Research Memorandum

co,, 74 RM ‘H55A17 e

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

LATERAL STABILITY CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

CONVAIR XF -92A DELTA-WING AIRPLANE AS MEASURED IN FLIGHT

By Th~mas R. Sisk and Duane O. Muhleman

High-Speed FlightStation Edwards, Calif.

cLAssImmDOCUMENT

‘fbis material containsinformation affectingb NationalDefense ofb Wilted Sfat8a within b meaning of & esplonasa laws, Title 18, U.S. C., Sew. 19S * TM, b tramnission or revalatlon of which in any —r to m unauthmized person is prohibited by law. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS w NACA RM H53A17

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

RESEARCH MEMOIMNDUM

LATERAL STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICSOF THE

CONVAIR lQ?-92ADELTA-WING AIRPLATE AS MEASURED IN FLIGHT

By Thomas R. Sisk snd Duane O. Muhleman

suMMARY

The lateral stability and control characteristicswere investigated on the Convair XF-92A delta-wing airplane during the flights of the NACA research program. The investigationincluded sideslips, aileron rolls, smd rudder pulses at altitudesranging from 18,000 to 30,000 feet at indicated speeds from 160 to 42o miles per hour. A small amount of data is includedwith wing fences installed at 60 percent of the wing semispan for comparisonwith the basic airplane”

The lateral handling characteristicsappear satisfactorywhen viewed in terms of gradually increasing sides.lips,lateral control effectiveness,and period, and damping. The pilots objected to the over-all lateral hsnd.lingcharacteristics,however, primarily because of the high roll-to-sideslipratios which probably resulted from the relatively low static directional stability and relatively high effective dihedral. These adverse characteristicswere aggravated at low speeds by high sdverse yaw and rough air and at high speeds by high airplane response to small control deflections. The appsrent high side force and poor hydraulic control system added to the objectional characteristics.

The lateral handling characteristicsat low speeds were improved by the installationof wing fences. The improvement apparentlyresulted from an increase in the static directional stability.

INTRODUCTION -

The Convair XF-92A airplane was originally constructedto determine the handling characteristics,primsrily at low speed, of an airplane having a delta-wing configuration. In view of the interest in delta- wing airplanes for high-speed flight, a larger power plsnt was installed I 2 commm NACA RM H55A17 F

in the XT-92A and the flight envelope was extended to sonic speed during joint testing by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and the Air Force. The results of this investigationare presented in references 1 to 3. Upon completion of these tests the XF-92A was assigned to the NACA High-SpeedFlight Station for general resesrch.

All the pilots who have flown the XI?-92A (during the joint NACA— Air Force progrsm and the NACA research program) have reported that the airplane exhibited poor lateral handling characteristics,particularly at low speed. The present paper presents the lateral stability and control characteristicsof the XF-92A as determined from sideslips, aileron rolls, and rudder pulses. Wing fences were installed on the XF-92A at 60 percent of the wing semispan to evsluate the longitudinal maneuvering stability characteristicswith this modification (ref. 4), and a limited amount of lateral data is presented herein with the fence configurationfor comparisonwith the basic airplane. The tests were performed at the NACA High-SpeedFlight Station at Jliwards,Calif.

SYMBOLS

Ay transverse accelerationfactor, g units

b wing span, ft

c wing chord, ft Rolling moment cl rolling-momentcoefficient, qsb

Yawing moment Cn yawing-moment coefficient, qsb

CNA airplane normal-force coefficient, Wn/qS

Cy lateral-forcecoefficient, A@@

cl/2 cycles-to-dampto one-half amplitude

g accelerationdue to gravity, ft/sec2

hp pressure altitude, ft

Ix moment of inertia about longitudinalstability axis, slug-ft2

coNFIDENT@ NACA RM H55A17 cortmmm

product of inertia, Slug-ftz +KZ

Iz moment of inertia about normal stability axis, slug-ft2

M Mach number n normal accelerationfactor, g units

P period, sec

P rolling angular velocity, radians/see pb/2V wing-tip helix angle, radisns z ha variation of wing-tip helix angle with lateral control 2VI angle, per deg

q dynsmic pressure, lb/ft2

q pitching angular velocity, radians/see r yawing angular velocity, radians/see s wing area, sq ft

T1/2 time-to-dampto one-half amplitude, sec t time, sec v true velocity, ft/sec

Ve equivalent side velocity, (v@), ft/sec

Vi indicated velocity, mph pv v side velocity, — ft/see 57*3’ a angle of attack, deg

P sideslip angle, deg

8a lateral control sngle, be - be~, deg L 4 corrmmm NACA RM Ei55A.17

6 +6 ‘L ‘R, deg longitudinalcontrol angle-, 2

rudder control angle, deg

angle of principal axis of inertia from body axis, positive when principal axis is below body axis, deg

angle of sweepback, deg

air-densityratio

bank angle, deg

variation of rolling-momentcoefficientwith angle of sideslip, dC1/dp, per radian

dsmping in roll, dCz/d ~, per radian

variation of yawing-moment coefficientwith angle of sideslip, dCJd~, per rsdian variation of lateral-forcecoefficientwith angle of sideslip, d~idp, per radian

variation of transverse accelerationfactor with angle of sideslip, g/deg

variation of lateral control angle with angle of sideslip

variation of rudder control angle with angle of sideslip

Subscripts:

