (fig. 1) and all coefficients are based on the d1T!\3nsions2 of the untwisted wi..ng.

lift coefficient (.I...) qS

C Leep

l.1ft coefficient at which rate of drag rise with lif't suddenly increases

increment of l.ift coefficient due to flap deflection

~ mean aerodyna.m:ic chord is located in the wing reference plane defined by the quart.er-chord line of the wing panel. and the root chord l.ine at the axis of symmetry.

~ projected area of the twisted wing at 00 angle of attack of the wing-root section was approximatel.y 0.5 percent less than the area

.. of the untwisted wing.

4. NACA:RM A5lD18

CD drag coefficient (~ )

Cm pitchiJ.:lg-moment coef'f'icient (~)

c~ section l1£t coefficient

Cz section ideal l1£t coef'f'icient

i

Cz max~ section l1£t coefficient

:max

D drag on semispan w1Jlg, pounds

L lift on semispan wing, pounds

M pi tchiIlg moment of semispan wing, foot-pounds

S area of' semispan wing, square feet .

b span of complete wing, f'eet

mean aerodynamic chord

c local chord measured perpendicular to the quarter-chord line

cl local chord measured paraJ.J.el to plane of u.r.mmetry, f'eet

q dynamic pressure, pounds per square foot

y spamrise coordinate no~ to plane of' symmetry, f'eet

~ angle of' attack of' wing root chord, degrees

€ angle of' twist with respect to root chord (positive f'or wash in) ,

degrees

Tj fraction of' semispan (b72)

NACA EM A5lDl8

5

MODEL .AND APPARATOS

The principal dim:msions of the two semis:pa.n., 'Wing--fuselage models used in this investigation are shown in figure L The 'Wind~UDD.el floor served as a reflection plane, and the models were supported on a turntable, independent of the tmmel...-floor structure, in such a manner that only the aerodynamic forces and. moments on the 'Wing :fuselage were measured on the 'Wind.-4iunnel six-com;ponent balance system. There 'WaS a l/4-inch gaIl between the fuselage and the tunnel floor. A vie'W of the semispan test installation is shown in figure 2.

ExceIlt for differences of camber and twist, the two wings were similar in that they had 450 of sweeIlback of the quarter-chord line, an aspect ratio of 6, and a taper ratio of 0.5. 'n:Le Illain wing had an

NACA 64A010 section normal to the quarter-chord line and had no twist

and no camber. The cambered, tvisted'Wing had an NACA 64A8l0, a=o.8 (modified) section normal to the quarter-chord line and was twisted over the span to give 100 'Washout (streamwise) at the tiIl as shown in figure 1. Coordinates of the airfoil sections, derived from reference 6, are :presented in table I. The wing tips were 1'ormed by balf'-:t>odies having a local diameter equal to the corresIlonding thickness of the tiIl section. Further details of the deSign of' the wings can be found in reference 1.

The fuselage shape was defined by a hali'o4lody of revolution with

a fineness ratio 01' 4.9; details of the fuselage thickness distribution are Ilresented in figure l. The chord line of each wing at the Illane of symmetry had zero incidence with resIlect to the fUselage center line.

The double-alotted flaIlS (hereinafter referred to simply as flaps) used in this investigation extended from 0.20 semis:pa.n to 0.60 aemi.apan at which points the flaps were terminated along lines normal to the 75-i;lercen.t-chord line. The main and foref'laps were ~..."Q_!!ord and 0.075 chord, respectively, measured normal to the quarter-chord line. The~1ap coordinates, chosen on the basis of results given in

reference 5, are given in tables II and III: Detailed views of' the flaps are shown in figure 3. The deflection angles for the main flap and the foreflap measured in °a plane nonnal to the wing quarter-chord line were 550 and 300, respectively.

The various modified airfoil sections are denoted l, 2, 3, and 4 and. are illustrated in figure 3. The coordinates of these sections are given in table I. Of note is the fact that the l.ead1.ng-edge radius of airfoil section l (c.cia chord). is equal to that of a 10--percent-thick NACA four-digit series airfoil. Each of the leading~d.ge modifications extended over the exposed span of the wing.

6

NACA RM A51D18

TEsrs AND CORRECTIONS

.. _

Force tests or the two semi~ models with the various high-lift devices Were IlBde through an angl.e-or-e.ttack range :from -80 through the angl.e of the maximum lilt ccerficient. The tests were all :made at a Reynolds number of 8 million (based on a wing mean aerodynamic chord of 6.21 ft) which corresponds to a dynamic presS1.n"e of about 55 potmds per square foot and a Mach number of 0.2.

The following jet-boundary corrections, derived from reference 7 for a semispan unswept-wing installation without flaps, were added to the angle-of-e.ttack and drag-coefficient data:

1st. = 0.26 CL .6Cn = 0.0045 CL 2.

No corrections were made ror the effect of the tunnel-rloor bo~-~r air on the characteristics of the models or for the leakage through the cl.earance gap between the fuselage and the t'lmIlBl floor. Measurements of the total. thickness of the boundary l.ayer on the tunnel floor (at the model. location) and on top of the ruaelage (near the leading-edge of the wing) revealed the thicknesses to be of the order

of 14 inches and 1 inch, respectively, for the test conditions of this investigation.

-~

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The lift, drag, and pitchtng-moment characteristics of the two semispan wing-f'uselage models are presented in figures 4, 5, and 6.

The configurations consist of the models with and without f'laps in combination with various leading~dge modifications. Figtn"es 7 and 8 contain the li:f't-dr~atio variations and the drag characteristics;

the latter are preseJited in a manner to show the relative gliding and sinking speeds of the various configurations at se~ level, based on a wing loading of' 50 pounds per square foot.

It should be noted thai the data in figure 4 for the wings without flaps are :from reference 1. These data were obta~ :from tests madeprior to the trailing-edge mbd.ification to accommodate the flaps. They are considered to be more representative. of the clean configurations since the profile of the wing with flaps retr~c~ed deviated somewhat from the original profile.

