LOW-SPEED WIND-TUNNEL TESTS OF A FULL-SCALE M2-F2 LIFTING BODY MODEL

by Kenneth W . Mort und Bed Gumse

Ames Reseurcb Center Moffett Field, Cali$

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D. C.

FEBRUARY 1967

7
64

basss-

NASA TM X-1347

LOW-SPEED WIND-TUNNEL TESTS OF A FULL-SCALE

M2-F2 LIFTING BODY MODEL

By Kenneth W. Mort and Berl Gamse Ames Research Center Moff ett Field, Calif.

GROUP 4
Downgraded at d e c l o x i f i e d after

3 year intervals; 1 2 years

CLASS1F IED DOCUMENT-T I T L E U N C L A S S I F I E D

This material contains information affecting the n o t i o n a l defense of t h e United States w i t h i n the meon.ing of the espionage laws, T i t l e Secs.

NOTICE
This document should not be returtied after i t has satisfied your requirements. I t may be disposed

18, U.S.C.,

of i n accordance w i t h your l o c a l s e c u r i t y regulations or t h e oppropriate p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n d u s t r i a l Security Monual for Safe-Guarding Classified Informat ion.

793 and 794, the transmission or revelation

of w h i c h i n any manner t o an unauthorized person i s prohibited by law.

N A T I O N A L AERONAUT ICs AND SPACE ADMl N ISTR A T ION

LOW-SPEED WIND-TLTNNEL TESTS O F A FULL-SCALF: M2-F2 LIFTING BODY MODEL* By Kenneth W. Mort and B e r l Gamse Ames Research Center SUMMARY The l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of m e s 40- by 80-Foot Wind t h e W-F2 l i f t i n g body modelwere investigated i n t h e A Tunnel. The W-F2 configuration w a s based on t h e M2-Fl design with modificat i o n s t o t h e afterbody, t h e c o n t r o l surfaces, and t h e canopy l o c a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of modifications t o the model during the t e s t series, b u t not incorporated i n t h e f i n a l W-F2 Configuration, are a l s o included. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s conducted over a range of angles of a t t a c k from - 5 O t o +loo, and free-stream dynamic pressures from 1 7 to g ( l b / f t 2 . The r e s u l t s indicated t h a t t h e M2-F2 configur a t i o n was l o n g i t u d i n a l l y s t a b l e over t h e e n t i r e trimmed l i f t - c o e f f i c i e n t range i n v e s t i g a t e d , from 0 t o 0 . 9 . There was no evidence of s t a l l except a t t h e extreme combination of 24' angle of a t t a c k and 1 0 ' angle of s i d e s l i p . The m a x i m u m l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o s r e a l i z e d f o r t h e W-F2 configuration were 4.2 untrimmed and 4.0 trimmed.

INTRODUCTION

-8' t o +28O, angles of s i d e s l i p from

Studies of l i f t i n g body r e e n t r y vehicles capable of c o n t r o l l e d g l i d i n g f l i g h t and conventional h o r i z o n t a l landings r e s u l t e d i n t h e b a s i c M2-Fl design ( s e e r e f s . 1-7). The r e s u l t s of wind-tunnel and f l i g h t t e s t s of t h i s vehicle configuration a r e reported i n reference 8, 9, and 10. The design of t h e cont r o l surfaces, t h e afterbody, and t h e canopy w a s modified t o improve the lowspeed performance and handling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e vehicle and t o make t h e configuration compatible with high-speed f l i g h t requirements. This modified configuration w a s designated t h e M2-F2. The low-speed aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s determined by f i l l - s c a l e wind-tunnel t e s t s of t h i s modified design and t h e e f f e c t s of o t h e r modifications t e s t e d during t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s leading t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e M2-F2 configuration are reported here.
NOTATION

b
CD

maximum span, 9.51- f t drag c o e f f i c i e n t , "Title, qs Unclassified

D -

CL
1,

l i f t coefficient,

L q s

Cm

Cn
CY

rolling-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , r o l l i n g moment qSb i t c h i n g moment pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , q s z yawing -moment c o e f f i c i e n t , Yawing moment

qSb

side-force c o e f f i c i e n t , drag f o r c e , l b l i f t f o r c e , lb

side force
C I S

D
L

2
q

reference l e n g t h ( o r i g i n a l l e n g t h of M 2 ) , 20 f t free-stream dynamic pressure, l b / f t 2 Reyno Ids number , free-stream v e l o c i t y kinematic v i s c o s i t y x 2