L left

R right msx maxtium

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 5

AIRPLANE

The Convair XF-92A is a sernitaillessdelta-wing airplane having 600 lesding-edgesweepback of the wing and vertical stabilizer. The elevens and rudder sre full-span constant-chordsurfaces and are 100 percent hytiaulicallyboosted. The artificial feel system provided has forces approximatelyproportionalto deflection and are adjustable in flight by the pilot. The airplane has no leading- or trailing-edge slats or flaps, no dive brakes, and no trim tabs. Wing fences were installed at 60 percent of the wing semispan for part of the tests presented in this paper.

Table I lists the physical characteristicsand figure 1 shows photographs of the airplane. A three-view drawing of the airplane is presented in figure 2. Figure 3 presents a sketch of the wing-fence configurationthat was installed during part of the tests presented in this paper.

INSTRUMENTATIONAND ACCURACY

The XF-92A airplane is equipped with standard NACA recording instruments for recording the quantitiespertinent to this investigation. All instrumentsare correlatedby a conznontimer.

The airspeed installationwas calibratedby using the radsr photo- theodolitemethod of reference 5. The low-speed static pressure calibrationneeded for the pressure survey in the method was obtained from am Air Force F-86 pacer airplane snd the pressure surveys were checked with data obtained from radiosonde balloons released at the time of the flights. This calibrationmethod resulted in a Mach number error of about 1 percent.

Accuracies of the pertinent quantities are: p, radianspersec...... *O.lo r, radianspersec ...... *O.02 @, deg ...... *1O.O p, deg ...... *0.50 ba,deg...... ~0.20 br,deg...... *0.20

Vi, mph...... ● . ● ● ~4.o 6 NACA RM E53AJ-7

TESTS, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION

The lateral stability and control characteristicswere measured in gradually increasing sideslips, rudder-fixed aileron rolls, and rudder pulses over the altitude range from 18,000 to 30,000 feet at indicated speeds from about L60 to 420 mph (M= 0.30 to 0.94). All the pilots who have flown the XF-92A have objected to the lateral handling characteristics,particularly at the lower speeds, and therefore the majority of the data were obtained below an indicated speed of 250 mph (M< 0.50). The higher speed range was not covered as fully as might be desired because the research progrsm was terminated abruptly when the airplane sustained considerabledamage as a result of a nose- wheel strut failure while taxiing. The data are presented for various indicated speeds in this paper since the lower speed range is the region of primary interest. A limited amount of lateral data was obtained with wing fences installed at 60 percent of the wing semispan and is presented for comparison with the basic airplane. The center of gravity for these tests varied between 27.2 and 28.7 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord.

Static Lateral Stability

The static lateral stability data obtained from gradually increasing sideslips are presented in figures 4 to 7. Figure 4 presents represent- ative variations of control positions and transverse accelerationwith angle of sideslip for the basic airplane, clean and gear down, over the speed range tested. Figure 4 shows that the pitching moment resulting from sides,lipis small and the variation of rudder control angle and lateral control angle with sideslip is linear over the entire range of sideslip angles covered. These data are summarized in figure 5 which shows that, for the clean configuration,the vsriation of lateral-force coefficientwith angle of sideslip CYP, as obtained from the expres- dAy Sion ~p ‘w— has little variation with speed as the indicated d~/qS speed increases from about 1>0 to 440 mph. The rudder required to sideslip dbr/d~ increases from a value of 0.40 to 0.55, snd the aileron required to maintain constant heading d5a/d~ decreases from a value of 0.90 to 0.30. Lowering the gear increases the lateral-force coefficient,decreases the appsrent directional stability as indicated by d5V/d~, and increases the dihedral effect d5a/d~, the magnitude of increa;e or decrease being generally small and relatively constant with speed for each parameter. Figures 6 and 7 present data similar to

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H.55A17 7

figures 4 and 5 with wing fences installed. Only low-speed data were obtained with the fence configurationand it appears that in this speed range the only appreciabledifferencebetween the two configurationsis that with the fences installed the apparent directional stability is increased at the lowest speeds, more rudder being required to sideslip. There is a rapid increase of apparent dihedral effect as the speed decreases for both the basic airplane and the fence configurations.

Lateral Control

The lateral control data obtained from rudder-fixedaileron rolls are presented in figures 8 to 13. Figure 8 presents the variation of wing-tip helix angle with lateral control angle for the basic airplane, clean and gear down, and shows that this variation is linear with control deflection over the range of deflectionstested. These data sre summarized in figure 9 which shows that Pb~ ~a for the clean airplane / varies from a value of 0.0050 at Vi = 170”mph to 0.0095 at Vi = 420 mph) the largest change being noted at the lower speeds. ~wering the gear &6 Figures 10 and 11 present data similar to ‘educes ‘he ‘alue ‘f 2VI a“ figures 8 and 9 with wing fences installed. A@n, the fence data are meager, but figure 11 indicates that installingthe fences does not appreciablychange the value of ti ba. The pilot reported adequate 2VI aileron control for both configurationsover the entire sPeed range tested.