NACA EM A5lD18

7

Lift and Pitching-Moment Characteristics

Effects of the flaps on the characteristics of the plain wiIlg.- In figure 4, it rmy be seen that the effects of the flaps on the lift characteristics 0£' the plain wing at 00 angle of attack were to increase the lift coeffic ient from 0 to 0.62 and to reduce the 1ift-curve sl.ope from 0.059 to 0.056. The l~urve slope for the wing with flaps extended was essent:LaJ.J..:;r linear ~ to a lift coefficient of about 1.00 at which point the slope began to decrease, markillg the beg1mJ.ing of important changes in the pitching-moment and. drag characteristics (to be discussed later in this report). The slope continued to, decrease as the l.if't increased, resulting in a rotmded l~urve peak as the maximum. lift coefficient of 1.20 was reached. This value represents a gain in maxilII.u.m. lift coefficient of about 0.30 due to the flaps.

The effects of the flaps on the pitchin@-moment characteristics of the :plain wing were to cause (1) a pitching-momen.t-coefficient increment of' -0.13 to -0.14 throughout the lift-coeff'icient ra.nge where the pitching~ment coefficient varied linearly with l.if't coefficient, (2)

a 0.01'C rearward shift of the aerodynamic center, and (3) an extension of the linear portion of the pitching-moment curve from a lift coefficient of 0.65 to 1.00. At higher lift coefficients, extreme instability occurred..

Effects of the flaps an the Characteristics of the cambered, twisted ~.- In figure 4 it can be seen that the effects of the flaps on the lift characteristics of the cambered, twisted w±ng at 00 angle of attack we-re to increase the lift coefficient from 0.02 to 0.49 and. to reduce the lift-curve slope from 0.060 to 0.055. The lift curve for this wing was essentially linear over the entire lift range.s The maximum. lift coefficient of this wing with flaps was about L39. This value re:presents a gain in maximum lift coefficient of about 0.30 d.ue to the flaps.

The flap lift increment (0.47) at 00 a.ngl.e of attack was 0.]5 less than for the plain wing even though the section profiles of the wings differed onl:y by the shape of their mean ca.ni:>er lines. Visual. tuft studies iDdicated rougher air flow over the flaps on the cambered, twisted wing than. on the plain wing, which couJ.d be indicative of unsteady flow and separation resulting from excessive flap deflection or nono:ptimum. sl.ot design. The 550 deflection used for these tests was

SDeviation is confined to a no:rma.l.ly unimportant low-lift range for a flapped wing (below a CL of 0.25), in which the longitudinal characteristics of the cambered, twisted wing exhibited changes suggestive of lower-surface fl.ow separat:I,on as explained in reference 2.

B

NACA :aM A5lD1B

based on the best deflection and slot design for a section cambered for an ideal. l1f't coefficient of 0.2 (reference 5) and therefore may not have been optimum for this highl.y cambered section. The shape of the after portion of the NACA 61!AB10 section resembles the symmetrical. section with the main flap deflected 100, and thus, with the addition of a flap deflected 550, the effective flap deflection may have been about 650•

The effects of the flaps on the pitch~ment characteristics of the cambered, twisted 'Wing were to cause (1) a pitching-moment coefficient change of about -o.oB at the w1.ng deSign lift coefficient of 0.40, (2) a O.orc forward shift of the aerodynamic center, and (3) an extension of the near linear portion of the pitching-moment curve from a

111't coefficient of o.so to l.3O. Above a lift coefficient of 1.00, a gradual. forward shift of the aerod:ynamic center occurred similar to the aerodynamic-center shift on the unflapped w1.ng above a lift coefficient

of 0.80~ This shif't was explained in reference 2 aa being due to a progressive increase in traUing-edge separation on the outboard section of the wing. At the maximum lift coefficient severe instability occurred.

Effects of leading=edge modifications.- Since a leading-edge type

of flaw ~e:paration was found to be the factor fixing the value of the lift coefficient at which marked changes occurred in the characteristics for the plain wing (reference 2), the lead1ng-ed.ge radius of the willg

was increased from 0.007 chord to O.Oll chord (airfoil section 1) and

to 0.015 chord (airfoil section 2).. The increased l.eading-edge radii were so placed that the arcs were tangent to the upper-surf'ace contour and that a curve tSJJgent to the leading-edge arc could be faired smoothly into the lower-sur:f'ace contour of the NACA 64A010 section, thus introducing a small amount of camber near the leading edge of the section.

(See fig. 3.) Airfoil section 1 had a theoretical. c1 of approximately

i

0.1. Airfoil section 2 had a theoretical cZi of apprOximately 0.3.

An additional modification was made (airfoil section 3) whereby the O.Ol~hord radius was placed in a manner which resulted in an increase in the forward camber and gave a theoretical c1 of 0.6.

, i

In figure 5 are shown the effects of the leading-edge modifications on the aerod.ynam.ic characteristics of the plain wing. It rre.y be noted that the data in figure 5(a) for the wing with UlllIIOdified leading edge and with flaps retracted differs slightly i'rom the data for the plain wing with no trail1ng-ed.ge flaps which is presented in figure 4. It is presumed that this difference is attributable to a small change in the section contour which occurred as a result of the 'flap installation. Since this discrepancy in airfoil contour 'WaS common to the various configurations with leading-edge modifications, it is believed that the

incremental results were not a.i"fected by it. '

..

