iLlp\ |_0O
WIND TUNNEL AND FLIGHT TEST INVESTIGATION OF THE CESSNA 140 FOR CORRELATION OF AERODYNAMIC DERIVATIVES
BY
R. A. BOYD
LCDR.. U.S. NAVY
R. L. BOTHWELL
IT., U.$. NAVY
L.ibniry U. S. Naval Postfjradunte SchooF Mwiterey, California
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY Thes IS B79 & REPORT NO. 179 ?. 5. Nerval Postgrodacifa Schoo, PRINCETON UNIVERSITV PAGE
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report
WIND TUNNEL AND FLIGHT TEST INVESTIGATION
OF THE CESSNA l40
FOR CORRELATION OF
AERODYNAMIC DERIVATIVES
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT
OUOLEY K>!OX » If " «" auVAL POST TABLE OF COHTENTS •ONTEH^Y. f:
Page
I UrCRODOCTION 1
II SYMBOLS 3
Ill LIST OF FIGURES 6
IV EQUIPMEHT AMD PROCEDURE 8
A. Wind Tunnel Test Program 8
B. Flight Test Program 9
1. Equipment 9
2. Instrumentation 10
3. Theory of Steady State Flight Testing for the Lateral Derivatives 11
k. Aileron Control Derivatives 12
5. Rudder Control Derivatives 13
V RESULTS 17
A. The Lateral Aerodynamic Derivatives 17
. . . 1. Aileron Control Derivatives , 17
2. Rudder Control Derivatives 19
3. The Side Force Derivative 19
k. Dihedral Effect 20
5. Directional Stability 21
B. The Longitudinal Derivatives 22
1. Ct and Ct> 22
2. Elevator Control Pover 23
3. Stick-Fixed Stability 23
VI CONCLUSIOHS - . . . . 25 VII RECOMMEHDATION 26 VIII REFERENCES 27 IX FIGURES 29 Z APPENDIX I - Description and dimension of the Cessna 1^ 51
PRINCETON UNIVERSITy PAGE
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report
Object ;
The object of this investigation vas to examine the correlation between the static stability euid control aerodynamic derivatiyes obtained from vlnd tunnel tests of an unpowered model of a light airplane with the
I' same derivatires obtained from flight tests of the full scale airplane.
The airplane investigated vas the Cessna XkO.
Sunaaary ;
The aerodynamic character let ice of the Cessna l40 were obtained frcin tests of an unjKwered l/lO scaJLe model in the Princeton University
Atmospheric Wind Tunnel. These characteristics vere redxiced from data ob- tained from the sijc component balance system of this tunnel during a normal series of test runs. Hie same aerodynamic characteristics vere measured cm the full scale airplane, ovned by the Department of Aeronautical Engineer- ing, from a program of flight tests for its performance and its stability characteristics using methods suggested in references 2 and 3* The results
Indicate that the performance and handling qualities of light airplanes can be predicted from wind tunnel tests of small scale, unpowered models vlth adequate accuracy. These tests also demonstrated the effectiveness of steady state flight techniques to obtain many of the important stability and control derivatives.
Date and Place of Investigation
This study vas conducted during the period extending from January to June 19^1 and made use of the facilities and equipment of the Aeronautical
Engineering Department.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 1
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORy report I79
I INTRODUCTION
The aerodynamic design development of modejm aircraft usually proceeds in three distinct phases. These phases are: emalytical treat- ment from a preliminary three view, wind tunnel tests of the most promis- »
Ing design, and finally flight test analysis of the full scale airplane.
15ie methods for proper develojanent from stage to stage have been carefully studied for high performance aircraft with a great deal of information available on correlating these various stages. It has been found that large scale-powered model tests of a particular airplane design adequately pre- dicts, with only a few limitations, the actual performance and handling qualities of the prototype airplane. For this reason all designs of high performance aircraft count heavily on information obtained in the wind tun- nel phase.
The light airplauie designer, on the contrary, usually advances from the analytical study phase to the final design without any recourse to wind tunnel model study at all, due in large measure to the expense in- volved in the development of models and the high cost of wind tunnel time.
Tests of large scale, powered models are therefore practically unknown in the development of the light airplane.
It was felt that a study of the accuracy with which the results of inexpensive wind tuimel tests of a small scale, unpowered model could predict the performance and flying qualities of a typical light airplane
t would be of considerable interest to the light plane industry, and eventually point the way to considerable improvement in this class of airplane.
The airplane used for this study was the Cessna l^i-O, a typical two place personal airplane in the light category. A l/lO scale model of
. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 2
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179
thle alrplame vae constructed and tested, unpovered. In the atioospherlc wind tvmnel In the AeronauticaJ. Engineering Depeirtment at Princeton Univer- sity. The results of these tests vere analyzed hy conventional means for their aierodynaaic characteristics. At the same time actual flight tests of the Cessna iJfO vere conducted which yielded the same information at full scale. The major purpose of this study vas the correlation of these resxilts.