Rn

S
U

reference a r e a ( o r i g i n a l body planform a r e a of M 2 ) ,

138.9 f t 2

angle of a t t a c k , angle between cone a x i s and f r e e stream, deg angle of s i d e s l i p , deg d i f f e r e n t i a l upper f l a p o r elevon d e f l e c t i o n , deg lower f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , deg rudder d e f l e c t i o n , deg upper f l a p d e f l e c t i o n , deg S u p r sc r i p t

P
'a

I@ 4-4 r o i l

1.f

' + , GI*

%
'r
%l

radius, i n .

The f o r c e s developed by t h e model were resolved along t h e wind axes and t h e moments about t h e body axes. The s i g n convention f o r c o n t r o l surface d e f l e c t i o n s , f o r c e s , and angles i s given i n f i g u r e 1. Zero angle on a l l c o n t r o l surfaces i s defined as t h a t position where t h e c o n t r o l surface i s tangent w i t h t h e model surface immediately upstream of t h e c o n t r o l hinge l i n e .

MODEL DESCRIPTION

The model i s shown i n f i g u r e 2 i n s t a l l e d i n t h e 40- by 80-foot :iind tunnel. The model dimensions a r e presented i n f i g u r e 3. The body of t h e model forward of s t a t i o n 240 was made from a f i b e r g l a s s mold of a plywood c o n s t r u c t i o n f l i g h t vehicle (M2-Fl). Deviations of t h a t f l i g h t v e h i c l e ' s dimensions from those i n f i g u r e 3 were repeated on t h e model. The model cons t r u c t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , i s t y p i c a l of large-scale wind-tunnel models i n regard t o a i r leakage, c o n t r o l surface attachments, and r i g i d i t y b u t i s not t y p i c a l i n regard t o dimensional e r a n c e s -and surface conditions. -..-_____I__ _-_- c_.--t o l--.-I_
__II

- *

ds fi0

The c o n t r o l system of t h e M2-F2 configuration ( f i g s . 1 and 3 ( a ) ) included upper-surface f l a p s t h a t moved together f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l c o n t r o l and d i f f e r e n t i a l l y f o r l a t e r a l c o n t r o l , and lower-surface f l a p s t h a t could be used independently or i n conjunction w i t h t h e upper f l a p s f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l c o n t r o l . The lower-surface f l a p s were l i m i t e d t o a minimum d e f l e c t i o n of loo and were always d e f l e c t e d t o g e t h e r . The model had s p l i t flap-type rudders on t h e o u t board surfaces of t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r with only one surface d e f l e c t i n g outboard a t a t i m e f o r d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l . The devices i n v e s t i g a t e d included ( f i g s . 3 ( b ) , 3 ( c ) , and 3 ( d ) ) t h e b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g (which was incorporated i-nto t h e f i n a l I42-F2 coEf i g u r a t i o n ) elevons a t t h e base of t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r , f l a p s with t h e i r hinge l i n e a t t h e t r a i l i n g edge of t h e afterbody, quasi-wings simulating landing gear doors, outboard v e n t r a l f i n s , and a c e n t r a l d o r s a l f i n . TESTLNG P R O C E D U R E l The aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were obtained by varying t h e angle of a t t a c k from -12' t o +280 f o r s e v e r a l c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s and f o r s i d e s l i p angles of - 5 O , Oo, + 5 O , and +loo. The e f f e c t s of Reynolds nuniber were i n v e s t i g a t e d a t one l o n g i t u d i n a l c o n t r o l s e t t i n g and zero s i d e s l i p f o r Reynolds numbers from 2OX1O6 t o 3&106. Unless otherwise noted on t h e f i g u r e s , t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s performed a t a Reynolds number of 36x10~(dynamic pressure of 9 7 lb/ft2).

