Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Fowler Flap and Spoiler for an Advanced General Aviation Wing

WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION

OF A FOWLER FLAP AND SPOILER FOR 1 - 1

AN ADVANCED GENERAL AVIATION WING I

I John We Puulson, Jr. Luqley Reseurch Center \.. Humpton, Vu. 23665

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1976 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

- ~~ 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NASA TN D-8236 4. Title and Subtitle I June 1976 WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF A FOWLER FLAP AND 6. Performing Organization Code SPOILER FOR AN ADVANCED GENERAL AVIATION WING

I ~ 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John W. Paulson, Jr. L-10736 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-10-11 -03

NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Hampton, Va. 23665

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20546

16. Abstract An investigation has been conducted in the Langley Research Center V/STOL tunnel to determine the effects of adding a Fowler flap and spoiler to an advanced general aviation wing. The wing was tested without fuselage or empennage and was fitted with approximately three quarter-span Fowler flaps and half -span spoilers. The spoilers were hinged at the 70-percent chord point and vented when the .flaps were deflected. Static longitudinal and lateral aerody namic data were obtained over an angle-of-attack range of -80 to 220 for various flap deflec tions and positions, spoiler geometries, and vent-lip geometries. Lateral characteristics indicate that the spoilers are generally adequate for lateral con trol. However, the spoilers do have a region of low effectiveness when deflected less than 100 or 15O, especially when the flaps are deflected 30° or 40°. In general, the spoiler effective ness increases with increasing angle of attack, increases with increasing flap deflections, and is influenced by vent-lip geometry. In addition, the data show that some two-dimensional effects on spoiler effectiveness are reduced in the three-dimensional case. Results also indi cate the expected significant increase in lift coefficient as the Fowler flaps are deflected; when the flap was fully deflected, the maximum wing lift coefficient was increased about 96 percent.

17. Key-Words (Suggested by Authoris)) 1 18. Distribution Statement Lateral control Unclassified - Unlimited Spoilers Fowler flaps General aviation Subject Category 08

-. ~

For Sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF A FOWLER FLAP AND SPOILER FOR AN ADVANCED GENERAL AVIATION WING

John W. Paulson, Jr. Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

An investigation has been conducted in the Langley Research Center V/STOL tunnel to determine the effects of adding a Fowler flap and spoiler to an advanced general avia tion wing. The wing was tested without fuselage or empennage and was fitted with approx imately three -quarter -span Fowler flaps and half -span spoilers. The spoilers were hinged at the 70-percent chord point and vented when the flaps were deflected. Static longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic data were obtained over an angle-of-attack range of -8O to 22O for various flap deflections and positions, spoiler geometries, and vent-lip geometries. Lateral characteristics indicate that the spoilers are generally adequate for lat eral control. However, the spoilers do have a region of low effectiveness when deflected less than loo or 15O, especially when the flaps are deflected 30' or 400. In general, the spoiler effectiveness increases with increasing angle of attack, increases with increas ing flap deflections, and is influenced by vent-lip geometry. In addition, the data show that some two-dimensional effects on spoiler effectiveness are reduced in the three- dimensional case. Results also indicate the expected significant increase in lift coeffi cient as the Fowler flaps are deflected; when the flap was fully deflected, the maximum wing lift coefficient was increased about 96 percent.

INTRODUCTION

The development of new, thick, high-lift airfoil sections has had a profound effect on the general aviation community because these sections offer the possibility of improved performance on several new light aircraft designs. These airfoils provide higher maxi mum lift coefficients than the conventional 64-Series airfoils used on many general avia tion aircraft. This increase in maximum lift coefficient allows the use of a smaller, more highly loaded wing with less wetted area. These developments can increase cruise performance and improve ride quality. The increased thickness of these airfoils also provides the opportunity for wing structural weight savings. With an appropriate high-lift device such as a full-span Fowler flap, further reduc tions in wing area may be achieved, and the desirable low landing speeds of typical light aircraft can be maintained. Full-span flaps, however, generally preclude the use of con ventional ailerons, and an alternate method of lateral control is needed. One such method would use partial span spoilers (also known as slot-lip ailerons). Several airplanes which use Fowler flaps with the advanced airfoils are already in either the design stage or early flight-test stage of development. (See ref. 1.) Some of these airplanes use the 17

' percent-thick General-Aviation (Whitcomb)-1 airfoil usually referred to as the GA(W)-1. (See refs. 2 and 3.) One particular aircraft which uses this airfoil is the Advanced Tech nology light twin (ATLIT). (See ref. 1.) This aircraft uses nearly full-span Fowler flaps for low-speed performance and half -span spoilers for lateral control. These spoilers are vented when the flaps are extended and unvented when the flaps are retracted. Before the original flight of the ATLIT, there was concern about the effectiveness of the spoilers at small deflections when the flaps were deflected 40° because of two- dimensional data (refs. 4 and 5). The data of reference 4 indicated that the spoilers had a region of very low effectiveness when deflected less than loo or 15O. In addition, there was control reversal under certain conditions. If a small left spoiler deflection was given -c in an effort to produce a negative (left wing down) rolling moment, the result was actually a positive (right wing down) rolling moment. This investigation was undertaken to deter - mine to what extent, if any, these two-dimensional effects were ppesent on a three- %. . dimensional wing. .t The investigation was conducted in the Langley V/STOL tunnel by using a rectangu lar wing with Fowler flap and spoilers. Static forces and moments were obtained for the wing with various flap deflections and positions, spoiler deflections, spoiler cross-section geometries, and vent-lip geometries.

SYMBOLS

The data are presented in the stability-axis system shown in figure 1. The model

moment center was 25 percent of the wing chord. All measurements and calculations . were made in U.S. Customary Units; however, all values contained in this study are given in both SI and U.S. Customary Units. (See ref. 6.)

b wing span (without subscript), span of flap, or vented spoiler (with subscript), m (ft)

Drag CD drag coefficient, q,s

2 lift coefficient, Lift CL - qcos

Rolling moment Cl rolling -moment coefficient, q,Sb

Pitching moment Cm pitching -moment coefficient, q,se

Yawing moment Cn yawing-moment coefficient, q,Sb

side-force coefficient, Side force CY %as

C wing chord, m (ft)

- C mean aerodynamic chord, m (ft)

P roll rate, rad/sec pb/2V, wing-tip helix angle, rad (see appendix)

g, free-stream dynamic pressure, Pa (lbf/ft2)

R radius, percent of wing chord

S wing area, m2 (ft2)

v, free-stream velocity, m/sec (ft/sec)

X longitudinal dimension (see fig. 1)

X/C longitudinal distance from wing leading edge with respect to mean aerodynamic chord