Flight test information required to correlate the results dis-
cussed above vere obtained from previously conducted flight programs, Eef . h through 1, &» veil as additional tests made by the authors to obtain aero- dynamic data otherwise xuLavailable
A secondary purpose of this investigation was to study the steady
state methods of flight testing discussed in Bef . 2 and 3. These methods can yield many of the lmport PRINCETON UNIVERSIiy PAGE 3 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 II SYMBOLS i! a Tvo-dlmensloi^ slope of lift curve (per degree) o ^ A Slope of the lift curve of the viog (per degree) A Wing aspect ration •? b Airplane vlng span (feet) Cjj Airplane Drag Coefficient Cf. Slope of the cxirve of drag coefficient vs. angle of attack C Lift coefficient (per degree) L Cj^ Slope of Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack Curve C laving monent coefficient C laving monent coefficient due to aileron deflection (x>er degree) C^ Yavlng mosaent coefficient due to rudder deflection (per degree) »^6. C. Boiling moment coefficient .mM. C, Boiling mcoent coefficient due to aileron deflection (per degree) C-i Boiling mcBient coefficient due to rudder deflection (per degree) C Tavlng aoBent coefficient due to sideslip (per degree) C^ laving aoment coefficient due to rudder deflection (per degree) "^6. Cq Tavlng monent coefficient dtie to aileron deflection (per degree) PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE h AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 Cy Side force coefficient C„ Side force coefficient due to rudder deflection (per degree) C Side force coefficient due to sideslip (per degree) ^ P C Pitchiiig moment coefficient C_ Pitching mocient coefficient due to elevator deflection (per degree) f Equivalent parasite drag area = Cp S L Rolling motoent (ft. lbs.) 1. Airplane tail length (ft.) H laving mccient (ft. lbs.) q Dynamic pressure (lb. /ft. ) S Area (aq. ft.) 7 Airplane velocity (ft. /sec.) W Gross weight (lbs.) CX Angle of attack (degrees) ^ Angle of sideslip (degrees) 6^ Rudder deflection (degrees) ^a. Aileron deflection (degrees) A increment of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 5 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 ^ /i> Slope of rxidder deflection vs. sideslip curve -—"- SloT>e of aileron deflection vs. sideslip ciirve d(3 Tail efficiency factor % Vertical tail efficiency factor Angle of bank (degrees) Angle of yav (degrees) Sign Convention Left rudder Guigle is positive Right aileron up is positive Sideslip with vind coming in from the right is positive Bight angle of bank is positive PRINCETON UNIVERSITy PAGE 6 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 III LIST OF FIGURKS AHD ILLUSTRATIONS I 1. Coefficient of lavlag Moment versvis Angle of T&v — vlnd tunnel test. 2. Coefficient of Foiling Moment versus Angle of law — wind tunnel test. 3. Side Force Coefficient versus Angle of lav — wind tunnel test. k. Tawing and Boiling Mcnent Coefficients vereviB Aileron Deflection — wind tunnel test. ^. Tawing, Boiling Moment and Side Force Coefficients versus Budder Deflection -- wind tunnel test. 6. Ax^le of Bank, Aileron Deflection, Budder Deflection versus Sideslip Angle — flight test. 7* Angle of Bank, Aileron and Budder Deflection versus Sideslip Angle with Flaps Down — flight test. 8. Aileron Deflection versus Sideslip Angle, with and without Applied Boiling Moment •• flight test. 9. Budder Deflection versus Sideslip Angle, with and without Applied — Tawing Moment > flight test. 10. Lift Coefficient versus Angle of Attack for various elevator deflec- tions — wind tunnel tests. 11. Lift Coefficient versus Angle of Attack for various elevator deflec- tions with flaps deflected •- wind tunnel tests. 12. Lift Coefficient versus Angle of Attack for the airplane — wind txmnel tests. 13. Pitching Moment Coefficient versus Angle of Attack for various Slevator Deflections — wind tunnel test. Ik. Pitching Moment Coefficient versus Lift Coefficient -- wind tunnel test. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 7 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT I79 15. Pitching Moment Coefficient versus Lift Coefficient with Flaps Deflected — wind tunnel test. 16. Determination of Neutral Points — wind tunnel tests. 17. Pitching Moment Coefficient versus Elevator Deflection for various Lift Coefficients — wind tunnel test. 18. Elevator Power versus Lift Coefficients -- wind tunnel and flight test. 19. Drag Polar — wind tunnel and flight test. 20. Photograph of the Cessna li^O Model in the Wind Tunnel Test Section. 21. Photograph of the Cessna l40 fxoll scale Airplane as instrumented for flight test. 22. Photograph of the Cessna llfO Airplane in flight towing drogue used to determine Eudder Power. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 8 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report I79 IV EQUIPMKNT AMD PROOSDDRfi A. Wind Tunnol Teit Program The wind tuimel, located at the Princeton University Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory, is of the^ single return closed-throat type with a 3.