RACA RM A5lD1B

9

Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the effects of the modifications on the plain wing with and without flaps. Tn the low~o-1lOderate lift range, the only noteworthy effect was a slight positive increm:mt in pitchingmol12nt coefficient which may have been due to a change in the spanwise load since it is in the opposite direction to what would be expected from two-dimensional considerations. The effects of the modifications were of a more significant magnitude in the um>er 1.ift range. Each of the modifications increased the near-1.inear portion of the pitchingmolI2nt curve to a higher lift coefficient. With the flaps retracted, the increments in lift coefficient were 0.10, 0.10, and 0.17 for the airfoil sections 1, 2, and 3, respective1.y. With flaps extended, the respective increll2nts were 0.16, 0.21, and 0.34. Increases in C:r.max

were also obtained by use of airfoil. sections 1., 2, and 3, respectively; they were 0.03, 0.04, and 0.12 when the flaps were retracted, and

0.05, 0.06, and 0.16 when the flaps were extended.

The O.O~hord--radius l.ead.ing-edge modification was tested on the cambered, twisted wing (airfo:l1. section 4) to determ.:i.ne if' aDY improvement in the fl.ow over the l.eading edge of the hig~ cambered section could. be achieved by such an enlargement of the l.eadi.ng-edge radius and increase in leadi~dge camber. The results for this wing with flaps retracted are shown in figure 6(a). In the J.ow-l.i:f't range, the pitchingmomnt curve has been noticeably straightened out. This rray be due to aJ~viation of l.ower-eurface separation over the l.eading-edge portion

of the wing, known to exist on this wing (reference 2). As would. be expected on the basis of the results of reference 2, wherein it was ilJdicated that for this wing no serious lea.ding-edge fl.ow-separation probl.em existed at moderate to high lift coefficients, the ef'f'ects of

the enlarged leading-edge radius on the wing with flaps retracted were negligible. For the wing with flaps, however, the va.l.ue of Cr.ma.x

was increased by about O.lO with a correspoIlding extension of the nearl.inear portion of the pitching~t curve to a h:tgher l.i:f't coefficient (fig. 6(b».

Drag Characteristics

The basic drag data of both model.s with a:nd without flaps and with the various l.eading-edge modifications are presented in figures 4, 5, and. 6, and. together with the l.i:ftt.-d.rag ratio (Lin) as a :function of

lift coefficient in figures 1 B.Dd 8. -

Drag and l.if't-drag ratio.-The drag characteristics. of both wings

in the clean cOllfiguration (from reference l) are incl.uded in figure 7(a) for the purpos~ of eva1.uating the effect of the fJ.aps. At a l.if't coefficient of 0.40 the incremental. drag coefficients due to fJ.aps were

10

RAGA EM A5JDJ.8

0.050 and 0 .. 065 for the plain wing and the cambered, twisted wing, respectively. The greater incremen~l drag measured on the cambered, twisted wing is believed to be related to unsteady flow and separation resulting from the nonoptimmn flap setting as pointed out earlier.

Both models with flaps have essentially constant lif't-drag ratios between a lift coefficient of 0.80 and the lif't coe:f:ficient at which

the rate of drag rise with lift sud.den.ly increases. The greater rate

of increase is believed to be indicative of the beginning of stall on the wing. For convenience, the lift coefficient at which it occurs

will be referred ~o hereinaf'ter as CLsep. A maximum li:ft-drag ratio

of 8.0 was obtained at a lif't coefficient of 1.20 far the cambered, twisted wing with flaps extended, as compared to a maximum li:ft-drag _ ratio of 8.4 at a lif't coe:f:ficient of 1.05 for the plain wing with flaps extended. It is interesting to note that at this value of lift coefficient (1.05) the canibered, twisted wing in the clean condition. had a higher value of lif't-drag ratio than the plain wing with flaps extended.

In general., the leading-edge modificationa (figs. 5 and 6) produced negligibl.e effects Oli the drag characteris1iicB at low and moderate lif't coefficients. However, in the high l.1ft range" the point of sudden increase in the rate of drag rise with lift coefficient was shifted to higher va.l.ues .01' l.ift coef'ficient. These higher val.uss of' Cr.

sep

correspond. to the highest val.ues of l.1f't coefficient attained before the beginning of sharp reductions in 11:ft-drag ratio.

In figure 8, the drag characteristics and lif't-drag ratio of the modified plain wing (airfoil. section 3) are compared to the characteristics of the modified cambered, twisted wing (airfoil section 4). The best modification on the pl.ain wing resuJ.ted in higher values of L/D

for lift coefficients below CL as compared to those of the modified

sep

cambered, twisted wing; however, the cambered" twisted wing with the flaps either retracted or extended attained a higher val.ue of Cr.

than did the corresponding pl.ain willg configtn'ations. sep

Power-off g1ide.- The drag polars in figures 7 and 8 have a superimposed grid of power-off glide and sinking speeds com;puted for seal.evel condi tiona and a wing loading of 50 pounds per square foot. For convenience of comparison between the configurations tested, the following table summarizes the relative glide and sinking speeds corresponding to the val.ue s of CL :

eep

NACA EM A5ID18

II

•

Fig. Sillkillg Gliding
Configuration CLsep speed speed
no. (ft/sec) (mph)
Plain. wing 7(a) 0.65 16 113
Cambered, twisted wing 1(a) 1.09 18 135
Plain wing, fla:ps extended 1(a) 1.08 22 l34
Cambered, twisted wing, flaps 7(a) 1.36 21 119
extended
Plain. wing, airfoil section 2 1(b) .84- 11 152
Cambered, twisted wing, airfoil 1(b) 1.09 18 133
section 4
Plain wing, airfoil section 2, 1(b) 1.21 21 J28
flaps extended 1.41 116
Cambered, twisted wing, airfoil 1(b) 21
section 4, flaps extended
Plain wing, airfoil section 3 8 .88 11 149
Plain wing, airfoil section 3, 8 1.31 21 J22
flaps extended Comparison of Theory With~riment for Both Models

The theoretical values of the lift increment at 00 a.ng1e of attack due to the flaps and the theoretical values of the lift coefficient at which initial section stall would occur have been compared to the corresponding experimental values. In the computation of the lift increments due to the flaps, no attempt was made to account for the effect of the fuselage on the variation of wing load. Accordingly, the theoretical computations for the subject tests were based on the actual span of the flaps. The :predicted lift increment due to the flaps given by the method of reference 3 was 0.57 for each wing as c~ed to 0.62 and 0.47 measured for the plain wing and the cambered, twisted wing, respectively.