Y lateral dimension (see fig. 1)

3 z vertical dimension (see fig. 1)

CY angle of attack of model reference line, positive nose up (fig. l), deg

6 deflection of flap or spoiler (fig. 3), deg

Subscripts: f flap max maximum

S spoiler

APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

This investigation was conducted in the Langley V/STOL tunnel in support of the ATLIT aircraft program to determine the general characteristics of an ATLIT-type Fowler flap and spoiler lateral-control system. An existing aspect-ratio-8.98 rectangular wing with the GA(W) -1 airfoil section was modified to accept the Fowler flap and spoiler as shown in figures 2 and 3(a). The wind-tunnel model was not intended to represent the ATLIT tapered wing exactly but rather to be a general representation of the ATLIT Fowler flap and spoiler system. Tables I and 11 give the coordinates of the GA(W)-1 wing section and flap section, respectively. The wing had a span of 4.01 m (13.16 ft), a chord of 0.45 m (1.46 ft), and an area of 1.79 m2 (19.31 ft2). When the flaps were fully deflected, the wing area was increased by 17 percent to 2.10 m2 (22.59 ft2). The wing root was at an inci dence of 20 and the wing was linearly twisted to a tip incidence of Oo. For this investiga tion, the model reference line was defined to be the wing-tip chord line. The Fowler flaps were made in four sections on each wing panel (fig. 2) but were always deflected as a unit. Each flap section was mounted on brackets to allow deflections of 00, 100, 200, 300, and 400. Table Ill shows a complete listing of flap deflection and position as well as the spoiler and vent-lip geometries for this investigation. Figure 3(b) shows the flap overlap and gap dimensions corresponding to the various flap deflections and positions. The flap chord was 30 percent of the wing chord and the flap span ratio bf/b/2 was 0.764. The spoilers were made in four sections for the left wing panel only. (See fig. 2.) In order to simulate the ATLIT spoiler-span wing-span ratio, only the three outboard sections were deflected during the investigation; the inboard section (spoiler section a)

4 remained sealed at all times. The three operative spoiler sections (b, cy and d) had a span ratio bs/b/2 of 0.572 and were hinged at x/e = 0.70. (See figs. 2 and 3(a).) The hinge line was offset 0.015e forward of the leading edge of the spoiler so that the trailing edge of the spoilers was located at x/e = 0.80 when 6s = 00. This offset hinge line allowed a gap to open between the wing upper surface and the spoiler leading edge as the spoiler was deflected. (See fig. 4.) Each spoiler section was removable and could be re placed with one of three spoiler cross-section geometries (also shown in fig. 4). The vent lip (the downstream lip of the spoiler vent) as well as the spoiler geometry was varied during the test as shown in figure 5. The model installation in the V/STOL tunnel is shown in figures 6 and 7. Most of the investigation time was concentrated en the cases with 400 flap deflection. At 400 flap deflection, the control effectiveness problem areas which were indicated in the two-dimensional data of reference 4 were examined over a spoiler-deflection range of 00 to 450 for different combinations of spoiler cross-section geometry and vent -lip geometry. Lower flap deflections were tested to obtain longitudinal and lateral data, but these tests were run by using only the triangular backed spoiler (spoiler B) and the large radius vent lip. Angle of attack ranged from -8O to wing stall. Most of the data were obtained at a dynamic pressure of 1.44 kPa (30 lbf/ft2); how ever, because of hardware constraints, some data were obtained at a dynamic pressure of 0.48 kPa (10 lbf/ft2). Whenever the dynamic pressure was lowered to 0.48 kPa (10 lbf/ft2), a single pair of runs was made with the identical configuration at both the high and low dynamic pressures to establish Reynolds number effects. The Reynolds numbers corresponding to these dynamic pressures are 1.49 Y lo6 and 0.85 X 106, respectively. It should be noted that at the lowest dynamic pressure, the Reynolds number is subcritical over a large portion of the wing chord. Transition was fixed at 2.24 cm (0.88 in.) downstream from the leading edge for the upper surface and 4.32 cm (1.70 in.) on the lower surface (ref. 7). Data were corrected for tunnel wall effects of reference 8; no other corrections were applied.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The data of this investigation have been reduced to coefficient form and are pre sented in the following figures: Figure Effects of flap position and deflection on spoiler B characteristics ...... 8 Effects of vent-lip geometry on spoiler B characteristics...... 9 and 10

5 Figure Effects of vent -lip geometry on spoiler C characteristics ...... 11 Spoiler A characteristics ...... 12 Effects of sequential deflection of spoiler B elements b, c, and d ...... 13 Effects of dynamic pressure ...... 14 .Effects of flap positions and deflections on wing longitudinal characteristics ... 15 Rolling moments generated by deflection of spoilers B, C, and A ...... 16 to 19

DISCUSSION

The effects of spoiler deflection, with various flap positions, cross-section geome tries, and vent -lip geometries, on the longitudinal and lateral characteristics of the wing are presented in figures 8 to 12. It may be seen from these data (particularly CL and C2 plotted against a) that the vented spoiler effectiveness is very low when deflected less than 100 to 150. In figure 13, the sequential spoiler deflections (sequences 1 and 2) confirm the trends of the previous data; the spoiler effectiveness remains low until the spoiler elements are deflected 150. The data of figures 8 to 13 were used to construct the lift, drag, and pitching-moment curves of figure 15 with 6, = 0' and the rolling- moment curves of figures 16 to 18. The effects of Reynolds number are presented in figure 14. The effects on the lon gitudinal data were small with the typical increase in CL,~~at the higher Reynolds number. The effects on the lateral data were somewhat inconsistent but generally not large.

Longitudinal Characteristics The data of figure 15(a) show the longitudinal characteristics of the wing at flap deflections of 00, 100, 30°, and 400. The basic wing has a design lift coefficient of 0.4 at a = 0.5' and a maximum lift coefficient of 1.32 at CY = 16.7O. At the maximum flap deflection (6f = 40°), the maximum lift coefficient is increased 96 percent to 2.59 at a = 12O. Figure 15(b) shows the effect of moving the flap at 6f = 40° from x/E = 1.00 to 0.96. Both lift and drag are reduced as the flap loses some effectiveness when moved beneath the trailing edge of the wing. The drag curves show the typical high drag levels associated with the large flap deflections. In addition to the high lift and drag, the flaps produce large nose-down pitching moments which must be trimmed for aircraft applications.