^ X ^ foot test section. The hydraxilic pneumatic balance system measures lift, drag, side force, as veil as pitching, rolling, and yaving moments relative to the vind axis of the tunnel. The model vas mounted in the test section on tvo faired supports attached to the wing, in addition to a tail Jack. The tail Jack length vas adjusted to vary the angle of attack of the model. The sv^tport system vais mounted on a turntable vhich coiold be rotated to selected angles of yav. Fig. 20 is a photograph shoving the moaex mounted in the test section. Ihe model of the Cessna 1^0 vas to a scale of ten to one. The f\iselage veis constructed of solid balsa sections; vtxile the ving and tail surfaces vere of mahogany. Flap, aileron, mdder and elevator deflections vere adjustable. The surface finish vas a polished lacquer. No propeller vas used in the tests. All forces and mcments vere measured relative to the vind axis of lbs. per the tunnel at a dynamic pressure of 24.4/sq. ft. The test on the inverted model at negative angles of attack established that the flov inclination in the tunnel test section vas insignificant; so this vas neglected throughout the data reduction. Thiua, the longitudinal data vas measured relative to the "stability^ axes after vind tunnel vail corrections vere made to drag and to angle of attack. The lateral data vas converted to the "stability" axes by apply- ing the pertinent trigonoaietric f;inctlon of the euagle of yav. PRINCETON UNIVERSIiy PAGE y AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report I79 As pointed out in Eef . 12, wind tunnel test data is normally presented relative to the "stability" axes, atlthough flight measurements and observations are made relative to the airplane body axes. Since these vind tunnel results were to be coorpared with flight test values the data vas converted to the airplane body axes by applying trigonometric functions of the angle of attack. All pitching, yaving and rolling moaents vere then transferred froo the pivot axis to the airplane center of gravity position at 27. 7S^ m.a.c. on the thrust line. No Reynold's Number corrections vere made, since maximum lift coefficient and minimum drag coefficient were not needed for this investi- gation, and the effect of Reynold's N\miber on stability and control deriva- tives is small. B. Flight Test Program 1 . Equipment Although both lateral and longitudinal stability parameters were investigated in the wind tunnel, the authors of this report conducted flight tests for lateral information only because longitudinal derivatives were available from previous steady state flight tests of the same airplane, Bef . k through Ref . 7« All flight tests were conducted at a constant in- dicated airspeed of IO3 mph at about I5OO ft. altitude with the airplane in a straight sideslip, at different angles of sideslip. Although it would have been desirable to check the lateral derivatives at various airspeeds, friction in the yaw vane prevented slower speed tests, auad the power limita- tions of the Cessna l^t-O made faster speeds impracticable. The recorded data PRINCETON UNIVERSITY page 10 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report I79 Included a protractor reading of angle of bank, autosyn readings of sideslip angle, rudder, and aileron deflections. Tests vere repeated with flaps fully deflected. In order to correctly analyze the flight test data It was necessaiy to maintain a nearly constant value of the tall efficiency factor, which Is dependent \^[>on thmst coefficient. This was accoaplished by maintaining constant power settings for all test flights and losing altitude, if neces- sary, to hold constaj^t indicated air8x>eed. All flight tests were aade just after sunrise because of the' calxa atmospheric conditions existing at that tlse. It was found that aziy wind or thermal air currents tended to cause excessive scatter of the observed data. The airplane tested was the Cessna l^^t-O, NX69207> a single eiagine, high wing, two place, personal type monoplane with external bracing and fixed, conventional, landing gear. The wing is rectangular with rounded tips. It has the normal configuration, single vertical tall, Freise type ailerons, and is equipped with trailing edge, plain flaps. The airplane is of semi- monocoque, all metal construction, except the wings which are fabric covered. All control surfaces are metal. Fig. 21 is a photograph shoving the appear- ance of the airplane as Instnanented for these flight tests. The general specifications and dimensions as given by drawings and reports of the manu- facturer are Included as Appendix I. 2. Instrumentation The airspeed was meastired with a standard sensitive tyx>e alrsxwed indicator connected to a full swlveling pivot static head attached to a boom extending one chord length ahead of the leading edge of the starboard wing. This instrunent was calibrated by meeins of the speed course method. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 11 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 The yav meter vas attached to the pox^ vlng vith a boon extending one chord length ahead of the leading edge. The yav vane vae geared to a 2k rolt, JfOO cycle autosyn transmitter. The autosyn follower vaa calibrated to give angle of yav In degrees. The rudder and aileron deflections vere measured by the same type of autosyn transmitters, linked to the respective control cables. The auto- mjn foUovers vere callbz>ated to give rudder and aileron deflection In de- grees. ' The angle of bank vas measured In degrees vlth a propeller pro- tractor placed on a level section of the cabin floor. 3. Theory of Steady State Plight Testing for Lateral Derivatives The solution of the lateral static stability derivatives by straight sideslip tests is sii^ply based on the steady state equations of lateral mo- tion: (X) (.) C,^ = O .