i!

W,,

No. L5L2Q

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WAlrlmm
Originally

Iuwolrr
ISSUED

Januaqy 19h6as Advmoe Rewlricted ReportL5129 SERAY~!IWS Imwmc MmEL OF A P(HERED

0FAITX12NG BQA!I!HKYYXGAEUIL WI~ A ~ RATIOOF 9.0

By Roland E. OJsonand JoeW. Bell. Iangley Mwmial Aeronautical Iaboratoxy Imgley Field, Va.

,. ..,.

. ...-

,.
)

NA@i&::--
,

!, ! .

,,. .

.$

-. .-.

. ->> ,.

LMWEY

MEMOW f~NLL~iiuikbM ~RAToR-Y

WASHINGTON

~. .,4

gasgkymwl v%

NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were previously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these~reports were not technically edited. AH have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.

L -763

31176013644151
.. 1 --- --

NACA ARR No. L5L29 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS REPORT
. ..-. .. . .;. ..-

SPRAY CHARfiCkER16TICS OF A POWERED DYNAMIC MODEL OF A FLYING BOAT HAVING A HULL WITH A LENGTH-BEAM RATIO OF 9c~ By FtolandE. Olson and Joe W. Bell SUMMARY ~ -1 An investigation of the spray characteristics of a ~-size powered dynamic model.of a twin-engine flying ;~at was made in Langley tank no. 1. The design was similar to that of the Boeing .XPBB-1flying boat, but the len@h-beam ratio of the hull was increased from 6.3 to 9,0 while constant length2-beam product and height of hull were maintained. The hull frontal area was reduced approximately 25 percent and the volume was reduced approximately 11 percent by this increase in length-besm ratio. At the same gross load, the spray characteristics of the model with a length-beam ratio of 9.0 compared favorably with those of the model of the XPBB.1 flying boat and no adverse effects on the spray characteristics were introduced by the higher length-beam ratio and smaller hull.
.

INTRODUCTION

In order to select the over-all proportions fcr a flying-boat hull, the designer should know the manner in which the hydrodynamic characteristics vary with the lehgth-beam ratio and with the relationship of gross load to the absolute values cf length and beam.

..

. ..

. ..

A few of the effectsbfZem.gth-beam ratio have been investigated In tests of series of hull models (references 1 to 4). The data given in references 1 end ~ are cuncerned principally witihresistance and spray char~cteristics. Curves of yawlng moment and trim llmits of stability are included in reference 2 and the aerodynamic drag of hulls of several length-beam retlosis lncl~~dedIn rsference3. An analysis of the results of resistance tests of several model investigations is reported .inreference ~. Analysis ofthe available data hos shown that increasing the length-beam ratio of a hull to relatively high vslues results in favorable effects on resistance and spray characteristics when the length-beam product of the hull is held constant. . It hasalso been shovm (references L and ~) that the hydrodynamic resistance end spray characteristics ere not changed auprecie.bly by variations of length-hem ratio when lengthz-~eh product is held constant. dhen the length-beam ratio is increased while len.gth2-baam product is held constant, the plan-form area end volume of the hull decreases because of the resulting reduction of the length-beam product.. ~ie aerodynamic data of i*eference 3 indicate that a significant reduction in ihe air begained by increasing drag ot a flying-boat hull m length-beam ratfo from aboutT to 9 while cor.stantlen@h2beam prodl~ctis maintained. Tne favorsble effects of high len@h-beem ratio, therefore, nay be reeli~ed an a reduction in resistance and an imrmo-~exent in sprqf characteristics with hulls cf equal size cm T,Q;I be use:as a means for reducing tb.esiz~ of ths h-ullwithout detriment to tnese characteristics. As a check on this anelysia, an Investigation has the been undert~ken in Langlay tank no. 1 to deterr,ifie hydrod~amlc performance of a acwersd dynamic mtiel having .a length-beam ratio of 9.0. The model represents a hypothetical flying boat similar to the Boeing X?E+l extent that the length-beam ratio was increased from the original 6.3 to 9.0 with constmt lan@h2-bean: product and th=t somewhat dif~erent hull lines were,used. In the design of the experimental modal, the nscelles, wing, , and tail surfaces were pl&ced in,the same propellers relative locations and the height of the hull was unchanged. The investigation of the spray characteristics of the experimental model over the practicable rangg of gross loeds has been completed and the results are presented herein. Data from reference 6 and unpublished results
.