The method of reference 4 has been ap:p1ied to ascertain theoretically, for the subject wings, the wing lift coefficient at which the first section reached.. maximum lift and the spanwise :point where this occurred. Maximum lift coefficients for the unf'laPlled sections were obtained from reference 6 and reference 8; maximum lift coefficients for the flapped sections were estilllated from the data g1:ven in

12

--"_" NACA EM A51D1B

reference 5 for a section with a cli of 0.2. These estimates ma.y be somewhat in error, particularly for the RACA 64ABIO section, because of the differences in design lift coefficients. Figures 9(a) and 9(b) illustrate the results of applying the method of reference 4. From these figures it would be predicted that initial section stall would appear at a CL of 1.0 for the plain wing with flaps and at a ~ of 1.2 for the cambered, twisted wing with flaps; the experimental drag

results indicated values of CL of approximately 1.1 and 1.4,

sep

respectively. The position of initial section stall is indicated to be near the outboard end of the flaps for both wings. Outboard of the flaps, the proximity of the curve of computed section 11ft coefficient to'the curve of theoretical maximum section lift coefficient indicates that stall. would progress rapidly toward the tips. The variations in the drag and pitching-inoment data along with visual tuft observaticms seem to confirm these deductions.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results of an investigation at low speed of the effectiveness of the partial-span, double-slotted flaps and of camber and twist on the force and moment characteristics of a large-scale wing swept back 450, with and without the various leading-edge modific&tions, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. Partial-span, double-slotted flaps vere an effective means of obtaining improved high-lift characteristics on the swept wings with and without camber and twist.

2. The conibinations of increased leading-edge radius and nose camber were effective in delaying the onset of leading-edge flow separation to higher ving-lift coefficients.

3. Theory was satisfactory for predictions of the lift increment at 00 angle of attack due to the dotible-slotted flaps.

4. Theoretical predictions of the lift coefiicient at which large variations in force and moment characteristics could be expected were in approximate agreement with exper~tal results.

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory,

National Advisory Committee-for-Aeronautics, Moffett Field, Calif.

NACA EM A5lD18

RE:EERENCES

1. Hunton, LyIJn W.: Effects of Twist and. Camber on the Low-8];leed Characteristics of a Large-8cale 450 Swept-Back Wing.

HACA RM A5OAl0, 1950.

2. Hunton, Iiyml. W., and Dew, JOBeIlh K.: The Effects of Camber ·and Twist on the Aerody.c.amic Loading and Stalling Characteristics of a Large-8cale 450 SweIlt-Back Wing. NACA EM A50J24, 1951.

3. DeYo'llDg, John: Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading Due to FlaIl Deflection for Wings of' Arbitrary Plan Form at SubSOnic Speeds. NACA TN 2278, 1951-

4. Maki, Ra.1:ph L.: The Use of .Two-;Dimensional Section Data to Estimate the Low-S:peed Wing Lift Coefficient at Which Section Stall First A:p:pears on a Swept Wing. NACA EM A5lE15, 1951-

5. Cahill, Jones F., and Racisz, Stanley F.: Willd...lJ:uImel Investiga.tion of' Seven. Thin HACA Airfoil Sections to Determine Optimum. Doub1e-:B10tted-FlaIl Configurations. NACA TN 1545, 1948.

6. Loftin, Laurence K., Jr.: Theoretical and Experimental Data for

a Number of HACA 6A.-Beries Airfoil Sections. NACA Rep. 903, 1948. (Formerly NACA TN 1368, 1947)

7. Glauert, H.: The Elements of Aerof'oil and Airscrew Theory.

The MacMillan Company, N.Y., 1943.

8. McCullough, George B.; and. Haire; William. M.: Low-9:peed Cba.racteristics of Four Cambered, lO-Percen.~ick HACA Airfoil Sections. NACA TN 2117, 1950.

NACA RK A5lD1B

TABIE Io- COOBDIlWlES OF TEE AIRFOIL SKCTIONS

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airf'oU chord]

(a) NACA 6lIA010

Station Ordinate
0 0
.5 .804
• 75 .969 .
1.25 1.225
2.5 1.688
5 2.327
7.5 2.805
10 3.199
15 3.813
20 4.272
25 4.606
30 4.837
35 4.968
40 4.995
45 4.894
50 4.684
55 4.388
60 4.02l.
65 3.597
70 3.127
75 2.623
80 2.103
85 1.582
90 1.062
95 .541
100 .021
L.E. radius = 0.687
ToE. radius = 0.023 NACA EM A5illl.8

TABIE I.- CONTlNOED

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chord]

(b) NAGA 64A8l0 (a = 0.8 modified)

Upper Sl.U"face Lower surf'ace
Station Ordinate Station Ord.i.:nate
0 0 0 0
.214 .976 .785 -.526
.428 1.231 1.072 -.597
.881 1.650 1.619 -.686
2.064 2.475 2.936 -.787
4.506 3.716 5.494 -.832
6.984 4.703 8.016 -.8ll
9.479 5.541 10.521 -.771
_ 14.500 6.902 15.500 -.658
19.543 7.968 20.457 -.526
24.601 8.795 25.399 -.383
29.668 9.420 30.332 -.232
34.742 9.857 35.258 -.065
39.820 10.107 40.180 .123
44.900 10.150 45.100 .364
49.977 10.005 50.023 .637
55.049 9.693 54.95l .9l7
6o.114 9.225 59.886 l.187
65.l69 8.612 64.831 1.426
70.2l5 7.850 69.785 1.610
75.252 6.932 74.748 1.710
80.300 5.8l9 79.700 1.657
85 • .292 4.441 84.708 1.331
90.204 3.004 89.796 .920
95.l04 1.512 94.896 .450
100.000 . • 021 100.000 -.021
.
L.E. radius = 0.687
TeE. radius = 0.023 15