M = f'.?_ /DATA REDUCTION Accuracy of Data

l-J,> t p r

The accuracy of t h e d a t a presented, estimated from p o s s i b l e e r r o r s i n measurements, instrumentation, and recording, i s as follows : Lift Drag Side f o r c e P i t c h i n g moment Yawing moment

f10 l b

23 f3

lb lb

+300 f t - l b

-+loo ft-lb

Rolling moment Dynamic pressure Angle of a t t a c k Control surf ace deflection

k400 f t - l b k O . 5 percent

+O. 2O

+o . 5 O
3

Corrections t o t h e Data The d a t a were corrected t o account f o r t h e unshielded main s t r u t t i p s and t a i l s t r u t and f o r t h e f a i r i r i g between t h e main s t r u t t i p and Lhe body (fig. 2). The s t r u t t i p and t a i l s t r u t t a r e values used were:
CD = 0.052

0.020 s i n a

Cm = -0.031

0.001 s i n a

Cn = 0.0518 s i n

p
sin a

C 1 = 0.0082

- 0.0116

The f a i r i n g tare values used were:

CL = 0.111 s i n a
=

,
COS

5 18O

0.034

0.093 s i n ( a - 18')

> 18'

CD = 0.389
= 0.01

- 0.389

a - 0.020 s i n a

a <_

16O

> 16O

Cm = -0.262
= -0.007

+ 0.262

cos a sin(a

+ 0.0124
- 1 6 ' )

sin a

<_ 16'

+ 0.055

>1 6 '

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s a r e presented i n two p a r t s , the f i r s t p a r t documents t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e M2-F2 configuration, and t h e second p r e s e n t s the e f f e c t s of t h e various devices i n v e s t i g a t e d during t h e process of defining t h e M2-F2 configuration. Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e M2-F2 Configuration h n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - The e f f e c t on t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of varying t h e Reynolds number from 2 0 ~ 1 0 to ~ 36x106 ( f i g . 4) i s seen t o be small, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s below 0.6. The l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for various p i t c h c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s a t zero s i d e s l i p a r e presented i n f i g u r e 5. The trimmed l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s determined from f i g u r e 5 a r e presented i n f i g u r e 6. It i s evident from t h e r e s u l t s presented i n f i g u r e 5 t h a t t h e s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y tends t o decrease with i n c r e a s i n g l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e higher values of ? j l ) . The s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y i s a l s o decreased s l i g h t l y

by decreased (more negative) upper f l a p d e f l e c t i o n s and decreased lower f l a p d e f l e c t i o n s f o r l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s less than 0.5.
A comparison of fi-gures 5 ( a ) and ? ( e ) shows t h a t t,he drag c o e f f i c i e n t a t zero l i f t f o r t h e minimum f l a p d e f l e c t i o n t e s t e d (h= ' 0 and 61 = 1 0 ' ) was This drag h a l f t h a t for t h e maxim f l a p d e f l e c t i o n (& = -25O and 62 = 4.0'). increase i s i n d i c a t i v e of t h e increase i n e f f e c t i v e base a r e a a s t h e f l a p s are d e f l e c t e d away from t h e body s u r f a c e . This base a r e a increase r e s u l t s i n a m a x i m untrimmed value of L/D = 2 . 1 when Su = 25' and 6 2 = 40 compared t o a value of L/D = 4.2 when 6, = Oo and 62 = loo. A change i n m a x i m L/D of t h e same magnitude occurs f o r t h e trimmed conditions of f i g u r e 6 when t h e cases for 6 l = loo and 61.3.p a r e compared. The m a x i m u m trimmed L/D f o r .,? 62 = 1 0 ' w a s 4.0 and t h e a u a r t m was 2.3 f o r 61 = 40'.