^ . C^^ A ^. , C^^ S, . C,^^ 6, <'>S'-^ ^^^r^^y^ ^^n^,^r ^^n^^-^a-O When the airplane is flovn along a straight flight path, by refer- ence to a directional gyro or distant horizon point, the rate of yav equals zero (%'='^), and the above equations become: ^' (a)r .,^ ^ c^_0 + ^rs -^r = («)0,^ vx5 4 ^nsr'^r ^ ^n^^-^a= O PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 12 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 For a selected sideslip angle, these equations establish the amount of bank and lateral controls required to maintain zero yaw rate. By differentiating equations (2), the lateral static stability derivatives are obtained in terms of the control derivatives, lift coeffi- cient, and the slopes of the bank and control angle curves relative to the sideslip angle. > While flying the Cessna l40 in a steady sideslip and maintaining zero yaw rate, the control angles and angle of bank were recorded. IRils procedure was repeated at various angles of sideslip, flaps up emd flaps dovn, to determine the b^ , c ^ and curves of Fig. 6 and Fig. f. The static derivatives could now be solved from equation (3) when the control derivatives had been determined. U. Aileron Control Derivatives The aileron control power was computed from the aileron deflec- tion necessairy to balance an applied rolling moment. A steel bar, three feet long with a cross section of 2.2^ sq. in., was attached to the star- board wing at the outboard strut attachment fittings. A light wooden beu: of identical shape was similarly attached to the port wing. The net weight of 29 lbs. acting at 8,917 ft. lateral distance from the airplane centerline produced an applied rolling mc«aent of 266 ft. lbs. Flights with the wing weight were then performed in the same manner as before. The differenc* PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE ^3 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 In aileron angles, A 8^ = lAO, between test flights with and without the applied rolling moment as shown in Fig. 8, determines the aileron power. For the small angles of bank required at the tested sideslip angles, the cos (^ has been assumed unity; so, the applied rolling moment coefficient may be derived as: Cl = Wa.y/qsb = .0188 From equation (2)(b), the equilibrium in roll ceux be expressed as: ® "-^ ^i7. • ^^."' ^ Vc •''r, ^ Q'^-^ (with weight) ^V^-A^/s*'^' ^n^' ^s r r ^'^-': "* ' ^''^ r)'€^ ^ ^yc • ^i?c ~ ^ (without weight) By subtracting (2) from (T) at the same angles of sideslip (^^-^): The difference in rudder deflection, A i?^ ^necessary to balance any adverse yaw caiised by A Or, was not measurable. Iherefore ^r c was assumed equal to ^ Ox zero: (^ _ _ Cnc i ^^'^\ — D Equation (?) becomes: Cr — — < ^ - .0013 ^'^^ A&^, 5. Rudder Control Derivative The rudder control power was computed from the rudder deflection neces- sary to balance an applied yawing moment created by towing a drogue from the starboard wing. The drogue used for the applied yawing moment consisted of a conventional airport wind sock made of cajivas, with the small end constricted by a draw st/lng In order to obtain the reqxilred drag force. The large end was secured to a heavy wire hoop, to which the light woven wire tow cable was PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE Ik AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 attached. This cable vaa led throu^ a pulley fair-lead secured to the after strut attachment, thence to the fuselage side near the door. At this point the cable vas attached to a steel ring, vhlch In turn vas mounted on a bracket riveted to the fuselage skin. Four sti^in gages vere moiuxted on the steel ring (tvo In tension and tvo in compression) with the terminal a wired into a bridge circuit in the cabin. An aBBseter connected in the bridge circuit vas calibrated to read the drag force of the toved vind sock. I3ae equivalent par- asite drag area of the drogue vas measured in the vind tunnel and verified in flight by the strain gage equipment (-f ^ 1*91) • This drag acting at the later- al distance from the airplane centerllne created an applied yaving moment of 4^3 ^* 1^> The straight sideslip tests vere then conducted vith the drogue streamed. At the teraination of this test, the drogue vas Jettisoned in flight and the straight sideslip z*uns vithout the applied yaving monent vere repeated to verify previously obtained data. The rudder anglea for test flights vith and vithout the applied moment have been plotted on Fig. 9* ^e A. Sf- vas 3.0^ degrees vith respect to the gliding flight test. Because of the addition- al drag force of the drogue, it vas found necessary to glide in order to keep an y of about \mity at the tail and still maintain the test airspeed. From equation (2)(c), the equilibrium in yav can be vrltten as: Q Cn^ '/S^ -h C'n.^^ ' ^r, ^ ^/7 ^^' €5^ / <-)7^=^(vith drogue) '^'^ "^ ' ^''^ "^ ~- (vithout drogue) ® ^^^ ' I^^R ^^6r Sa ^-^'-^ ^ As vith the rolling equations, subtracting (2) from (l) at the same sideslip angles gives: Q>C^^ -AS, + Cn, ^.K ^ Cr,^^ o r KKINLtlUN UNIVtKbliy KAtjfe i-J AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 The aileron difference, A C, , neceesaxy to balance any rollixig moment cavised by the difference in rudder deflections, A S, , between runs ^^ with and without the drogiie was not detectable. Therefore, ^.