6 Lateral Characteristics The rolling moments generated when spoiler B was deflected at various flap settings are given in figure 16. For the clean wing configuration (6f = 00, fig. 16(a)), the rolling- moment variation with spoiler deflection is reasonably linear, but somewhat less effective than that of conventional ailerons (ref. 9). At the maximum spoiler deflection of 45O, the wing-tip helix angle pb/2V, is 0.044; this helix angle is low according to reference 10 which states that 0.07 is an acceptable level. (The method used to calculate pb/2V, is discussed in the appendix.) However, a more realistic maximum deflection might be 60° or 700; such a deflection would probably increase pb/2V, to a more acceptable level. This low effectiveness is apparent only with 6f = 00; with the flaps deflected, pb/2V, is significantly higher. When the flaps are deflected 100 at x/E = 0.917 (fig. 16(b)), the rolling-moment variation with spoiler deflection becomes more nonlinear and develops three rather dis tinct regions of effectiveness. A region of low spoiler effectiveness below 6s = 150 becomes apparent. A region of increasing effectiveness between 6s = 150 and 200 fol lows. Finally, the region above 6, = 200 shows fairly high levels of spoiler effective ness. Although these regions are not pronounced at'the loo flap deflection, they do indi cate the trends which become rather large at the 300 and 400 flap deflections. Figure 16(b) shows that the rolling moments become more sensitive to angle of attack as the flap is deflected. The clean wing had a variation in maximum Cz from 0.045 to 0.050 at angles of attack of -40 to 80, and the wing with 6f = 100 had a variation in maximum Cz from 0.056 to 0.073 at angles of attack from -40 to 80. The wing with 6f = 100 and 6s = 450 had a pb/2V, ranging from 0.046 to 0.059 corresponding to the higher rolling moments. The higher pb/2V, is indicative of the increased control power available with the flaps deflected.

When the flaps are deflected 300 at x/E = 0.960 (fig. 16(c)), the rolling-moment variation with spoiler deflection becomes very nonlinear and is segmented into three very distinct regions. These regions correspond to the regions of the data at 6f = 100 dis cussed earlier, but are much more pronounced. The region of low spoiler effectiveness below 6f = 100 which was of concern in the two-dimensional data is very apparent. As in the loo flap-deflection case, the rolling moments are sensitive to angle of attack with maximum Cz varying from 0.099 to 0.122 at angles of attack of -4O and 8O. The pb/2V, corresponding to each of these rolling moments was 0.083 to 0.099. Here again the increased control power available with the flaps deflected was shown. Although these data are quite nonlinear, they are smooth, without reversals in slope, and appear to be adequate for lateral control. When the flaps are deflected 40° at x/E = 1.00 (fig. 16(d)), the rolling-moment variation with spoiler deflection still indicates three regions of spoiler effectiveness;

7 however, the data in the low effectiveness region (tjS = 150) show large reversals in slope. This change in spoiler effectiveness is probably caused by intermittent flow separation downstream of the vent. Above 6s = 150, however, the spoiler effectiveness no longer shows slope reversals. The rolling moments are still sensitive to angle of attack, and the pb/2V, ranging from 0.089 to 0.123 shows a further increase in control power avail able at 6f = 400. It should be noted that this configuration did have the large radius vent lip and that some of the slope reversals present at 6s 5 15O were corrected when differ ent vent-lip geometries were used.

Effect of Vent-Lip Geometry and Flap Effectiveness The two-dimensional models of reference 4 used vent-lip geometries which were similar to both the blunt-lip and the sharp-lip geometries used in the three-dimensional models. It was originally thought that the regions of low spoiler effectiveness and control reversals (regions of concern in ref. 4) were the result of flow separation downstream of the sharp-edged vent lips. Control reversals were defined as a change in sign of the roll ing moment. (A left spoiler up control input to give a negative (left wing down) rolling moment would actually produce a positive (right wing down) rolling moment.) The two additional radius vent lips were intended to reduce these problems. As figure 17 shows, the rolling-moment data for the large and small radius vent lips and flaps deflected 400 do not show control reversals, and the data for sharp and blunt vent lips and flaps deflected 400 show only very slight control reversals. The two-dimensional control reversals evi - dent in reference 4 are either eliminated or greatly reduced in the three-dimensional model. However, there was in all cases a region of low spoiler effectiveness below 6s = 100 to 150. As shown previously in figure 16(d), the rolling-moment data for the large radius vent lip had large reversals in slope below 6s = 150. However, none of the other vent-lip geometries exhibited such reversals at either flap location x/E = 0.96 or 1.00. In general, the spoiler effectiveness increased with increasing angle of attack both in the lower effectiveness region and at the higher spoiler deflections for all vent-lip geometries. Also, the spoiler effectiveness is higher with the blunt vent lip and with the flap located at x/C = 1.00. Moving the flap from x/E = 0.96 to 1.00 shows the same trend as that shown in figure 16; the spoiler effectiveness increases with increasing flap effectiveness. Some data were obtained using other spoiler geometries on this wing. Spoiler C was similar to the spoilers used on a currently operational high performance general avi ation aircraft. The third spoiler studied, spoiler A, was the T-type. The data for these spoilers with flaps deflected 400 are presented in figures 18 and 19 and show the same general characteristics of the data for spoiler B.

8 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

An investigation has been conducted to determine the effects of adding a full-span Fowler flap and half -span spoiler to an advanced general aviation wing. The results have shown: 1. In general, the three -dimensional data concurred with two-dimensional data of the references. The regions of decreased spoiler effectiveness are limited to spoiler deflec tions less than 100 to 150 and are most prominent at the highest flap deflections. How ever, the general effect of the three-dimensional model was to reduce many of the charac teristics measured with the two-dimensional model. 2. The spoilers generally show acceptable lateral-control characteristics except for some regions of low effectiveness at small spoiler deflections. 3. The spoiler effectiveness was increased when the flap deflection was increased. 4. The spoiler effectiveness was increased when the angle of attack was increased and the flaps were deflected. 5. The spoiler effectiveness was affected by vent-lip geometry, and the blunt vent lip gave the highest rolling moment. 6. The Fowler flaps, as expected, significantly increased maximum lift coefficient; the maximum lift coefficient was increased 96 percent for the maximum flap deflection.