Figure 7 i n d i c a t e s that s i d e s l i p d i d n o t g r e a t l y a f f e c t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t o r below P = 5'. However, when t h e angle of s i d e s l i p w a s increased from 5' t o loo, t h e r e w a s a sizable increase i n drag and a small reduction i n l i f t curve slope. I n addition, a t j 3 = loo, a d e f i n i t e maximum l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t w a s reached a t a, = 2 6 O , accompanied by an u n s t a b l e break i n t h e pitching-moment curve. A t P = ' 0 and 5O, a s t a l l break w a s never reached, and t h e l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t was a l i n e a r function of t h e angle of a t t a c k over t h e e n t i r e range t e s t e d (a = 1 0 ' t o +28O). L a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e presented i n f i g u r e 8(a) as a f u n c t i o n o f angle of a t t a c k for s e v e r a l s i d e s l i p angles and i n f i g u r e 8 ( b ) a s a f i n c t i o n of s i d e s l i p angle f o r s e v e r a l angles of a t t a c k . These d a t a show t h a t the roll, yaw, and s i d e - f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s are n e a r l y l i n e a r functions of P . From t h e yawing-moment r e s u l t s of f i g u r e 8 ( a ) , t h e r e appears t o be a t r a n s i t i o n i n t h e value of t h e yawing moment due t o s i d e s l i p (Cnp) from a low value t h a t e x i s t s at negative angles of a t t a c k t o a high value t h a t e x i s t s f o r angles of a t t a c k g r e a t e r than 12'. This could be due t o i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e vortex flow from t h e leading edge with t h e v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r s . It i s a l s o apparent from f i g u r e 8 ( a ) t h a t t h e r e i s sudden change i n t h e yawing and r o l l i n g moment a t about 2 6 O angle of a t t a c k 0 ' s i d e s l i p . This, t o g e t h e r with t h e previously mentioned u n s t a b l e break for 1 i n t h e pitching-moment curve, suggests t h a t t h e flow s e p a r a t e s on t h e windward v e r t i c a l s t a b i l i z e r and causes a breakdown i n t h e flow over t h e a f t e r p o r t i o n of t h e upper surface and a r e s u l t i n g forward movement of t h e c e n t e r of pressure. The e f f e c t s of rudder and a i l e r o n d e f l e c t i o n s on t h e l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e presented i n f i g u r e s 9 and 10, r e s p e c t i v e l y , The v a r i a f o r an upper f l a p s e t t i n g of -loo and a lower f l a p s e t t i n g of 20. t i o n s i n rudder and a i l e r o n c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s due t o l o n g i t u d i n a l c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s were n e g l i g i b l e ; hence, r e s u l t s f o r only one s e t t i n g a r e presented. The l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e presented b o t h a s f u n c t i o n s of angle of a t t a c k f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s and a s functions of c o n t r o l s e t t i n g f o r d i f f e r e n t angles of a t t a c k . The e f f e c t s of t h e l a t e r a l and d i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l s a r e seen t o be e s s e n t i a l l y l i n e a r f u n c t i o n s of t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s with only s,mll v a r i a t i o n s due t o angle of a t t a c k . The l a r g e adverse yawing moment due t o r o l l c o n t r o l ( C /Cz6, M -1) nga

evident i n f i g u r e lO(b) should be noted. According t o t h e f l i g h t t e s t r e s u l t s 0 , f o r t h e M2-Fl vehicle, a CnBa/C16a value of about reported i n reference 1
-0.2 was obtained during f l i g h t t e s t s . This value w a s considered acceptable f o r t h e l i m i t e d l i f t i n g body mission even though t h e r e s u l t i n g r o l l response w a s sluggish and marginal when compared w i t h f i g h t e r - t y p e a i r c r a f t r e q u i r e ments. Unpublished r e s u l t s of simulator s t u d i e s of t h e M2-F2 f l i g h t charact e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e t h a t i t s l e v e l of adverse yaw could be unacceptable. A c e n t e r d o r s a l f i n , which reduces t h e adverse yawing moment due t o roll control, i s discussed a t t h e end of t h e following s e c t i o n .

Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Various Devices Investigated B o a t t a i l f a i r i n g . - The b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g w a s incorporated i n t o t h e M2-F2 configuration. The dimensions of t h e f a i r i n g and t h e model Configuration (as it was when t h e f a i r i n g e f f e c t s were i n v e s t i g a t e d ) are shown i n f i g u r e 3 ( b ) . The model was never t e s t e d with t h e a f t f l a p s o f f when t h e b o a t t a i l w a s o f f . Because of t h i s , t h e comparison of t h e r e s u l t s with and without t h e b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g includes t h e e f f e c t of moving t h e a f t f l a p 26 inches f a r t h e r back from t h e moment reference. However, t h i s e f f e c t i s probably a s m a l l percentage of t h e e f f e c t of adding t h e b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g . The b a s i c l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic 1 . The r e s u l t s a r e shown f o r t h e elevon c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e shown in, f i g u r e 1 on and off and f o r t h e a f t f l a p s a t 1 0 ' incidence. An examination o f t h i s f i g u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g reduced t h e drag and increased t h e l i f t - c u r v e slope, and hence increased t h e untrimmed maximum L/D by over 0 . 5 . It i s also evident from t h e pitching-moment r e s u l t s of t h i s f i g u r e t h a t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y of t h e M2-F2 w a s improved by t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g . The presence of t h e elevon a f f e c t e d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of the b o a t t a i l f a i r i n g , e s p e c i a l l y a t low angles of a t t a c k . Elevons. - The elevons were used on t h e o r i g i n a l M2 configuration (designated M2-Fl) b u t not on t h e M2-F2 configuration. The elevon dimensions and the model configuration (as it w a s when t h e elevon e f f e c t s were i n v e s t i gated) are shown i n f i g u r e 3 ( b ) . (It should be noted t h a t t h e elevon p o s i t i o n t e s t e d was d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of t h e M2-Fl.) The l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r symmetrical d e f l e c t i o n s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 ( a ) and t h e l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l e f f e c t s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l d e f l e c t i o n s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 ( b ) . These d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were g e n e r a l l y improved by t h e presence of t h e elevons. The d a t a shown 0 ' change i n angle of a t t a c k had a g r e a t e r i n f i g u r e 12(a) i n d i c a t e t h a t a 1 e f f e c t than an equal d e f l e c t i o n of t h e elevon. This suggests t h a t t h e bodyinduced upwash, which increases with angle of a t t a c k , i n t e r a c t s with t h e elevons. The l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l r e s u l t s shown i n f i g u r e 12(b) i n d i c a t e t h a t very l i t t l e yawing moment i s produced when t h e elevons are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y d e f l e c t e d f o r roll c o n t r o l , t h a t i s , Cnga/CIBa 0. Hence, one method ___ of liminating __ e ..-t h e large a d ~ e ~ s - e ~ ~ ~ - o f _ t ~ ~ . c -M 2 n2 fi -g Fu 2r a t ion previously discussed i s t o incorporate outboard mounted elevons. _ 1 _ 1
_ _ I _ _ - _ l l

The dimensions and arrangement of these f l a p s a r e shown i n c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e f l a p s i s compared t o t h a t of