Figure 12 presents representativetime histories of six aileron rolls to illustrate the reduction in -5 at the lower speeds. 2V/ a Figures 12(a) and 12(b) illustratethe high-speed case where the trim angle of attack is of the order of 30. These rolls show the more or less conventionalslow development of adverse yaw during the roll. Figures 12(c) and 12(d) illustrate the low-speed caae for the airplane, clean and gear down, respectively,for trim angles of attack of approximately 120. At these high angles of attack, the sideslip sngle increases immediatelywith roll apparently as a result of rolling about the principal axis. This sideslip then reduces the peak rolling velocity. The rapid development of sideslip is very bothersome to the pilot. Figures 12(e) and 12(f) illustrate that the fence configurationat low speed, clean and gear down, differs little from the basic airplane configuration.

The bank-singledata obtained from the aileron rolls are presented in figure 13. Figure 13(a) shows the variation of maximum rolling velocity, time to reach a bank angle of 90° and the bank angle at 8 commmm NACA RM H55A17 maximum rolling velocity for one-third, one-half, and two-thirds aileron deflection. Reference 6 recommends a tentative high-speed criterion based on a time of 1.0 second to reach a bank angle of 90°. It may be seen that the XF-92A meets this criterion at indicated speeds above about 26o mph with two-thirds aileron deflection. Figure 13(b) com- pares the basic airplane, gear down, with the clean configurationand figures 13(c) and lj(d) compare the fence configuration,clean and gear down, with the basic airplane. Iowering the gesx on the basic sirplane reduces the msximum rolling velocity and, at the lower speeds, increases ‘ the time to reach a bank angle of 90°. No appreciabledifferences can be noted between the basic airplane clean and the fence configuration clean. ~wering the gear on the fence configurationdecreases the time to reach a bank angle of 90° at the lower speeds as compared with the basic airplane, gear down.

~amic Lateral Stability

Rudder pulses were performed at altitudes of approximately20,000 and 30,000 feet, clean and gear down, with the basic airplane and with the fence configuration,and the results of these data are presented in figures 14 and 15. No difference could be distinguishedbetween the gear configurationor the two altitudes for the speed range where there are overlappingdata; therefore, figure 14(a) presents the vsriation of r period and time to damp to one-half amplitudewith indicated speed for the basic airplane. These data were evaluated during the portion of the maneuver in which all controls were held fixed. Figure 14(a) shows that the period decreases from a value of approximately4.0 seconds to 2.5 seconds as the speed increases from160 to 360mph. The time to dsmp ‘ to one-half smplitude is essentially constant over this speed range with a value of approximately1.75 seconds. Figure 14(b) presents the fence- configurationdata for comparisonwith the basic airplane. This figure shows that the only effect of the fences is to decrease the time to damp slightly in the restricted speed range for which a comparison is possible.

The primary objection to the handling characteristicsappears to lie in the large roll-to-sideslipratios experiencedduring directional maneuvers. Reference 7 proposed a tentative criterionbased on the reciprocal of the cycles-to-dampto one-half amplitude and the roll-to- sideslip ratio. The han~ing-qualities requirementsof reference 8 speci~ satisfactorydynamic lateral stabilitybased on such a criterion. This specificationis presented in figure 15, together with data from tests made with the XF-92A airplane both with and without wing fences. l?romthis figure it may be seen that the dynamic lateral stability of

coNFIDmIAL NACA RllH55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 9

the XF-92A airplane is generally in the unsatisfactoryregion. The points for the basic configurationgenerally lie deeper in the unsatis- factory range than do the points for the fence configuration. This indicated improvementin lateral behavior attributableto fences was borne out by pilots’ comments. According to pilots’ comments, this high roll-to-sideslipratio is aggravatedby rough air at the lower speeds and by the high airplane response to small control deflections at the higher speeds. Figure 16 illustrates the unsteadiness resulting from this response during an attempted trim run over the Mach nuniber range from 0.82 to 0.89.

The variations of the effective dihedral parameter Clp) the directional stabilityparameter Cn , and the lateral-forceparameter ~ , R P 1- with indicated speed for the basic airplane, clean, at an altitude of 20,000 feet were determined from the following equations:

_, L (\My CYB= ‘+

In determining CZ , the coefficientsof dp&/dba snd d&/d~ were n P obtained from the flight-testdata of the aileron rolls and sideslips, respectively, and the value of Cz of -0.2 was obtained from refer- P ence 9. In determining CnP} the values for p ~d T1/2 were obtained ad and the from flight rudder pulses and the inertia terms 5 % principal axis inclination (~ = 1°) were obtained from the contractor.

coNFrDmIAL 10 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E55A17

(The inertia values used in the calculations are tabulated in table II.) the controls-fixedportion of the rudder pulses were In determining CYB‘ used to determine the variation of the transverse accelerationfactor with sideslip angle. It is understood that the equations listed above will nat yield true static derivatives,particularly in the case of Clb) since dynamic flight data were used in the equations. It is felt, however, that the equations yield adequate approximationsto illustrate the comparisonsdiscussed in this section.