Langley Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Hampton, Va. 23665 May4, 1976

9 APPENDIX

COMPUTATION OF WING-TIP HELIX ANGLE

The computation of the wing-tip helix angle from steady-state lateral data depends on the ability to determine the roll-damping derivative Clp. Reference 10 gives an equa tion for the wing-tip helix angle

where

change in rolling moment per degree of spoiler deflection ‘16

6a spoiler deflection in degrees

7 ratio of spoiler chord to wing chord

K correction to spoiler effectiveness because of large. deflections

All these terms actually reduce to the rolling moment measured on the model with a lat eral control deflected. The roll-damping derivative C may be estimated from refer ZP ence 11 which uses a vortex-lattice type of theoretical prediction method, or Clp may be estimated from the charts in reference 10. For this report, the method of reference 11 was used. Therefore, pb/2V, may be written as

--Pb - (C1)measured 2vm (CZP) calculated

I REFERENCES

1. Crane, Harold L.; McGhee, Robert J.; and Kohlman, David L.: Applications of Advanced Aerodynamic Technology to Light Aircraft. [Preprint] 730318, SOC. Automot. Eng., Apr. 1973. 2. McGhee, Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteris tics of a 17.-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section Designed for General Aviation Applica tions. NASA TN D-7428, 1973. 3. Wentz, W. H., Jr.; and Seetharam, H. C.: Development of a Fowler Flap System for a High Performance General Aviation Airfoil. NASA CR-2443, 1974. 4. Wentz, W. H., Jr.: Effectiveness of Spoilers on the GA(W)-1 Airfoil With a High Per formance Fowler Flap. NASA CR-2538, 1975. 5. Wenzinger, Carl J.; and Rogallo, Francis M.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Spoiler, Deflector, and Slot Lateral-Control Devices on Wings With Full-Span Split and Slotted Flaps. NACA Rep. 706, 1941. 6. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conver sion Factors (Second Revision). NASA SP-7012, '1973. 7. Braslow, Albert L.; and Knox, Eugene C.: Simplified Method for Determination of Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Particles for Boundary-Layer Transition at Mach Numbers From 0 to 5. NACA TN 4363, 1958. 8. Gillis, Clarence L.; Polhamus, Edward C.; and Gray, Joseph L., Jr.: Charts for Determining Jet-Boundary Corrections for Complete Models in 7- by 10-Foot Closed Rectangular Wind Tunnels. NACA WRL-123, 1945. (Formerly NACA ARR L5G31.) 9. Paulson, John W., Jr.: Wind-Tunnel Test of a Conventional Flap and Aileron and a Fowler Flap and Slot-Lip Aileron for an Advanced General Aviation Wing. Paper 750501, SOC.Automot. Eng., Apr. 1975. 10. Perkins, Courtland D.; and Hage, Robert E.: Airplane Performance Stability and Control. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., c.1949. 11. Tulinius, J.; Clever, W.; Niemann, A.; Dunn, K.; and Gaither, B.: Theoretical Pre diction of Airplane Stability Derivatives at Subcritical Speeds. NASA CR-132681, [19731.

'1-11111111.1 II 11111111 11111.1111111 111.11111 .111.111~.1111111 II I 111 I 111111 I 111111111111~~I~1111II II TABLE I. - GENERAL -AVIATION (WHITCOMB) -1 AIRFOIL COORDINATES

Upper surface Lower surface

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .00200 .01300 .00200 -.00930 .00500 .02040 .00500 -.01380 .01250 .03070 .01250 -.02050 .02500 .04170 .02500 -.02690 .03750 .04965 .03750 -.03190 .05000 .05589 .05000 -.03580 .07500 .06551 .07500 -.04210 .10000 .07300 .10000 -.04700 .12500 .07900 .12500 -.05100 .15000 .08400 .15000 -.05430 .17500 .08840 .17500 -.05700 .20000 .09200 .20000 -.05930 .25000 .09770 .25000 -.06270 .30000 .lo160 .30000 -.06450 .35000 .lo400 .35000 -.06 520 .40000 .lo491 .40000 -.06490 .45000 .lo445 .45000 -.06350 .50000 .lo258 .50000 -.06100 .55000 .09910 .55000 -.05700 .57500 .09668 .57500 -.05400 .60000 .09371 .60000 -.05080 .62500 .09006 .62500 -.04690 .65000 .08599 .65000 -.04280 .67500 .08136 .67500 -.03840 .70000 .07634 .70000 -.03400 .72 500 .07092 .72500 -.02940 .75000 .06513 .75000 -.024 90 .77 500 .05907 .77 500 -.02040 .80000 .05286 .80000 -.01600 .82500 .04646 .82500 -.01200 .85000 .03988 .85000 -.00860 .87500 .033 15 .87 500 -.00580 .90000 .02639 .90000 -.00360 .92 500 .01961 .92500 -.00250 .95000 .01287 .95000 -.00260 .97500 .00609 .97 500 -.00400 1.00000 -.00070 1.00000 -.00800

12 TABLE 11.- THIRTY PERCENT c FOWLER FLAP COORDINATES

[Leading-edge radius = O.O122c]

-~ Upper surface Lower surface

Xf /" *f /" - 0.000 -0.01920 0.000 -0.01920 .025 .00250 .025 -.02940 .050 .01100 .050 -.02490 .075 .01630 .07 5 -.02040 .loo .01900 .loo -.01600 .125 .01950 .125 -.01200 .150 .01820 .150 -.00860 .175 .01670 .175 -.00580 .200 .01330 .200 -.00360 .225 .00950 .225 -.00250 .2 50 .00530 .250 -.00260 .275 .00100 .275 -.00400 .300 -.00435 .300 -.00800

13 TABLE III. - CONFIGURATIONS INVESTIGATED

_. -Spoileretry Vent -lip geometry Flap deflection and position, 6f/x/E - .. Triangular back, spoiler B Blunt 00/0.713, 200/0.96, 400/0.96, 400/1.00 Small radius 400/0.96 Large radius 100/0.917, 300/0.96, Sharp 400/1.00 Triangular back, spoiler B Large radius .400/1.00 sequential deflection) Contoured back, spoiler C Small radius 40°/0.96 Large radius 400/0.96 Sharp 400/1.00 (Ttypebaclt, spoiler A Large radius 400/0.96

...... ---... - - . . . 2

Figure 1. - Stability-axis system used in data presentation.

15 4.01 m

Spoiler (left panel only)

u.4410.447 m d C bb/ a 1 I I I 1 --r-- r--1 (1.467 ft) I I I I I I I I r--rr--I- r--;:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -r I I I I I I I I II i I Flap brackets 1.534 m (1.257 ft) L (Y:: - 0.403 m . -. ;;-l Fowler flap3 (nested) (5.03 ft) (1.321 ft) I Figure 2.- Plan view of wing. X/C = 0.7 x/c = 0.8 x/c = 1.0 x/c = 0 I Spoiler -\j 1,

(a) GA(W)-1 airfoil with Fowler flap and spoiler. Figure 3. - Flap deflections and positions. --Overlap Gap

. Overlap, Gap, percent C percent C 0" 30.0 0 10* 9.6 3.1 20 5.3 2.6 30 5.3 3.6 40 5.3 3.6 40 ::c 1.3 2.5

"ATLIT configurations (b) Fowler-flap overlap and gap dimensions. Figure 3. - Concluded.