t h e M2-F2 upper f l a p s i n f i g u r e 13. It i s evident from t h i s f i g u r e t h a t changes i n l i f t , drag, and p i t c h i n g moment are l e s s per degree of f l a p d e f l e c t i o n than a r e r e a l i z e d with t h e upper f l a p s o f t h e M2-F2 configuration even though t h e t a i l volumes ( t a i l 1engt.h times surface a r e a ) a r e almost i d e n t i c a l . This i s probably due t o a g r e a t e r influence o f t h e M2-F2 f l a p on t h e body flow p a t t e r n s . However, if trimmed r e s u l t s a r e obtained from t h e s e data, drag for a given l i f t i s s l i g h t l y higher f o r t h e upper f l a p s . Hence, t h e t r i m drag i s s l i g h t l y lower f o r t h e a f t f l a p s . Quasi-wings.- The dimensions of t h e configuration w i t h t h e wing r o o t f a i r e d a r e given i n f i g u r e 3 ( c ) ; t h e photograph shows t h e arrangement with t h e r o o t u n f a i r e d and unsealed. The shape of t h e s e wings w a s intended t o s i m u l a t e landing gear doors t h a t could a l s o serve as simple l i f t i n g s u r f a c e s . The l o n g i t u d i n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h and without the wings are presented i n f i g u r e 1 4 . ' Results are shown for two incidences and with and without t h e wing r o o t f a i r e d and sealed. It i s apparent t h a t t h e quasi-wings improved t h e performance, e s p e c i a l l y with the r o o t sealed and f a i r e d . The maxim L/D w a s increased by about 1. These l i f t i n g s u r f a c e s would not only improve t h e performance b u t would a l s o reduce t h e landing a t t i t u d e substant i a l l y . For a 5.2O wing incidence a t CL = 0.5, t h e wings would reduce a by about 7.5'. The maximum incremental increase i n CL achieved f o r t h e range of v a r i a b l e s i n v e s t i g a t e d w a s 0.22 a t CL = 9'. This i s equivalent t o a m a x imum lift. c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.1 based on t h e projected a r e a o f t h e wing and i s an unusually high value f o r t h i s type of l i f t i n g s u r f a c e . These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t t h i s type of l i f t i n g device i s a promising method of improving t h e performance of l i f t i n g body v e h i c l e s .
A simple computation using t h e r e s u l t s o f f i g u r e 1 4 shows t h a t t h e c e n t e r of pressure of t h e r e s u l t a n t f o r c e increment moves forward of t h e wing panels a f t e r wing s t a l l occurs. This i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e flow about t h e b a s i c body and t h e quasi-wing panels.

Outboard v e n t r a l f i n s . - The outboard v e n t r a l f i n s a r e described i n f i g u r e 3 ( d ) . These f i n s were intended t o s t r a i g h t e n t h e outboard flow t h a t occurred on t h e lower surface of the body. Two configurations were i n v e s t i gated, the t h i n outboard v e n t r a l f i n s and the t h i c k outboard v e n t r a l f i n s . The t h i c k f i n s w e r e designed t o withstand high-speed aerodynamic heating. The aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 15 f o r t h e t h i n f i n s and i n f i g u r e 16 f o r t h e t h i c k f i n s . It i s seen t h a t t h e t h i n f i n s increase b o t h t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l and d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and s l i g h t l y decrease t h e r o l l i n g moment due t o s i d e s l i p . The aerodynamic e f f e c t s of t h e t h i c k f i n s are similar b u t smaller than those of t h e t h i n f i n s . Center d o r s a l f i n . - The c e n t e r d o r s a l f i n described i n f i g u r e 3(d) was intended as a flow s t r a i g h t e n i n g device during a i l e r o n c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s . The l a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 17 as a f u n c t i o n of roll c o n t r o l s e t t i n g s . The basic l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n a l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not presented s i n c e t h e e f f e c t of LThe s c a t t e r i n t h e moment c o e f f i c i e n t evident i n f i g u r e 14 and i n figures 1 1 and 12 i s a r e s u l t of t h e reduced accuracy due t o t h e low t e s t dynamic p r e s s u r e (17 l b / f t 2 ) .

t h e dorsal f i n on t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w a s n e g l i g i b l e . The r e s u l t s of f i g u r e 17 i n d i c a t e t h a t Cn8,/C18, would be reduced from about -1 t o -0.2 i f t h e dorsal f i n were used on t h e M2-F2. The e f f e c t on t h e roll c o n t r o l was very small. Hence, i f t h e l a r g e adverse yaw due t o roll c o n t r o l present on t h e M2-F2 configuration i s unacceptable, one s u c c e s.s - f u l method afmarked3_y decreasing it i s by a d o-r s-a l -f i n suc&--as Lhat.~Lg&&
-1-1-

2______-

CONCLUDING FEMARKS The maximum untrimmed L/D of t h e M2-F2 c o n f i g u r a t i o n w a s 4.2; t h e m a x i m trimmed L/D was 4.0. The model had p o s i t i v e 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 over t h e e n t i r e t r i m range i n v e s t i g a t e d .