The results of these calculationsare presented in figure 17. This figure shows that Clp varies between values of -0.05 to -0.04 per radian in the speed range from 16o to 38o mph. Over this same speed range, Cn decreases from a value of 0.06 to 0.04 per radian B and Cy decreases from a value of -0.75 to -0.65 per radian. It may B be noted that the values of ~ obtained from sideslips (fig. 5) are P considerably lower than the values obtained from the controls-fixed portion of the rudder pulses. The major differencebetween the two values probably results from the contributionof the aileron and rudder deflections required for the sideslip maneuvers. Also shown in figure 17 for comparison are the values of CZB, CnB) ‘d Cy from B Ames full-scalewind-tunnel tests (unpublished”)for the basic “airplane adjusted to the lift coefficientsand trim eleven angles corresponding to indicated speeds of 145, 18o, and 220 mph. These data show excellent agreement in Cn and Cy . The flight-determinedvalues of Cl are B B P considerablylower thsm the wind-tunnel data at the lower speeds because of the effects of adverse yaw in causing a reduction in I!Q used in 2VI a the calculations. The calculationsfor the fence configurationpresented in figure 17 show the static directional stability to be increased approximately40 percent over the value for the basic airplane at the lowest speed.

This increase in directional.stability attributableto the fences is considerablygreater than the effect on the appsrent stability parameter d5r/d~, (fig.7). It should be noted that the value of Cn B determined from the pulse data is primarily sensitive to the period. Inasmuch as there is considerablescatter shown in the period for the rather limited fence data the absolute value of the directional stability parameter may be questionable.

CONFIDENTIAL --—_ CONFIDENTIAL ...’ NACA RM H55A17 ~J;k: ‘~“-i.~ ,,--‘...‘,,‘“-””’–--’ 7 ~~ , b’s., ...,.. z~p.p..a :“. , . 1-+. * f= 1 ~~..’, 2 ,:;*. : ,-,q Although the parameters of figure 17 appe~ normal, a further analysis indicates that they are not in the proper order of magnitude with respect to each other for best stability. This is illustrated in figure 18. Figure 18(a) presents the variation of the ratio Of Cnp to CIQ with lift coefficient and indicated speed as determined from the c&es of figure 17. Also shown on figure 18(a) for comparisonwith the XF-92A are representativepoints for the X-’j(refs. 10, 11, and unpublished data), a 350 swept-wing airplsne (ref. 12), and the D-558-II (unpublisheddata). It may be seen that the ratio of Cn to cl P P CnB Cl@ = 1 for the XF-92A is generally less than the ratio for other (/ ) ai~lanes. It follows that, for satisfactoryhandling characteristics, the XF-92A would require a higher ratio of Cn to c1 than required B P for airplanes of higher aspec~ ratio (as predicted in ref. 13). Note that the X-5 airplane to(A =C59 j aspect ratio = 2.2) has a considerably higher ratio of Cn than the XF-92A except at the lower speeds. B $ Figure 18(b) presents the same comparison for the ratio of ~ to c P %“ It may be seen from figure 18(b) that the ratio for the XF-92A is of the order of three to four times the magnitude of the ratio for the other airplanes. This high appsrent lateral.force probably contributes to the pilots’ impressionsof the poor handling qualities.

The NACA pilot reported an improvement in the handling qualities with the installationof wing fences. The only appreciabledifference that can be noted in the static parameters with the fences installed is the increased static directional stability shown in figures 17 and 7. Although the magnitude of the increase in C may be somewhat question- % able because of the scatter in the data the change is in the direction to improve the ratios as shown in figure 18.

Control System

Finally, part of the difficulties encountered on the XF-92Amsy be attributed to the poor hydraulic control system. Evaluation of ground calibrationshas shown the control system to have high friction and breakout forces and appreciable lag of surface-to-stickmotion. These characteristicsare particularly objectionable at low speeds where large control deflections are required to maneuver and also at high speeds where the airplane is sensitive to small control displacements.

CONFIDENTIAL 12 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

CONCUSSIONS

The results obtained from sideslips, sileron ro~s, and rudder pulses performed at altitudes ranging from 18,OOO to 30,000 feet at indicated speeds from 16o to 42o xph during the flights of the NACA research program of the XF-92A airplane indicate the following conclusions:

1. The static lateral stability characteristicsas measured in sideslips appe= satisfactoryalthough there is a rapid increase in apparent dihedral effect at the lower speeds. There is adequate rudder power ow?r the entire speed range tested.

2. The lateral control as measured in aileron ro~s appesrs adequate over the entire speed range tested although there is a considerable reduction in aileron effectiveness at the lower speeds.

3. The dynamic lateral stability of the airpbe was generally in the unsatisfactoryregion when compared to U. S. Air Force requirements for satisfactoryvalues of reciprocal of cycles to damp to half amplitude and ratio of roll angle to sideslip velocity.