18 x/c= 0.70 - I- o-looc 1 0.01 5c 0.003C

4I +t-t I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I\ \ \ \ I Spoiler A 0.023~ T-type back

Hinge line 0.

23c. + Spoiler B Leading-edge gap t Triangular back - 0.017~

Hinge -,I

r / Spoiler C Wing 3 Contoured back 0.007~ Figure 4.-.Cross-section geometry of the three spoilers.

19 x/c = 0.80

-LEBlunt

R = 0.011~ -- - 1- Small radius- I

-Large radius - I I

x/c = 0.839 Figure 5.- Cross-section geometry of the four vent lips.

20 '. I ~, I . ; (. !

-~ I Spoiler on left Donet onlv , .. 1 ..~i i 1 f ,

(a) Rear view.

(b) Front view. L-76-191 Figure 6.- General aviation wing in Langley V/STOL tunnel test section.

21 L -76 -192 Figure 7.- Left wing tip of general aviation wing. I i ! -p.J 7" 1. - cm b,, deg ... 00 I ! 02 ...... I -04 A6 . . . j I ,b 8 10 ...... -'O 15 -1 - 0 20 .. I cD 0 30 0 45 6eQI *- ---t I---- + I ... .I ...... I I -: " 1 - -~ I . I

.i I

I I j j ! ! I 1 ... ___ I ! i I i ._ ~, I J -- 4 8 - 12- - 16 20 24 a, deg (a) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 00; x/E = 0.713; blunt vent lip. Figure 8.- Effects of flap position and deflection on spoiler B characteristics.

I 0.04 I 0

ct -0.04

...... --I...... ,...... -0.08 .I.. 00 I t -.--- -0.12 I I .-,. .. 4 .I - - I - - I--- I i iI 1 t 0.02

I - 0.01 I-- 1 0 5 c" 0

-0.01

- 0.02

0.02

0.01 .... 0

-0.01

-0.02 ...... 1 ...... t .. - . -1ill. ., -a -4 0 a, deg (b) Lateral characteristics; 6f = OO; x/E = 0.713; blunt vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

24 ......

4 a 12 16 20 24

25 i 0.04 ... ..I. .. I 0 * ct -0.04 -0.08 T- ....- .... -0.12 ... ._I. I --I- -- - 0.02 ...... I

0.01

cn O -0.01

- 0.02 I 0.02 .. -.I..

I 0.01

-0.01 +! ; - / .;.i .ii I ...... - .. -0.02 t -- , I ~ I i i ! .....1 ...... -.-1...... -8 -4 0 8 a. deg (d) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 100; x/E = 0.917; large radius vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

26 j I I I I I I

. . I... cm i 8,, deg 00 I 0 2 . J-. .. 04 I j n6 . i 08 i I3 10 n 15 i i 0 20 cD i 30 + 45 .I . .- I - ...I....

- .I ,... . . 1 cL . ..-I @ ! -1.-i I I I - I '

' r ' I I ! i i ----I-I ' I -0.4...... -8 4 8 a, deg (e) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 200; x/E = 0.96; blunt vent lip.

Figure 8. - Continued.

27 0.01

0 c2 -0.04 6,, deg -0.a 00 0 2 -0.1i 04 A6 08 n io 0.02 n 15 0 20 0.01 0 30

C" O

-0.01

-0.02

0.02

0.01

O -0.01 __

-0.02 __

-8 -4 4 a 12 16 20 24 a, deg (f) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 20°; x/E = 0.96; blunt vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

28 1 0 I I I I ~ .

-. . t I -1 . I I- I i i i I -8 -4 4 I a. deg (g) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 300; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

29 6,, deg -0 0 02 04 A6 08 Ls io 0 15 0 20 0 30 0 45 9-

a, deg (h) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 300; x/C = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

30 a, deg (i) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; blunt vent lip. Figure 8. - Continued.

31 ...... r --

.. - ....

ki#.... - CI -0.04 6,, deg -..- .... 00 02 ...... -0.12 -. 0 4 A6 ! .... j...... L...... 1 I -'~b 8

I ~ : 010

... .. - --1...... 1 t1 i ... i - ...... - ......

...... ! ...... ! 1

...... I)

, I .: 4 8 12 i6 ' i a, deg (j)Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; blunt vent lip. Figure 8. - Concluded.

32 .~ .

0 . I I 1 . cm -0.2

-0.4 1 00 t;lB I 02 .. *...I - . -0.6 -0 4 i n6 0.8 08 I' n io 0.6 - ...... -n 15 0 20 0.4 i cD 0 30 0 45 I . .. 0.2 m %-b=

2.81 .. . .. !

~ I j ..

cL 1.2lS6i - -. . . I $ ! I

... I i - --I I -0.41. 1 i -8 -4 4 I a. deg (a) Longitudinal characteristics; small radius vent lip.

Figure 9.- Effects of vent-lip geometry on spoiler B characteristics with 6f= 400 at x/E = 0.96.

33 0.01

cr -0.01 , deg -0.08 0 ,2 -0.1 i 4

0.02

0.01

cn 0

-0.01

...... -0.02 .I. 1. -1.

0.02 .. ..I

I 0.01

-0.01

-0.02

..I . -8 -4

(b) Lateral characteristics; small radius vent lip. Figure 9. - Continued.

34 ...

.....

.-. .. -. i deg cm S' +-cd 30 3 32 ...... >4 16 ...... 18 110 -. 3 15 ) 20 % 4 4 i 30 45 0.21 .. .. ~. - 0

.... 2.8 ' I I i i 2.4 4 .+-3 / .... 2.0 j. .. 5 .&e 1.6 cL I 1.2 ... ..

.. 0.8 I~ I ...... -I 0.4 ... 1- -1.. i I j 0 - - 1 %...... -I

... .~ ...... T ... -- i -0.4 8 16 I... 20I 24 a. deg (c) Longitudinal characteristics; large radius vent lip. Figure 9. - Continued.

35 a, deg (d) Lateral characteristics; large radius vent lip. Figure 9. - Concluded.

36 cm

2.8 .. ..~...... __-... 2.4 ... ,I,,. ....-

a, deg (a) Longitudinal characteristics; blunt vent lip. Figure 10.- Effects of vent-lip geometry on spoiler B characteristics with 6f = 400 at x/E = 1.00.

I I 0.0

cz -0.01 -0.01

-0.1;

...... _..I. ... 0. oi 0.01

cn O -0.01 1...... I - 0.02 I -.I . 1 --I ...... 0.02

0.01 0

-0.01

I -0.02 ., . !

