1、RESEARC.H MEMORANDUM LONGITUDmAL-STABILITY INVESTIGATION OF HIGH-LIFT AMD STALL-CONTROL DEVICES ON A so SWEKTRACK WING WITH AND WITHOUT FUSELAGE AND HORJZONTAL TAIL AT A Gerald V. Foster and James E. Fitspatrick Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERON
2、AUTICS Lp! “y captl WASHINGTON ha I L 24 I Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-3 1176 01331 1239 - NACA RM no. a108 NATIONAL ADVISORY C- FOR AERGNAUTICS By Gerald V. Foster and James E. Fitzpatrick I I An investigation has been conducted
3、in the Langley lg-foot pressure tunnel to determine the separate and cogibined effects of high-lift and stall-control devices, a Rzselage, and the vertical position of a swept- back wing. The wing had an aspect ratio 2.88, taper ratio 0.623, and NACA 641- airfoil sections normal to the 0.282-zhord l
4、ine. The high- i back horizontal tail on the aerodynamic characteristics of a 52 swept+ z lfft and stall-cantrol devices caneistea of split flaps, 1eading”edge flaps, and upper”eurface fences. These test data were obtained at a Reynolds number of 6.8 X 10 6 which corresponded to a Mach number of 0.1
5、3. The results of the investigaticm indicate that the increase in maximum lift of the wing with leading-dge and trailing-dge flaps was slightly larger thes the sum of the lfft increments contributed ha- vidually by the flaps. The stability of the wing in the moderate lf+ coefficient range (0.7 to 0.
6、9) was decreased with leadingedge flaps and beyond this lift-coefficiant range the wing stall spread outboard resultFng in Mther decrease in stability. The tip stall and resulting unstable pitching mnmFlrit. which occurred with leading-edge flapa on the wing were improved wlth upper-+urface fences.
7、Wpper-eurface fences I edge flaps and split flaps to break in a stable direction at the lift. The horizontal tail increased the stability of the wing-fuselage U combination in the linear lift range; however, the increase in stability decreased as the position of the tail wa8 lowered. In the nonlinea
8、r I Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-2 NACA RM No. 8108 lift range, the high tail position contributed a destabilizing effect while most configurations indicated an increase in stability with the tail.in the low position. Means of coun
9、teracting the inherent disadvantages associated with swept-wingwings operating at low speeds are being investigated in the Langley 19-foot-pressure tunnel (references 1 to 4) . As a part of this fnvestigation, tests have been made to determine the longitudinal stability and yaw characteristics at la
10、rge value6 of Reynolds number- of a meptback wing of aspect ratio 2.88, taper ratio 0.625, and IBACA 641-112 airfoil sections perpendicular to the 0.2824hord line. The longitudinal stability characteristics of the wing with and without- split flaps have been presented in reference 5 anbthe yaw chara
11、cteristics have been presented in reference 6. The present paper contains the results of the longitudinal stability investigation concerned with the separate ma conibined effects of high- lift and staill-control devices, a fuselage, and the vertical position of a sweptback horizontal tail. The high-
12、lift and stall-cantrol devices consisted ofsplit flaps, leading+dge flaps, and upper-urfacs- fences. The fuserage was test moment about the quarter chord of mean aerodynamic chord (Momant/qSE) angle of attack of wing chord, degrees wing area, square feet wing span, feet e Provided by IHSNot for Resa
13、leNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-NACA RM mo. 8108 3 C local chord measured parallel to the plane of symmetry, feet Y spanwise distance from plane of symmetry, feet Q free-stream dpmudc pressure, pounds per square foot P mass density of air, slugs per cubic foot
14、v free-stream velocity, feet per second 6 effective downwash angle, degrees 4th ratio of effective dynamic preseure at the tail to free- stream d-c pressure it -Incidence of horizontal tail with respect to wing chord .r . plane, degrees h perpendicular distance between the wing chord plane extended
15、L and the tail 0.25.5 point (Cmith at c, = 0 effectiveness of horizontal tail o.n wing-flwelage combination Mt angulaz difference between the two Incidences of horizontal tail used The general arrangements for the wing equipped with leading-edge flaps, split flaps, upper”eurface fences, fuselage, an
16、d a horfzontd tail me presented in figures I and 2. The wing however, the complete configurations for the 420 swept- back are more satisfactory because of the greater stability of the wing-fuselage cdinationa. CONCLUDING REMARKS The results of a longitudinal-stability investigation of a 520 sweptbac
17、k wing tested in various coniblnations with high-lift and I I I I I i Y Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-10 NACA RM No. 8108 sta-control devices, a fuselage, and a sweptback horizontal tail indicate that: 1. The increase in-imum lift o