4. Although the airplane appeared to have satisfactorystatic lateral stabili~ and control characteristics,the pilots objected to the over-all lateral handling characteristicsprimarily because of the high roll-to-sideslipratios which probably resulted from the relatively low static directional stability and relativelyhigh effective dihedral. These adverse characteristicswere aggravated at low speeds by high adverse yaw and rough air and at high speeds by high airplane response to small control deflections. The apparent high side force and poor hydraulic control system added to the objectional characteristics.

5. Installingwing fences on the airplane improved the handling characteristicsat the lower speeds, in the pilots’ opinion, probably because of the increase in static directional stability attributableto the fences.

High-Speed Flight Station, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Edwards, Calif., January 10, 1955.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM B55A.17 CONFIDENTIAL 13

REFERENCES

1. Sisk, Thomas R., and Mooney, John M.: Preliminary Measurements of Static bngitudinal Stability and Trim for the XF-92A Delta-Wing Research Airplane in Subsonic and TransonicFlight. NACA RM L53B06, 1953.

2. Holleman, Euclid C., Evans, John H., and Triplett, William C.: Pre- liminary Flight Measurements of the Dynamic LongitudinalStability Characteristicsof the Convair XF-92A Delta-Wing Airplane. NACA RM L53E14, 1953.

3. Bellman, Donald R., and Sisk, Thomas R.: Preliminary Drag Measure- ments of the ConsolidatedVultee XT-92A Delta-WingAirplane in Flight Tests to a Mach Number of 1.01. NACA RM L53J23, 1954.

4. Sisk, Thomas R., and l@hleman, Duane O.: Imgitudinal Stability Characteristicsin ManeuveringFlight of the Convair XF-92A Delta-Wing Airplane Including the Effects of Wing Fences. NACA RM ~4J27, 1954.

5* Zalovcik, John A.: A Radar Method of CalibratingAirspeed Install- ations on Airplanes in Maneuvers at High Altitudes and at Transonic and Supersonic Speeds. NACA Rep. 985, 1950. (SupersedesNACA l’N1979.)

6. Williams, W. C., and Crossfield, A. S.: Handling Qualities of High Speed Airplanes. NACARM L52A08, 1952.

7. Liddell, Charles J., Jr., Creer, Brent y., and Van ~ke, ~dolph D., Jr.: A Flight Study of Requirements for SatisfactoryLateral Oscillato~ Characteristicsof Fighter Aircraft. NACA RM A5N6, 1951.

8. Anon.: Milit~ Specifications- Flying Qualities of Piloted Air- planes. MIL-F-8785 (ASG), Sept. 1, 1954. (Amendment- 1, Oct. 19, 1954.)

9. Jaquet, Byron M., and Brewer, JackD.: Effects of Various Outboard and Central Fins on Low-Speed Static-Stabilityand Rolling Charac- teristics of a Triangula,r-WingModel. NACA RM L9E18, 1949.

10. Kemp, William B.j Jr., and Becht, Robert E.: StabilitY and Control Characteristicsat Low Speed of a l/4-Scale Bell X-5 Airplane Model - Lateral and Directional Stability and Control. NACA RM L50C17a, 1950.

CONT’IDENTW 14 com~mnw NACA RM H55A17

11. Childs, Joan M.: Flight Measurements of the Stability Character- istics of the Bell X-5 Research Airplane in Sideslips at 59° Sweepback. NACA RM L52K13b, 1953.

12. Triplett, William C., and Brown, Stuart c“ Lateral and Directional Dynamic Response Characteristicsof a 3~6 Swept-Wing Airplane as Determined from Flight Fkasurements. NACA RMA52117, 1952.

13. McK.inney,Marion O., Jr., and Shanks, Robert E.: Lateral Stability and Control Characteristicsof a Free-FlyingModel Having an Unswept Wing With an Aspect Ratio of 2. NACA TN 1658, 1948. NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 15

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHMIACTERISTICSOF THE~-92A AIRPm

wing: Area,si ft...... 42> Span,ft...... 31.33 Airfoilsection ...... NACA65(&)-oc&5 Wing-panel area, outboaxd of root strain-gage station, sqft ...... 137.1 man aerodynamic chord, ft ...... 18.09 Aspect ratio ...... 2.31 Root chord, ft ...... 27.13 Tip chord ...... 0 Taper ratio ...... Sweepback (leading edge), deg ...... 6; lhcidence, deg ...... o Dihedral (chord plane ), deg ...... 0

Elevens: Area (total, both, aft of hinge line), sqft ...... 76.19 Span (one eleven ), ft ...... 13.35 Chord (aft of hinge line, constantexceptattip),ft ...... 3.05 Movement, deg Elevator: up ...... ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ 15 Down ...... 5 Aileron,total ...... 10 Operation ...... Hydraulic

Vertical tail: Area, sq ft ...... 75.35 Height, above fuselage center line, ft ...... ile50