1 .I - . .I.. -4 20 1 I a, deg (b) Lateral characteristics; blunt vent lip. Figure 10. - Continued.

38 - 0 i

-0.2 ._ cm 5,, deg -0.4 30 32 -0.6 >4 56 0.8 08 3 10 0.6 3 15 3 20 0.4 cD 3 30 3 45 0.2 .... 1.. .I.... ! -1- .-j . I ' / I 0 2.8 ...... 1 2.4 ...... I 2.0 ...... I I I 1.6 .... I ' cL j ! .... . -1 1.2 i 1 i I ! I ! ....F I I 0.8 I : i I ! ! 0.4 1 .. ! .. . -! ! I I I 0 I _f

I I -0.4 -I -8-I io- 24 01. deg (c) Longitudinal characteristics; large radius vent lip. Figure 10. - Continued.

39 0.04 j i

c -0.04. . /o 16,, deg 1 : I -0.08: - &- 00 02 04 n6 n8 I3 10 3 15 3 20 3 30 3 45

I : -8 1 a, deg (d) Lateral characteristics; large radius vent lip. Figure 10. - Continued.

40 . .. . I 0' !

3.2/... . 1

l i -0.4 .. .! 00 02 -0.6 , . 34 A6 0.8 . .. . I",.. .. 08 0.6. --I 3 10 1 I 3 15 0.4 1 20 cD > 30 0.2 3 45

0 -

2.8 , 2.4 & + ... . 2.0 StZ ! 1.6 - . .I , .. . cL I I I , ..i . .

! 0 ! -

~ ! -0.4 I 16 20I - 4 4- 4 a. deg (e) Longitudinal characteristics; sharp vent lip. Figure 10. - Continued.

41 I I I I II

r 0.04.

0 !L

I -0 08

-0.12

0.02

0.01 I I O r -0.01 I

._-1 ..]__.... 1..

I I i t i 1...... -1...... l... -i I...... I. -8 -4 4 8 12 16 20 a, deg (f) Lateral characteristics; sharp vent lip.

Figure 10. - Concluded.

42 . . ~. ... -. .. i ; -1 I ! I I I I I I ! .. . I -0.2 . ... . - _- l deg cm 5'

-0.4~-I 10 .. I - 12 - '* j-. & -0.6 I >4 16 '- . 4 .. 0.8 - - -1 \ 18 I I 110 ~- .! j .. 0.6 i , 3 15 ! I ) 20 .! i 0.4' . cD 1 ! ) 30 5 45 ..-. .. I??!-+@ +. .. ,. 0.2 i i I I I 0' T I i - ! ! j ! . I! .. . . -...... , ...... 2.8 I --II I I I ~ -. ..i 1 I I + 2.4 ! I ! I ---- .. L .. 1 2. O i I , i jI .... . I 1- I @ . J .. I cL lm611.2 I ~ ! I 0.8 1 1 ~ I j I - .. 1 . ... . i I I I ! Oe4 I 4 I i ! I O 1 i ! I i I I -0.41... - ~.. I -4 4 12 - 16 20 24

(a) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 40°; x/E = 0.96; small radius vent lip. Figure 11.- Effects of vent-lip geometry on spoiler C characteristics.

43 ...... - ...

0.04

c -0.04 t -0.08

-0.1 i

0.02

0.01

c" 0

-0.01

-0.02

0.02 0.01 0

- 0.01

-0.02 -_

a, deg (b) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; small radius vent lip. Figure 11.- Continued.

44 . .. .. - I i I ! !; I : ! 0 I I , I ; . I cm -0.2 -0.4

-0.6

0.8

0.6 0 20 0.4 cD ~ 0 30 I n 45 0.2 0

2.8

2.4 2. c 1.6 cL 1.2

0. a

0.4

I 0 I ! jI- ! / -0.4 20 -- 4 -4 24 a. deg (c) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 400; x/C = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 11.- Continued.

45 0.01 .... . 0 ?E ct -0.01 --c -0. OE -9 -4 -0.1 i

0.02

0.01

c" 0

-0.01

-0.02

0.02 0.01 I I d 0 f -0.01 . P -0.02 ....

.-i...! -8 - 0 4 8 12 1 a, deg

(d) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 11.- Continued.

46 r j 01 i -0.2 cm -. - -1 '. . . I -0.4 I -0.6 1

......

. . -1.. . . . 0.2. + /' 0 I I I .... .,! . .. .. 2.8 .. 2.4 & 2.0 1.6 I q cL 1.2 ~..... & 0.8 ' I I * I i I I -0.4 - -4 a. deg (e) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f= 40°; x/E = 1.00; sharp vent lip. Figure 11.- Continued.

I - .. I

-4 1 gS, deg 00 0 2 04 A6 08 n 10 0 15 0 20

a, deg (f) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 1.00; sharp vent lip. Figure 11.- Concluded.

48 0 cm -0.2 -0.4

-0.6

0.8 . . .. . 0.6

0.4 cD 0.2

2. a

2.4 2. c 1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4 0

-0.4

Figure 12.- Spoiler A characteristics with bf = 40°; x/C = 0.96; large radius vent lip.

49 '. I I. ,. I I . ....

, I . . , .. . . ,., I 0 1*. CI -0.04 gS, deg -0.08 0 0. 02 -o.1zj I - - I . I . - I -- .. /- 04 A6 _.I ...... - ...... 08

...... n io 0.02,- . ! ..... I.-'- 3 15 I 1' I 2 20 0 011 ...... t-----. * I I 3 30

......

..-. .

...

__~

....

...

~ -8 -4 0 4 8 1 I a. deg (b) Lateral characteristics.

Figure 12. - Concluded.

50 1 1 , 1 i ,i I 0 8 . I .I,' I .I 1. I.i ,_.. -0.2 .. i cm ...!.A.. ! -0.4 .....I

.- . I * I -0.6 I Vented spoiler ... _j. 0.8 . deflection, deg j c d 0.6 ...... [ 4 0 ' I 6 2 0.4 ... 1: 8 4 C 10 8 ...... 4 0.2 ...

0 .I'

8 ...... 2.8 , .

...... -. . 2.4 . , 2.0 ......

1.6 .,., cL 4 .... 1.2 .. I..

0.8 ......

0.4 ...... 0

- ...... I .. __I -0.4 ! 16 24 01. deg (a) Longitudinal characteristics, deflection sequence 1.

Figure 13.- Effects of sequential deflection of spoiler B elements b, c, and d with 6f = 400; x/E = 1.00; large radius vent lip.

