y3 : N ~JJY-/0 21f- GOVT. DOC.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL NOTE
No. 1294
INVESTIGATION OF EFFECT OF SPAN, SPANWISE LOCATION, AND
CHORDWISE LOCATION OF SPOILERS ON LATERAL CONTROL
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TAPERED WING
By Jack Fischel and Vito Tamburello
Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va.
Washington May 1947
BUSINESS, SilENCE JUN 2 1941 " .CHN ,LKY IEP'T.
NATION.-'U. ADVISORY COr.wI'ITEE FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL NOTE NO . 1294
INVESTIGATION OF EF.£t~CT Olt' SPAN, SPANWISE LOCATION, AND
CROFDWISE IDeATION OF SPOILEFS ON LATEPAT.J CONTROL
ClIA.RA.CTEIITSTICS OF A TAPERED vlING
By Jack Fjschel and Vito Tambarello
A wind tuzmel investigation wa'J llUde of the effect of span, spanwise location, and chord,{ise location of spoilers on the lateral control characteri tics of an "LID-flapped sem:i.sp3J1 wing equipped with a simple spoiler having a projection 5 percent of the cho:cd o In d03termining the effect of spoiler span and spanwise location, the spoiler was mOQ."Ylted at the 70--percentr-chord station with the spoiler span increasing from 10 percent of the semispan to 100 percent of the semispan. The chordwise investigation involved. moving a 50-percent-semispan spoiler from the 50-percent chord station to the 80-percent·-cr.ord. station.
Curves are presented. :::howing the variation of rolling-moment and yawing-mament ef'fectivoneas with spoiler span. The results indicated that the variation of roD.. ng--moment effectiveness with spoiler span showed a trend similar to that of ailerons for a geometrically similar 'nne. This siIP.ilari ty suggests the possi bili ty of employing aileron design data j.n the preliminary design of spoilers at low angles of attaclc. For a more exact estimation of the spoiler rolling moment expected at large angles of attack, however, consideration should be given to the change in effectiveness with angl e of attack. The spanwise yrnnng-moment effectiveness for ailerons and spoil ers shoved the same trend. with spamT se location; but because t he spoilers gave favora.ble yawing moments , the spoiler data differed i n sign from the aileron data. Wnen the 50-pel~ent semispan spoil er was moved rearward fram the 50-percent-chord station to the 80-percent-chord station on the unflapped "VT ng, both the rolling-moment anQ yawing-moment coefficients were reduced.
INTRODUCTION
The use of spoilers as lateral-control devices has l opg been a subject of research for the National Advisory Comnli ttee for Aeronauti cs. Same notabl e merits of spoilers, such as control at 2 NACA TN No. 1294 high angles of attack, favorable yawjng moments, and the practicable use of full-span flaps with spoiler arrangements, have been known for some time. In addition, it has been found that spoIlers generally provide greater rolJ.ing lllJlJlents when full--span flaps are deflected, particularly when the spoiler moves through an opening (spoiler slot) in the wing . These and other ae.odynamic character istics of spoilers, such as spoiler lag, beve been studied and presented in numerous papers, (See references 1 to 5.) Several flight investigations have been made to illustrate the practicability of employing opoilers on airplanes equipped with full-span flaps in order to secure lateral control. (See references 6 to 8.) An investi gation reported in reference 9 suggests the use of spoilers in front of ordinary ailerons in order to increase the rolling moments and to decrease the aileron hinge moments in higr;-speed flight .
The present investigation was mad~ in the Langley 300 MPH 7- by 10--foot tunnel to ascertain tl1e effect of sJ,:anvrise and chord'Hise location of spoilers on spoller effectiveness. An attempt is mad.e to determIne whether present aileron des:lgn data (such as found in reference 5) can be used to design spoi~er-type ailerons. Tests were made with a semis.£)an w'ing of a 50-percent-semispan spoiler varying in position from t.h'9 50--percent-chord station to tho Bo-percent-chord station, whereas other t ests included spoilers mounted at the 70-pel'cent-cho:l:'d station with the spoiler span increasing from 10 p6:rcent of the semispan to 100 percent of the semispan in 10-percent increments . AddHional tests were made to study the effect of gaps between spoil~r segments .
MODEL AND APPARATUS
The semispan wing was mounted in the Langley 300 MPH 7- by 10-foot tunnel as a reflection-plane model, that is, with its root chord adjacent to one of the tunnel walls (fig. 1) . The wing was slpported entirely by two struts which, in turn, were mounted on the tunnel balance system. There was a gap of approximately 1/16 inch between the tunnel wall and the root end of the model.
The semispan wing model was built to the dimensions shmm in figure 2 and had an NACA 4420 airfoil section at the root and an NACA 4410 airfoil section at the tip . ' The spo~ le:::,s were of triangular cross section and were mounted on the wing as shown in figure 2 with the front face of the spoilers approximately normal to the wing surface . The height of all the spoilers measured 5 percent of the airfoil chord, and the spoilers were cut into segments 10 percent of the model senispan. NACA TN No 1294 3
TESTS
MOAt of the t ests were run at a dynamic pr essure of 99 pounds per s~uare foot, which corresponds to a vel ocity of about ?07 miles per hour or a Mach numb er of 0 .27 under standard sea-l evel eonditions . This velocity corresponds to a Reynolds number of about 2 .69 x 106 based on a mean ·aerodynamic chord of 1.60 4 f eet. Additional tests wer e made with Mach numbers ranging from 0 .13 to 0 . 39, corresponding to Reynolds numbers of 1.40 X 1 6 to 3.74 X 106, respectively.
The angles of attack for all tests ranged f rom about _60 to t he stall. In the spanwise investigati on, three systems of testing were emp l oyed with the spoiler mounted at the 70-percent-chord stat ion. The first system involved increasing the spoil er span in 10-percent increments ,11th the outboarcl end of the spoiler fixed at the wing tip. For simplicity, these spoilers are her einafter referred to as If outboard spoile. rs. " The second system involved the same process; however, the inboard end of the spol1er vm s fixed at the wing root. These spoil ers are r eferred to as "inboard spoilers." In the third system, several isola ted spoiler spans ·were t ested (some with large gaps between spoiler segments) end are referred to as "isolated spoilers." Comp l ete data are not presented her ein f or the inboard and isolated spoilers. but reference will be made to the rolling moment data for these'two t ypea of spoilers.
For the chordv.rise invostigation a 50 -percent-semi span outboard spoiler was used and t ested at the 50-, 60-, 65-, 70-, 75-, and Bo-percent-chord stations.
Some additional tests were made with the 50 -percent-semi span outboard spoiler mounted at the 70-percent-chord station. These tests involved cutting the spoil er into five equal parts in order to provide gaps of Oo14-! 0 .54-, and l.OB -percent s8J11ispan between spoiler segments (fig. 2 ) .
SYMBOLS AND CORRECTIONS
lift coeffi cient (q~ where L is bace lift of semispan mOdel)
drag coefficient (D)qS
pitching-moment coefficient (~where M is twice pitching qSc moment of semispan model ) 4 NACA TN No, 1294
rolling-moment coefficient (-~) qSb yawing-moment coefficient ("_!L') ,.qSb
wi.ns mean aerodynamic chord (H.A.C.), feet
"-21 b/2 c'-') dy) (S 0 c local vring chord, feet y distance from plane of Gy:nnnetl'Y, feet
S twice area of s emi span model, s quare f eet b -!:;iviee span of sem.:1.span model, f eet
D twice dr ag of ser:lis:!?an lilod.el, pounds
L rolling maoent dte t o spoiler measured. about wind axis in plane of symmetry, foot pounds
N yawlng moment due to spoi1er measured about wind. 8.o1Cis 1n plane of symmet~T, f oot pounds a. angle of attack with r espect to chord line, degrees q free-stream dynamie pressure, pounds per square foot (~V2)
V free-"stre8lll velocity, feet per s econd p mass density of air, slugs per cubic foot
A aspect ratio A. taper ratio ('TiP~h ~) Roo~ chor d o control deflection, degrees
~ change in effecti ve ancle of attack caused by control 65 deflection; aile:::'on effectiveness factor
~ change in effective angle of attack, degrees NACA TN No. 1294 5
M Ma~h number
Reynolds number
rolling-·moment coefficient due to a tmi t change in effccti ve angle of attack over pa~t of wing span occupied by control surface; rolling-momont effectiveness par~eter
Yfl.wing-moment coefficlent due. to a un1 t change in effective a..l'lgle of attack ovcr -pa.rt of vTing SpElIl occupied by control surface; yawinr;-moment effectiveness 'Parameter
The forces B.nd moments e,r e presented about t~e wi nd axes with the origin at the 30-perc.ent '!Jo:i.nt of t.ho root chord en the chord 1?lane.
The rolling-moment. and. ~awin .3 · ·moment. coeff:1.dents represent . the aerodynemic moments on a ('.omple+:'e vin '!. due to the deflection of the spoiler on one semispan wing . The lift, rlrag, ' ancl pitching-moment coefficients l'el?l'esent t'l1e l'lerodynamic effects that occur on the complete wing; as a result of the d.eflection of the spoilel's on both semiEr9an ,·rins s .
Jet-boundary cor.;. ectJons we:"6 applio(l to 'the test da t.a with t he use of reference 10 . The effects of the jet boundaries became magnified f or model configu:r:'a tions h::J.v ·. nf..~ S'j )(1 ilBr spans ne,lr the r eflection plane . "Blockage cOT_'ections were 111so 8.pplieo. t n the test data b,,- methods of reference 11 . The ·c.at a were not corrected for the t are omd interferenc0 effects of the model support system.
DISCUSSION
Plain-~.Tin3 ChRracteristics
Lift, drag, and pitchinJ -moment cha.racter~ . stics of the plain wing are 'l)resented in f i .gure 3. The value of the J.1ft- curve slope dCL/ dCt (o.n89 ) agreed very well wHh the theoretical value (0 .090) for a w:lng of the same aopect ratio a s thqt of the present wing . (See reference 12. )
SpanwiS0 Investi8ation
Characteristics of outboard. spoilers ~- Reoul to of the outboard spoiler investigation (fig . l~ ) indicated th t j.ncreasine the ~poiler 6 NACA TN No. 1294 span increased the rol11ng-moment coefficients for spoiler spans up to 0.90b/2 at angles of attack of about 00 and indicated that these incromonts in rolling--moment coefficient decreased with the larger spoiler spans. The rolling moment produced by a given spoiler remained fairly co~ctant over a large part of the angle-of-attack 0 range but began to decrease at an angle of attack of about 6 , at whlch point flow separation is believed to occur. Beyond that point, the rolling moment produced by a given spoiler span was greatly diminished.
The yawl~oment coefficients produced by the spoilers were favorable As indicated in reference 2 for roarward spoiler locations, the presence of spoilers produces stalling moments. Figure 4 indicates that the stability (as indicated by the slope of the pitching-moment- coefficient curve agalnst angle of attack) increased as larger spoiler spans were used. Drag was found to vary linearly with spoiler span. This variati on was also generally true of the pitching-moment and lift coefficients. Figure 4 also indicates that the effect of spoilers on pitching moment and drag decreases as the angle of attack Jncreases. 'Y~riation of . ~oil~r effectiveness w ~!-.E:.9~nwise loca~!.on.- In order to determine the possibility of p'reparing one design cha.rt of spoilor effectiveness for various spanwis6 locatione from data obtained by the three systems of testing spoilers employed in the present investigation, the rolling-moment coefficients for given spoiler spanwise locations as calculated from the data for spoilers extending inboard from the tip (outboard spoilers) are compared in figure 5 with the measured rolling-moment coefficients of spoilers extending outboard from the root (inboard spoilers) or mounted in isolated locations along the span (lsloated spoilers). The rolli ng momonts calculated from the outboard-spoiler data were obtained by intorsubtraction of the rolling-moment-coefficient data of figure 4 for the spoiler span and spanwise location concerned. The ,data of f i gua'e 5 show rather close agreement between the values of Cl obtained from inboard and isolated spol1ers and t4e values of C! calculated from outboard-spoiler data for the same spoiler location and indicate that the rolling effectiveness for various spoiler 'spanwise locations may be computed from one design chart. Such a design chart showing the variation of rolling-moment effectiveness parameter and yawing-moment effectiveness parameter C! /6~ and Cn!6a, respectively, with spoi ler span and spanwise NACA TN No . 1294 7 locat1~n is presented in figure 6. The rolling-effectiveness curves were obtained from both the inboard-speiler and the outboard-spoiler data, whereas the yawing-effecttveness curves were obtained only frma the outboard-spoile~ data. The data for spoilers of any span are computed by the following equations: Cn = (Cn) ~/~~art i~l-,s ::?a n s~olle:) 6a 6~ C full-span spoiler nfull-spnn spoiler The curves of f iguro '6 show ' the rOl.l:!.ng-mome'nt 'and ya,ring moment coofficients produced by a unit change of angle of attack over the part of the wing spanned by the spoiler. Although t he curves show that C d/:~a . i ncreases somewhat wl-:'h angle of attack for a given spoi ler sran and projection, the change in effect i ve angle of attack 6~ Gver a given GPoilor. bpan ~ rod uced by a spoiler depends on the wins angle of,attacK so that t~e f inal rolling-mom9nt coefficient n~y become less as ~ i ncreases. In the ~rescnt investigation 6~ WgS found to decr ease as ~ increased. The yawing~oment coefficients are' seen to decrease with all increase in anglo of attack, which tends to make the yawing momeilt less favorable. Comparison of effectiveness pararnete:s, _Cl/':'~ an~nl6~_ be~ween 8poilers_~nd .. ~1-1e r 'E~s for ~arious ~anwIse locations .- The effectiveness parameters C1 76~ and Cnl6~ of a wing e~uipped with ailerons (ref erence 5) and having the same geometric characterist j cs as the present wing are compared in figure 7 with the effectiveness parameters obtained with spoilers i n the present i nvestigation. The rolling.-effectiveness curves for both the ailerons and the spoilers show the same trend with spanwise location but differ slightly in magnitude,. It should be noted that the 'ai leron r olling effectiveness parameters are theoretic61~ and the dIscrepency shown in figure 7 between spoiler and a i leron rolling effectiveness parameters is no greater than that shown in reference 5 between experimental and theoretical aileron data. Inasmuch as the values of Cd6.~ over the span of a wing should be independent of the type of control surface inducing the change in effective angle of ,attack and, hence, the roll~ it is believed that conventional-aileron design data can be used for preliminary design of spoiler-type a'ilerons provided the 8 NACA TN No~ 1294 wing angle of attack is smalL For a more exact estimation of the rolling-mament coefficient expected at large angles of attack, however, the present spoiler data should be used for a wing having the same plan form or consideration should be given to the effect of a on C~/6a for other wing plan forms. As previously. indicated, the spoilers provided favorable yawing moments, whereas ailerons provide unfavvrable yawing moments; therefore, the curves of Cn/6a for the two types of control differ in sign but show the same trend with spanwise control location. III addition, the spoiler yawing moment data represent the total yawing moment produced by spOilers, whereas the aileron yawing-moment data represent only the induced yawing moment produoed by ailerons. (See reference 5.) In calculating the rolling-moment or yawing-moment coefficients of wings with ailerons by means of the aforementioned charts of C1/6a and Cn/6a, the aileron effectiveness factor 6a/66 multiplied by the control deflection B is utlized to obtain the change in effective angle of attack 6a and, thence, the values of C~ and Cn • Sp~iler design data cannot employ this simple method of obtaining 6a, however, sinco the data of reference 8 and of other investigations appear to indicate that 6a for spoilers is a complex function of the wing angle of attack., the spoiler projection, the wing-spoiler configuration employed, and tho chordwise spoiler location. Therefore, values of 6a as a function of spoiler projection for the particular wing-spoiler combination considored should be obtained from section data for a similar configuration in order to eliminate three-dimensional aerodynamic effects. Ef~ect~ _~~b~~w~en _~R.9_~ler ~~nts .•- The presence of a gap between spoiler segments apparently had an effect only on the rolling moment coefficients and the draB coefficionts (fig. B). Gaps of less than O.0054b/2 produced no noticeable effect on the rolling moments, whereas tho largest gap decreased the rolling momen~ about 41 percent 2 over most of the range of a. This loss in rolling moment is about 1/2 as much as would have been predicted from figure 6. Chordwise Investigation Aerodynamic characteristics.- Results of ~he chordwise investi gation of spoilers are presented in figure 9. A rearward movement of spoiler location on the wing produced large decreases in the available rolling moment. The rate of decrease of rolling moment with rearward shift of spoiler location changed throughout the anglo-of-attack range so that the mi nimum rate occurred at the most negative angle of attack, whereas the maximum rate occurred at the largest angle of attack tested. It may be noted that at the most rtACA TN No. 1294 9 forward location C1 increased with angle of attack over part of the range ,of a., whereas at the most rearward location there is a continuous decrease in C1 with inorease in angle of attack. This beneficial effect on the rolling moment resulting from moving the spoiler foxwar0. on the wing ia also accompanied by the adverse effect of increased ~ag in the rolling respo~8e of the wing. Previous results (reference 13) indicate that spoilers located behind the 6o-percent-chord station have negligi ble las, but the lag increases as the spoiler is moved fo~"ard. and would become some'l-That objectionable for spoiler locatians as far forward as the 5O-percent-chord station. Movement of the spoiler rearward (fig. 9) decreased the favorable yawing-mament ooefficients almost Hncarly. In addition, the yawins moment coefficients Incr~ase~ positively (became less favorable) with increase in angle of attack. Linear increments in drag coefficient resulted from movlng the spoiler location chordwise. The pjtching-moment coefficients became more pasitive as the spoiler locati on was moved rearward. Comparison of available . yaw..!~-mOl1tent and rolline-moment dalla for various chordwise locations _ ~~~.91l~:rs .- The rolling-·moment and yawing-moment data for varioue chordwise spoiler locations obtained from reference 2 are compared in figure 10 with similar data obtained fram the present investigation. S~nce tr~ data of reference 2 are uncorrected and were obtained for a wing under different conditions than those for the present wins, the figure is intended to reveal the q,uslltative characteristics of the two winge • . The same general characteri sti cs for the two wings are indicated as foll~~s: As the spoiler was moved forward, the f avorable yawing moment became greater for both the low and high angle of attack and the rolling moment became greater for the large angle of attack. No fO~'ard chordwise location, however, was reached i n the present investigation where a decrease in r olling moment occurred for the low angle of attack as indicated for the epoiler at the 0.30c station in reference 2. As indicated in reference 2 and shown in figure 10, the rolling moment increased at the forward location with increase 1n angle of attack. ~cale effect.- Figures 11(a) to ll(c) show the effect of the variation of Reynolds number and Mach number on the roll i ~oment and. yawing-mome,nt coefflcienta for three chordwiae spOiler locations (~.600, 0.70c, and 0.800). For the low Mach number range covered (0.13 to 0.39), no perceptible effect was produced on the yawing manentsj however, there ws a small inconsistent variation of roll1ng ~nt with Mach number in all three locations. 10 NACA TN No. l 29!~ CONCLUSIONS Wind-tunnel results of a spanwise and chordwise investigation of plain spoilers of O.05-chord projection on a semj:span wing without flaps led to the following conclusions: 1 . The spanvrise rolling-moment effectiveness obtained from spoilers showed a trend similar to that of ailerons for a geometrically similar wing . This similarity suggests the possibility of employing aileron design data in the preliminary design of spoilers at low angles of attack. For a more exact estimatlon of the spoiler rolling moment expected at l arge angles of attack, hovrever, consideration should be given to the change in effectiveness vrith angle of attack. 2. The spanwise yawing-moment effectiveness for ailerons and spoilers showed the same trend with spanwise locati on; but because the spoilers gave favorable yawing moments, the spoiler data differed in sign from the aileron data. 3. When the 50-percent-semispan spoiJ.er was moved rearward from the 50-percent-chord station to the 8o-percent-chord station on the unflapped wing, both the rolling-moment and. yaWing-moment coefficients were r 'Jduced. 4. Variation of the Mach number between 0.13 and 0.39 produced no perceptible effect on the yaw1ng-moment coefficients but produced a small inconsistent variation of the rolling-moment c.oefficients. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Field, Va., March 18, 1947 NJ\ CA TN No. 1294 11 REFERENCES 1. Weick, Fred E., and Shortal, Joseph A.: Wind-Tunnel Research Comparing Lateral Control Devices, Particularly at High Angles of Attack. V - Spollers and Ailerons on Rectangular Wings. NACA Rep. No. 439, 1932. 2. Shortal, J. A.: Effect of Retractable-Spoiler Location on Rolling- and Yawing-Moment Coefficients. NAcA TN No. 499, 1934. 3. Rogallo, FranCis M., and Swanson, Robert S.: Wind-Tunnel Development of a Plug-Type Spoiler-Slot Aileron for a Wing with a Full--Span Slotted Flap and a Discussion of Its Application. NACA AIU~, Nov. 1941. 4. Wenzinger, Carl J OJ 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. No. 706, 1941. 5. Weick, Fred E., and Jones, Robert T.: ResumeI I and Analysis of N.A.C.A. Lateral Control Research. NACA Rep. No. 605, 1937. 6. Soul~, H. A., and t<1cAvoy, W. H.: Flight Investigation of Lateral Control Devices for Use with Full-Span Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 517, 1935. 7. Wetmore, J. W.: Flight Tests of Retractable Ailerons on a Highly Tapered Wing. NACA TN No. 714, 1939. 8. Ashkenas, I. L.: The Development of a Lateral-Control System for Use with Large-Span Flaps. NACA TN No. 1015, 1946. 9. Laitone, Edmund V.: An Investigation of the High-Speed Lateral Control Characteristics of a Spoiler. NACA ACR No. 4C23, 1944. 10. Swanson, Robert S., and Toll, Thomas A.: Jet-Boundary Corrections for Reflection-Plane Models in Rectangular Wind Tunnels. NACA ARB No. 3E22, 1943. 11. Them, A.: Blockage Correctj.ons in a Closed High-Speed Tunnel. R. & M. No. 2033, British A.R.C., 1943. 12. Jones, Robert T.: Correction of the Lifting-Line Theory for the Effect of the Chord. NACA TN No. 817, 1941. 13. Weick, Fred E., and Shortal, Joseph A.: Development of the N.A.C.A. Slot-Lip Aileron. NACA TN No. 547, 1935. NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 1 ! . I _I ------"- - ()~ ::x> MODEL CHARACTERIS T IC'::> r3 "'"'yeo. ______J1.90 ~ ft z SpoYl ______l .BB H .Z o Aspect ratio (complete w·lnq)-__ IO.4 ______O.Ll46 Taper- ratio Spoiler height ) 5 pert:.ent of chord (.05e.) ~ MA.C .______\.604 H ~ ;g I + tchord NACA o.ir+od ~ 4420 Typico.l ,=>ect\on t. .alO 1 I _____-. 2S.20 qO0 ------cc==:=:J::::JCI===:==:r=9t ~3~~~3Go.~:J:L::j=1 l L _L COMNITTUFOI AEIOIIAUT~S ~ aq1-" Figure 2. - Diagram of model used in spoiler investigation. Typical spoiler installation ~ (50 -percent semispan spoiler). All dimensions are in inches. Fig. 3 NACA TN No. 1294 .ft ~ .-(YW I-V ~ 0. l--D c v ~ _1 ? ) . ? J:f /Y -cr -.:.. .:.- ~ ~ o ~ CS ... B /6 ~ 2> ~ ;/) ~ ~ 8 lY ~ '-<::) r.: V ~ a /' NATIONAL ADVISORY ~ 17' / FOIl iRoliA1ICS ~ C /'"' c0j"'mj -8 o .4 .8 12 /.6 2.0 Lift coefhcienfJ cf Figure 3. - Aerodynamic characteristics of the plain wing. M = 0.27; 6 R = 2.69 x 10 • NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 4 o -.01 +c -:02 Q) u -.07 -6 -4 0 .q B 12 16 20 Angle of attocK, cx.} deg Figure 4. - Variation of aerodynamic characteristics with spoiler span. 6 Outboard spoilers; M = 0.27; R = 2.69 x 10 . Fig. 4 conc. NACA TN No. 1294 .2.0 .... +- .12. ~ u 0"' 1.6 .04 e o 1.2. o .8 Spoiler span J .4 ~radion bft. ~ + DOlO C .a. .20 OJ 0 o .30 u VI .40 tt: (;> . ~O Q) «J .60 o -4 v .70 -1.2. -8 -.1\ 0 4 8 12. 16 20 Angle of o:ttacK I Q) deq Figure 4. - Concluded. NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 5 from 172 ~ 0 .00 to ~ =0./0 0 I' .00 0;'2 ,20 0 .00 .3 0 <> .00 .40 8 .00 ,50 VJ .00 .60 I> IIJ.Doord spoilers .00 .70 -.010 =...-- cc --~ ~ ...... ( dej1) -.008 - t--- r-zj ~ ' 'l: ~ ~, v- 4 - ~K~ -.006 ~ - 12 ~~ ,\. °2_ '\ Llc& -.004 ~\ '\~ '\ "- -.002 '\ o ~ a: -.002 (deg) - 0 ~ - 4 ell - 5 f-- :-- W~ - /2 L)Q; - .001 j---( 1----I-- V -- - -- .) r--- __ --- - - ~ t------rL ------~ ~ O "fo or ~* 71'P o .2. 4 .6 .8 1.0 Distance from plane of symmetry} if2 Figure 6. - Variation of rolling-moment and yawlng-moment effectiveness parameters with spoiler span and spanwise location 6 for several angles of attack. M = 0.27; R = 2.69 x 10 . NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS. NACA TN No . 1294 Fig. 7 -.01 ,0 r---I-- ~OOB 1-- __ r-~ '- "- ""- . '- "- "- vSpoi/er (fig.6) " ~ / C 2 -.006 ',,' 11(£ K, '\ "" ~ ~004 '<;\ AileronY , '\ (reference 5) -"~ -.002 " , o " NATIONAL ADVISORY -:001 COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTlCS- '\ - r--t--- t-- f\ - t--I-- \ 1------:;'CL=/'O ------1--- -- j -- -- .00\ o .2 4 .6 .6 1.0 Ij Distonce from plane of symmetrl;;l)b/2 Figure 7. - Comparison of variation of rolling-moment and yawing moment effectiveness parameters with spanwise location for ailerons (theoretical) and spoilers (experimental). Aileron values extrapolated for a wing of A = 10, ?\.. = 0.50. Fig. 8 NACA TN No. 1294 r-I _--'1 '-1__ -j-i,fa;;=r:s~Oi,erS I r-~----.50 liZ .. I ur-J 0 - +-c ()) u -.01 4- \4- d) 0 u -.02 Ij=£ +-c / ' <1J t -.03 ~ 0 :/ E Z I 0' )3 c /" ~ - -.04 <;; ;'> /' @ -1 t! ~ 'l: 0 "'" '"'- ~ ~ OL -.oS Gaps bet we en s~lleT seQmeJ2t1 ( ro.chQYl b 2- 6 0 0 .0 014 0 ;) ~ g?g.~ +-c C~, .01 Q) C E~ OU 0 n. E~ 0 ...... I ~ 1- "" ' Q) !..... 0'0 l<'I ~0 g ""l!il Sc5 -.0 1 NATIONAL ADVISORY J-, COMMITTEE FOIl AERONAUTICS -4 0 4 8 12. 16 Angle of o.itacK J ex:. I deg Figure 8. - Aerodynamic characteristics of semispan wing equipped with a 0.50 b/2 outboard spoiler having different gaps between spoiler segments. M = 0.27; R = 2.69 x 10 6. NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 8 conc. .16 1.6 0 1.2 ~ ~ ./ ~ .-l ~ u / - .8 ~ +-c ./ Q) 1':!!!7 Gaps betwetlJ . -5 -4 0 4 8 12 16 Angle of attac KJ r:f..) deg Figure 8. - Concluded. Fig. 9 NACA TN No. 1294 o r-' U~ -01 +-c Q) () ~0 2 4- 4- illo u -.03 +-c QJ Eg. -04 I 0' ~ -.05 o ()( ~06 Spol/er / oc atio/) 1---+--+-+--1 Q o. 50c o .60c o .65c 6 .70c 'V .7'5 c [> .80c NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE fOIl AERONAUTICS -LI 0 4 8 12 16 20 Angle of attocK} \X) deg Figure 9. - Variation of aerodynamic characteristics with chordwise location of spoiler. Spoiler length, 0.50b/2; M = 0.27; 6 R = 2.69 x 10 . Outboard spoiler . .~------~ NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 9 conc. .1 -+-E ~ ....&- -:AI!!t ~- ..... c: u 0 "'-.J d) of--- ...sr-:: ~ ~ ~ Ec ..- ~ ~ ~ o Q) 8 ~ 9J" EQ ~ :::::1 E8 l'F \ '-I- -: I ::::::::-- 0'4- '< Cd) -0 .16 .cu (- U -2 / +- . ~ ~ o Q.. r/ ~ .12 u of-~ C ./ 4 ~ ~ ).:.J gJ ...... rr-::: u V ~ ~ DB t;: fJ 4- n ':" ...r.).--"V- ~ Q) 1/.11 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ W ,?Y u ~ ~ ~ / .04 (Jl ~ V ~ /.6 "J o o ~§l ~ ~i 1.2 ~ ~5 >Y' ./~ ;/ y --.J ~ 0/ u .8 ...., / ~ ty1 +- / -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Anqle of aitocK I (XI deq Figure 9. - Concluded. ---_ ._- - Fig. 10 NACA TN No. 1294 -.01 , [ ~ource A A o R.erey-eYice 2 6 .0 \.0 o Pres ent InvestIgation lOA OAL\6 t c .OI QJU ex; t +-1- r-+-~~--r-1--+~~+-~~--~~-+~~eg)- o C £ J- -- -f-? 10 E ~ 0 0:'u- C ~ -Q) 00:> 0 -0. 1 :J' 30 40 50 60 70 5 0 9 0 100 :)poiler locotlon)per ce nt chord Figure 10. - Variation of rolling -moment and yawing -moment coefficients with chordwise location of spoilers obtained from data of reference 2 as compared with coefficients from present in vestigation for spoiler span of 0.50 b/2 and spoiler height of 0.05c. ------~------NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. 11a o , ...-... ~ ~Ol 4- 4- 2-.02 y LJ /8 ~c Q) -:03 W § I ~ C (p -.04 ~ ~Ii. c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b -:§Y '----E ~ . 6. o ~ lA ~ CY.. ~05 'IV\ ; R 0 D.le:{ 1.~8 ,.1 101.. 6. .,2- El .3( ~:~4 c +-0 .01 C +-""' ® C t~ 0 0 0 ~::' E~ -0- -0- ,t..- £:"1 -0- eJ'QJ "-" A .rt' f.~' ~ """ cO 0 - 0 "> -.01 cr NATIONAL ADVISORV J. CrMITTr FOIl TAONAUrCS -:-02 -4 0 4 8 12 16 2.0 Angle of attocK) IJ..) deg (a) Spoiler location, O.60c. Figure 11. - Scale effect on roll and yaw characteristics. Spoiler span, 0.50 b/2; outboard spoiler. Fig. l1b NACA TN No. 1294 0 "" U ~ "'" +-c f Q} -.01 u ~ ~ ;> Q) -02- J} 0 u oZ' +-c: Q) -.03 A E 0/ o p E A/ &-.04 '7 c Cl A l. ~ ~ . ~ r ~~ ---i:1 ... ~ o (; '/ Ci -.05 M R 0 0,13 lAO "'10 0 .Iq I. '18 {:" 2.6Q 0 ',~~ 3.74 c +--U c+-~ .01 QlC Eg2 QU A ::2. E-= 0 A v .;rO , '-I- ~. ..." V ~ ~ 'V' 0'0) R v cO /. .,; -0 ~ ~ 5 -.01 0 Po. NATIONAL ADVISORY COjHITTEj FOIl AjRONAUrCS ~O2.. -Li 0 4 . 8 12 16 20 Angle of attocK} Q, deg (b) Spoiler location, O. 70c. Figure 11. - Continued. NACA TN No. 1294 Fig. llc u 0 ..., +- C (\) /~ o -01 ~ 4- va ill y 6 8 -.02 + c/ C /6 / ~ -.03 ~ o n I ~ E ~ ~ (p -:04 ~ -----'t.~ Do .- c It!: o a -.05 M R 0 O,lQ l.g B x 10'" 6 ,27 2.6C1 0 ,3Q 3.74 c: +-u 0 c+-"'· I Q)C E~ au jj, 0 A J<:)-- "'-/ ~ E~ 0 ~ I~ 1m = ~~ ()lQ) CO E:l ~ ~ u -.0 I A NATIONAL ADVISORY COiMITTj FOR ArONAUI'CS -;02 -6 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Angle of atiacK) \1...) deq (c) Spoiler location, O.80c. Figure 11.- Concluded. 1 I I