Rudder: Area, sq ft ...... 15.53

span,ft . ● ...... 9.22 Travel, deg ...... *.5

Operation ...... ● ...... ~d.raulic

Fuselsge: Length, ft ...... 42.8o

Power plant: Engine ...... AllisonJ33-A-29withafterburner Rating: Static thrust atsealevel, lb ...... 5,600 Staticthrustat sealevelwithafterburner,lb ...... 7,500 Weight: Grossweight(560&Qfuel),lb ...... lq.560 En@yweight,l b...... ll,@B Center-of-gravitylocations: Grossweight(560@. fuel),PercentM.A.C...... 25.5 Bn@yweight,percentM.A.C...... 29.2 Moment of inertia in pitch, slug-ft2 ...... 35,000

CoNFIDENTIAL 16 NACA RM W>5A17

TABLE II

INERTIAVALUEFOR XF-92AAIRPLANE

[i = lq

a, lZ7 IXz/IX deg slug-ft*

o ------38,600 -0.10 : 38,500 -.30 6 38,350 -.48 8 38;050 -.63 10 37,750 -.76 12 37,350 -.87 14 36,850 -.95 16 36;300 -1.01 18 35,700 -1.05 20 35,050 -1.08

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 CON??IDENTIAL 17

. t 325.6 36.6 - 1 /

------~------* /

-----

,------.--.-.,

~+------‘. .. .----, —103.2 ,----- MA.c.217.I 60° -----‘= T 160

1’ ------.------~

~ 1

. 375.9 —

Camefo —

—.- L T---kP7-

—-- — .- -. —--- J9u

I t

Figure 1.- Three-view drawing of the XF-92A airplane. All dimensions in inches.

CONT’IDmIAL 18 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55U7

(a) Overhead front view.

(b) Three-q,,ter rear view.

L-81260 (.) Left side view.

Figure 2.- Photographsof XF-92A research airplane.

cONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 19 20 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

8 ‘ .8 up Right Right

6 “ ,6

\ ,4 4

/ 2 “,2 deg Ay, g

o— — — 0

2 4 .2

.4 4 0 se “ •1 80 Down Left 0 Sr Left A Ay -46 6 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 Left Right

b,deg

(a) Vi = 145 mph; a = 17.2°; CNA = 0.60; clean.

Figure 4.- Variation of control positions and transverse acceleration factor with sngle of sideslip for the basic airplane.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 a.

❑✏ 6 up l\o Right I I Right

~ Ay, g

2 — ,2

Left 6- .6 ’12 8 4 0 4 8 Left Right P,deg

(b) Vi s 205 mph; a = 7=9°; CNA = 0.20; clean.

Figure 4.- Continued.

CONFIDmIAL I 22 commmm NACA RM H55A17

6 up Right \

2 —

Ay, g 8e,80, &,deg 0

4 / o 8 •1 8: Down L Left ~ ~r .eft .6 6 \2 8 4 0. 4 8 12 Left Right

s 0.20; clean. (C) Vi= 205 mph; a = 5.6°; CNA

Figure 4.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 cortmmnw 23

~ Right

I )

6 ‘ 5 up Right - \ ) 4 4

0 2 2

8e,80,8r, deg ~ %9

Down Left Left L I # p 612 4 0“4 8 Left Right

(d) Vi = 378 mph; u = 2.3°; CNA = 0.09; clean.

Figure k.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL 24 NACA RM H55A17

Lo Right

6 6 ‘- up Right ,4 4’

\ 9 0 .2

I II ~ Ay, g I , I I Rid’-i/’ cleg ‘ lx o

.2 2

.4 4’ 0 8e •1 so 1 Down Left Left ~ ~r c \ .6 12 8 4 0 4 8 Right Left ~, deg

0.08; clean. (e) Vi = 438 mph; a = 2.0°; CNA =

Figure 4.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL v NACA RM H5’jA17 CONFIDENTIAL 25

8 3 up Right ,Qp .@Q)~Q Right

‘i 5

\ 4

\ 2

@ 2 .0 ❑ . -i+-

Left ,6 ) 12 8 I Left Right ~,deg

(f) Vi = 163 mph; a = 14.60; CNA = 0.49; gear down.

l’i~e 4.- Continued. 26 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

/ 6 6 up Right Right

c1 4 —5 4

deg c

)

4 .4 Down El” Left Left / t 8 4 0 Left Right We9

(g) Vi = 208 mph; a = 7.8°; CNA = 0.29;gear down.

Figure k.- Continued.

CONFIDmIAL CONFIDENTIAL 27

6- .6 up Right Right

4 -.4 0 (~

2 “ .2

hv , deg

72 8 4 0 4 8 12 Left Righi ~,deg

(h) Vi = 249 mph; a = 6.9°; CNA = 0.21; gear down.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL 28 CON3?IDENTIAL NACA RM H53A17

-.017

\ n -.013 ❑ %-Q_ Cyfl,perdeg -.009 “ v u LJ

-.005’

-.16

-,12

dAy/d&@e!?-.O8

-.04 0 Clean ❑ Geor down n LJ

d8r/dp .4 —

I.2

d80/dp

00 100 200 300

Vi ,mph

Figure 5.- Variation of lateral parameters for the basic airplane with indicated speed as determined from sideslip maneuvers.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 29

8 UP Right

6 6 Right

4 4

2 2

0 %9

4 .4 Down Left Left t .6 ~ 8 4 0 4 8 12 weft Right ~,deg

(a) vi = 164 mph; u = 14.4°; CNA = 0.49; clean.