51 .. .--...... -. - 1---

0.01 ...... 0

c -0.01 ..... I -0. OE 1 - Vented spoiler -0.1: 4...... deflection, deg b c d .- .... -. .. 0 6 4 0

0.02 -...... --OlO 8 4 IS 10 8 0.01 ... .I...

cn 0

-.- -_- ...... - 0.01 . . I :::.

-0.02 ...... -...... - ...... _...... _...

0.02 ... - ...... -. .-_ ...... -...... *.I_.. ..-* ... 1I . . . . . 0.01 ...... _ ......

. I 0 -a- 1 , , -0.01 ... - ...... T_...... _.I._I...... _. 1..... I . . I -7- . - .. .- -. . .-._ -0.02 . -- - . - ..- ...

. I. ~- -.I1...... 1 i12 20 1 a, deg (b) Lateral characteristics, deflection sequence 1. Figure 13. - Continued.

52 4

...... -i' I -1- ~ i

Vented spoiler deflection, deg

. .

.....

...

... 0.4 -.

...... - I ..I I 'I 8 12 -4 0 I11 a. deg

53 ... I .

- I8 .

i . I i -0.121 I - T deflection, deg i b c d __ . -I - .- i 0 ! i 6 I 6 0.02 - - -!- I 10 0.011 + !.-- &i I --I - I . . .,i -0.021 I ~! I i : 1 0.021 -; 7- - I ; i I I 0.01;- : I ! cy 0 j i6 -0.011I j/*

4 -0.021 I 1 : L 2 . -8 -4 4

(d) Lateral characteristics, deflection sequence 2.

Figure 13. - Concluded.

54 0

-0.2 cm -0.4

-0.6

0.8

0.6

--- cD 0.4 Dynamic pressure 0 1.44 kPa Ib/ft') 0.2 (30 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/ft') 0 ...... , ...... ,.;,-;;,...... 2.8

2.4 ..... 2. ( 1 1.6 cL 1. i ......

...... 0. E , ..

0.4 ......

0 .-...... I ...... 1 *.... ... ,L -0.1 ....1...... 'I 1:' I. -a 0 12 20 1 a. deg (a) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 30°; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 14. - Effects of dynamic pressure on vented spoiler B characteristics.

55 ,--,, ,., , ,,. .--...--. ..-,,, . ,.,,...... -_---...... -- ......

- I, i 0.0 1. 0 - # cr -0.01 +Ii ...... 1 ...... - l l -0. OE .i- -. I Dynamic pressure ...... -0.1; i 0 1.44 kPa (30 Ib/ff) i 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Iblft') .- . ...,I.....

0.02 ......

0.01 __ ...

- c" O ft- 03- a -0.01 ......

- 0.02 ......

0.02 . . .- ...... 0.01 ..

0 #@ F=== -0.01 ....

-0.02 .

4 1 20 1 I a, deg (b) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 300; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 14. - Continued.

..... -...... 0

-0.2 '-!-- cm -0.4

-0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4 cD Dynamic pressure 0 1.44 kPo Ib/R') 0.2 (30 00.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/ft') 0

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6 cL 1.2

0.8

0.4 0

-0.4

I I i 1 - I a.

...... _ ......

. .... - .. .- -0.08 - - .-c .I Dynamic pressure -0.12 .. i:.. .. - - .. 0 1.44 kPa (30 IbW) i i IJ 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ibift') _- . ~ . .~- ,..

0.02 ......

0.011 - ...... c" + '. . - 0.02 ...i .. ! I

.,.[-- 0.01 i 1 cy O k& - 0.01 ;(-&. I

-0.02 .... ; . I I . I -8 20 4

(d) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; blunt vent lip. Figure 14.- Continued.

58 ... -. .

0 - - ... -,

3 ...... Ti -0.2 .... .*. cm -0.4 ...... IC -0

._ ...... -0.6 .-.. -.. 0.8 ......

.. - -. .... 0.6 - ._ A .. .. 0.4 Dynamic pressure - 0 1.44 kPa (30 Ib/ft’) 0.2 ...... 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/ft’) __ -- I L 0 I

.- - ...... 2.8 .. -. ... i

..... 2.4 ...... 1 5 ’0 ...... 2. c - - -I I . . ... 1.6 1 cl I 0’ 1.2 1.. . --.. I I 0. E / k f 0. I ......

0 .- .

-0.1 ..... a, deg (e) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 40°; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 14.- Continued.

59 I

-. ._. ._ ..- _..

-- .. QFQP Q7 _...... ,.. . . 1 ' . . -_.- ...... -......

...... - .. 0 1.44 kPa (30 Ib/ff) 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/ff) - -.-

......

._ - .. . -.

%= w s'

...... __

...... - ..

...... _......

......

- ... -0- 3

...... c- . . -. ?

0 24

(f) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 0.96; large radius vent lip. Figure 14. - Continued.

60 I'

0 .--iI ' -- I1 I -0.21 cnl -0.4 I

-0.6

0.8 0.6

. ... % 0.4 Dynamic pressure 0 1.44 kPa (30 Ib/ft*) 0.2 --.-1 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/ft') 0

2.8 ..

2.4

. 2.0 9 1.6 cL I 1.2

0.8 ..

0.4 0

-0.4 12 a, deg (g) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 400; x/E = 1.00; large radius vent lip, Figure 14. - Continued.

61 .... -. .,. = -0 ...... -,

- .... I. ...J Dynamic pressure .... 0 1.44 kPo (30 Ib/ff) 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Iblft') .... I;..- ..... - 1--.I...

c" 0 QF ...... ::~ ---I 4 ~ .. - 7 -0.01 - . ._ ...... ~,

- 0.02 __ ......

......

...... 2 =a -- ..,.,*I.. T-c ......

.. - -.1....- 1 . ._ ...

.- ...... _ 1 1 I a, deg1 (h) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 400; x/C = 1.00; large radius vent lip.

Figure 14. - Continued.

1111 0 -_ iI I -0.2 cm -0.4

-0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

2.8 2.4 1: 2.01.-, 1.6 I cL 1. '' .

-0.4 I l 4l 0 a. deg (i) Longitudinal characteristics; 6f = 40°; x/E = 1.00; blunt vent lip. Figure 14. - Continued.

63 0.04 ... ,i ...... - . 0

cz -0.04

-0.08 I Dynamic pressure

.... ' -~ -0.12 0 1.44 kPa (30 Ib/ff) 0 0.48 kPa ( 10 Ib/W - j_ -. , .

0.02

0.01

cn O -0.01

-0.02

0.02

0.01

- 0.01

-0.02

8 12 16 20 24 a, deg

(j) Lateral characteristics; 6f = 40°; x/E = 1.00; blunt vent lip. Figure 14. - Concluded.