16

- NACA EM A5lD18

T.ABIE I. - CONTINtIED

[stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chard]

(c) Airfoil. Section No.1

Ordinate
Station
Upper Lower
0 --- - --
.5 0.804 ---
.75 .969 ---
1.25 1.225 -1.430
2.5 1.688 -1.750
5 2.327
7.5 2.805
10 3.199
15 3.813
20 4.272
25 4.606
30 4.837
35 4.968
lH:> 4.995
45 4.894
50 °4•684
55 4.388
60 4.021
65 3.597
70 3.l27
75 2.623
80 2.103
85 1.582
90 , 1.062
95 .541
100 .021
LeE. radius = 1.100
TeE. radius = 0.023
L.E. radius center:
station = 1.1; ordinate = -0.2 Note: Ordinates from stations 5 to 100 are identical. to the NACA 61!A010 sir-

foil section. ~

3

NACA EM A5ID~8

TABIE I.- CONTINUED

[Stations and ordinates given in :percent of airfoil. chord]

(d) Airfoi~ Section No. 2

Ordinate
Station
U:pper Lower
0 --- ---
.5 0.804 ---
.75 .959 ---
~.25 ~.225 ---
2.5 ~.688 ~.070
5 2.327 -e, 380
7.5 2.805
~O 3.~99
~ 3.8~3
20 4.272
25 4.606
'30 4.837
35 4.968
40 4.995
45 4.894
50 4.684
55 4.388
60 4.021
65 3.597
70 3.~7
15 2.623
80 2.~03
85 1..582
90 1.062
95 .541.
J.OO .02l.
LeE. radius = 1.500
TeE. radius = 0.023
LeE. radius center:
station = 1..3; ordinate = 0.4 Note: Ordinates from. stations 7.5 to 1.00 ere identicu to the NACA 64Ao~o

airfoil section. ~

~7

1.8

NACA EM A5lD1.8

TABIE I.- CONTINUED

[stations and ordinates given in ~ercent of airfoil chord]

(e) Airfoi1. Section No. 3

Ordinate
Station
Upper Lower
0 -- - -- -
.5 0.804 - --
.75 .969 ---
1..25 1..225 ---
2.5 1..688 -J..630
5 2.327 -l.525
7.5 2.805
J.O 3.l99
l5 3.8l.3
20 4.272
25 4.606
30 4.837
35 4.968
40 4.995
45 4.894
50 4.684
55 4.388
60 4.02J.
65 3.597
70 3.127
75 2.623
80 2.l.03
85 1..582
90 1.062
95 .54J.
J.OO .02J.
LeE. radius = l..500
T.E. radius = 0.023
L.E. radius center:
station = 0.8; ordinate = -1..7 Note: Ordinates from station 7.5 to l.oo are identical. to the NACA 64AOl.O

airfoil. section. ~

NACA EM A5lD1.8

TABlE I.- CONCLUIlED

..

[stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil. chordl

(r) Airfoil. Section No. 4

Upper Lower
Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
0 --- 0 ---
.2].4 0.976 2.500 -1..400
.428 1..231. 5.000 -1..01.5
.881. 1..650 8.01.6 -.8ll
2.064 2.475 1.0.521. -. 'j{l.
4.506 3.71.6 1.5.500 -.658
6.984 4.703 20.457 -.526
9.479 5.541. 25.399 -.383
1.4.500 6.902 30.332 -.232
1.9.543 7.968 35.258 -.065
24.601. 8.795 40.1.80 .123
29.668 9.420 45.l.OO .364
34.742 9.857 50.023 .637
39.820 1.0.1.07 54.951. .91.7
44.900 1.0.1.50 59.886 1..1.87
49.977 1.0.005 64.831. 1..426
55.049 9.693 69.785 1..61.0
6o.ll4 9.225 74.748 1..71.0
65.1.69 8.61.2 79.700 1..657
70.2J.5 7.850 84.708 1..331.
75.252 6.932 89.796 .920
80.300 5.81.9 94.896 .450
85.292 4.441. aoo.ooo -.021.
90.204 3.004
95.1.04 1..512
1.00.000 .021.
L.E. radius = 1..500
T.E. radius = 0.023
LeE. radius center:
station = 1..4; ordinate == 0 Nete: Ordinates from station 8.01.6 to 1.00 are I identical. to the NACA 64A81.0 a = 0.8

(mod.) ~

1.9

20

NACA EM A5J.D1.8

TABIE II.- OBDINA'1!ES FaR O. 25-CHOBD FIAP

[Stations and ordinates given from airfoil chord line in percent airfoil chord]

(a) Plain Wing Flap

Station Upper Ordinate Lower Ordinate
75.000 -1.000 -1.000
75.150 _371 -1.557
75.295 _076 -1.712
75.587 .268 -1.956
75.882_ .535 -2.095
76.1.77 .751. -2.179
76.765 1..057 -2.289
77.352 1..272 -2.320
77.942 1.41.4 -2.304
78.530 1..496 -2.260
79.705 1..594 -2.1.36
80.882 1.637 -2.003
82.060 1.648 -1.880
83.235 1..630 -1.762
84.410 1.583 -1.641
85.000 1.550 -1.582
86.250 l.453 -1..453
90.000 1.062 -1.062
95.000 .541. -.541
100.000 .021 -.021
L.E. radius = 0.95 (center on flap chord line)
T.E. radius = 0.023 NA.CA RM A5]])18

TABIE II.- CONCLUDED

[Stations and ordinates given from. airfoil chord line in percent airfoil chord]