Figure 6.- Variation of control positions and transverse accelerationfactor with angle of sideslip for the fence configuration.

CONFIDENTIAL 30 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM IHW7

6 6 up Right Right P 4 ,4 t-

I .2

0 Ay, g

‘

.2 2 I A \ > .4 4 L J k Down [ Left / o 4 126 Left b,deg

(b) vi = 204 mph; a = 9*90; CNA = 0“32; clean.

Figure 6.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 CON-FIDENTIAL 31

6 up Right

4 \

2 .2 k,4-#r,de9 o To”” ‘9 2

/f / 4 Down Left 0 Er Left A Ay 1 I ) 8 4 ( 4 8 I26 Left Right O, deg

Figure 6.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL 32 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H53A17

6 up I Righ I Right I ,4

8e,80,t3r,deg 0 Ayvg

\ ●4

Dow Left Left 5 Left Right & deg

(d) Vi = 186 mph; u = ll.OO; CNA = 0.37; gear down.

Figure 6.- Continued.

CONFIDmIAL NACA RIMH55A17 CONT’IDENTIAL 33

6 6 up Right Right

,4 4

,2 2

0 Ay,g ~e~%,%,deg O

.2 2

4 ,4

Down / Left Left i,6 [ 8 12

(e) Vi= 205 mph; a = 10.4°; CNA= 0.34;

6.- Continued.

CONFIDENTIAL 34 com’lDlmTIA.L NACA RM H’55A17

6- ,6 up Right Right . , $@ \w( ’000 ~m( 4 .4

2 .2

‘o Ay, g deg o “

2 .2

4 .4 // Down Left Left 6 4 0 4I 8 f 12 8 Left Right

(f) vi = 225 mph; a = 8.1°; CNA s 0.27; gear dOwn.

Figure 6.- Concluded.

CONl?IDmIAL NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 35

\ -.013 ‘ . ElTJ-’- ❑ GyB,per deg - -.oo9~ ●

-.16

/ -,12

dAyld& g/deg -.08 / /’ / -,04 $ / / / o

dgrldb .4 0 /

o’ c 1.2 — Basic airplane - clean —.— Basic airplane -gear down o Fence configuration- clean Fence confiaurotion -sea r down .8 \

d~/ijp .4

00 100 m 3m 4~ 500 600 Ml mph

Figure 7.- Variation of lateral parameters for the fence configurationwith indicated speed as determined from sideslip maneuvers.

CONFIDENTIAL 36 NACA RN H55A17

,12 Right

.08

.04 /

/ 0

~,h> mh f? .04 O 3! 4w.sxld 0 28631.4 0 249255 A 22525.0 , .08 V 20623,5 p 182 20*0 a 166 19.7 Left .12’ 8 12 12 8 4 0 4

Left 8., deg

(a) Basic airplane; clean.

Figure 8.- Variation of wing-tip helix sngle with lateral control angle for the basic airplane.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 37

.12 Right I

.08

404

/ pb o ZV .

,04 y, hp, mph ft O 246 18~5x 103 I-J 224 !9s7 .08 0 20317,3 A 184 20.5 Left V 161 19.7 .12 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 Left Right Sa,deg

(b) Basic airplane; gear down.

Figure 8.- Concluded.

CONFIDmIAL .010 .W. _ +“ ——

r .0081

mo .004 .&<

.002 0 Clean D Gear down & Single roll

o o 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 Vi , mph

Figure 9.- Variation of helix angle per degree lateral control angle with indicated speed for the basic airplane clean and gear down. NACA RM H55A17 39

.12 Right

,08

.04

@o 2V -1- Vi} hp, mph ft O 229 20.9x 105 n 20820.5 #of 0 186 20,3 A 162 19.5 Left .12 8 4 0 4 8 12 Left

(a) Fence configuration;clean.

lo.- Variation of wing-tip helix angle with lateral for the fence configuration.

CONFIDmIAL NACA RM H’55U7

,12 Right

.08’

.04

bo 5 v

,04

y, hp, mph ft” .08 O 225 20.5x IO: o 205ZI00 Left o 1~ 19.4 J2 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 Left Right so , deg

(b) Fence configuration;gear down.

Figure 10.- Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL !2 .010 —

D08

L .006 m c-l c1.

.004 “a

o Fence configuration-clean ,002 ❑ Fence configuration -gear down — Basic olrplane -clean –––Basic airplane -gear down c 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 y , mph

Figure 11.- Variation of helix angle per degree lateral control angle with indicated speed for the fence configurationclean and gem down.

,, CONFIDENTIAL NAC!ARM H55A17

= 33#00 feet up 8 hP 6 — vi = 319mph(M= 0.82) a = 3.1° & deg 4 / “ 2 - o

Right 8r, deg

o 2 &a,deg 4 Left \ _ 6

0 /‘ I \ p, radians/see 2 - ( \ J 3 Left 4 ‘

o~-, — / ~, deg 2 — Left 4 ‘

.2 r o \ r, radians/see 7 — \ / — .2 “ / Left .46 , 234 Time, t,sec Time,t, sec

(a) Basic airplane; clean. (b) Basic airplane; clean.