^^ was assumed * ^ r ~ " ^ equal to zero. C- ^ \ — ] - O Cr... ^ 1^ -- ,0C3Z Equation (^ beccxnes: The inrpoi*tance of towing the drogue at the same power as in the straight sideslip tests and gliding to maintain the test airspeed can be seen frca Fig. 9; ^or only 2.0 degrees of ^ <:: ^was required in the full throttle, ^ QC$ rated power, tow flight in which altitude wets maintained. This apparent increase of ^, from 1.0 to 1.5 was partially due to greater slipstream velocity at the tail caused by the 30% power increase required to tow the drogue at 103 mph. However, a larger factor was the greater twist of the slipstream at the higher power setting. This effect of the slipstream, evident under conditions of high power at relatively slow speed, must be offset by more right rudder. So, when the drogue was towed from the starboard wing in level flight at full throttle, less left rudder was required to prevent yaw rate. Thus, the smaller value of /\ (^..f due primarily to the increased twist of the slipstream, would j- cause the incorrect calculation of a high value of C ,- . Although this • Of change in slipstream effect with power could be determined by towing successive- ly from each wing, the simpler solution is to keep the same power settings while losing altitude to maintain speed. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY page 16 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORTI79 With the primary rudder control power determined, the secondary rudder derivative vae eatixnated by the simple geometric relationship: % = -4 ^nc- .0025 Equations were then (3) solved for the side force derivative, di- hedral effect, and directional stability. All flight tests were repeated in order to establish the reproduc- ibility of results. PRINCETON UNIVERSIJy PAGE 1? AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 V RESULTS The curves of flight test and wind tvmnel data of the Cessna 114-0, from which the stability derivatives have been obtained, are plotted on Fig. 1 throvjgh Fig. 19 • ^or ease of comparison, the static stability and control derivatives from both test siediums have been listed in Table I, shown on Page 18, For the comparison of flight test to wind tunnel determined deriva- tives, the tail efficiency factor, • , of the Cessna l^vO in level flight at 103 mph has been estimated at unity; the v of the proi>ellerle8S model, .90. Both of these aseumptions are considered reasonable and will be used throughout the discussion. For comparison purposes, the lateral static derivatives deter- mined from wind tunnel angles of attack of zero and ten degrees have been inter- polated to the flight test angle of attack of 3*35 degrees. This interpolated increment was smiill in every case% A. The lAteral Aerodynaaic Derivatives 1. The Aileron Control Derivatives The predicted L,- from the wind tunnel tests as shown in Fig. k was 29l» too high. This is no reflection on the use of powerless models, for the ailerons are clear of the propeller effect. Furthermore, Ref. 10, a re- port which compares the pb/2 V values frcan the wind tunnel and flight tests of numerous aileron and wing configurations, states that "the aileron effective- ness developed in flight may be considerably less than that theoretically pre- dicted on the basis of aileron characteristics measured in the wind tunnel, presumably because of wing twisting and deflections in the aileron control system." It is fiirther stated that one degree of wing twist would reduce apparent aileron effectiveness by about 20^. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 18 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 5 P •P n HI I 8 I U uo 1 I HON I o 5 UJ vo I Q u PRINCETON UNIVERSITY page 19 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 The adverse yaw, C,- r , vae predicted as -.0001. per degree frcaa the wind tunnel test and this value is negligibly small. The flight test value vas too BTtiAn to iseasure and vas assumed zero. 2. The Rudder Control Derivatives Cn measured in the wind tunnel vas -.OOO8. Corrected for Y} this becomes -.0009 or Just 10^ smaller tlian the flight test value of -.0010. The wind tunnel Cy, was .0022, Fig. 5^ and. was 12^ smaller than the flight test value of .0025. A weighted correction for T) would further reduce this error. Values of C ^ for both test mediums were negligible. 3. The Side Force Derivative From equation (3) (a): - ^^ ^Y£ .T76 ^^r d(3 the flaps lip flight test valuq was: W/3 - -.0080 the flaps down flight test value was: ' -;0089 , ^Y^ These side force derivatives were Just 6^ and 15^ higher respectively than the wind tunnel Cy^ of -.0075 from Fig. 3. The side force on the pro- peller and the additional slipstream velocity on the vertical tail in powered flight acco^ont basiceilly for this difference. When the flaps are lowered, this derivative increases because of the Y ccmponent of the force due to slip- stream on the flaps. Althoxjgh side force derivative is not a critical design parameter, it is noted that the wind tunnel test of the unpowered model gave a small error in Cy^ in the predicted direction. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 20 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 k. Dihedral Kffect From equation (3)(b)j r r ^^' C'j^^ - -.0013 !I3ie flaps dovn flight test value vas: ^X0^ ^ -.0014 The above Indicated increase in dihedral effect with flap deflection 1b contrary to the known condition in that the dovnvlnd flap is more ismierBed in the propeller slipstream and so exerts a greater rolling moment^ tending to reduce the dihedral effect. In the flight test, as seen fraa the above equations, the aileron deflection necessary to balance the dihedral rolling Boment with sideslip vas the primary measiire of the dihedreil effect. However, the effectiveness of the aileron on the downwind side in the straight side- ellp test vas evidently decreased becaiose of an interference from the adjacent lovered flap. It seems logical that this Interference Increased linearly wilh sideslip angle. Therefore, the aileron deflection slope with flaps deflected was probably increased because of less aileron effectiveness and not more di- hedral effect. In view of this evident blocking of the aileron, the flight tested C/ - with flaps deflected should be re-examlx3yed. The value of C fron the wind tunnel test curves of Fig. 2 is ^ P -.0010. Although 23^ below the flight test value, the actual difference in effective dihedral is 'v^rj small. To Illustrate this, a small change in wing tip shape would cause a percentage change in effective dihedral of 30^* ^Che dihedral actually measured on the test airplane was 1.3°; Frcn these x^sxilts it can be concluded that the dihedral effect in the critical high sx>eed iregion, where danger of oscillation exists, can be PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 21 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 adequately predicted froia^ the vlod tiumel tests of an unpovered model. To iziaure positive dihedral affect In the landing configuration, careful calcu- lation vill be required to prevent misleading results. 5. Directional Stability Froa equation (3)(c) -/- ^''s oa d,e The flight test value vith flaps up: Cr,^ r. 00042 The flight test value vith flaps dovn: Cr^ 5.00039 In the flaps up condition, the vind tiumel test C ? .0004'3 /^P had only 3^ more directional stability than the Cessna ll(-0 in flight at 103 mph. Although this discrepancy is small, tvo corrections should be made. First, the correction for r of the tail would further raise the effective of the model to .000l*-8. Second, the destabilizing directional effect of the propeller would have the following effect, as calculated from Eef . 11: ^{Cf^^\ ~ destabilizing effect of the propeller at zero thrust - ^^^A.. "--jrOlM&IlL^^. . ..00006 4 5^, b To correct to 6o^ rated power: Therefore, the corrected wind tunnel test C f, ^ r .OOOM). decreased because of The flight test value of C ^^ ,_ with flaps down the directionally destabilizing force of the propeller slipstreeuoa on the down- wind flap when the model is tested at an angle of yaw. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY p^ge 22 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 1^9 Corrections to the wind tunnel, flaps down value of C /^ ^ are: Tall efficiency factor correction: /Q.) z ^"(^^^^-^ -- .00055. Propeller correction for full throttle: ACn„ - /5 Zl C^^^u_^,^ -.00009. Therefore, the corrected wind tunnel test C n/3 - .000^^6. This corrected value of flaps down C^,^ is 18^ higher than the cor- though responding flight test value. Ilils difference is important, for even the Dutch Roll characteristics make directional stability most important in Improves the handling qualities in the high speed range, high C p .. greatly should he landing configuration. So, as with the dihedral effect, corrections made for the destahiliziag slipstream force on the down flaps. B. The Longitudinal Derivatives 1. C, and C^ wind As expected, the slope of the lift and drag curves from the Drag funnel tests shown in Fig. 10 checked closely with flight test data. reported In polars from the wind tunnel and the flight test of the Cessna UO of C^^, and Cp^ . Ref. 7 have been plotted on Fig. 19 for graphic comparison calculation of C^ gives: The analytical , This excellent correlation of the unpowered model tests verified that power effects have little Influence on C^^ and C^^ I PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 23 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report I79 2. Elevator Control Power The x>over effects on longitudinal stability and elevator pover have been a major argument for use of povered models in vlnd tuzmel teats. In Ref . kf the elevator pover of the Cessna 140 was accurately determined by steauiy state flight tests. In Fig. 18 both flight test and wind tunnel test values of C ^ . have been plotted versus C^, At the equilibrium lift coefficient of .373 correspond- ing to the vlnd tunnel dynamic pressure of 2h,k lbs/ft^, the flight test de- termined Cyr\ c = -.0133« This corresponds closely to the wind tunnel C^ r -.0126. Although the increase in C,-^ vith pover at lover speeds can be quite accurately predicted, good elevator design should be based on the valioe of C^n c without power effects. With this consideration and the close correlation of elevator pover for the two test mediums when n approaches unity, it appears reasonable to conclude that the wind tunnel test data of an unpowered model is well suited for accurate elevator design. A slightly more conservative C would result if a windmill Ing propiller were used on the model and allow- ,^ c ance made for ground effect of the landing approach. 3. Stick-Fixed Stability Thje ijiqc>ortant longitudinal stability characteristic known as stick- fixed stability was obtained from the wind tunnel tests by the Schuldenfrel method of determining the neutral point. This techniq\je, described in Ref. 9, is based on the premise that dCj^/dCL • CjJOi at the neutral point. In Fig. 15 the neutral point has been graphically determined at 36.6^ m.a.c. with flaps up and 3^'% m.a.c, flaps down. Methods of correcting the stability criter- ion for the destabilizing effects of power are described at length in Ref. 11. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 2k AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 For light planes euch effects vlU not exceed more than one or tvo percent. In fact, from the steady state flight tests of the Cessna 1^0 reported In Bef . 5* the stlck-flxed neutral point was determined at 37»6St m.a.c. for a glide coi^ltlon and at 3^*^ m.a.c. for normal cruise. From the abore ccmparison of the longitudinal stability and control parameters It Is seen that excellent correlation between vlnd tunnel and flight tests vas achieved. !nius It a£|pears reasonable to conclude that the horizontal y Stabilizer and the elevator can be designed for optim\m longitudinal stability frcm the vlnd tunnel tests of an unpovered model. . PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 25 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 VI CONCLUSIONS * This investigation has shovn that the aerodynamic derivatives de- termined from vind tunnel tests of a l/lO scale unj>overed model of the Cessna llfO check closely the derivatives obtained from the flight tests of the full 8cal.e airplane, eis seen in Table I. It should be noted that the wind tunnel results listed in Table I are uncorrected for slipstream velocity or pover effects and that these predictable corrections bring the values to very close agjreement These tests indicate that the rudder and elevator power can be acc\ir- ately predicted from unpowered model tests, but confirmed the previous NACA finding that the wind tunnel value of aileron effectiveness is too high. The correlation of the static stability derivatives was excellent. Although the percentage difference in dihedral effect was large, the magnitude of this dif- ference was small. In view of these results, it is concluded that careful analysis of wind tunnel tests of a small scale, unpowered model will predict the flying qualities of a light airplane. The reproducibility and consistency of the results obtained from the steady state flight tests indicate that this laethod can be used with good suc- cess for determining static stability and control derivatives. Also, it seems advisable that this method should be used in conjunction with frequency response techniqvios for the more accurate solution of the dynamic derivatives. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY rage 26 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 VII EECQMMEHDATION It l8 recoomonded that light plane oanufacturere consider the utilization of vind tunnel tests of small scale, unpovered models for pre- dicting and improving the flying qualities of nev designs. > ,. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 27 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY report 179 VIII REFERENCES 1. Perkins, Coiirtland D., and Hage Robert E., "Airplane Performance Stability and Control", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Nev York, Second Printing, J4arch, 1950. 2. Perkins, Courtland D., "Methods for Obtaining Aerodynamic Data Throu^ Steady State Flight Testing, Part I, The Longitudinal Derivatives", Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory, Princeton University, 1950. 3. Perkins, Courtland D., "Methods For Obtaining Aerodynamic Data Through Steady State Flight Testing, Part II, The Lateral Derivatives" AeronauticcJ. Engineering Laboratory Report No. I70, Princeton University. k. Livingston, William H., "Determination of the Elevator Power and the Damping in Pitch of the Cessna li^O Airplane frcan Flight Tests" Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory Report No. I60, Princeton University. 5. Graham, Dunstan, "Longitudinal Stability and Control Flight Tests of the Cessna l40 Airplane", Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory Report Ho. Ill, Princeton University. 6. "Flight Test Laboratory Tests on Cessna 140" , by Aeronautical Engineering Class of 1951* Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory Report No. I66, Princeton University. 7. Polve, James H., "Correlation of Perfonaance Data on the Cessna l4o Airplane", Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory Report No. 173 Princeton University. , PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 28 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 8. LaCoutxire, J. E., "Flight Study of the Improvement in Directional Stability and Daniping in Tav of an F4U-5 Airplane through an Automat icaJJLy Controlled Servo Rudder", Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory Report Ho. l62, Princeton University. 9. Schuldenfrei, Marvin, "Some Notes on the Determination of the Stick-Fixed Neutral Point fran Wind-Tunnel Data", N.'a.C.A. RB 3120 (WR L-3U4), September, 19^3. 10. Gilruth, R. R., and Turner, W. H., "Lateral Control Required for Satis- factory Flying Qualities Based on Flight Tests of Nxanerous Airplanes" N.A.C.A. Report No. 715, 19*^1. 11. Ribner, H. S., "Notes on the Propeller and Slipstream in Relation to Stability", N.A.C.A. WR L-25, 19Mf. 12. Kayten, 0. G., "Analysis of Wlnd-Tunnel Stability emd Ciaxtrol Tests In Terms of Flying Qioallties of Full-Scale Airplanes", N.A.C.A. Report No. 825, 191*5. 3a 3/ .,, . |.',.|-..i|,^4jlU-|^^ vrrr ^^,,,.p 'it);:t:: '1'-'!''; Ir'::!--^J '-nl- '-l':"!: ',M: ' +i^-..: rr; i ^ ::::il- :i.l,..),..-!..j::; :-::|:::| ,|: . :|:-:t :: l-'-i^i;:-[---^l i'NI-^' | tI i li-r -.i-n,- c — J5/C ' -,i.!-.- I-; i Fjippjipn---T i- l^'l -I -! ^1-Ih! ^frm- ^ ;-1^ ,':i T-p^ ^rW^r^M^^. i.,m-- «v 1 :i; -rrr-rrr: •^ o :fi ts: >4 ij^J. i-' m^^m^ ,.l .. :;;;J-;;;^fcr." "HT 1"' 1^ i . : :5^ i —- —_) ; — .^ — ?y. ;-^ : 0m] T^tZjii ^ .a: ^ 1 1: I t- ^:.,!^ q^T - - Hf-PF' ^_^^d^jp^ ;':)rrp-- h:r < -I U-.l. II T • I i 4-1*1 'i^ \ m. '.« 1% i ^v4^-p^^ ir r.\l ?^ iU. '-. \ 4* . V k\ ^ \ /J '^ f \ \- » 1 ^ *• ' - . , , i -L , 1.. 3-3. 3^ t ; I .; V.4:-,. ' i 1 i I i i 1 t I ' ' t . . . . L^l- ,!. -1,^-1. ' ' 1 ^1 » . . . .,i^, I-. .;,„ .:|-:t-:-,l- L ' ' 1 . 1 d^ * '' -..-.j -.,,.| ^i[j-;jj-i;.>^!iu|nr ! |i-i! I , I ^. '-^> I '*'' i: i ,1 ;. i J ;,i !r^lii,:!l'.i "i.i L I III 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 * 34, ^,14^ k-hp-:i-'hi^'M' M %^- -h ! ! i l l_ .-: !,. ; I J_LL il. ' ' ! ' ' '- \:-^'\r-\.\^:u'V-.\v h^^|'l;H^-r:H'if ^|,^- !|H^^^ \'.' ! .,.{.ii!{i.iijiiJj^M! i v ^ Wj^^^^,Jr!f^ ^^^^rf::•4^'^!'•^ i^ j 1^ 'jNJ--)4:H- ji -^i I i <-;. ^: :>r*--l h rf i'lin-t I ^ ,.1 ;;:i.- :J -^m.I . l::' :.:..i 3? i^.^,| .,|i,,:|.L,.,.^,:..,.^,^i^.^^., ...|, -f, ^^^...,| .^.j.. .^..^ ., .k^ r^ I,!..!..!.!!,!. i'-'!":'!''-'!!" -I— I I , ^4:.^;j,.^:.^.{- ^.:^-;t^:i:^l:- ^!^4: ::::.;i: ,,1 Vl-' ii t. J ,1 i I J L 3^=1 -90 L 41 I '-.h6 , I :i Fj^^ulZ T-l ¥* ^i^vTf.:. r ;:MVfff^|/:L \Akr<^'ilF ')f^A Jj^jOL -L*_ -tw^ -H'^ J—!^ 4- -\— ±:I_ V^: r -\l^ mTm.y:ir% 4jl^2eM. -t:~P^ -Ft-%- --rr. Gb3 ai5|i5M^:i#i2^^ri4- ,--4- -1 ••? ^m '• r-: i^-f/^/JH 4:??y/|i^7| J^^ ^ ^if4^^ ^^:4-^i1- k^l^ -^-1 J:-|^!r|^^^^ mmi^^ ^f^/MlPGTTTT- e^--2r^ ' :1-j--:[:-.J..Ji.-i-.i.^ 1 ' '' t7T^ .'-N.-:ii'..-l r7^-^-t^ ^^^Jy^'^ie'^-Cf '•/[?•' /k- i /^ I :ib!::Hl I i - - 1 !- 1- I I, 1 , I i , 1 ^L-_J J L_»-L I i ; . 1 LU;— ^^ '^n-^,^^\^:'^'^-^V^-\^'^'^^^ -\- ,;:\ . U^'^M4'-\y-h ,ij..f.,;4^^h.4.;:-^h:i4H: - i I I t 1 i L. I .- 1 ^ : 1 J L h i',i.,i A., iili ,;;t. i3 I ; i 1 I I- .1 I -L J :_— t T WB '- '- -r' i •i--!-:-h I .J -:J:V:i:,;|-r-h^fe-h..(.:f.- tmmmwm ^|.,]:. ' t-r^ ! :;.!:..|.4-|^H-k;]-^^-i::: r/l-Ni.M:^:- U-^'-^F mpj: t-r^ 9- ^-rrf -fr^— -TTfi-t^^T -ir.-i; ill ^^ >ll i"~T~l~-|— £ -L i I ; -i:-:4'4:-: f t ••'P ! > A ' .V I • J L I - I JL ! ' i : ';,('^^i-i-: .; J i-t^-rt-i"t-T tL :^\J^ha rnn^^ -rrtrr J „ mkdJiHjnn^ i^. ^^l^Cl 1 -f- .--h- \^T\i n 1 ' I f 7 i-!-!-!'H-4--r'•i-.-l !ili:i M-H "II "n-r -|-1 H 1- --•t---t .44.:' mrii m r^?<^ ^ -Tfn^ ^ti"; ^ ^-f: - .C^/2 i. -feP-T^^ . 4 - TTT. ^il: H^^ I : - ^ :t L-.: itL: . . ? r , : V-'itri S#^ #ii^ ; - - : i-- finhr:-!:.:^ ' IFht ^^-^i- ' -h :K l •-iii^/; m^mQA>i:E'a --<'. i.r -H lER5h 51 h-r^i^ T^ t-Fl-t-trr-^t^ ^^iLl^t ^mCIBML L,' -H— .5/Y/^ i^ ~4n^^ ^ -064 '-•1' ^1^ 1 f t -t 1 1. I, .1,.-. JL ^. ' ' ^ J t. I ^^ r- ^? -L-:_i... --^i I ifiy^-#^-N:<^.-]'^-\~\ ^i|-;p trr r;- ^ ~rtTt— TTt' -frri-l ^"!--^i--:i'4---^ i : H ^^ :^ /^ lit'' ^-l rrr ,.. .^. '^:^; u.. /.r -T^I-l-TI-Mr^ W/-^/W?7)VA. 'FV^JT/:: 'Ifl :: 1,.-!/!HiM ^^t:^ '.;,' -v-j T^ •• -•|t .! ;.jh -r6--^ -^ ^ Ir H-|^ • !-^l:: H-l -i , , DhmP^^LhR r,^ id 4 prf^'fcS ^:t5i-| •\m( /4(7i u-1 -.i'- _i —1 1 -X- Li^J [ 'ill , I ,, 1. ;.i L_- L H \ I 1 M^ ^^^K VST •*> ^^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^B ' - r ^ Fig. 20 < I . i -SH(KI PRINCETON UNIVERSIJy PAGE 51 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 Z APFEBDII I DioenflloBB and description of Cessna 1^0 Airplane Airplane General -• Manufacturer Cessna Aircraft Co, Type lUO BecooBended gross weight 1450 lbs. Center of gravity range forvard lloit 22.8 m.a.c. aft limit 30.0^ m.a.c. Overall length 256.5 in. Height 7*^.25 in. Maximum allovable maneuvering load factor gross weight lk6o lbs. 4. 57 to -2.26 flaps dovn kCP 1.97 to -2.26 Wlnfi Airfoil section HACA 2412 Spem 394 inches Area (total) 159.29 sq. ft. Area (less ailerons) 145.21 sq. ft. Aspect ratio 6.75 Taper ratio 1.0 Chord 60.5 inches Mean aerodynamic chord Length 59.02 inches | Distance of leading edge back of nose reference datxa lint 56.53 inches Incidence 10 Dihedral i PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 52 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 1Y9 Aileron Type Modified Frieze Area 14.08 sq. ft. Span 7^ inches Chord Ik inches Travel Up (from neutral) 22© Down (from neutral) Iko Wing flaps Type Plain, trailing edge Area 8.736 sq. ft. Span 78,625 inches Chord 8.0 inches Travel (down) ko^ Horizontal Tail Surface Airfoil section RAGA 0009 Area (including elevators) 24. 35 Bq. ft. Span 106 inches Mazimvm chord hl,k inches Incidence -2.5° Dihedral Elevator area (total, including tab) 9.66 sq. ft. Elevator span 106 inches Elevator travel Up (from streamline vith s"tabillrer) 20** Down (froa streaaline vith stabilizer) 200 I I PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PAGE 53 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY REPORT 179 Elevator trim tab area 0.695 sq. ft. Elevator trim tab span 36 inches Elevator trim tab mean chord 5.20 inches Elevator trim tab travel Up (from elevator trailing edge) Dovn (from elevator trailing edge) 33° Vertical tail surface Area 12.42 sq. ft. Fin area 6.668 sq. ft. Span (to fuselage center line) 52.2 inches Eudder area 5.752 sq. ft. Budder span (maximum) k9,^ inches Rudder travel 16° Eight (from streamline with fin) , Left (froaa streamline with fin) 16° Fuselage Maximum vidth UO.O inches 1 Maximum height 51.0 inches Length (tip of nose to tip of tail) 256.5 inches Engine (Continental) Type c 85 Himber of Cylinders h Propeller Manufacturer Flottorp Type Wood, fixed pitch Diameter fk inches -^ol r.y TH . 16268 iThesis ^?findtunnel.and flight B79 information of the test correlatioi n^ssna 140 for derivative, of aerodynamic 16268 Thesis Boyd f?.lght test in- B79 . Wind tunnel and formation of the Cessna 140 for correlation of aerodynamic deriva tives library I S. Naval Postpr«f1aatB School ^'loulerey, Californio tnesB79 Wind tunnel a-d flight test investigatio 3 27c 002 07400 7 DUDL^ : KNOX LIBRARY ^V