64 0 cm -0.5-

I .70 Oa6I .92 .96 0.4 1.oo . cD 0.2 . ..

. .. 0- I . . ~~ ~

2.5 ...... I --

2.0 . __

1.5 __

cL 1 .o i 0.5

I . ..

OII

-1, -, I - -0.5 -8 -4 0 4 8 24 a ,deg Figure 15. - Effects of several flap positions and deflections on longitudinal characteristics of wing.

65 0 ; . . cnl & -0.5 .. .

-X ,.. . d,,deg 0.6 . . A 40 1.oo h40 .96 ! ' 0.4 j i cg Ii . 0.2 i i!* --

0: __~_~

2.5

i'a 2.0 ' I

j l ! ; 1.5 I ! cL 1 --f# .o . .

0.5 -

. .. 0

-8 -4 -4 8 12 16 20 24 a, deg Figure 15. - Concluded.

66 Angle of Back, deg 14 Y O > 4 3 8

I !

II. I I

02 4 6 810 45 dS,deg

(a) 6f = 00; x/E = 0.713.

Figure 16.- Effects of flap position and deflections and angle of attack on rolling moments generated by deflecting spoiler B with large radius vent lip.

67 An, 3 a attack, de( 0-4

0246810 20

(b) 6f = loo; x/E = 0.917. Figure 16. - Continued.

68 -0.14,

I 1 i -0.12 ~ I j i I ! j i ,

I I I -0.10 I i 1

Angle of ittack, deg -0.0%

0 C 2 4 0 -0.06 I j I / -0.04 i1 9 / i -0.0: F! .' b / 6 4 I I 0 I I 1. 30 45

(e) 6f = 30'; x/: = 0.960. Figure 16. - Continued.

69 I / I! c' i ! I b 1 attack, deg I lo -4 '! O 1 l 0o 4 j ja a 1 !

. I I../ '1.. i ...... I..1 ... I: i ...... i ' ', ! ;.;I :.I i I .: i :j: .... ! ...... :{:;I ,. ! ! ..:.I.. I 1. . ...I, i , .. ! I I :i ! j i j i ! j I ! I ll t ... .I. I- I 15 4

(d) 6f = 400; x/E = 1.00. Figure 16. - Concluded.

70 -0.~~1i ! ! i i 1. -0.121, I I I'

-U.lO\ I

I I , i i -0.081

I C ! 2 1

-0.06l I J -0.04 i Jent lip 4 0 Blunt 0.% a Small radius .96 0 Large radius .% -0.02 I / h Large mdius 1.m Blunt 1.w I Fi 0 II I 1 15 2( 30 45

(a) CY = -40.

Figure 17.- Effects of vent-lip geometry and angle of attack on rolling moments generated by deflecting spoiler B with 6f = 400 and x/E = 0.96 and 1.00.

71 I l j

4 j 4 i I i i i i A f / + r j 4 i iI j i i i i

I /

. . Vent lip , . 0 Blunt 0.N ' El Small radius .% 3 large radius .% 5 large radius 1.00 n Blunt 1.00 I D I T 1 20

Figure 17. - Continued.

72 I

-0.14 i I j i I i

-0.12 I

-0.10 I I I I i 1 -0.08 j J I

C ~ 2 i i -0.oc I I ~~~ , .. . . iI i I...... i i .. .

j i -0.04 I

Vent lip -X c 0 Blunt 0.W I i EI Small radius .% -0.0: t @ Large radius .% I c A large mdius 1.00 h Blunt 1.oo O M 1.oo

0 T 0 F46 810 20 30 4s

Figure 17. - Continued.

73 I

Vent I -X c

' 0 Blunt 0 .% I Small radius .% @ Large radius -96 A Large radius 1.oo h Blunt 1.oo oshorp 1.w

6 8 10 15 30

(d) CY = 80.

Figure 17.- Concluded.

74 i I i I

i I

I/' !'

I I I i I i -0.04 ~ I Ven

0 Small radius 0.w I3 large radius -96 -0.02 i 1M) i 4 I! 0 i j 1- -j 4 6 8 1

Figure 18.- Effects of vent-lip geometry and angle of attack on rolling moments generated by deflecting spoiler C with 6f = 400 and x/E = 0.96 and 1.00.

75 #

d J

I , I

' I -X E 0.% j Small radius i Large radius .% 1.00, I / i 1

i 10 20 45 6, ,deg (b) a = Oo. Figure 18.- Continued.

76 -0.1 4

-0.12

-0.10

-0.0 I A x C I ; i I A -0.06' /1 4 /

-0.04'

- , @ Small radius O.%l I t large radius .% -O*O2I

0 iI Ill 15 D

6, ,deg

77 -0.14

Angle of attack, deg -0.1 2 0-4 0 0 0 4 A8

-0.1 0

-0.08 5

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

p,deg

Figure 19.- Effect of angle of attack on rolling moments generated by deflecting spoiler A; 6f = 400 and x/E = 0.96.

78 NASA-Langley, 1976 L -10736 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION- WASHINGTON. D.C. 20546 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID -- NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND OFFICIAL BUSINESS SPACE ADM IN [STRATION 451 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 5300 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE . USMAIL BOOK

557 001 Cl U A 760528 SO0903DS DEPT OF THE AIR POECE AF GJEAPONS LABORATORY ATTW: TECHNICAL LIBRARY (SUL) KIRTLAND AFB Nfl 87117

If Undeliverable (Section 158 POSTMASTER : Postal Mnnnnl) Do Not Return

“The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribate . . . to the expansion of human Knowl edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administration shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate disseminution of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.” -NATIONALAERONAUTICSAND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLXCATIONS TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS:..Information technical information considered important, published in a foreign lahbage considered

complete, and a lasting contribution to existing .’ to.perit NASA distribution in English. knowledge. ..

i *, , SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information TECHNICAL NOTES: Information. less broad .. in scope but nevertheless of importance: isa -’ ‘derived from or of value to NASA activities.

contribution to existing knowledge. * Publications include find reports of major projects, monographs, data compilations, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: handbooks, sourcebooks, and special Information receiving limited distribution bibliographies. because of preliminary data, security classifica tion, or other reasons. Also includes conference TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION proceedings with either limited or unlimited PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology distribution. used by NASA that may be of particular CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and interest in commercial and other-non-aerospace technical information generated under a NASA applications. Publications include Tech Briefs, contract or grant and considered an important Technology Utilization Reports and contribution to existing knowledge. Technology Surveys.

Details on the availability of these publications may be obtained from: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20546