Figure 12.- Representativetime histories of rudder-fixed aileron rolls.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H’j’3A17 coNFIDmIAL 43

Io“ up hp =19,500feet hp49,500 feet 8 — ~ ~~~88~Ph Vi =183mph . a =12.1° 6‘ x . / Se, deg 4 2 0’ 8 2 Right &, deg 0 L \ 2 6 Right \ 4 / 8., deg 2 (“ o 2’ -a \ Right p,radlanslsecI“ > / ‘ \ A 0= \

Right

~, deg

Right

.G 0123 4 01 23 4 5

Time,t, sec Time,t,sec

Figure 12.- Continued. 44 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

10 hp = 19,000feet hp z 20,000 feet Vi : :~2@mph 8 = 186 mph up Vi a a = 11,0° 6 ~ / / 8e, deg 4 2 0 2 Right — f+,deg O— “ 2

Right 8 6 - / \ 80, deg 4 / 2 \ o

Right ‘0 / — \ 8 / /

f I

o 1 \

01w23 Time, t,sec 11me,t,sec

configuration;gear down. (e) Fence configuration;clean. (f) Fence

Figure 12.- Concluded.

CONFIDmIAL NACA RM H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL

4 6°

. 2 3°

~ 0

\ 2 3° 6° —— — — I 9“ 0

0 ●

300 -.

9° 200 - . 6° 3° 100 /

n L Y40 180 220 260 300 340 380

y ,mph

(a)Basic airplsne; clean.

Figure 13.- Variation of rolling effectivenesswith indicated speed.

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

4’

0 0 3‘ 0

0 lTrI I I 2 )

---t-t- I 1 I 1 o — Basic airplane -clean o Bosic airplone-geor down 0

300

. 200

100

) I 0° 140 180 2’ 0 m 3~ 340 380 Vi , mph

(b) Basic airplane; gear down;

Figure 13.- Continued. NACA FM H55AI-7 CONFIDENTIAL 47

0 C# El ‘o- m 2 “

I 0 * — Basic akplane-cleon ❑ Fence configuration-clean I l-- 0

-x E

300 340 300

Vi , mph

.(c)Fence configuration;clean; ba = 6°.

Figure 13.- Continued. 48 CONFIDENTIAII NACA RM H55A17

I —Bosic airplane - gear down Z O Fence configuroti on-geardowr .- I 1- o! I I

300 ‘

2a)

I 00 0 0 0 I40 !80 220 260 300 340 380

Vi , mph

(d) Fence configuration;gear down; ba = 6°.

Figure 13.- Concltied.

coNFIDmuL 6

z! 4

2 0 Clean ❑ Geor down 0

4’

2 -&--

0 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 . vi , mph

(a) Basic airplane.

Figure 14.- Variation of period and dsmping with indicated speed. hp = 20,000 feet. i5 H55A17 50 NACA RM

o a d-

0 a) m

.- H > 0 0 N n 7 P

0 N --l ml

CONFIDmLAL *

‘2’ 4

,El 0( Satisfactory % c .UL . c1 c Unsa isfactory . /

+ 0 Basic confiadration ❑ Fence conf@ration Flagged symbol, gear down

o .2 4 .6 .8 10 1.2 14 16

~ ,deg/ft per sec Hv~ Figure 15.- Comparison of the dynamic lateral stabilitywith the require- ment of reference 8.

wll-’ 52 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM H55A17

I.0 . .8 [ 4~ooo - 40,000 - ~ hp,ft + \ 38,000 \ zcnnn

a, deg

. up q,radkms/sec

Right Ay,9

Right J3,deg

Right p,radians/sec

up 8e, deg

Right 80, deg

Right 2 t$ , deg 0 2 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 @ * Time,t, sec

Figure I.6.- Time history of high-speed trim run.

CON1’IDENTIAL H55A17 CONFIDENTIAL 53

—

\ .08 \ \ c D o \ . 5 \ : .04’ a n g On u

-,0

—

L -.6 — Basic airplane --- Fence configuration O Wind tunnel ~unpublished) basic oirp~one -4● )0 140 !80 220 260 300 340 380

Vi ,mph

Figure 17.- Variation of lateral stability derivativeswith indicated speed from flight data. hP = 20,000 feet.

CONFIDmIAL CONFIDENTIAL NACA RJlH55A17

o — XF-92A basic --- xF-92A fence 8 o x-5(4=59°) c) 0 35°swept wing O D-558-I

4 ‘

2 ‘ ❑

00 .I .2 Z12T.5 .6 (

CNA

(a) CIJC2P ratio.

Figure 18.- Variation of lateral stability derivative ratios with lift coefficient and indicated speed.

CONFIDENTIAL H55A17 55

XF-92A basic XF-92A fence x-5 (4= 59°) 35° swept wing D-558-Z \

\ \ \ \ ‘\ \ \ \

El El + I

* . .

20 ~

12 {

/’ / 8

4 0

%0 140 I vi, mph

Figure 18.-Concluded.

CONFIDENTIAL NACA-Langley -5-26-55- S50