(b) Cambered, Twisted Wing Flap

Upper Lower
Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
74.900 3.330 -.100 3..330
75.130 3.930 .010 2.770
75.290 4.168 .1.30 2.580
75.620 4.553 .430 2.350
75.940 4.806 .680 2.187
76.280 4.994 .980 2.052
76.880 5.232 1.540 1..900
77 .530 5.383 2.060 1.814
78.140 5.452 2.660 1.744-
78.740 5.460 3.240 1..706
79.930 5.372 4.410 1.668
81.140 5.223 5.560 1.620
82.340 5.040 6.740 1.539
83.530 4.820 7.930 1.480
84.700 4.569 9.l2O 1.394
85.290 4.433 . 9.708 - 1..351.
86.000 4.250 14.796 .920
90.204 3.004 1.9.896 .450
95.104 1.512 25.000 -.021
100.000 .021
L.E. radius = 0.95 (center on f'l.ap chord line)
T.E. radius = 0.023 21

2.2

NACA EM A51D18

TAEIE III. - OBDINAIJ!ES FOR O. 075-CHOBD FOREFIAP

[ Stations and ordinates gi van from foreflB.p chord line in percent airfoil chord ]

Plain Wing or Cambered, Twisted
Wing Foreflap
Upper Lower
Station ordinate ordiDate
0 0 0
.1!2 .95 -.93
.83 1.31 -1.14
1.25 1.52 -1.20
1.67 1.67 -1.11
2.08 1.72 -.85
2.92 1.74 -.36
3.75 1.64 -.02
4.58 1.43 .18
5.42 1.13 .27
6.25 .75 .25
7.08 .28 .11
7.50 0 0
L.E. radius = 1.20 (center on f1.a.p
chard line) ~--~~-~

81---r---,c~~-- .NJI.5.~ - ~

.

____ JM!J7 _ ____:§,tW

Ill-

~ .. .$1----#-+----1

I ---~-~

1

~A~~~ __ -~~~ ~

I.,L'I--+------+-----.

M4CA 64A 010 (pkJIn wing) J NACA 64A 810 o·O.81wvu1) } (com/J8r8d. twisf::/,::iiigJ

P/fcIIIng-moment oxis (O.25~)

...,..__ 8.00 I I "'_--IO.09~

......._~----24.42 -..l

Note: All dl",."slons a" In ftl~f U~8S Qfh~'''''8t1 sptlclll,d

Figure 1.- Dimensions of the semispan wing-fuselage models.

..

3

NACA EM A5lD~8

..

TABlE I.- CONTINUED

[stations and ordinates given in percent of air:f'oil c!J.ord]

(d) Airfoil Section No. 2

Ordinate
station
Upper Lower
-
0 --- ---
.5 0.804 ---
.75 .959 ---
~.25 ~.225 ---
2.5 ~.688 -e.070
5 2.327 -e. 380
7.5 2.805
~O 3.~99
~5 3.8~3
20 4.272
25 4.606
30 4.837
35 4.968
40 4.995
45 4.894
50 4.684
55 4.388
60 4.021.
65 3.597
70 3.127
75 2.623
80 2.~03
85 ~.582
90 ~.062
95 ~54~
~oo .02l.
LeE. radius = 1..500
TeE. radius = 0.023 ~
LeE. radius center:
station = ~.3; ordinate = 0.4 Note: Ordinates from stations 7.5 to l.OO are identic~ to the RAGA 64Ao~o

airfoil section. ~

18

NACA RM A51D18

TABIE I.- CONTINOED

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chord]

(e) Airfoil Section No. 3

Ordinate
Station
Upper Lower
0 -- - ---
.5 0.804 - --
.15 .969 ---
1.2:5 1.225 ---
2.5 L688 -1.630
5 2.321 -1.525
1.5 2.805
10 3.199
15 3.813
20 4.212
25 4.606
30 4.831
35 4.968
40 4.995
45 4.894
50 4.684
55 4.388
60 4.021
65 3.591
10 3.121
15 2.623
80 2.103
85 1.582
90 1.062
95 .541
100 .021
LeE. radius = 1.500
T.E. radius = 0.023
LeE. radius center:
station = 0.8; ordinate = -1.1 Note: Ordinates from station 1.5 to 100 are identical to the NACA 64A01O

airfoil section. ~

NACA EM A5J.D18

TABIE I.- CONCLUDED

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chord]

(f) Airfoil Section No. 4

Upper Lower
station Ordinate Station OrdiIlate
0 --- 0 ---
.214 0.976 2.500 -1.lj.oo
.428 1.23J. 5.000 -~.015
.881 1.650 8.016 -.8ll
2.064 2.475 10.521 -.TTl-
4.506 3.716 15.500 -.658
6.984 4.703 20.457 -.526
9.479 5.541 25.399 -.383
14.500 6.902 30.332 -.232
19.543 7.968 35.258 -.065
24.601 8.795 lJo.l80 .123
29.668 9.420 45.100 .364
34.742 9.857 50.023 .637
39.820 10.107 54.951 .917
44.900 10.150 59.886 1.187
49.977 10.005 64.831 1.426
55.049 9.693 69.785 1.610
6o.114 9.225 74.748 1.710
65.169 8.612 79.700 1.657
70.2l.5 7.850 84.708 1.33J.
75.252 6.932 89.796 .920
80.300 5.819 94.896 .450
85.292 4.441 1.00.000 -.02l.
90.204 3.004
95.104 1.512
100.000 .• 021.
L.E. radius = 1.500
T.E. radius = 0.023
L.E. radius center:
station = 1.4; ordinate = 0 Note: Ordinates from. station 8.016 to 100 are identical. to the NACA 64A810 a = 0.8

(mod.) ~

19

20

NACA RM A5lD1.8

TABIE II.- ORDINAmS FaR 0.25-CHORD FIAP [Stations ~ ordinates given :f'rom airfoil chord 1.ine in percent airfoi1. chord]

(a) P1.ain Wing F1.ap

station Upper Ordinate Lover Ordinate
75.000 -J..OOO -1..000
75.J.50 _371. . -1.557
75.295 _076 -1.71.2
75.587 .268 -1.956
75.882 .535 -f?095
76.177 .751. -2.179
76.765 1.057 -2.289
77.352 1.272 -2.320
77.942 1..414 -e. 304
78.530 1.496 -2.260
79.705 1.594 -2.136
80.882 J..637 -2.003
82.060 1.648 -1.880
83.235 1.630 -1.762
84.41.0 1.583 -1.641
85.000 J..550 -1.582
86.250 1.453 -1.453
90.000 1.062 -1..062
95.000 .541 -.541.
100.000 .021. -.021
LeE. radius = 0.95 (center on flap chord line)
T.E. radius = 0.023 NACA EM A5lD18

21

TABIE II.- CONCLtIDED

[stations and ordinates given from airfoil chard line in percent airfoil chord]

(b) Cambered, Twisted Wing Flap

•

Upper Lower
Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
74.900 3.330 -.100 3..330
75.130 3.930 .010 2.770
75.290 4.168 .130 2.580
75.620 4.553 .430 2.350
75.940 4.806 .680 2.187
76.280 4.994 .980 2.052
76.880 5.232 1.540 1.900
TI .530 5.383 2.060 1.814
78.140 5.452 2.660 1.744
78.740 5.460 3.240 1.706
79.930 5.372 4.4~0 1.668
81.140 5.223 - 5.560 1.620
82.340 5.040 6.740 1.539
83.530 4.820 7.930 1.480
84.700 4.569 9.120 1.394
85.290 4.433 9.708 1.351
86.000 4.250 14.796 .920
90.204 3.004 19.896 .450
95.104 1.512 25.000 -.021
100.000 .021
LeE. radius = 0.95 (center on flap chord line)
T.E. radius = 0.023 22

NACA RM A5l])18

TABlE III.- ORDINATES FaR O.075-C1IORD FaBEFIAP

[ Stations and ordi:ca. tes given from f'oref'lap chord line in percent airf'oil chord]

Plain Wing or Cambered, Twisted
Wing Foref'lap
Upper Lower
Station ordinate ordinate
0 0 0
.42 .95 -.93
.83 1.31 -1.14
1.25 1.52 -1.20
1.67 1.67 -1.11
2.08 1.72 -.85
2.92 1.74 -.36
3.75 1.64 -.02
4.58 . 1.43 .18
5.42 1.13 .27
6.25 .75 .25
7.08 .28 .11
7.50 0 0
L.E. radius = 1.20 (center on f'lap
chard line) __ .asM -8.5:r

81---1---.'---""1-- JJJII5.._ - ..::§8

M4a4 64A 010 (plai/7 wing) ] NAa.4 64A 8/0 a~O.8{mod.) J (cambered, fwisI8d wtnq)

PllchIng-momenl axis (O.25~J

to-

r

~ .41--I--+--=-=-=----lJ.MI_ __ ~

I.n-+----+---I

No,": All dim~lISions Qr~ in '.81 unMu Qth~rwls" splu:lfI,d

Figure I. - Dimensions of the semispon wing - fuselage models.

NA.CA RM A5lD18

25

Figure 2.- Photograph of' the eemispan model installation in the Ames 40- by 8O-f'oot wind tunnel.

NACA RM A51D1B •

AirfoIl sections

Airfoil slation In pgn:szt t:hanI

No.2

, .

a075c ..

o.oosc g ' ..

~-s=-~ ----71 No.3

Plain wing

A-A

Cambered, twisted wing

8-8

Figure 3. - Dimensions of the double-slotted flops and the leadingedge modifications.

27

l6



~ I-It> V'r" A- ....- [It.
If ~ 1
,_j ~ ~ 1-1'<' ~ I;f" ~~ I"'" ~ I"e '
!e::' ~ tL ......, __J1 Ii ~ ~ I" P Iiii'" r- j ~
tor..
,I 111 ..d, P It" V , &0 '!eo, ~. I'EJ ~
r _.c. I- ~ if V ~ ~. ~ ,
_j;1 1!'1::: '"
~ ~ « ,/ v "'I:i ~
J.y V' / lJf ~ "
,l ~ V J9 ,Configuration
!t' J ,I' ~ lA' 0 Plain wing ~
~ v .i II ~ 0 Cambtred, twisted wing
JI.. ..L ",r 0 PlaIn wing with flap J
" ~ ~ A Cambered, twisted wing wlfh flops V ~
If ~ L ~ ::J ~ l4

1.2

.2

00 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28

.20 .16 .12 .08 .04 0 -:04 -:08 -12 -16

Drag coefficient, CD

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Angle of attock ,a, deg

Pitching-moment coefficient, C_

Figure 4. - The aerodynamic characteristics of the plain wing and the cambered I twisted wing models with and w/~hout double-slotted flops.

I\) co

•

12


_.._ ~ ~
oN'
~ '~. .~I! ~ i'>..
- ~
E· .... ".. ~ ~ ~ -- t;I..; .~
IIJ c- I-"'" lIfj Symbol Airfoil section . "i.
~f" iii I li
0 NACA 64AOIO
II II , r
I No.1
~ c ;
'" No.2
'.I" 0
!t' A NO.3
'.
IjIf
I.'
IG/ 1.0

o

-.2

o .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 28 .32 .36 .40

Drag coefficient, CD

~ 0 4 8 m $ ~ M ~ Angle of attock ,a , deg

.24 ,20 .16 J2 .08 ,04 0 --;04 Pitchlng..moment cOllfficient, O.

(0) Flops retrocted.

. Figure 5. - Effects of the vorious leading - edge modifications on the aerodynamic characteristics of the plain wing model.

ro \0

~/.o

.....

.~ .8 ~

~

~ ,6

u

;::; .4

....

....

l4

_,II ~
~ ....
~ 1& ..J. ~ ~ r-
"'"
~ ~ ..(') I""'r'" 1: ~ ''"'''f'l I~ Me. "

jil 11 J7
II .li.li r- SymIJDI Airfoil section
t .,;I r NACA 64AOIO
0
.l r c No.1
, " <> No.2
~ No.3 " ~I
II
,I
11
1I_if
, Ai l2

.2

00 .()4 .08 J2 ./6.20 .24 .28 .32

.04 0 '":04 -{)8 -12 76 -.20

Drag coefficill1t, CD Pitching-mom.,t coefficient, C.

-8 N4 0 4 8 12' 16 20

Angl, 01 fIIIock,a I deg

(b) Flops extended.

Figure 5. - Concludfld.

. '

w o

*

,

"

12

l::. __."
lJ#' L.P' ::r""1" 11:1'" r\:
lit"
Ie? ~ It~
~ l.I i.
r:l "
Ii I;!_ ~
~ .I 'p;
I ;1 Symbol A,""ol'l section . i'
j p 0 NACA 64ABIO o::O.8(mod) -~
r;/
..I ~ [:J No.4
" 8.
It (- .
II' j o o .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 Drag coefficient, CD

o 4

.16 J2 .08.04 0 -:.04 Pitching-moment coefficlenf~ C. 8 12 16 20 24

Angle of attack ,a , deg

fa) Flops refracted.

Figure 6.- Effects of the 0.015c leading-edge radius modification on fhe aerodynamic characteristics of the cambered, twisted wing model.

.. I I

1.6


j;, ~ t- 11'\ - ~~
r- Io-- I---
~ -e ~~ s ,,- ~
f'0 d 0-
lf .J r I~
J ..4 V
[1 "" r" ("
-l ",r Iii ".
-, r ~.
il' ~
c
~1 kP
I lI' I.
..,
lfl Symbol Airfoil sectiOll .~
Jf 0 NACA 64A810 a.o.8(mod) ~
) CI No.4 -1
" l[_ ~ 'r
~ W 1(11
f1 ~ 1.4

;::::

.....

...J .4

.2

o

./2 .08.04 0 -:04 -fJ8 -12 Pitching-moment coefficient, C"

o 4 8 /2" 16 20 24

Angle of attack.a , deg

o .04 .OS .12 ./6.20 .24 28 Drag coefficient, Co "-8 -4

(/J) Flops extended.

Figure 6. - Concluded.

•

If

I

I

1.6~--~--~--~--~--~--~--+-

...... , ...

VCIeon I

.08

.16

.24

Llft~drag ratto, L/O Orag coefficient, OD

(0) Original modlng edge (O.007c L.E. rodius).

Figure 1. - The lift-drag rotlo and power-off glide character/sties of the ploin and cambered I twisted wing models with and without doubleslotted flaps.

•

.32

w w

Sinking s"1~ ff/sec

10

30

l2'~--+---~--+---+---~--;-rS

6 tr-v.'-+--"-----1

s~ , Wing loading

-r-rt'"--7t-r-~-r.7f) .(\9 50 Ib/sq fI

-t-.t-f-~~~-,18O G\\O\'---L.-___''___-~----1

- PlaIn wing. airfoil section 2

----- Combered. twisted wing, olrfoil section 4

8 16

Lilt-drag rat/a, L/D

(b) Modified

.08 .16

Drag coefficient, Co

leading edge (aOl5c L.£. radius).

.32

Figure 1. - Concluded.

•

,~ ....

I

Sinking s~, II/sec ,r;

;0 ~u

. !- ._ 7'/0

.f'~-' '~" -

f / ~ ---+---1'20

/ L_D __ ~ -so

/'7 1/ /' --+-_--+-_---1

~.. \. / /. I 140

~ J ---~ eru.:

~ .8I-----+--f'-v----.-.--+I~ \~-_+_-...... / / J/ -,:50 ~ _+------L._--I

I ,i J" / II Lf /60 e4,«1

I ~ I ./ / / /' 180~" 59" I

~ Itt \~ I{I' I"~ /,,1' I G\\ 1-'---L...-..--------

-..J ~ -Plain wing, airfoil .

/ Flops extended , . section 3

. 41---+VL.J---+----+--.--1~V-+--+-I-----I- I~Aaps -----~ twisted w/~

l / I extended olrfoll section 4

.. ,,, ./

l6~-~-~-~-r_-+--r_-+_

l2~-~--H---r_-r_--+--+_-

Wing loading 501/J/sq If

~F,.,re~ ~

. I I I

00 8 /6

Llft .. drag ratio, L/O

o

.08 .16 .24 .32

Orog coefficient, CD

Figure 8. - The lift- drag ratio and power-off glide characteristics of

the plain wing model with the cambered leading edge and the camhered, twisted "ing model wflh the modified leading edge (aOl5c L.E raatus).

W \1l

~-

Predicted initial stall

.. .....

i l6

.....

• to) -t::

'qi

~

.2

.6

.8 1.0

.4

Fraction of semisponl 7J

(0) Plain wing with flops extended.

Figure 9. - Predicted maximum span loadings without flow separation .

•

,

~ ~

,

•

Predicted initial s/ol/

c.i"
..
....
~ 1.6
''!o.
.~
::::
Q)
a
()
!t
~
~
....
13
~ ~-----Fmp span----~~

o~ __ -.----~--~~--~--~~--~----~----.---~----~

o

.4 ,6

Fraction of semlspap, 11

(b) Cambered 1 twisted wlng wlth flaps extended.

,8

.2

Agure 9. - Concluded.

1.0

f

. I

..

-

_. - -

NASA TocIInlcal UbrR7.i

. !lill:I!11IiIUlIJljiUlilillllll~11 it.. .

3 1176014259312 ._..'"

; . . . --: 'r-

, -

,