RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

PRELIMINARY EMPIRICAL DESIGN RCQUIREMENTS FOR TIlE

PREVENTION OF TUME3LING OF AIRPLANES

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ma

RM ~ 5 0 ~ 2 3
NATIONAL ADVISORY C O l d K C I T B FOR-AERO.HAUTICS
RESFARCH MEMORANDUM PRELl3ENARY EMPIRICAL DESIGX R E Q -

FOR THE

B y Robert L. B r y a n t

An investigation has been made of the design characteristics and loadings that are conducive t o the tumbling of a i r p l a n e s t h a t have no horizontal t a i l s . Preliminary emgirical design requirements based on model t e s t s o f 18 different configurations are presented. A brief explanation of the phenomenon o f tumbling is appended.
c

mTRODUCTION

Iche summary of r e s u l t s of tumbling i n v e s t i g a t i o m of several dynamic models t o determine t h e i r tw&ling characteristics (reference I) cated that-tunbling m a y occur o n l y f o r airplanes having no horizontal tails and t h a t t h e degree o f . s t a t i c l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y w a s indicat i v e of the proneness of an airplane t o tunible. From analysis of the data of reference I and of additional h t a obtafned in the pr-Rent investigation certain emgirical design requirements f o r the prevention of -ling of h o r i z o n t a l t a i l l e s s a i r p l a n e s w e r e indicated and a r e presentedherein.Result6 were also Obtained i n the present investigation f p m tmibling tests of f i v e f l a t plates. Tumble theory advanced by Dupliech i n reference 2 i s a l s o discussed and appended herein. Although further research w i l l . be necessary f o r complete s o h t i o n of the problem, it appeared desirable t o present an e m p i r i c a l c r i t e r i o n a t this time based on existing howledge.
S Y M B O L S
b

in=-

A l l angles.& vectorid- quantities are

I

shown i n f i g u r e 1 .

distance measured along the horizontal e a r t h a x i s , f e e t

NACA RM ~ 5 0 ~ 2 3

5
U

distance measured along the vertical earth axis, feet angle of attack, degrees flight-pathanglerelative

to

earth axis, degrees

angular displacement i n p i t c h w i t h respect t o the earth

axis, degrees
average r a t e o f pitch during any cycle of the tumble a f t e r equilibrium has been obtained, r a d i a n s per second 9

Instantaneous r a t e of pitch, radi-am per second

instantaneous resultant velocity, feet per second second2 second2

V
&t

acceleration tangent t o flight path, feet per acceleration n o m t o - f l i g h t path, feet per time, seconds

&n

t
m
W
IY
S
b
C

weight, pounds moment of inert;ia about the lateral axis, slug-feet2

w i n g area,feet'
w i n g span, f e e t

wing chord a t any s t a t i o n , f e e t

mean aerodynemic chord, f e e t

E
h
P

distance f r o m center of g r a v i t y t o c e n t r o i d of plan-form area, feet a i r d e n s i t y , slug per cubic relative-density coefficient

foot
based on span

RA

resultant aerodynamic force, pounds resultant inertia force,

pounds

RI

NACA RM L50H23

pounds lift,

pitchbg moment, foot-pounds lfft coefficient

(g)
coefficient

5 4
CR

pitching-moment

normal-force

coefficient

CX

longitudinal-force coefficient

Parenthetic subscripts:
( )a

due to angle

of attack

>&
19

due to t h e rate of change of angle of attack due to pitching velocity

Models

The models were scaled from full-scale airplanes with the of two research models G and I and five flat plates, models N , 0, P , Q, and R, which were built an toarbitrary scale. The dimensional characteristics, mass characterfstics, pitching-moment characteristics, and plan views of the models are given n I tables I and I1 in terms of f u l l scale values. The models were made of balsa and ballasted with lead f u l l weights to obtain dynamic similarity to their actual or Rssumed scale counterparts at some arbitrary altitude as fndicated on table 1 1 . The assumed full-scale counterparts of the research models and flat plates were such t b t their spans were within the-rangeof the other models tested.

exception

I NACA RM L5oH23
Wind Tunnel and Testing Technique

20-foot free-spinning The.tumble t e s t s w e r e conducted i n t h e Langley tunnel, a vertical. w i n d tunnel of dodecagonal Cross section capable of airspeeds ttp t o approximately 60 miles per hour and i s similar t o the former Langley l5-foot free-spinning tunnel as described i n reference 3. For the tests, two methods of launching the models w e r e employed: t h e model was released from a nose-up a t t i t u d e t o simulate a whip s t a l l i n o r d e r t o d e t e d n e whether the modelwould start tumbling of i t s own accord, o r t h e model w a s launched with i n i t i a l p i t c h i n g r o t a t i o n in order t o determine whether t h e modelwould continue t o tumble once the tumbling motion had been s t a r t e d . The simulated whip stall w a s obtained by holding t h e model i n t h e air stream w i t h its nose up and simply l e t t i n g go of the model. When launched w i t h initial pitching rotation, the model was held in t h e a i r stream and forced t o rotate by applying a torque about t h e l a t e r a l axis as it w a s launched.

T h e models w e r e generally tested w i t h three elevator deflectione, f'ull up, neutral, and full down w i t h both positive and negative initial pitching rotation. Whip-stall tests were generally made o n l y for those It conditions for which t h e model tumbled when given forced rotation. w a s considered that the model would.tumble for a particular center-ofgravity location i f a tumble w a s obtained by any method of launching f o r any elevator position.
Parameters Considered f o r Empirical Criterion

The results of the investigations sllmm~rizedin reference 1 indicated t h a t aspect r a t i o , the square of the radius of gyration i n percent of the span squared and the degree o f s t a t i c l o n g i t u d i n a l s t e b i l f t y u m b l i n g . When In appeared: t o be importantparameters w i t h regard t o t the analysis af available data and data obtained i n the present investigation no way of using these parameters was found t h a t wo.uld f i t i n t o t h e scheme of separating the tumbles from no tumbles, it was decided t o look f o r parameters whose e f f e c t on the tumble we.= most obvious. Variation o f the center-of-gravity location has a decided effect on tumble resulte. T h e center-of-gravitylocation determines the degree of s t a t i c l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y which, in conjunction w i t h t h e m o m e n t of i n e r t i a , the r a t e of pitch, which, determines the initial rate of pitch. Since i n the case of tumbling is equal t o the r a t e of change of angle of attack, determines t h e amount of h y s t e r e s i s i n l i f t ( s e e appendix), it w a s decided to comider the center-of-gravity location in percent of the mean aerodynamic chord as a basic parameter. The effect of the d a m p i n g moment i s quite obvious inasmuch as conventional-type models (with horizontal tails) which have a large degree of damping w i l l not tumble even when the center-of-gravity location is such that extreme s t a t i c i n s t a b i l i t y exists. If the damping moment a l w a y s exceed8 t h e moment

IUCA RM L50H23

due t o hysteresis in lift f o r any rate of change of angle of attack, the tuniblingmotioncannever get started. The usual expression f o r wing damping which considers only relatively small r a t e s of p i t c h m a y not be applicable f o r t u m b l i n g motions in which t h e rates of p i t c h me appreciably larger. It w a s f e l t that some m e a s u r e of t h e damping would be indicated by the square of the distance between the center of gravity and the centroid o f the plan-form area. Damping, in addition t o being a function of the rate of pitch, i s a l s o a function of the rate o f descent; t h e r a t e s of p i t c h and descent are respectively dependent upon moment of i n e r t i a and mass, and therefore it wa8 felt t h a t the r a t i o of ma~st o moment of i n e r t i a , o r radius of gyration B uared ahould also appear in h 2 t h e damping parameter. The expression or m w a s thus chosen =Y/ IY to represent damping.

B -

T h e r e s u l t s o f the t d l i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r . t h e ll specific models

and t h e 2 research models are presented i n figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 presents the r e s u l t s of t e s t s of models having aspect r a t i o s greater l , whereas figure 3 presents the results of than 3 and varying up t o l
I

tests of models having a s p e c t r a t i o s of 3 o r less. The results of the t-ling tests of t h e f l a t p l a t e s are shuwn. i n figure 4. The coordinates on the figures are the two parameters previously discussed, center-ofgravity position and mh2/Iy. Results f o r both forced r o t a t i o n s and f o r whip s t a l l s are sham. Interpretation of model tmibling results as applied t o corresponding full-scale airplanes regarding the p o s s i b i l i t y of tmibling is as follars: I f a model does not tuuible when launched with forced rotation, the corresponding airplane w i l l not tmible; ff t h e model tunibles when launched with forced r o t a t i o n the corresponding airplane m a y tumble but there w i l l be greater likelihood of t m b l i n g i f t h e m o d e l tumbles when hunched f r o m a whip s t a l l .

. -

Where data permitted, two separation lines have been drgwn in figures 2 t o 4 t o separate the data f o r the models w h i c h tmibled when given forced rotation f r o m the data f o r the models w h i c h t u m b l e d from a whip s t a l l and from the data f o r the models which did not tuuible. In addition, a l i n e has been drawn,where possible, below which tumbles fmm a whip s t a l l appear unlikely. T h e dashed l i n e s are conjectural and have h a t the separation l h e s are 8 fsmily of been drawn on the ass.mption t curves a~ some function o f aspect ratio.

NACA RM L5QH23

Tumbling tendencies of nine modelswhose aspect ratios were g r e a t e r than 3 and ranging u to 11 are indicated i n figure 2. A t a givenvalue of the parameter mh /Iy, t h e models would not tumble even when launched with forced rotation for r e l a t i v e l y forward center-of-gravity positions. As the center o f gravity w a s moved rearward, tumbles were obtained f i r s t only from forced rotation, then from f o r c e d m t a t i o n and occasionally f r o m whip stalls, and f i n a l l y it appeared l i k e l y t h a t tunibles w o u l d always be obtained even f r o m whip e t a l l s f o r rearuard center-of-gravity positions. A t a forward center-of-gravity position, increasing the value of . mh2/Iy tended t o decrease the tumbling tendency from forced rotation, whereas f o r a reamard center-of-gravity position the tendency t o tumble from whip stalls w a s increased for an increase i n mh2/Iy. This difference in effect of mh2/Iy may be p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a difference in mtational inertia. Lkge radius of gyration (high inertia with low mass) would tend to prevent the tumbling motion f r o m a whip s t a l l , whereas once the tumbling motion has been obtained from forced rotation, it would aid i n s u s t a i n k g t h e motion.

is

These results indicate that the center of g r a v i t y need not be nearly so f a r forward t o avoid tumbles from whip stalls. as it must be t o avoid tumbles f r o m forced rotation a t low andmoderate values of mh2/Ty. Thus, although no conparison between m o d e l and airplane tumbling results i s available, it appears that unless an airplane encounters an extrinsic force i n f l i g h t ( s i m i l a r t o that given a model when launched with forced rotation, which is believed t o be a rather remote possibility) the center of gravity indicated on the figure as necessary t o prevent tumbling may be conservative.Further,references 4 and 5 indicate that the increase i n l i f t due to pitching velocity decreases with either 811 increase in Reynolds number o r Mach nmiber. There-is one instance (data unpublished) a f r e e stream about am where a body o f nearconical shape rotated axis normal t o t h e axis of symmetry but d i d not r o t a t e a t all when e i t h e r t h e Reynolds number or.Mach number was increased. In s p i t e of t h e f a c t t h a t a cone i s not 8 v e r y e f f i c i e n t l i f t h g device, these results indic a t e t h a t some s c a l e e f f e c t may be expected and t h a t t h e f u l l - s c a l e airplane may be less prone to tumbling than the model. Figure 3 p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s of tumbling investigatione for four models whose aspect ratios were 3 o r less. For these models, tests w e r e made o n l y f r o m forced rotation, and again the models w o u l d not tumble f o r r e l a t i v e l y forward center-of-gravity positions but would tumble f o r rearward positions. Comparisons of r e s u l t s in figures 2 and 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t , f o r the models of low a s p e c t r a t i o s , f u r t h e r rearward cen+er-of-gravity positions were pennissible than for models with large aspect ratio before tumbling those tendencies were obtained. These results appear to be consistent with ~n reference 2. The reason for the difference due t o a s p e c t r a t i o w a s not apparent. . .. . " ". ". . . . " . -- - ---" "

.
- - -- I

7
Results of tunibling tests of f i v e f l a t p l a t e s are presented in f i g ure 4. These results show separation between conditions of no tumble and those o f tumbles similar t o t h o s e o b t a b e d for the models. The center-of-gravity positions for which no tumbles were obtained were f a r t h e r rearward, however, than were those f o r the specific models of,," similar aspect ratios (fig. 2). As previouslynoted, however, a s p w , i f i c modelwas s4id t o be capable o f tunibling i f tuibles occurred f o r ady. elevator position which includes elevator set t o aid t h e tuniblfng tion. Because the tendency t o tumble is greater when the elevator \ " e deflected i n the direction of the forced rotation than when the e l ators are neutral, and inasmuch as the f l a t p l a t e s had no elevator,E(the results of tests of the f l a t plates (with essentially neutral elevator) may therefore be somewhat optimistic with regards to the center-ofgravity position required t o prevent t u n i b l i n g . The differences between the results of tests of f l a t p l a t e s and specific models may also b e in p a r t due to the basic physical differences between f l a t p l a t e s and actual airfoil sections. As noted i n t h e appendix, the hysteresis in l i f t i s considered to be the primary motive force in tumblhg motions. The r e s u l t s of reference 6 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i n a i r f o i l s have less hysterIt would appear therefore esis in lift than thick airfoil sections. t h a t f l a t p l a t e s and wing6 of th.in a i r f o i l s may generally have l e s s tendency t o tumble than w i n g s of thick a i r f o i l sections.

+ t a -

The results obtained w i t h the f l a t plates indicate that i n the region in which tumbling occurred only by forced rotation, quite a number of no-tunibling conditions w e r e a l s o obtained. This i s probably due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e parameters u s e d f o r the current empirical c r i t e r i o n t o obtain separation between twnbling and no-tumbling conditions do not completely dictate this separation and t h a t o t h e r f a c t o r s may have some influence.
Some o f the models tested tended to assume motions other t h a n tumblingmotion when launched f o r tumble t e s t s . Such motions a s r o l l i n g or c a r t wheeling ( r o t a t i o n about the Z-axis) w e r e experienced. The results of all tuuibling t e s t s indicate that the models tend to tumble or rotate about the axis o f l e a s t moment o f i n e r t i a and/or aerodynamic damping. If, for example, the moments of i n e r t i a about t h e X and Y body axes w e r e the same, some models may tend t o tumble and others t o roll, depending on t h e r e l a t i v e damping. Nonunfform gyrations about all axes may also be possible. No investigations havebeen made of these specific o r d i f f e r e n t motions. As an example, however, model E, has been obsemed t o r o l l about the X body a x i s rather than to tmible. This rolling motion could be stopped b y aileron movement against the rolling motion. I t is probable that other nonuniform motions which have been observed could be controlled i y proper control manipulation fnasmch a a the models generally assumed conditions o f unstalled flight d u r i n g t h e course of the motfon. Such nonuniform motions generally occurred w h e n the moment o f inertia about. t h e Y-axis w a s larger than t h a t about the X - a x i s .

separation curves for the specific models 2 (figs. been redrawn figure in 5 showing an empirical criterion for of tmfbling. Design of airplanes without horizontal tails the prevention in accordance with this criterion should reasonably as8ure that the airplane will not tumble provided it-iswithin the range of geometric and mass characteristics of the designs presented herein. It appears desirable to make t h e design fall.below the lowest criterion curve 5(fig. ); but, should: this be impracticable, the design fall should below the f r o m whip stalls are not likely. separation curve below which tumbles Center-of-gravity positions that fall below this g e n e r a l l y 1ine.are necessary f o r normal stability.
and 3) have
b

In

summary, the

The results of tumbling investigations of several models in the Langley 20-foot spinning tunnel have stw beep e d with regard to the design characteristics and loadings that are conducive to tumbling. A preliminary empfrical criterion for the prevention of tumbling is presented which indicates center-of-gravity positions and values of other parameters which should prevent -ling. It appears that further research will required be in order to understand completely the problem of tumbling. Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Rational Advisory Committee for Langley Air Force Base, Va.

Aeronautics

THEOKY OF " E L I N G MOTION

Dupleich has shownn I reference 2 t h a t lanibling is caused by a phenomenon associated with a d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n t h e aerodynamic forces h r o u g h the stall. resulting from a rapid change i n angle of attack t Figure 6, taken from r&erence 6 , shows thet this phenomenon commonly h o w n as hysteresis can produce large v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e aerodynamfc forces due t o r a t e of change of angle of attack. When the angle of attack i s being varied 60 t h a t a w i n g i s going f m m a n unstalled flow to s t a l l e d flow, the flow i s a l t e r e d i n such a m a n n e r that greater forces r e s u l t a t any given angle of attack than would f o r a s t a t i c test at the same -le of attack. Conversely, lesser forces r e a u l t when a wing is being unstalled.
The mechanics of the tumbling motion may be deacribed by considering the energy produced by the aerodynamic forces. Shown i n f i g u r e 7 are hypothetical curves of pitching moments against angle of attack which are believed to be reasonable and representative o f a flat p l a t e i n t r r m b l i n g equilibrium with the center of gravity at the 50 percent chord. The areas outlined by the moment curves represent the energy resultfrom the various moments. The f l a t p l a t e is used t o illustrate the mechanics of t m i b l i n g inasmuch it i s bisgmmetrical and therefore requires only one-half revolution in p i t c h to complete a cycle of t h e pitching moments. There are three separate aerodynamic pitching moments Fn actionduring a tumble: t h e s t a t i c moment (MIa which i n i t i a t e s the pitching motion; the moment due t o rate of change of angle of . attack (M)k which supplies the motive energy that causesthepitching motion t o accelerate more rapidly; and t h e moment due t o pitch (MIq which i s the danrpingmoment t h a t causes the pitchmotion t o reach the steady state. A t the start of the motion more energy is supplied by (M)& than can be absorbed by (M)q, thm

. +

This inequality exists u n t i l when during the nth cycle of the motion t h e energy supplied by (M)& i s exactly equal to the energy absorbed by (M) and equilibrium i s obtained

The k i n e t i c energy of the t u m b l i n g motion during the nth cycle o f the motion o r any cycle after equilibrium has been established i s equal t o the total energy supplied i n obtaining equilibrium.

The energy due t o t h e s t a t i c moment absorbed by a f l a t p l a t e o r m y bisymmetrical section during a cycle w i l l be zero If the path of t h e center of gravity i s along a straight line. Eqeriment has shown (references 1 and 2) that the deviation of f l i g h t p a t h . f r o m E s t r a i g h t l i n e is small (flight-p.ath angle is nearly constant) and t h e flight path therefore may be considered as a straight l i n e . E q u a t i o n s 1 may then be written omitting (M)a. It thus appears that tumblingoccurs when the energy supplied by the pitching moment due t o rate..of.-change.of angle ofattack exceeds t h e energyabsorbed due t o t h e damping moment. Thiscondition can exist only i f the s t a t i c moment and the moment of i n e r t i a are such as t o perm'ft a.r a t e of change of angle of attack t h a t f o r t h e given aerodynamic shape w i l l generate sufficient hysteresis in lift. I n the case of a wingwhose s t a t i c pitching-moment curye i s unsymmetrical more o r less hysteresis i n l i f t must be generated to balance the energy r e s u l t i n g from the asymmetry o f t h e s t a t i c p i t c h i n g moment.
The flight path .of a tumbling wing is determined. by the balance of the instantaneous aerodynamfc and i n e r t i a f o r c e s and mments (See fig. 1 . ) The equations of motion f o r t h e t h r e e degrees of freedom a r e :

".
I

.
NACA RM 250H23
ll

.
d

Because the variables in equations (2), ( 3 ) , and (4) are nonlinear and m e interdependent, a general solution of the equations is not possible by currently h m n methods. Because the aerodynamic forces and moment are not constant, the velocity of the center of gravity a8 well as the rotation about the center of gravity can not be uniform. As previously indicated, however, the resultfng flight path will not deviate appreciably from a straiat l i n e and therefore %
the case of $unibling, thfs r o t a t i o n Fn p-ltch

&

is not small,

88

most s t a b i l i t y problems, and exceeds all known d u e s f o r which data to i t s e f f e c t on lift, drag, and pitching have been taken with reg& r a g , and pitching-moment data must be moment. It appears t h a t lift, d obtained throughout t h e range of values of pitching velocity peculiar to the tumble f o r m y p&icular airplane in question before a solution to equations (2), (3), and (4) can be obtained. For complete solution o f the tumble problem m o r e bowledge w i l l be required about the mechanics o f , and. the parameters which control, hysteresis md damping a t values o f pitching velocity peculiar to the tmible.

12

HACA RM L50H23

1. Stone, Rdph W.,

Jr., and B r y a n t , Robert L . : Summary of Results of Tumbling Investigations M a d e in t h e Langley 20-Foot Free-Splnning Tunnel on 1 4 D y n a m i c Models. IUACA RM L8528, 1948.

2. Dupleich, Paul:

Rotation in Free Fall of Rectangular W i n g 6 of Elongated Shape. NACA TM 1201, 1949. Preliminary Tests in the H.A.C.A. mAcA Rep. 557, 1936. Free-Spinning

3. Zimmennan, C. H . :
Wind "unnel.

4. Harper, Paul W., and Flanigan, Roy E. : The Effect of Rate oLChange of Angle of Attack on t h e Maximum L i f t of a Small Mcdel. M C A
TN 2061,

1950.

5. Spreiter, John R . , Galster, George M . , and B l a i r , W i l l i a m

Effect of Mach and Reynolds Runbere on Maximum L i f t Coefficient Obtainable i n G r a d u a l and Abrupt S t a l l s of a Pursuit Airplane Equipped with a Low-Drag Wing. NACA MR A5G06, B u r . Aero., 1945.

I C . :

6. Farren, W. S.: The Reaction on. a W i n g Whose Angle of Incidence Is Changing Rapidly. Wind Tunnel Experiments with .a Short Period R.& M. No. 1648, B r i t i s h A..R.C., 1935. Recording Balance.

Model d

23 30

60.00
1 7 2 . 0 0

c
D E F

k
H

i1/20
1 / 2 0

I 44.58
I

I 29.42
30 .oo

375.00 2.31

0.000

37.6 4 5 . 0

back

203.9

101.90

=I
J

673.20 1.34 1.OOO

293.3

back

2 7 2 . 0 0

8 8 . 8 0
49.30
8 2 . 8 0 2 0 . 8 8

39

5.19

4 . 9 back 102.30 0.253. 2

back

K L M
2H

134.00 1800.00 1 0 . 0 0 0.167 l l . 2 1/60

i1/20 1/20 1/20
1290.00

19.80

7 9 2 0 . 0 0
2 0 0 . 0 0

1 0 . 6 0

0.200

0.6

fwd

373.60 93.68

1 26.83
50.m

3.60

0.455

3 8 . 1 back

6 2 . 4 8

20
2P

4 5 . 0 0

1/20

I4 0 0 .0

200.00 1 7 5 . 0 0

8 . 0 0 1.000

0.0
0 . 0

6 0 0 .0
6 9 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0

0.00

2e
2R
1/20

7.00 1.000

0.00

4 0 . 0 0

266.70 6.00

lRese eEch models. 2Flat plates. Others models of s p e c i f i c airplanes.

I v
0.00

14

NACA RM

L50E23

. .c

Yodel

6,694

'

P . 9 6

5-73

e.93

= O , m
5.m
5.50

P.93

2.Q

3n.m

2.s

3.79

3.w
C.G.of f8X E

2-61 2.Q

4.13 5.13

3 . w

3.33
- 3.s
2.051

19.2

17-3

.47

p0.o
2.d

2.133

16.2

NACA RM

~50~23

NACA RM L50H23
c

"

.-%

1,240

e.&

3.53

34

4 0 . 0

.SI 0

Similar i o model W

E
2 . 8 0 9

5.97 5.97
5.97

8.m
8.09

41

33.0
3 7 . 0
40.0

1.77

+
0

38
34

1-03

8.09

.e

4.w

,-,

Similar t o

17

Figure 1 . A n g u l s r and vectorial r_elationships for a tumbling

wing.

E I J
c

t
lY

G+

v
Figure 2.- -ling tendcnciee of a i r g l a n a models having no horizontal tail and whose aspect ratios an betwen 3 and 1 1 .

..

. . .

. .. .

+A

"

Figufe 3.- Wllng tendencies of aFrplane models bvlng no horizontal t a i l an8 whose aepect ratio6 a r e between 1 and 3.

. ., .. . .... . . ., , . .

. .. . .

. . .. . . . . .

. . . ..

. .. . ..

'U

" " "

B
*Ot

P
w

Figure 4 . -T u m b l i n g tendenciea of flat plate6 vhoee a8pect ratios are between 6 m a 10.

ii

.
. ." .. . .

. . "

3 ,

p1

QJ

A. 4 3

22

_.
Clark
YH

NACA RM

L50H23

-5
0.0

10

15

LO

25

Angle o f A H a c k , deg

0.2

c)(-0.4
Figure 6 . - Normal- and longitudinal-force coefficients of a Clark YH wingwho6e angle of attack is being varied rapidly a t an 8ir8peed of 37.5 feet per second.

. .
I

n r

#lTt?T

Figure 7.- Hyptheticsl curves of pitching-moment distribution for a . flat platei n tumbling eqriilibrium with tbe center of gravity e t the centzoid. !The areas above end below the zero moment rapreeent t h e energy gained anb lost, reepectively, during a half-revolution.