The adverse yaw due t o roll c o n t r o l w a s l a r g e b u t can be reduced by t h e addition of a small d o r s a l f i n between t h e upper f l a p s . Wind-tunnel t e s t s of t h e M2-F2 l i f t i n g body have shown t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e components and t h e body. Thus, t h e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s determined from t e s t s of i s o l a t e d components could not be superimposed t o p r e d i c t t h e o v e r a l l aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s accurately. Ames Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Moffett F i e l d , C a l i f . , Nov. 3, 1966 124-07 -02-10-21

REFERENCES
1. Kenyon, George C . ; and Edwards, George G.: A Preliminary I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Modified Blunt 1.3' Half -Cone Re -entry Configurations a t Subsonic Speeds. N A S A TM X-501, 1961.

2.

Rakich, John V. : Supersonic Aerodynamic Performance and S t a t i c - S t a b i l i t y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Two Blunt -Nosed Modified 13' Half -Cone Conf igurations. N A S A TM X-375, 1960. Dennis, David H.; and Edwards, George G.: i s t i c s of Some L i f t i n g Bodies. N A S A TM The Aerodynamic Character-

3.

X-376, 1960.

4 .

Kenyon, George C . ; and Sutton, Fred B.: The Longitudinal Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a Re-entry Configuration Based on a Blunt 1.3' H a l f Cone a t Mach Numbers t o 0.92. N A S A TM X-571, 1961. Rakich, John V. : Aerodynamic Performance and S t a t i c - S t a b i l i t y Characteri s t i c s of a Blunt-Nosed B o a t t a i l e d 130 Half-Cone a t Mach Nunibers From A S A T M X-5'70, 1961. 0.6 t o 5.0. N Kenyon, George C.: The L a t e r a l and Directional Aerodynamic Characteri s t i c s of a Re-entry Configuration Based on a Blunt l 3 O Half-Cone a t Mach Nmibers t o 0.90. N A S A TM X-583, 1961. Axelson, John A.: Pressure D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e M-2 L i f t i n g Entry Vehicle a t Mach Numbers of 0.23, 5.2, 7.4, and 10.4. N A S A TM X-997,

5.

6.

7.

1964.
8.
Horton, Victor W.; Eldredge, Richard C.; and Klein, Richard E.: FlightDetermined Low-Speed L i f t and Drag C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Lightweight M2-Fl L i f t i n g Body. N A S A TN D-3021, 1965.

9.

Mort, Kenneth W.; and Gamse, B e r l : F u l l - s c a l e Wind-Tunnel I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e Longitudinal Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e M2-Fl L i f t i n g Body F l i g h t Vehicle. N A S A TN D-3330, 1966.
Smith, H a r r i e t J. : Evaluation of t h e Lateral-Directional S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Lightweight M2-Fl L i f t i n g Body a t Low Speeds. N A S A TN D-3022, 1965.

10.

1 0

8 >

>

N
I

'd
11

(a) Three -quarter f r o n t v i e w .

A-32524

Figure 2.- The model mounted i n t h e 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel.

12

(b) Three-quarter rear v i e w .

A-33440

Figure 2.

Concluded.

rr)

lo

0 0

+
X

( u

r9
I

p!
I

I;
u)

>

I1

h K J

14

u)

a a
LL
I

v)

-N

0 0
W
0 E .c

z >

I n

h U 0

Projected areahide: 12-112 f t *

All dimensions in inches

15

A-

-_

A l l edges have Ir

156 177
Body stations

Lkzj
A -A

A-31466

( c ) D e t a i l s of q u a s i -wings.

Figure 3.

Continued.

16

E .0

rl

a a I z

2 8
I 3 0

I t-

18

20

21

0 0

22

N \ J

E
L)

d
I

co
I

23

25

26

.I

0
CY

-.I
-.2

. 0 4
0

. 0 4 c2 -

. O8

-.I 2 (a) Results presented as a function of

CL.

Figure 8.-Effects of sideslip on t h e lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics of the basic W-F2 configuration; S, = -loo,
6 L = 20.