. . . obtained during the tests of refere~oe 6 are included to :glvear-compar~son. of.these spray charaoterZsticswtth . ,. ~-s Ize mode1 ofthe XPBB-1 flying boat. those f e 10
.,

. . ..

SYMBOLS ~

,.

gross-iOad coefflc.ient &# CAO . ( )., . .

A.

gross

load, . pounds .

. . . ,
cubic

~
T

speed, feet per seoond . . trim, degrees .

w b
%

specific wei~tm of water pounds per (63.5 for these tests~ mwimum besm, feet

foot . .

length of forebody from bow to step, feet nondimensional coefficient relatin~ f~rebody proportions to spray character~ctics

The powered dynamic model (figs. 1 ahd 2), designated Langley tank model 203A, is a ~-sj.zs mcdel of a hypothetical flylng boat esssntislly similsr to the XPBB-1 flying boat except for the form and proportions tifthe hull. The nacelles, propellers, wing, andtail suzzfaces of the hypothetical flying boat were tho same as those of the XPBB-1 and were placed In the sue relativa locations. The dimensions of the hull were derived by lncreasin~ the length-beam ratio from that of the parent design (6.3) to 9.0 while length2-besm product was held constant. The ratio of length of fore.bodyto length of .afterbody was made the same as thqt ofthe parent design. The depth of the hull waR made equal to that of tileXPBB-1 flylng boat. . . .. /,. . . .. .. -.

..

___ -_

_..

T@e llnes of the hull are sh~wn in figure 1 and the general arreng?~nt Is compmed with that ofLangley tank model 174 (the ~-s Ize model of the XPB~-1) in f@ure3. A f&ther conrpsrlsonof the dti.eniions okmoclels203A and 174 is given in table I. The forebody chine flare of both models was horizontal from tinestep to st~tion 7. Forwsrd of station 7 the chines oimodel Z03A were turned down and reached a constant value of 10 at station 5. This value was maintained over the rest of the forebody. The depth of step was 9 percent bema. The angle between the forebody and afterbody keels wes 5.4. The Increased length-beam ratio resulted In generally finer lines and less cumature thm those of the XPIN+l. The lines above the chines were simplified in order to m8intain vertical sides snd thus facilitate modifications to the bottom. The areas and volumes of the hulls of models 203A and 174 are compared in the followlng table: Mode1

~~s!l=!l!l.

%* I ~:;? [ ~% t?% I %?g: ~ %i: - . . frontal area of As compared with model 17j~,tineWle::timn .~ro:{imately 23 percent, the model 205A was decreased :.volume (nose to stern~asi] wss reducsd approximately approximately k per11 percent, end the skin Px@e-=du@ cent. These vslues wouldbe expected to change sli;jhtly if the llnes were ad8pted to an actuel hull. l!hemodel was of built-up construction similar to that described in reference 6. Two motors turned the three-blade metal propellers. Leading-edge slats were installed on the wing to delay the stall and make the stall occur at anglas more nearly equal to those expected for the full-size airplane. APPARATUS AND ?ROCEZX.EE The testiswere made in Langley tank no. 1, which 1s desoribed in reference 7.. Tho towing gear and some of the test procedures are described In reference e.

+
section

Maximum 1

Voluwe, Total T ~ (sq in.) (CU in.) ~ tetn?ost

.

=-i

~l--#=-

5
T@ prcrpellersof tha model were adjusted to a bl=de angle of 140 and roteted at )+550rpm to provide thrust t?or.. these..t,ests.. The effective thrust was measured with the model at Oo trim with fleps -sptatOo--tl?he effeotive thrust used in the tests of model 203A 1s shown in figure 4. This thrust Is approximately. the same as that used during tests of model 174-(flg. 1). In-order to provide data from which the approximate loed on the water can be estimated, the aerodynamic lift and pltchin moments were determined with full power and flsps at 205 by running the model h. the air and measuring the change in tension in two supporting cables (one attached at the pivot that was located.at ~ percent mean aerodynamic chord O.d+ M.A.C., and one just forward of the vertical tail!. Data .obtsined with an elevator deflection of -10 are shown in figure.5. Suray photographs and observations were made wfth the model ~ree to trim at constant end accelerated ~peeclsover the practicable range of rosa loads with the center of gravity of the model et 28 percent meen aerod~amic chord, the elevators at -10, and the flaps at 209. Speeds at which snrey entered propellers or struck tb.efl~..ps were noted for each load. The trim was the angle between the forebody keel and the base line. RESULTS .W!l DISCU3!310N The renge of speeds over which spray entered the propellers is plotted against gross load in figure 6. The most significant part of this spray range is that bounded by the solid llnes. Jithin this range the bow %lister entered the propeller disks and the greatest damage to the propellers would be expected. Photographs showing the bow spray of m~del 203A are presented In figure 7. At a gross load of b5.o pounds, light spray entered the propellers. At a gross load of 1.5 pounds, this spray was excessive. A gross load of z 1.5 pounds appeared to be a practicable limit from considerat~ons of spray in the propellers. The range of.speeds over which spray entered the propellers of model 17)+is shown, together with comparable data for model 203A, in figure 6. ~is range was determined from a stu&J of spray photographs (fig. 9) and

.,

. . ..

. ---- .

. ..-

.. .-

motlon pictures. Thespeeds at which.the bow blister entered the propellers could not be disthgutshed from the speeds et whioh loose spray entered, but photo~raphs and motion pictures indicate that thess speeds sre very nearly the sine. The totsl speed rmge over which srmay entered the propellers of inodel 174. was slightly less th~n thqt of model 203A erldWRS shifted towmd lower speeds. A study of the spray photogrw?hs (figs. ~ &nd 9 ) indicates that more spray was thrown over tinetog of the wing of model 174 than ofmodel 203A. This fact is also shown clearly in the stern photographs (figs. 10 and 11). The down flare on the chines of model 203A forward of the propellers probably contributed to this difference. The range of speeds over which spray struck the flaps of model 203A is shown in figure 12. Photographs showing the spray on the flaps of models .203A and 174 ere presented in figures 10 md 11, respectively. me amount of sp~ay striking the flaps with power appeued to be approximately the same for both models. T-herange @f speeds ovor which the spray struck the flqs of model 171\ wss not accurately determined but the photographs and motion picturss Indicate that this range Is not greatly different from tket of model 203A. The roach from under the affterbody of model 203A wetted the tail extension and tk.e hcrizontial tail at the root (fif. 10). This spra~ w95 very hee.vy durfng runs without power. At planing speeds the spr=~ from mder the forebody struck the tips of the ho~iizontsltail of model 203A (fig. 10); without powar, this sprsy was hea~. Simi1m spray characteristics were noted for model 174 (fig. 11) but the amount of spray s=riking the horizontal tall appeared to be less tlhn ~or model 205A. For conventional multisngine flying boats, the analysis of ~eferonce 5 ifidlcatasthat the gross lo~d and dimensions ofthe hull are relatsd by the expression
. = CAO

kpi

\T )

where values as follows:

of

are given for verious spray conditions

. - ..- .

.- . .-. L

..

..

.
f

7
. .

- . -

conditlone I k ;..-+.-- . --- : 0.0 25 L&t .0 275 Satlsfaotory Heavy but acceptable for overloads .0825 ! .0975 Exoessive j ---Spray ,.,., . - .-.
.A. . . . . .-.

The values of k end the corrqspondlng observed over-all spray characteristics of model 203A may be summarized as follows: Gross:load coefff.cl~~ CAO
.~..

~-----k Spray e~aluation

I
,

1,8 2.. 201?

- --. ..-.

i- -..-..~

n.G67 i .08 i .09 z :

Ll@t
..

-.

Practicable limit . Excessive

-- ---

This evaluation agrees essentlell~ with what would be predicted from tho values of the coefficient k derived from experience with conventional lengtii-beam ratios. Hence, the possiblo reduction in hull size obtalnod by the increase h len@h-beem ratio Investigated would not be expected to have any edverse effect on the spray characteristics of an airplme OS the X?BB-1 type.

Theover-sll spray characteristics of the model with s length-beem r.~tioof 9.0 were acceptable up to a ~ossload coefficient of 2.2 and were excegsive at a grcmsload coefficient of2.b. Those characteristics were in agreement with those obtained with conventional lengthbeam ratios at the ssme values of the ratio of gross-load coefficient to the squax-eofthe forebody length-beam ratio. A reduction in hull size is mqdq possibls by the high length-beam ratio without 8dvePSp ef.tecton tha spray characteristics of a ~ltjengine flying boat. The use of high length-beam ratio thesefore offers the possibility of reducing the over-all dra~ ofsuch a fUJing boat in .

1--.,

. .

.-

,-

.,-

..-

. 8
cases wherethe dimensions of the hull are primarily detemined by spray and seaworthiness requirements. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratmy National Mvlsory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Field, Va. . REN?RENCES 1. Bell, Joe W., Garrison, Charlie C., and Zeck,Hotiard: Effect of Length-Beam Ratio on Resistance and Spray of Three Models of Flying-Boat Hulls. NACA ARR No. 3J23, 1943. . . 2. Davidson, Kenneth S. M., and Locke, F. W, S., Jr.: General Tank Tests on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Four Flying-Boat Hull Models of Differing Length-Bean Ratlc. NACA ARR No. 4F15, 1944.

3. Clark, K. l%.,and Coombes, L. P.:

Tank Tests of a F=ily of Four Hulls of Vqrying Length to Beam Ratio. Rep- NO. B.A. 1350, British R.A.E., Nov. 1936.

4. L~d, Norman S., Bidwelli Jerold M.,and Gcldenbaum, David M.: The Resistmce of Three Series of FlyingBoat Hulls as Affected by Length-Beam Ratio. NACA AFUl~~o . L5G23, 1945. 5. P*kinson, John B.: Design Criterions for the Dimensions of the Forebody of a Long-Range FlyingBoat. NACA ARR No. 3K08, 1943. 6. King, Douglas A., and Mas, Newton A.: Effectson Low-Speed Spray Characteristics of Various Modifications to a Powered Model cf the Boeing XPBB-1 Flying Boat. NACA l!ERNO. L5F07, 1945. .
7. Truscott, Starr:
.-

The Enlarged N.A.C.A. Tank, and Some of Its Work. NACA TMNO. 918, 1939.

8. Olson, Rola& E. , a~ Land, No&an S.; ?@thods Used in the NACA Tank f or the Investi.gatl on of LongitudinalStaMlity Characteristics of Models of Flying Boats. NACA Rep. No, 753, 1943.

..

.-.

t..

,. -..

TABLE I . . -----,-, ,., .-. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .COMPARISON OF BASIC DIMENSIONS OF A(4 MODELS 203A MD 1
\ . .

Model 203A Model 174.

Hull : in. Imgth of forebody, @. hng~h of afterbody, in. Mngth of tail extension, in..., Length,oyer-all, in. Length-beam ratio , Type of step Depth of step at keel, in. Angle of dead rise at step. . Excluding chine f~~~a, deg lncludti~ chine fl-e, deg, Aiigleof forebody keel, deg Angle ofafterbody keel, deg Angle of sternpost to base line, deg &gle of forebody chine flare at step, deg
Beam msxhum,

9.f35 yo
llL.1 5

279

9.0

0.89

Transverse Transverse

1.10

20
15.9 0
5*4

20 17.9 0
5-4

6.7
0

7.2
0

Area, sq ft Span, In. Root chord, In. Angle of incidence, deg Mean aerodynamic chord (M.A.C.) Length, projected, in. Leading edge aft of bow, in. Leading edga forward of sliep,h. Le;&&g eti~eabove base s

18.26

167.65 19.20
4

18.26 167.65 19.20 4 16. 8 *t

q

16.48 43.04

8.0 18.34

8.3 18.35
f

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

,,

. .

10
TABLE IConcluded

i-.

COMPARISON OF BASIC DIMENSIONS OF MODZm 203A ~D 174 - Concluded

Model 203A Mocie 1 174

Horizontal tpll surface: Area, Sq ft Span, in. Angle or stabilizer t~ wing chord, deg Elevator root chord, h. Elev~tor semispen, in. LenGth from.2+percent M.A.C. OF wing to fii~e line of elevetors, Height above btia~e line, in. . Propellers: Number of prozellgrs Number of blades Diametar, in. Angle oftknust line to base line, deg Angle of blade at 0.75 radius, deg Clearsnce above keel line, in.

3933 51.6

3*33 51.6

e599
22.

&

2
4

2
J.4

999

9:9
. .

4.925 PIAX

h2UF-6READJH % I .
.. z o .

/ ~

)/

.(

-2/.2s 1

L
+1.MODEL

.
1 1
1

(-

d4=+ L 0.89
lf6. 65 w

8.s 51.04

FIGURE

203R.

I!.JKS

OF HULL.

IN

MM%.

Fig. NACA ARR No. L5L29

Figure

2.-

Photographs

of

model 203A.

NACA

ARR

No.

L5L29

Fig.

Jlb=n

+,,,

i f \ I 1
I I
Model

f74

.4

I 1 I I --,1 ;>

23

12.!+
n

3.?044

___ ----. \

~~LI

Um3nq ~ JIEW4JTKS

[OR

FzqLwe

3 .

Ccqcarison

of /nxael Z03A wh%

model

174

(XPBB-1).

, : IP i

23

Model 17b \

15

---

10

1 1 i

i 5
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE F(MAEROMAUTICS

o o

10

15

35

w
z o .

Figure4 .- Model 203A. Variation of effective thrust with speed. Fullpower,4,550rpm; bladeangle,14;flap deflection, OO; trim,0.

NACA ARR No. L5L29

Fig.

Trim, deg Q o El Q 08 A 12

-..

Trim, deg ,12

10

20

m
Speed,fps

50

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEFU AERONAUTICS

Figure 5 .- Model 2D3A. Variation in aerodynamic lift and pitching moment with speed. Full power, Q,550 rpm; center of gravity, ~ percent M.A.C.; flap deflection, X); elevator deflection, -1OO. II

Fig.

NACA

ARR

No.

L5L29

100

II
L

IW!Y7+//l y]
1I
~ ,
9 1
1

Propellers clear

>

\ \ \ \ qx

/ Propellers clem i 1 )I t-~ / / ~

60

NATIONAL
COMMlmEE F~

ADVISORY
AERONAUTICS

8
Speed,

12
fps

16

xl

Figure 6 .- Model ~~.

Speed range over Which spray

enters the propellers. Full power, 4,S5C) ~; center of gravity, ~ percent M.A. Q flap deflection, ~; elevator deflection, -1OO.

-,--,

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

s 

  



m
64 .. .
Gross load, A0,65,0 pounas !. (65,500 Ib, full size)

z .

Gross load, pounds (82,0001 b, full slzej

Gross loud,

A0,81.5

Ao, 91.5 pounds

(92,0001 b,full size)

Figure of

7.gravity,

Model
28

203A.
percent

Spray characteristics,
M.A L.
c.:

bow, deflection,

F u1l

power,

4,550

rpm:

cent -10

flap

20 ; elevator

deflection,

er o.

nbrlOIAL ADv180Rv COMMIT7*E mm AEmmAuTtc# LLMOLI1 MEMORIAL AE~O#AUTIC&L LABOli?O1l - LA1OL1Y PIRLD, VA.

---=a

v,

z o .

T,6.3

13.ofps

8,1

hmih

,... , 78

a
?Jf<.*, @., -. .,6 . .<, ..$.,:, ;::

,+#---

..K .: ~;.,.. .,.=.

10,2

%!
l--

z
q

c1 o
3 e
q

y
18.0 fp!5

7,1010

112

19,0fps

98

114

~ Ao, 65.0 pounds .31 % % Ij k j

-,,

.-

9 i i ) ~ .

2oof ps

Ill Ao, 815 pounds

120 Ao,915 pounds

F~gure

7.-

Model

203A.

Concluded.

MATlORbL knvlsonl couM1T7nt ran hnlOm AU?lca LAMoLET uEUORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABOKAT06T - LAROLE1 ?IZLD, VA

NACA ARR

No.

L5L29

Fig.

100

Spray in
propellers Model 17U Model ~~

w
Propellers clear

\ I ~ 1 I
\ \ i1 \ \ y I 7 \ \ / / / / / /

/ 1 Propellers clear /
I #

80

70

60

NATIONAL

ADVISORY

COUMITTEE ~AEROUAUIKS

04

12 Speed, fps

16

20-

Figure 8 .- Model 1~. Speed range over which spray enters propellers. Full power, 4, ~ ~; center of gravity, ~ percent M.A. Q flap deflection, ~; elevator deflection, -10.

~ Speed! z 0 . i j ~ Trim, r, 6.1 6.1 6.3

/ f ;

6.3

6.8

:6.80

.. ..... ,,. ,,. j * 6.8 Gross load, ~; 65.0 pounds (65,500 lb, full size ) Figure of 9.gravity, Model 28 174, percent Spray 7.4 Gross load, Aa, 81.5 pounds (82,000 Ib, full size) characteristics, flap deflection, bow. Full 200; power, elevator Gross load, Ao, 91.5 pounds (92,000 Ib, full size) 4,200 rpm; deflection, center -100,

M.A.C,:

NAT IOR&L ADV180RT COUUITTIE POR AERoWAUT1C8 LAMGLET U8U0RtAL AERONAUTICAL LABoRATORY - LA~OLR? ~ltLD, VA.

u)

z o .

,,, . ,. , 1.

10.OO

.,9,80

:;,
pound-s.:

&o,6$.0pounds
Figure
LAm.m

A.,81.5 pounds
9.Model 174. Concluded,

A0,91.S

P m . a o 3 0
q

nATIOflALADv180nl couwtmm to~ Acn0nAv71cm MnuORIAL AsmOnAuf IcAL 1.LBou70RY - LAUOLET FIELD. vi.

Speed, v, 9.0 fps

i,.

6.2

z
>.+ @*
,.-.

.1 ,,
. -..

~r+;
..

%<
z

o .

7.2

Io.of ps

6.0 ~ ..... :.% :, z .. 6.1 Gross load, ---. .. . 7. 8 Gross load, A,.. 91.5 pounds *

.:,\,:.*

., .+?$$

11.0fps ?;~..p. %@? . -c i.

Speed, v, 9.0 fps

z 0 . r 6.2 .~
.> -\\ .%3

: N a

?, -* ..- .. .-. , 10.ofps $::

*. . *i

~.

., z

6.5

11,0fps

6.9 Gross load, Ao, 81.5 pounds (82,000 Ib, full size)

Figure power,

10.-

Model 4,550 deflection,

203A. rpm; center

Spray of -1OO.

characteristics, gravity, 28 percent

flap

and M.A.C.;

tail flap

assembly. deflection,

Full 20:
VA.

% P m .
w o

elevator

UATIOBAL &D1180RT COMMITTEE FOB AEBO~ADTICS LL90LET MEMollAL AEnOBAUTICAL LAmOILTOIY - LAXSLS1 ?lUD,

. ... 14.0 fps

8.2 AO, 65.0pounds

Figure

9.2 Ao, 81.5 pounds Ao,

91.5 pounds

10. -

Model

203A0 Continued.

$.

v,

16.01

z o .

10.5

I7.0 fps ..

10.6

18.0

A.,91.5
Figure 10. Model 203As Continued.

pounds

~~

& .

NATIOMAL ADVIBORT COMMITTEE FOR AEROMAUT1C8 LA*GLE1 UgUOR1&L AER9MAUT1CAL LABORATO1l - LARGLt T ?lZLD, VA.

z P c) >

v, 19.0 fps

20.0 fps

...
,. ,

2i.ofps

I I .OO Ao, 65.0 pounds Figure Ao, 8i.5 pounds 203A. Concluded.

Ao, 91.5

pounds

10, - Model

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUMITTEE FOR ACROUAU71C8 LA90LE1 MEUOKIAL AEROMAUTICAL LABORATORY - LANGLEY ?lXLD, VA.

speed,

v,
Io.ofps

6,50

b r to a

:3.0 fps

spray prohibitive

15,0 fps

9.!0 Gross load, A. ,91.5 pounds (92,000 Ib, full size) Sp:ay center -1OO.
UATIOIAL ADV180~T COUUITTIE ?01 A#lOIAtlTICB - LAZ~UY FIELS, VA. LLWOLET MIMO1lAL AIRoIAUT ICAL

Fi gure

11.-

Model 4,200

174. rpm;

characteristics, of gravity, 28

flap percent

and M.A.C.;

tail

assembly. flap deflection,

Full 20; % P m .

power, elevator

deflection,

LABOUTO1l

v,
16.0 fps

z o .
r VI r N u)

q, 9.8.0

9.6

18.Ofps

20.ofps .,...,,,. . . . ,..

..,.J .>

9.5 Ao, 65.0 pounds

11,3 Ao, 81.5 pounds Ao,

11.8 91.5 pounds

P

Figure

11. -

Model

174.

Concluded.

P n o

UA71OUAL

LA14LH

Anvraoml coumlmm ron AEn0nALi7tc8 MSMOWIAL AIwO~AU?l CAL LABOLA?O1l - LA80LS1 ?lSLD, VA.

NACA

ARR

No.

L5L29

Fig.

12

100

Propellerspr~ strikesflaps Bow blister trikesflaps, \ /x x \

\ \ \ \ * 3

580

\
\ ,,
1
\

SprW clear of flaps II

I
1

60

I
I

NATIONAL ADVISOQY COMMITTEE FO@~KS

12
Speed, fps

16

23

Figure /2.-

Model 21Y . Speed range over which spray strikes the flaps. Fbll power, U,~ rpm; center of gravity, 28 percent M.A.C.; flap deflection, 23; -~ooe elevation deflection,

. ......

_31176013544~51

llllllllllMfllflli flllilll