18、f the wing attained with leading- edge and trailing+dge flaps in combination WBB slightly larger than the sum of the lift increments contributed individually by the flaps. 2. The addition of leading-edge flaps to the plain wing or to the wing with split flaps caused a decrease in Stabilitg in the mo
19、derate lift-coefficlent range (0.7 to 0.9). Beyand this lift-coefficient- range the wing”stal1 spreads outboard, resulting in further decrease in stability. 3. Upper-6urface fences with leading-edge flaps delayed the tip stall and produced a stable pitching4noment slope to just balow the maximum lif
20、t coefficient. Fences caused the pitching+noment curve of the wing with 0.575ppan leading-dge flaps and split flape to break In a stable direction at the maximum lift coefficient. b 4. The fuselage decreased the stability of the stable wing configu- ration; however, it had a negligible effect on the
21、 unstable wing conf iguratims. 5. The horizontal tail increased the stability of the wing- fuselage combination in the linearlift range; however, the increase in stability decreased.as the position of -the tail wa8 lowered. In the nonlinear lift range, the high tail position contributed a destabiliz
22、ing effect while most configurations indicated an increase in stability with the tail in the low position. Langley Aeronautical Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Field, Va. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-
23、NACA RM No. 8108 REFERENCES sl 1. Graham, Robert R, and Conner, D. William: Lnvestigatian of Hlgh- Lift and Stall-Control Devices on an MACA 6cSeries 42O Sweptback Wing with and without Fuaalage. NACA RM IBo. L7GO9, 1947. 2. Comer, D. William, and meely, Robert E.: Effects of a Fuselage and Various
24、HigbLift and Stall-Control Flaps on Aerodpmic Characteristics in Pitch of an NACA 6Weries 40 Swept-Back Wing. NACA RM No. 627, 1947. 3. Neely, Robert H., and Koven, .William: LowSpeed Characteristics fn Pitch of a 42O Sweptback Wing with Aspect Ratio 3.9 and Circular- Arc Airfoil Scti013. NACA RM No
25、. Lm23, 1947. 4. Koven, William, and Graham, Robert R. : Wind-Tunnel Ihvestigation of ELgh-Lift and Stall-Cmtrol Devices M a 37O Sweptback Wing of Aspect Ratio 6 at High Reynold6 Wwnbers. NACA RM Bo. L8D29, 1948. 5. Fitzpatrick, James E., and Foster, Gerald V. : Static Longitudinal Aerodynamic Chara
26、cteriatics of a 52O Sweptback Wing of Aspect Ratio 2.88 at Reynolds ITumbers from 2,000,000 to U,OOO,OOO. NACA RM No. 8H25, 1948. 6. Sahui, Rein0 J. : Yaw Che;r taper ratio = 0.625; area = 4429 sq in.; E = 39.97 in. AlL dimensions in t Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permi
27、tted without license from IHS-,-,-. -. (?mr mid-yd low -wing-fuselage comWnation. I a. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-(a) Front view. Figure 3. - A 520 sweptback wing-fbelage combination in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel. Provid
28、ed by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-. L Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-. . . I f r r (b) Rear view, Figure 3.- Concluded. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or network
29、ing permitted without license from IHS-,-,-! Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-4 0 4 8 I? I6 Po 24 28 m 0 -.# ,deg 0 PQI 08 .I2 -16 20 24 28 A? .36 A0 44 48 .5? cm CD . (a) Split flaps off. Figure 4. - Aercdpmic characteristics of a 52O
30、 sweptback wing with and without leading-edges flaps, i - .- -.- . . . Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Y “ -4 0 4 8 tP 16 20 24 28 .w 0 -.w io8 Figure 4. - Concluded. 3 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permit
31、ted without license from IHS-,-,-mACA RM No. L split flap8 deflected. 2 ! I : I I I I Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-26 MACA RM NO. 8108 (a) Split flaps off. Leading-edge flap s?an Plain wing C.725 b/2 .575 b/2 “ “- 0 2 .4 .6 .B 1.0
32、1.2 CL (b) Split flaps on. Figure 6. - Variation of aerodynamic center with lift coefficient for a 520 sweptback wing with and without leading- and trailing-edge flaps. f Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-. . -4 0 4 8 I2 I6 .EO P4 28 .0
33、4 0 -A% -.CM E, dsg 0 .W .08 .I2 .I6 .Po -24 .e8 -32 .36 .40 .44 .48 -5P .56 cm OD Figure 7.- The effect of split flaps and upper-surface fences on the aerodynamic characteristics of a 62O sweptkxk wing with 0.67 b -span leading-edge flaps. 52 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networki
34、ng permitted without license from IHS-,-,-. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4 0 4 6 I2 16 20 24 28 .w a Yo4 c & .m. .w .ft? J6 .zO .& .p8 ,36 .N # 32 CR Figure 8.- Aerodynamic characteristics of a 520 sweptback wing with upper-surface fences at two spanwise locaioxls. 0,725b -span
35、 leadin-edge flaps and split flaps OIL z . . . Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ETACA RM No. 8108 29 c, 0 8 16 24 32 (c 0 8 16 24 32 m ! I I I ! i (a) 0.575b -span leading-edge flaps, (b 0.729 -span leading-edge flap, . .- z fences at. 0.45b 2 - fences at 0. ab z - Figure 9.- Stall studies of 52 sweptback wing in combination with leading-edge flaps and upper-surface fences. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-