.I

0
CY

-.I

-.2

.O8
.04
Cn

0
-.04
- 0

-.04
Cl

8
1 6

-.04
-.08
-.I2

-5

IO
P.

P,

deg

(b) Results presented as a f u n c t i o n of

Figure 8. - Concluded.

. I

CY

. I

0 0
. 0 4

-5

0
I
I
I I
I

. 0 4

- 12

-8

-4

8
a, deg

12

1 6

20

24

28

(a) Results presented as a function of a . Figure 9.- Effects of rudder deflection on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics of the basic W - F 2 configuration; S, = -loo, 62 = 2 0 ' .

29

.04

CY

-.04

.04

002

Cn

-00 2

-.O 4

002

C2

-00 2 Br
( b ) Results presented as a function of

6 , .

Figure 9.
30

Concluded.

. 0 4

C"

. 0 4
0 0
0

I O

. O4

Cl

O
. 0 4
I I

. O 8 - 2

-8

-4

8
a , deg

1 2

1 6

20

24

28

(a) Results presented as a function of

CL.

Figure 10.-Effects of aileron deflection on the lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics of the basic W - F 2 configuration; s, = -100,62 = 200.

.04

-.04

.04

-.02

-8
.02

Cl
-.02

-.04

( b ) Results presented as a f u n c t i o n of

6 , .

Figure 10. - Concluded.

32

33

34

.I

CY

-.I

.04

-.04 0

8
a 9 deg

12

1 6

20

(b) L a t e r a l - d i r e c t i o n a l aero dynamic character 1 5 t i c 5 f o r t h r e e l a t e r a l cont ro1 s e t t i n g s o f elevons. Figure 12.

Concluded.

3.5

.7

. 5

. 4
CL

. 3
. 2
.I
0 0

0
.3

A h

n
0 0

. 2
CD

0
n
V

4 8 1 2
1 6 1 8

.I

0
-04

.02

. 0 2

1 6

1 2

-8

-4

Figure 13. - Comparison of aft flap control effectiveness with upper flap

control effectiveness;

zl

= 1 0 ' .

36 36

L_r
~~ ~~

37

CY

Cn

ventral fins

deg

. I 6I

-12

I -8

I
-4

12
0 , de9

1 6

20

24

28

32

(b ) Lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics

.
39

Figure 1.5. - Concluded.

I + I

I
%
I

O o o a

40

.I

CY

-. -.2
I .I2

.08

.04

C" C
. 0 4
-.OE
.I 2

. OE
.04

-.OE

. I C

! - 8 - 4

(b) Lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics; S, = -150, 6 = 30.

Figure 16.- Concluded.

8
1 2
a, deq

1 6

20

24

28

32

4 1

.I

0
CY

-.I

-0

.08

-04

Cn

-a04

O . - 8

-04

CL

-004 -16

-8

8
s o , deg

1 6

24

32

Figure

17.- The e f f e c t s

of t h e d o r s a l f i n on t h e l a t e r a l c o n t r o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e b a s i c M2-F2 c o n f i g u r a t i o n ; S, = -loo, 6 2 = 2 0 ' .

42

NASA-Langley, 1967

A-2253

"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so r l ~ to confribuie . . . to the expansion of durrian knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and Jpace. The Administration shaIl provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its acticities and the results thereof ."
-NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered important, complete, and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge. TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless o f importance as a contribiition to exisiiiig knawledge. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distribution because of preliminary data, security classification, or other reasons. CONTRACTOR REPORTS Technical information generated in connection with a NASA contract or grant and released under NASA auspices. TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign language considered to merit NASA distribution in English. TECHNICAL REPRINTS: Information derived from NASA activities and initially published in the form of journal articles.

.-1.... -SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: I=fcrmatien derived f m m oi of . V L L I U C L" NASA activities but not necessarily reporting the results of individual NASA-programmed scientific efforts. Publications include conference proceedings, monographs, data compilations, handbooks, sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.

Details on the availability

o f these publications

may be obtained from: