Nasa Ntrs Archive 19710026939

NASA TECHNICAL.
NASA TM X-23_
MEMORANDUM
_o
=s
I--.
LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS AT MACH 1.50 TO 4.63
OF A MISSILE MODEL EMPLOYING
VARIOUS CANARDS AND
A TRAILING-EDGE FLAP CONTROL
by Charles D. Trescot, Jr.
Langley Research Center

Hampton, Va. 23365
NATIONALAERONAUTICS
AND SPACEADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON,D. C. OCTOBER1
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA TM X-2367
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
October 1971
LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS AT
MACH 1.50 TO 4.63 OF A MISSILE MODEL EMPLOYING 6. Performing Organization Code
VARIOUS CANARDS AND A TRAILING-EDGE FLAP CONTROL

7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Charles D. Trescot, Jr. L-6163

10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
760-74 -01-03
NASA Langley Research Center '11. Contract or Grant No.
Hampton, Va. 23365
13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Technical Memorandum
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20546
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
An investigation has been made in the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel to determine
the static longitudinal stability and control characteristics of a missile configuration with
cruciform delta wings and various horizontal canards. The controls consisted of three
different trapezoidal canards and a wing trailing-edge flap located on the horizontal wings
only. The tests were made at Mach numbers from 1.50 to 4.63, through an angle-of-attack
range from about -4 to 30 , at an angle of sideslip of 0 , and at a Reynolds number of
8.20 106 per meter (2.5 x 106 per foot).
The results are summarized in the form of various pertinent aerodynamic parameters
as a function of Mach number. Although no detailed analysis of the results has been made,
the summary of results is useful in demonstrating the importance of certain parameters and
should be useful in providing a source of systematic experimental data for correlation with
analytical techniques.
17, Key Words (Suggested by Author(s) ) 18. Distribution Statement
Missile controls
Canard Unclassified- Unlimited
Flap
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22, Price"
Unclassified Unclassified 113 $ 3.00
For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virgin a 22151
LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
AT MACH 1.50 TO 4.63 OF A MISSILE MODEL EMPLOYING VARIOUS
CANARDS AND A TRAILING-EDGE FLAP CONTROL
By Charles D. Trescot, Jr.

Langley Research Center
SUMMARY
An investigation has been made in the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel to determine
the static longitudinal stability and control characteristics of a missile configuration with
cruciform delta wings and various horizontal canards. The controls consisted of three
different trapezoidal canards and a wing trailing-edge flap located on the horizontal
wings only. The tests were made at Mach numbers from 1.50 to 4.63, through an angle-
of-attack range from about -4 to 30 , at an angle of sideslip of 0 , and at a Reynolds
number of 8.20 x 106 per meter (2.5 10 6 per foot).
The results are summarized in the form of various pertinent aerodynamic param-
eters as a function of Mach number. Although no detailed analysis of the results has
been made, the summary of results is useful in demonstrating the importance of certain
parameters and should be useful in providing a source of systematic experimental data
for correlation with analytical techniques.
INTRODUCTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has investigated various types
of controls and lifting surfaces for supersonic and hypersonic missiles to determine
their effectiveness in providing maneuverability through a range of Mach numbers. (See
refs. 1 to 31.) For these missile configurations, both canard controls and tail controls,
either in line or interdigitated with respect to the wings, are employed to provide the
maneuvering capability. Generally, the missile lifting surfaces are low-aspect-ratio
wings which offer advantages such as small center-of-pressure travel, low drag penalty,
and minimum space for stowage.
The present investigation was undertaken to determine the static aerodynamic sta-
bility and control characteristics of a missile configuration with cruciform delta wings
swept 72.9 and various in-line horizontal canards. The controls consisted of various
interchangeable trapezoidal canards and a wing trailing-edge flap on the horizontal wings
only. The configuration was identical with that of reference 14, which was tested at
M = 2.01 only.
The present tests were conducted in the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel and
extend the Mach number range from 1.50 to 4.63 through an angle-of-attack range from
about -4 to 30 . The Reynolds number was 8.20 x 106 per meter (2.5 x 106 per foot).
SYMBOLS
Values are given both in the International System of Units (S1) and in the U.S.
Customary Units. Measurements were made in U.S. Customary Units. The force and
moment coefficients are referenced to both the body and stability axes. The coordinate
origin was taken on the body axis of symmetry at a point 64.35 percent of the body length
from the nose.
A cross-sectional area of body
bc canard span
Axial force
CA axial-force coefficient, qA
Base axial force

CA, b base axial-force coefficient, qA
CD drag coefficient, Drag

qA
Lift
CL lift coefficient,
qA
C m pitching-moment coefficient, Pitchin_ moment

qAl
longitudinal stability parameter measured near zero angle of attack

Cmo/
pitch-control effectiveness of canards measured between control deflections

Cms, c
of 0 and 20 at zero angle of attack, per degree
pitch-control effectiveness of wing trailing-edge flap measured between con-

Cms,f
trol deflections of 0 and -20 at zero angle of attack, per degree
2
CN normal-force coefficient, Normal force
qA
normal-force-curve slope measured near zero angle of attack, per degree

CN_
d body diameter
l length of body
L/D lift-drag ratio
M free-stream Mach number
free-stream dynamic pressure
r radius
X
a.c.
aerodynamic-center location referenced to body length (positive rearward)
ot angle of attack of body center line, degrees
6 c canard deflection with respect to body center line, positive trailing edge
down, degrees
5f flap deflection with respect to wing-chord plane, positive trailing edge

down, degrees
Model-c omponent de signations:
B body
C1,C2,C 3 canard surfaces (horizontalonly, fig. I)
W wing
MODEL
A drawing of the model with pertinent dimensions is shownin figure 1 and a photo-
graph of the model is shownas figure 2. The geometric characteristics of the model are
given in table I.
The bodywas composedof a modified ogive forebody anda cylindrical afterbody.
The forebody, which hadprovisions for mountingthe canard surfaces, had a roundednose
followed by a conical taper which faired into the ogive section. The ratio of overall
length to diameter was 8.67.
Both the wings andthe canards were flat plates with wedge-shapedleading and
trailing edges. The cruiciform wings hada delta planform anda leading-edge sweep
of 72.9. The area of the plain rectangular flaps, which were located on the trailing edge
of the horizontal wings only, was 11.53percent of the exposedwing area. Provisions
were madefor manualvariation of the deflection angle of these flaps from 0 to -30
in 10 increments.
Three different canards, eachhaving a trapezoidal planform and a commonhinge
line (10.54percent of the bodylength), were employedfor pitch control only in the plane
of the horizontal wings. (Seefig. 1.) Provisions were madeto vary the canard deflec-
tion angles manually from 0 to 20 in 10 increments. Canard C1 hadan exposedarea
equal to 9.58 percent of the exposedwing area and a total spanthat was equal to the body
diameter (bc/d = 1.0). Canard C 2 had an exposed area approximately the same as that
of canard C 1 (9.77 percent of the exposed wing area) but had a greater span (bc/d = 1.47)
and consequently a higher aspect ratio. Canard C 3 maintained the same aspect ratio as
canard C 2 but had an exposed area that was approximately 50 percent larger (15.23 per-
cent of the exposed wing area)than that of canard C 2 and a larger span "(bc/d = 1.67_.
\ -- ]
APPARATUS AND TESTS
The tests were made in both the low and high Mach number test sections of the
Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel. The test sections are approximately 1.22 meters
(4 feet) square and 2.13 meters (7 feet) long. The nozzles leading to the test section
are of the asymmetric-sliding-block type; this allows continuous variation in Mach num-
ber from about 1.5 to 2.9 in the low Mach number test section and from about 2.3 to 4.7
in the high Mach number test section. For the present tests, the Mach numbers, stagna-
tion pressures, and stagnation temperatures were as follows:
Stagnation Stagnation
M pressure temperature
kN/m 2 lb/ft 2 oK oF
1.50 66.60 1391 -%
1.90 75.94 1586

> 339 150
2.30 93.61 1955
2.96 129.75 2710 J
3.95 229.35 4790

175
4.63 315.05 6580 353
The stagnation dewpoint was maintained sufficiently low (238.7 K (-30 F)) to
insure negligible condensation effects in the test section. The model was mounted on a
six-component, internal, strain-gage balance which was sting supported in the tunnel.
The tests were made through an angle-of-attack range from about -4 to 30 at a side-
slip angle of 0 and at a Reynolds number of 8.20 x 106 per meter (2.5 x 106 per foot).
The Reynolds number based on body length was 5.42 x 106. The angles of attack have
been corrected for sting and balance deflection due to aerodynamic loads and for tunnel
airflow misalinement. The axial-force and drag data have been adjusted to a condition
of free-stream static pressure at the model base. Typical variations of base axial-force
coefficient as a function of angle of attack at the test Mach numbers are shown in figure 3
for several configurations.
Tests were made to determine the control effectiveness of the canards and the wing
trailing-edge flaps separately. In addition, tests were made to evaluate the effects of the
various components on the aerodynamic characteristics of the model. All tests were
made with the boundary-layer transition point fixed by means of roughness strips. The
leading edges of the 0.16-cm-wide (l_-inch) transition strips were located about 3.05 cm
(1.2 inches) aft of the body nose and 1.02 cm (0.4 inch) streamwise behind the leading
edges of the wings and canards. All roughness strips were composed of carborundum
grains having a nominal diameter of 0.030 cm (0.012 inch).
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The results of the investigation are presented in the following figures:

Figure
Effects of the wing and canard C 1 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

istics of the model ...............................
Effects of the wing and canard C 2 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

istics of the model . . . . . . . . .
Figure
Effects of the wing andcanard C3 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

istics of the model ................................ 6
Summaryof longitudinal characteristics ...................... 7
Effects of deflection of the canard C1 andthe wing flap on the longitudinal

aerodynamic characteristics of the model ................... 8


Effects of wing-flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of the model; canard off ............................. 11
Effects of wing-flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of the model with canard C2 and 5c = 0 .................... 12
Summary of pitch-control effectiveness ...................... 13
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the models as affected by the var-

ious components are summarized in figure 7 for the test Mach number range. The addi-
tion of canard C 1 to the body alone resulted in essentially a constant increase in CNa
throughout the test Mach number range. Maintaining the area of C 1 but increasing
the aspect ratio (canard C2) resulted in a further increase in CNa except at the higher
Mach numbers. Increasing the area of the canard (C3) while maintaining the aspect
ratio of C 2 led to increases in CNa across the Mach number range. The addition of
the wing to the body provided the greatest increase in CNa , as would be expected. How-
ever, when any of the canards were added to the wing-body configuration, a decrement in
CNa resulted throughout the test Mach number range. This decrease in CNa is a
result of the interference flow field imposed on the wing by the canard. A decrease in
stability (+Cma ] always results from addition of the canards, whereas the addition of the
wing always provides a stabilizing increment (-Cm_). The aerodynamic-center location
as a fraction of body length is shown in figure 7(b).
For the canard-body configurations, there is little change in CA or CNa

(fig. 7(a)) with increasing Mach number as contrasted to the wing-body-canard configura-
tions where CA and CNa decrease with increasing Mach number.

6
Figures 8, 9, and 10 present the control-deflection data for canards C1, C2, and C3,
respectively, and for the trailing-edge flap at 5f = -20 . The data indicate reasonably
linear variations of pitching moment with angle of attack for each configuration. The
canards and the trailing-edge flaps are effective pitch-control devices, although the
effectiveness (Cms,c) for the canards tested is somewhat greater than for the trailing-
edge flap (fig. 13). The control effectiveness of canard C 1 is less than that of canards C2
and C 3 but remains essentially invariant with Mach number, whereas the control effec-
tiveness for canards C 2 and C 3 and for the trailing-edge flap decreases appreciably with
Mach number. (See fig. 13.)
A comparison of the wing trailing-edge flap control with the canard off (fig. 11) and
with canards on (figs. 8, 9, 10, and 12) indicates little or no effect of the canards on the
flap-control effectiveness.
Deflection of the trailing-edge flap to trim results in a decrement in lift, but deflec-
tion of the canard to trim is such that a positive lift increment generally occurs.
Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Hampton, Va., August 24, 1971.
REFERENCES
1. Spearman,M. Leroy: Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch of a Series of Cruciform-

Wing Missiles With Canard Controls at a Mach Number of 2.01. NASATN D-839,
1961. (SupersedesNACA RM L53114.)
2. Spearman,M. Leroy: ComponentTests To Determine the Aerodynamic Character-
istics of an All-Movable 70 Delta Canard-TypeControl in the Presence of a Body
at a Mach Number of 1.61. NACA RM L53103,1953.
3. Spearman,M. Leroy: Effect of Large Deflections of a Canard Control and Deflections
of a Wing-Tip Control onthe Static-Stability andInduced-Roll Characteristics of a
Cruciform Canard Missile at a Mach Number of 2.01. NACA RM L53K03, 1953.
4. Spearman,M. Leroy; andRobinson,Ross B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a
Cruciform-Wing Missile With CanardControl Surfaces andof SomeVery Small
SpanWing-Body Missiles at a Mach Number of 1.41. NACA RM L54Bll, 1954.
5. Spearman,M. Leroy; and Driver, Cornelius: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at a Mach
Number of 2.01 of the Aerodynamic Characteristics in CombinedPitch and Sideslip
of SomeCanard-Type Missiles Having Cruciform Wings andCanard Surfaces
With 70 Delta Plan Forms. NACA RM L54F09, 1954.
6. Robinson,Ross B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Missile Configurations With
Wings of Low Aspect Ratio for Various Combinationsof Forebodies, Afterbodies,
andNose Shapesfor CombinedAngles of Attack and Sideslip at a Mach Number
of 2.01. NACA RM L57D19, 1957.
7. Robinson,Ross B.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at a Mach Number of 2.01 of the Aero-
dynamic Characteristics in CombinedAngles of Attack and Sideslip of Several
Hypersonic Missile Configurations With Various Canard Controls. NACA
RM L58A21, 1958.
8. Katzen, Elliott D.; andJorgensen, Leland H.: Aerodynamics of Missiles Employing
Wings of Very Low Aspect Ratio. NACA RM A55L13b, 1956.
9. Foster, Gerald V.: Sideslip Characteristics at Various Angles of Attack for Several
Hypersonic Missile Configurations With CanardControls at a Mach Number of 2.01.
NASATM X-134, 1959.
10. Stone,David G.: ManeuverPerformance of Interceptor Missiles. NACA RM L58E02,
1958.
8
11. Spearman,M. Leroy; and Robinson,Ross B.: Longitudinal Stability andControl
Characteristics at Mach Numbers of 2.01, 4.65, and 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile
Configurations, One Having Low-Aspect-Ratio Cruciform Wings With Trailing-
Edge Flaps andOne Having a Flared Afterbody andAll-Movable Controls. NASA
TM X-46, 1959.
12. Robinson,Ross B.; and Bernot, Peter T.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at a Mach
Number of 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile Configurations, One With Low-Aspect-
Ratio Cruciform Fins and Trailing-Edge Flaps andOne With a Flared Afterbody
and All-Movable Controls. NACA RM L58D24, 1958.
13. Church, James D.; andKirkland, Ida M.: Static Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Several Hypersonic Missile-and-Control Configurations at a Mach Number of 4.65.
NASATM X-187, 1960.
14. Robinson,Ross B.; and Spearman,M. Leroy: Aerodynamic Characteristics for
CombinedAngles of Attack and Sideslip of a Low-Aspect-Ratio Cruciform-Wing
Missile Configuration Employing Various Canard and Trailing-Edge Flap Controls
at a Mach Number of 2.01. NASAMEMO 10-2-58L, 1958.
15. Robinson,Ross B.; and Foster, Gerald V.: Static Longitudinal Stability and Control
Characteristics at a Mach Number of 2.01 of a Hypersonic Missile Configuration
Having All-Movable Wing andTail Surfaces. NASATM X-516, 1961.
16. Spearman,M. Leroy; andRobinson,Ross B.: Longitudinal Stability and Control
Characteristics of a Winged and a Flared Hypersonic Missile Configuration With
Various Nose Shapes and Flare Modifications at a Mach Number of 2.01. NASA
TM X-693, 1962.
17. Corlett, William A.; and Fuller, Dennis E.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach
1.60, 2.00, and 2.50 of a Cruciform Missile Configuration With In-Line Tail
Controls. NASA TM X-1112, 1965.
18. Fuller, Dennis E.; and Corlett, William A.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics
of a Cruciform Missile Configuration With Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings and In-Line
Tail Controls. NASA TM X-1025, 1964.
19. Foster, Gerald V.; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach
Numbers From 0.40 to 2.86 of a Missile Model Having All-Movable Wings and
Interdigitated Tails. NASA TM X-1184, 1965.
20. Hayes, Clyde; and Fournier, Roger H.: Effect of Fin-Flare Combinations on the Aero-
dynamic Characteristics of a Body at Mach Numbers 1.61 and 2.20. NASA
TN D-2623, 1965.
21. Corlett, William A.; andRichardson, Celia S.: Effect of First-Stage Geometry on
Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch of Two-StageRocket Vehicles From
Mach 1.57to 2.86. NASATN D-2709, 1965.
22. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a ManeuverableMissile With
Cruciform Wings andIn-Line Canard Surfaces at Mach Numbers From 0.50
to 4.63. NASA TM X-1309, 1966.
23. Spearman,M. Leroy; andCorlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach
Numbers of 3.95 and 4.63 for a Missile Model Having All-Movable Wings and
Interdigitated Tails. NASATM X-1332, 1967.
24. Spearman,M. Leroy; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach
Numbers From 1.50 to 4.63 of a ManeuverableMissile With In-Line Cruciform
Wings andCanard Surfaces. NASATM X-1352, 1967.
25. Spearman,M. Leroy; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a
Winged Cruciform Missile Configuration With Aft Tail Controls at Mach Numbers
From 1.60to 4.63. NASATM X-1416, 1967.
26. Hayes,Clyde: SupersonicAerodynamic Characteristics of a Model of an Air-to-
GroundMissile. NASA TM X-1491, 1968.
27. Fuller, Dennis E.; andRichardson, Celia S.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at
Mach 2.50 of a Cruciform Missile Configuration With In-Line Inlets, Wings, and
Tail Surfaces. NASATM X-1492, 1968.
28. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Modified Missile Model With
Trapezoidal Wings and Aft Tail Controls at Mach Numbers of 2.50 to 4.63. NASA
TM X-1751, 1969.
29. Fuller, Dennis E.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Cruciform Winged Missile
With Trailing-Edge Controls at Mach Numbers From 1.60to 4.63. NASA
TM X-1743, 1969.
30. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Modified Missile Model With
Cruciform Wings andIn-Line Tail Controls at Mach 1.60to 4.63. NASA
TM X-1805, 1969.
31. Spearman,M. Leroy; andTrescot, Charles D., Jr.: Effects of Wing Planform on the
Static Aerodynamics of a Cruciform Wing-Body Missile for Mach Numbers Up
to 4.63. NASATM X-1839, 1969.
10
TABLE I.- GEOMETRICCHARACTERISTICSOF MODEL
Body:
Length, cm (in.) .............................. 66.04 (26.00)
Diameter, cm (in.) ............................ 7.62 (3.00)
Cross-sectionalarea, cm2 (in2) .................... 45.61 (7.07)
Length-diameter ratio ................................ 8.67
Moment-center location, percent length ...................... 64.35
Wing:
Area, exposed,cm2 (in2) ........................ 335.48 (52.00)
Root chord, exposed,cm (in.) ..................... 33.02 (13.00)
Tip chord, cm (in.) ................................ 0.00
Span,total, cm (in.) ........................... 27.94 (11.00)
Aspect ratio, exposed ............................... 1.23
Leading-edge sweep,deg ............................. 72.90
Ratio of total spanto diameter .......................... 3.67
Trailing-edge flaps:
Span,each, cm (in.) ........................... 7.62 (3.00)
Chord, each, cm (in.) .......................... 2.54 (1.00)
Area, both, cm2 (in2) .......................... 38.71 (6.00)
Exposedwing area, percent ............................ 11.53
Canards:
C1 C2 C3
Area, exposed,cm2 (in2) ..... .. 32.13 (4.98) 32.77 (5.08) 51.10 (7.92)
Total span, cm (in.) .......... 7.62 (3.00) 11.18 (4.40) 12.70 (5.00)
Exposedwing area, percent ......... 9.58 9.77 15.23
Ratio of total spanto diameter ....... 1.00 1.47 1.67
Hinge-line location, percent bodylength . . 10.54 10.54 10.54
11
v
_ v
_J
E
i
12
o
Jo
c_J
.__r_
13
12
CA,b
C
A,b
CA,b
CA, b
CA,b
CA, b
Figure 3.- Typical variations of base axial-force coefficient with angle of attack.
14
i.
Cm
4 CA
CN
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(a) M = 1.50.
Figure 4.- Effects of the wing and canard C1 on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the model.
15
:_: ::1:
! 1i 1
LID il.ii2
i!i!_!i ii1: '
6c, deg 6f, deg
0 0
0 Off
Off 0
Off Off
CD
E4rr--_
;::-t::.
.... t:.r
T:--t --
,,, i,
-4-
CL
12 32
deg
(a) Concluded.
Figure 4.- Continued.
16
iT
8
i:_l!i
H I-
4 1
C m
i'i_i:!
i
.... !,.
-T-
!LIII
i i _
ilii
!
ii I i 4 CA
.i
6 !
CN
4 :
I
>] ....
o i
v! _H
-2_1_ -4 16 2O 24 28 32
o, deg
(b) M = 1.70.
1'7
!!!!
1111
i
I:/-M
:iT ii! : : ,i i
ililii it :t
_L -,. i_ii .i..... _..
_;i :F
:i
_ -_ i
L/D
: :T:
i_l!!ii
:I :
lili!:i
..... V i i
- r
l
IT
d:!:
.p-
6c, deg 6f, deg

i2
0
Off
0 ! i
off ::l:: -t
fi
I
! j ,
1!! _! ] I
/
it:i !iii
: ili :
: [i
1!I!1 !i :7 :
_ i!it i-: ---i_

I:
i
='+: !!I :::_x
: !!!I:
! : ) :
i
_ '
H_ [];
::_: !i]I
2X
....
i" '.iT ...._
CL iili
.... i i_
, !!i _+_
:i
_i_ !
: iiii :: ........
!I_.-i
_
ii: i!::l:
i 1
..... i!:_ ._ ........ +. 2...
, tll ii ! I
" , i [
T;l
_ ....
I ..... i :: 2:
i....
I......
8 12 16 2O 24 28 _2
a, deg
(b) Concluded.
18
Cm
CA
0 WBC1
[] BC1
OWB
A B
cN
8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 ]2
o, deg
(C) M = 2.30.
19
'_';T
:i!ii+:
i]
LID 0
!![::
.:]i2
t
0 WBC 1 0
[] BC 1 0
WB Off
A B Off
ii
C
D
uI]
I
i
:i
:,q.,
i!l
i,]i! i
:! :
1
i_iilii
iiiiii
.... i.
C
L .... t.
t
::i I
.... i
I
i
i
4 8 2_0 _ 24 32
a, deg
(c) Concluded.
2O
C m
4 CA
12
I0
CN
8 12 16 2O 24 28
a, deg
(d) h4 = 2.96.
21
iilili_ -i :!
ii _ i TM
i '
LID
h
iil _ i
L
6c, deg 6f, deg
:!-]
:!
0 WBC 1 0 0 ,i i
[] BC 1
WB
0
Off
Off
0
i
4! i
Z_ B Off Off
i i_i
TM
CD
!i! c"
:_!iii
IH
/
:V"
H i!i
i:i ....
--_!T
TM
ii TM
H_ :::
I0
4
::''1"" .i. i:+-
; I
!_ il TM
iii _ HI H
!!!
::
!! !
:: r i
!!i ii
CL 4
.... 4+i !!!
ii; e - i
n _
! i
4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(d) Concluded.
22
C m
4 CA
10
CN
12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(e) M = 3.95.
23
L/D
-2
6c, deg 6f, deg
0 WBC 1 0 0
[] BC 1 0 Off
WB Off 0
/k B Off Off
CD
CL 4
iil
H
!-!
H
H
8 ]2 !6 2O 24 ?8 32
a, deg
(e) Concluded.
24
Cm
4 CA
6c, deg 6f, deg
0 WBC 1 0 0
[] BC 0 Off
1
WB Off 0
B Off Off
CN
12 ]6 20 24 28 32
o, deg
(f) M = 4.63.
25
iiiii!
,!::ii
_ TT- _
-_
....i!i
LID
i?ii! !!_ilt 1 I: I
Oc, deg 6f, deg T- I_T:
._.
0 WBC I 0 0
[] BC I 0 Off
!!T! ::1 i
,_ WB Off 0 -i [
A B Off Off
J_ ::_
l;;::J:: 1i .......
:i!i!]!_
' ] !
1'!!1_1_!,,
,, IL: ]
i : ::1
CD
I I
! ::q:
i:-:_LiiMiiL_
_.-.+:.. :: ::.: . _,1::: 2 t
[ ] i ! i ii ii I i i::1 I ::1 ;ii1:11
: , i:::
:1
i i ii I ,i 1 q !
:i:! ...... -!
=_- 't-'-t'" ! ....
" _ I :
!:! !!!lll i i]i;; :1
!
"_!l iil
i
I : !il:
1( i
!
ii!
_aI:
.........
_.........
i! ........ ii !ii!
i i
I I I I _ ,,lii I I I I I
i ::
i!ii
i
/ i
I
CL
22>
; I
1
i
! ,
!!!
,] . - . :: :
0 4 8 12 15 20 24 28 32
u, deg
(f) Concluded.
Figure 4.- Concluded.
26
::_: ;
H
H_
H
+._-'-
!!L ,
iiii _.....
I
...1.
C m
....i .... !
...L !.
i
C
I;L.,: i A
..i ........
i
,
ii,1!:'?_;;
I _! _
_i- i_i_
i
! i
!ii _"
HI
,2
!_li!!
CN r _111
!::
._..+
!
; I
iii ! i
-4
i_1 _
16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(a) M = 1.50.
2"/
iiltiill
...
:q
i : _ *_ -7---------'_
l i : [ : I
L/D i ! I :
i .... i
-2
, I: I
:;L
6c, deg 6f, deg

i
C) WBC 2 0 0
-4 !!!I [] BC 2 0 Off
WB Off 0
iill
B Off Off
!]!
_. - :T , :: ' :.
: :;:
:! !
:!_i_4--4--
ii
i !i i_
i..
!! i i :
" i "
t21111
i!il
!!il
i :l
i ,
if:
]: :] _
i:i-
i:ii
:7T ..... _:
!i
C L i
ii::
'
il
} if ....
,
.Z!.!
k_:_''_
lii
'
i !
ii-
:-8 -4 8 12
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
28
1, 2 :::
H
_H
_ iii
.8
H_
H ,i _ i:-
4 if!
Crn
0 ::ii
H
iiii
ilii
-. 4 !!_i
i,i,
_H
H ik+
ii:
i:
i _ 4 CA
H
if:
H
H,
! :::
! ....
: iil
H
H
_H
lO--
i
i i_ ill
Tii!
" 7--
H
!!i _--
--2
cN
! t"
4
:_i !!i
.i
:t: iil
.!
i[
i
!/ i
ii
=8 -4 12 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(b) M = 1.90.
29
if!!
H!:
:x
'iiii
LID
ix
5
-4 _
4
........ i
ii:
: t
---*-1 CD
!ii!
xx
' _2
iiii
I I
xx
x
10 _:_ 0
-i-
.... i
..... t....
i!:
x:
CL
_.J ....
I '
....
!-!
i
ix
J "
i '
!:i
Hi
-4 32
a, deg
Ib) Concluded.
3O
1. 2 i:!il
:: _:_
::i{.:i ::::f:::
.4 i j
Cm
oiiiiill
!
- 4iiiiii ii:i !, : iill
ii_1
_
i
i I
4 CA
---t ...... t ....

i
' i
t 2 -'-
6f, deg
i - 0
10 -4-4- 4-- Off
4
..-L- -- 0
Off
' !i!ti
CN
-4 8 12 16 20 24 28
o. deg
(c) M = 2.30.
31
LID
3 CD
CL
32
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
a, deg
(c) Concluded.
32
4 CA
20 24 32
o, deg
(d) M = 2.06.
Figure 5.- Continued,
33
HI
H_ ! i! -_
LID 0 "
I I
H_
H_
fill i_
!
-4 iii!iii iii _ i
ii..
t..... !
!iii
i_i i_i :: !!i!
I
iii _i i
:: ::: :::
ii! !iii iil
i !ii
H
H_
H
ii i i
ii;
:: ::
ii !i! !
H_
H_
.... ! .......
4;;ii;; _H
.H
10 ::: i:: "
I12!ii ii:.
i; ]
i
)! ) !
i
i ! !!!
x: _:: iii H_
i i
H_
H_
H_
H_
H_
!ii! i!
4'i !; H.
........ t .......
CL
1
2
i!1 1 H,
2i21
H_
i I
0 iii_ i;i HI
t _
,H
7!7 ,...... FI
ii! ! __ 1__ )
-4 2O
a, deg
tdl Concluded.
Ficjure 5.- Continued.
34
Cm
CA
CN
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
35
4 !!t!
L/D 0 ;;!
-2 ::i
;:q
iiii
_Z
_Z CD
10
T_T
6 _x
CL 4 !i!
x_
4ii
0 _
.LL
a, deg
(e) Concluded.
36
: i
C m
!-
: I
4 CA
I,
xk_k
cN
f.,.P_
i
[_
12 t6 2O 32
O, deg
(f) M = 4.6).
3"/
LID
CD
CL
32
(f) Concluded.
38
i
C m
4 CA
V
),
iii :4::_
ii:
CN
(a) NI = 1.50.
39
LID
CI)
CL
12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
Figure &- Continued.
4O
i 2LI Iii ii
.8[ I
iiii
4. ;
C m ........
,!
't_ _ _ ,
.....
_ _ ._4_,,_
!i:_i:!
o_ i j I
--- - --T
: !
!_!il
: I
-_ : _ ' iii ii!., !;i

....i.
; i
_i_ i_ !
! _ _ii!_t

& 4 CA
P,. W
_ i ! _, , ! i_iii
6 c, deg 8f, deg

i
0 WBC 3 0 0
],
[] BC3 0 Off
_L
0 WB Off 0
,_ B Off Off
1 ! *TT 1..
liiii_
6 I
CN
: I" "i H
i! I!_
4!]....
T
!ZI
I ii!
iiii ::_!
ill
:.:: Zi
_ZZ
i!
-8 -4 6 4 _ ''f 16 20
o, deg
(b) M = 1.90.
41
LID
3 CD
CL
i?_:!
o!!
__iiii
-8 12
a, deg
(b) Concluded.
42
1._
--F
1.2 !II_
i-il:
!!:
.8
ii:
i,
C m 4 !i T
!!il
ill
ii:
o !!_:
iiii
iiii
-. 4 ii!i
;i;
iii
-. 8 ii_
CA
!T
ii_l;i
14
!
12 "'
6 c, deg 6f, deg
iii
0 WBC 3 0 0
[] BC 3 0 Off
;i;i
OWB Off 0
A B Off Off
8
i tit,iil!i
l'
[
CN 6
,i
2_
i:i
-_'1
_
!!.
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
(z, deg
(c) A4= 2.30.
43
LID
C
D
CL
12 l6 20 32
a, deg
(c} Concluded.
44
:::1
. .,h, .,. :.4..

I I
..... 4_ 4
!IYI:: i :ilI
C m I
!_!!!,_ !i!il
, !
i
-i _ i
_ i: _
:ili
- !
4 CA
-! I ....
i_]ii
!iilii:
i,.!..... !..........
i!!il
:!i i[i: i
I
I f. i !
i , i
cN -+.--r:lZ ::i:i:.Lt
....._....
__.___
! _ ! ! .... i
t 4 ....
! : _ i I
.... r r ..... _........... t
i
i
!i! ' "i ....
i I
-r ....
I
..,.._ +__ .f........ _..............
I ! i
i ......, , .....L
I6 20 24 28 32
e, deg
(d) M = 2.96.
45
LID 0
CD
CL
12 2O 24 28
a, deg
(d) Concluded.
Figure 6.- Conlinued.
46
' 1117
_
_:
_i _
.4-" _i_,_ _i
' y
rr
q.
i ) : }
i 7
i
...:.
i "
I i
4 CA
I I
t-
t 1 ..... :
i X;
i
.i:
i:i
,, 7i
7 !!i
:_:! U: :x 4.:. .._.
_: i_i _ ..... ___ q.

:! iii
iii !!:.
_i i!ii
x .... i
_x
t6 20 24 28 32
(e) M = 3.95.
47
T
--+--4-
ii ii:;i_
i i
LID ' l
-4--!
-i!
if! 6
, 4
4
,! _ !
--'T--'! CD
ii
---;_++4
.i.. J
::ill: _i
7-i :::_::
_i!i iii i/
.., i ....
: :i
!
! _!!!,?
_._ .--L _-,-_
I i
1
:!
i
.... +___
CL _ "
.... [....
I
: I
i ! -
.... i
:" i........
I
-_- 1771
16 28
o, deg
(e) Concluded.
48
].
1.
C m
-.4
4 CA
CN
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 )2
o, deg
(f) M = 4.63.
49
LID
deg 6f, deg
0 0
0 WBC 3
0 Off
[] BC 3
WB Off 0
,,k B Off Off

CD
ii:
10
L!ii
i:i
i:
CL
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(f) Concluded.
5O
CA
.06
O4
Cma.02
-.02
N o
(a) CA, Cma ' and CNs as functions of Mach number.
Fiqure 7.- Sumn_ary oi longitudinal chacacteristics,
51
52
:!i!J!ii
Illllll --
...... I L.L .....

i
- I : i
C m
:i ..........
''y-
i ......
i! : : x. : ii
77777 7:7
-'+-: i : i_
, _ i_:_
4 CA
7i_ ...._
............. : :::l
: i: .... il
i : il
....
CN !! !i i .... :: :_
0
. 4
I
e, deg
(ai M = 1.50.
Figure 8.- Effects of deflection of the canard C] and the wing flap on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of fhe model.
Configuration WBC].
53
LID
CD
CL
12 ]6 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
Figure 8.- Conlinued.
54
ili iiiil
8 iii
+_ +i+ii,_i !i!
iiii!iii ili ii! i]] ]i] ];] /] rli: _]
!i}Hi!!i!!i! !i-!_,_,
!!ii;!i
C m 4 ii!iiii iii ;ii ii? iil i?i ii ii!i :i
!_i_iiii
iil iii
o !i i _;F::
ili2 _
iiii iii i_i iiii iiiiii iil ii i : ;Lil

iili iil iil iii! ;!i i ! ::: : :
.... !_i iiii
- ....iliiiii
iiiiiii iiiiiiii
ii!T!!i! iT1!i:. ii i:_i_i: !iiiiii iil!i!.ii
i:i 1.2
!ii!_i !/iili ii/,iiliiili :;ii

i!iiili !!iiii!
.8
CA
H:: i HH :i: .a _
.4
f_i i!il i!f Jil! !ii if! _! _5
!!! !?! ::? i!!

; }
It! []11 :i: _:::
:::ii il
: : ::: :
iliiiil iiiii:
!iiiiliif!!iii !i_ii!i iili!_
:: : ::: : ::::
_iliii i_i iii iiii.i;i iii iil i;ii 144!4!4 _ _ ii_iiil iii i_
!iil ii! ili_ii i_!
iii ii,, iii UH: Iii
'.Hi
_o ii,,_iiiHi i::: i:: _ ": !iii
!!i !!!! Ii! !i!i
!iiiii !iiill
: ) i iilili ilii!i
8 ii i :_ iii iii iiiili
!ii iii iii :
4;ii4 i: i: !! ,_ iii
iii iii i:i i:.i ii ii:, _i_
4ii i r :il HI i!! !!! !:; i[i! ii ii _, _
iI_ ::: !!: ;!;
CN
!!i!'" !i
::l iil ili i _ii i!i
,ii!l:!;i_iIii :_: ;iii;i; i;il_ _ii4"' i
:i: :i ii: :: ,! i
2 : :ii ) HH
:iiil:iii iii_i_i_
lie
"i ',i;III i:l
" Ut
ii__:il]ih Hl
!li : ili
iif....
_il ili
8 -4 0 4 8 12 32
c(, deg
(b) M = 1.00.
55
_ii!ii!_
ii!l
iiiiiiiii
'i_ili
L/D
-2 !!!!!!! _'
ili iii i_
[_: IT[ !TT
CD
lO
CL
I:ii
ii:i
-2'a
_, deg
(b) Concluded.
56
:i :_::..I:::: i F ' i j i TjVF .... !....
4'!:E'= ,.,, " i Ji :!W!, [,' I [, _' : ....LL__L_
Cm
[,2
, : _ I i i i ! !ii
.8
i ' _ _ ' : i r : v , , [ _ ] i ....
CA
.4
' / F " T-" "[ ........ ! ...... : ..... _ .......... p ......... t ........ : ..... -[ ......... _..............
.... ...... i!i :, i II .... _i , I i i ........ i i )
,:,i { !, i .....!] : I ! !]_ i ::,
CN
o, deg
(c) M = 2.30.
5'7
!!!: _::t
;_:- #;4
:x
:::1 !!! I i:! ii!i
i:i
,q ,
i ..... ![i iiil
LID i i;il ::1 : )ii
!i! !: C
,i
iii _ii :i:
_2
i
] ,
)ii 2ii
#
iii :L :::_...._ ..:
!!i !!
i
-4
!!i !i
=_ if ........... i N_
!!! h:
:t::
iii!
r::
:::
ill ; : .... iili
IU 11_ iii:
i!i !![
:>) !!)
! iii: i ii!i
iiii
iiii
CD
iiii3
ili_ 21
-' ::x i i1:_: ::: 2
iii i!! H:
::: :x
!!i _-
:
:ii
!!!
i:"
'I: ;;i i!i
iiiiiii
i ......... iiiiiii
ii! iiii
"T::? _!i
i tff
::: ....... :: iii .... E
iii i: ::: : . :
_T 3 --- - 3
i l
!ii
_v
if:
_i: i, Nii!
_T_13
iil iii
-: +!!
l: i;
': i!!
!il !!i
TrY
,,, .... ,, Z
ii: i
CL i:i
iii
!_!
ii-
iil
ii!i)
il
=::
ili
ili
iJ212
!:! ii!
i:i i!! ii!
ii. ::: iii !i_:l.... ::: :x x: -i:
_i: i!i iil i!i i

!i: il l::
ii ......... ! !:!
iii iiii iii
ill! !! ili!
Iii
ill .... :q
L!_.: :
!ii i i iil x
i!ii :!.
i! i I
1
-2,
-q -4 0 16 20 24 28 32
(c) Concluded.
58
ii_i!i
_iiiiii
Cm
iF _L " '1
!L.L
0 ::!rt_,
.... [
i_i!i
:'F
!:!!l:
t
iiiF-
i;!1!! CA
iiiti_ x_
i i:
i-
...! -.
:i
-Z-
iil_i
i:!i
6 ::_iii
CN
i!!i: :q::.
ill::::
2 iifliii
o !l_!i! f
,i
-2 'f'_;; filii
q_!::
I
-4 8 -4 16 2O 24
(d) M = 2.96.
59
'_ill
__,_,
ill:
:F:" ![
2 i -_ _[
L/D O
-2
-4
CD
iili,,
TF -_
!!lit
1C
:-i::
CL
z!
Oi
T-T
.... !
i:
o, deg
(d) Concluded.
6O
.4
Cm
10
CN
12 2O 24 28
_, deg
(el M : 3.95.
61
!!li!!:: ' ..... ' !!t 1!1!1: : I ]7 I
i
i -i
2 :!i :;
i_l!ill
LID 0 :!i ii :i !_!ill !iI _,

_2! x
:i
::! ii
qx_
8c' deg 8f, deg

'Z.5
22 ....
-_ iii
il ::
--t ....
=4 :_ iii
i21 i
! ill :
--q := +++
i : i!i CD
3
ii :
.... x! !ii
ii x:
! i[i
ii !ii
_t_
i
i
i:: 2i :Z
ili
,.._...
7 _i) iiii
i_!
1 : i!!i
i!i i
.x x: L;
i ii !i
!!i
iii .... :::

iii _x
x: ....... _-i!!:iii
i=
ii
i:i iii
eL : _::_ i!i
:L ii !ii
i:
ii!
i_ii ii: _i-
ii : x:
olii: i!:
ii;
!_ :I _ --
24 28 32
c_, deg
!e) Concluded.
62
Cm
CN 4
12 16 2O 24 28
e, deg
(f) M = 4.63.
63
LID 13
CD
CL
T2 16 20 24 28 32
-4
o, deg
(f) Concluded.
64
12
Cm .4
-4
CA 4
12
I0
cN
-2
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 52
a, deg
(a) M = 1.50.
Figure q.- Effects of deflection of the canard C2 and the wing flap on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the model.
Configuration WBC2.
65
4
}}4 }'H
xx x:
_ :i_ i [
::: :x:
2 !i! !!! ) !!!
x:
:k 2 ix
i!iil i:
L_ 0 ili
D L: :n -+
x
ii i
i x ili iii ix
ili !ii
:x x
-2 ii: _x ! J 6
iii i<
:: ii+
i!! ::
!Y
_ !!!
-4 !iilili_
<
!<
-i! 4! q::!
.ii
h_
ii
ili
!ii ::
i_
i!ii I iii
:;_ :n
ii! !-:
:i i!
i
i
ii
i!:
ii!
!il
;i iiii iI::
iiii i x :i! 3
_Ixx
:::: ::: !<

.... i I-
CD
H_ X_
L_
::x
!
ili_il
!i!i!I!S
i!! iii
x:
iiii
:
12
x: :x: }++
x !ii i !
I0
:-7 ......
i<!!:i!_ !qi! i!
iii
i!! ix
0
x :i
_K
:.: i!i Lii
ili i!
i
x: ill
x : J:
i
!i! !i-
i
x Ix I
I !
ii: iii :;41 :::_, 7
x i!i i
CL I x:
:iiili _!ii! ;i
..... /!71i i i !ii iii
4 1
_}Li
iii .i_.
ii ki
ili ill2
ix i
ii: .i_+
iii i:i =..
!ii _ii!
x_ x:_
! : :!
0 x! !
+!i !+i .12
!
ii
xlx_ ::: 4:
ii! x < !7!
.....
-2 8 -4 0 4 24 28 32
e, deg
(a) Concluded.
66
8c, deg _f, deg
0 0
IO 0
20 0
0 -20
.4
Cm
0 1.2
cA
.4
12
IO
CN
0 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(b) M = 1.90.
6?
4
L 0
D
CD
CL 4
4 8 12 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
{b) Concluded.
68
.8
!;_[iiiliii:!!i
.4
Cm
....i'!
-.4 I2
.8
-n.k i
cA
i
.4
:i .......... I ...... i .... i
---] .... ,F:

!?! I
ii, _-- 2 2
12
,i i ........ i _
10
i
6
;
;
.4.
1
, ........ _2_. ..L..J
h!,ii
!ii
CN 4 I / i.... l
8c, deg 8f, deg
0 0 0
[] I0 0
20 0
/', 0 -20 i
0
!i ;_!ii1
-2 iiiii2t )i
i_++_-.-.?- . ;i.... ;il;il
-4
-8 12 16 20 24 28 32
e, deg
(c) tvl = 2.30
Figure g.- Continued.
69
i :i
ii!i lli
::t::
_y
i i,I
!]!!i_
i
7] L_ _
iili,_i
L__ 0 :J:
D
,z
8c,deg 8f,deg
i.,
( ;, 0 0
-2 ;] F} I0 0
...i
0 2O 0 kk:..... ;T
; 0 -20
! ! i;! i _ i
-4 i i
i
:1::
ii!!!i
--r--- iiii : xd
!_111! :;x i ilil 'i ....

1
_H
4
iliXlill
] ]
ii 3 CD
-t.- -i
, !i!
ii: i.........!ii
i i i -Y ,iii
:!!!iii
i ,
k#
1 0
:x .... i....
_4
:t: -'IW
x
r--i
I [
CL
x!i
x:
i iii
-4 L_
,.'if,
.... !....
:_ill.
:_:ttt
IT!!:
ilil
x..
Z_
i:!
!YT ....
ill, iiiitlii
Yi
r ,
-4 0 4 8 24 28 32
,.,, deg
(c) Concluded.
Figure g.- Continued.
70
4
Cm 0
1.2
-.4
8
cA
,4
12
I0
CN 4
-2
-8 -4 12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(d) M = 2.96.
71
4
:i _ -
ill i:!
L 0
!!I!!!!
D
_i!:i!
-2
-4
+4-:"
CD
i;ili_
iqi4-
TTGt
:;I
i[:
IC
:11
:i
.... i.
28 32
a, deg
(d) Concluded.
'/2
Cm 0
1.2
.8
cA
.4
12
I0
CN
0 4 8 t2 16 20 24 28 52
a, deg
(el M = 3.95.
Figureg.- Continued.
73
4
3
CD
2
I0
CL 4
0 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(e)Concluded.
Figure
g.-Conlinued.
"/4
8c, deg 8f, deg
0 0 0
I0 0
20 0
A 0 -20
Cm 0
.8
CA
.4
I0
CN
4 12 16 20 24 28 32
deg
,',,
(f) M = 4.63.
'75
4 11!!!1!
-TTTT
::k::
! _
L
-- 0
D
Bc, deg 8f,deg
o 0 0
-2 F] IO 0 _i 6
C_ 20 0
!l: A 0 -20
:::1
-4 5
iiii
[ i!: 4
uq
ii,
2!
!ii 3
i!!: 2L
iiil
CD
I:
i:
2: H_
:i ii I
m !-!
2:
I0 :i; i! 0
v'P
!:+
8 _ t
)i
iY-
i!ii
iiii
i!!
171
!iii
1
CL 4 i!i I
:!i:
i
::nv iii!
2 iili !ili? 12:
::_:
:T:'TT
0 ii! !:
ii2
i !:
: :1
-2_8: 4 8 32
e, deg
(f} Concluded.
Figure g.- Concluded.

.8
Cm
1.2
.8
.4
CN
(a) M = 1._0.
Figure lO.- Effectsof deflectionof the canardC3 and the wing flap on the longitudinalaerodynamiccharacteristicsof the model.
ConfigurationWBC3.
'77
6
o
4 f] 7:[
G
% i:ii
xx
L__ 2
D
x
!6
:K
0
x:
J/
-2
.x
-4
f-
hi
x:
K_ _H 2
:!:!
x_
9
ix CD
!TT iill
iZ IZI
iii!
i!i!
xx !iii
iiii
0
!!!i
ii-I
!h xx
8 iii
ii
4;
91
6 ii! !
iii x;
W
9
4
x
Ck - W
ii: x:
2 :: iH
:x
x:
!!
,I, _c
ii:
2
!L
I::
xu
1 2 :ii
-8 -4 0 4 12 i6 28 32
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
Figure ]0.- Continued.
78
1.2 _q ....
.8 "_i_ i
:_rr-r :::r
q
:by
i_ilii
Cm .4 k
4:1-
-m,
:ii1!i
-,4 i! I:! 1.2
I..T:.
n,i,
.8
cA
.4
I ;
i
0
!:!!ii
F
12
i:li!
I0 :1!::
ill.... _
:qu:
f:::!ill
i I
i_
!lii_
6
CN
4 m-
-t---
:n:
q_,,
i!Li_
-2
-8 0
m, deg
(b) M = ].go.
Figure ].0.- Continued.
'79
4
L__ 0
D
CD
I0
0
8
CL 4
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
e, deg
(b) Concluded.
80
,.21!!!!4
!!il
ii_il
':::L
.... _k
.... I,
.,,i,
0 i;:!
1.2
,hh
iiili{
.8
iiilll cA
x:!x
,,,!.
.4
iiIii 0
,2 iiil
..:..
I0
8 !!
,b,,
-!-::
cN 4 !li!
2 _L:
o i!i!!!
-8
32
e, deg
(c) NI = 2.30.
81
2
F
b ,
l
_, _i:ii
I
i[iii i_
0
[]
i_ iii 6
_L .lili :,._
_ii:i iil,
:q+i! -:!::
:_: !ili!i
V_7 ,
:h: :
!U: :lii 1
_-k+ _1
: ! t
i:s:: q
--i i_!_?!ii? 3
ii[ii
_ _!!i'7
,: CD
illii:i:_!!!!!i :_i!t!ii 2
_L. ;L_:.
[
: _'T"
.... I
ilit. ;iil:
!ii[i r: i
.... i- ii
_=='= !iii1!
:::11 [
iiiii
LLL _
i [ ]
CL :il
:'q H:
".......ii.....
::1
:ii
!ilil [
ii:
i
!i?i:i_
i
'
i
,
ii:::t !;-
...... iiii] ......

::'
iiiiF _
4 8 28 32
, deg
(c) Concluded.
Figure tO.- Continued.
82
.8
Cm .4
--,4
1.2
cA
.4
12
I0
CN
0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
or, deg
(d) /_1 = 2.96.
83
!i! iiil
iii _i::
::: u:
i_ii!=-::_!-!_! i!i! r::Ir:r_ i:

!ii .:: _,_ :: : i!! I:HHII !ii
i ii[ ]_!
: !
, ii!iiiii. ii ii!
: _ +i
:: iii ........
:i::
:_::I'
....
il , iilii ii
!i
+i+ +':
::: 8 o deg 8f, deg
iii ii
0 0
i ii F] I0 0 111 [il
2O 0 :il
i:i
i! iii A 0 -20 iiii ii_
i
ii
:ii ili!ili
i i :; ii!!! i i :_: : I,,
fill
:! ii:i iiiiill ......... :ii_:-::i!i:i :il
_:: _::
]i!! :: I!i!
::: !i!_ .......!ii!

iill ] ....
.....i;: ! i:ili iiii

i i
2 i++:
ill ;iii
if[ ii!i
CD
.... [![
2 ::: _i] ][i
i }i iil iii:
_i_-, _ _ii ,
I0 !!i Ill i _::

!i
:;;:::. i i i:i- ii !! i!!
:i! i_
i?] 0
!i:
! i !!! !i!
!:? :_ iii;i,i.......... iil i:_l ii:

:i)
ii !! ii !:ii!i!: H''_"' _
iii i;i
! i!
]
..... ii.IT _
:riTir]_
'=' ;ii iiiiiiii _ i :! i :
CL ::] iii
l i I] !!_i....
_i? .... L [!1i
"::':::ii:
i!i! !il
:iii
_H i]i,l_. , ! !:iri'!:i! ii! ;III I1_
0
iiii ......
!ii i!_i , !:,_
ili ....
_ ii!,,
i ! iii
_x
if!
:: if!
::::[iii : i _ iii i_:iii;
ii! :! !. il;
.... t I; I; iii ii?; ??!: iii
-4 0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
e, deg
td) Concluded.
84
.8
Cm .4
--.4
1.2
.8
cA
.4
0
Bc, deg 8f, deg
0 0
12 I0 0
20 0
0 -20
I0
CN
4 8 20 24 28 32
(e) M = 3.95.
85
L__ 0
D
CD
CL
2 :I:
0 4 12 24 28 32
a, deg
(el Concluded.
Figure I0,- Continued.
86
.4
Cm
1.2
.8
cA
.4
12
CN
0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
., _, deg
(f) M : 4.63.
8'7
6
L
D
0
CD
CL
4 i2 20 24 28 32
ce, deg
(f) Concluded.
88
2.
C m
4 CA
CN
u, deg
(a) M = 1.50.
Figure l].- Effects of wing-flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the model. Canard off; WB.
89
tO
LID
-2
-4
CD
CL
24 28 32
-2 8 -4 8 12 16 2O
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
Figure ]].- Continued.
9O
2.
Cm
4 CA
CN
4 12 16 20 24 28 32
c[, deg
(b) M = 1.90.
Figure ll.- Continued.
91
2
LID
C
D
C
L
12 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(b) Concluded.
Figure 1].- Continued.
92
Cm
4 CA
Of, deg
0
[] -20
C
N
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
o, deg
(c) All = 2.30.
Figure ]].- Continued.
93
41 !_i!!
N_ ii
i!i!i! qTm,
;W
LID gl; !iii::
i !/ i
!t!! '!'i
T_ I '7
ili!_ 6f, deg
o o Iiii
[] -20 :111
"-r:1
,i
:!
1
_;lti;
:iiL
,q
:[:
I
--4--
: i 1:
N
11 ..... .++,,
f:ili
!_!t!! !!l
b,
_iiIii ---:--
!:
' ]
:i
i i-4
!i1: :I
: F
CL
ti
, ! _-t!!-
i:ii_
iiiti
_i!!tl .... ]
:!i i
0 .... i
t
!i
_ -4 16 2O 24 28 32
(c) Concluded.
94
Cm
4 CA
CN
12 16 2O 24 32
a, deg
(d) M = 2.96.
95
i!tl H_
H
!!!! _!t! _
..... t!!!
ii!i ii_
i_ ili
LID
!i! i!l!!_
H. _ I li
iiii , _
i! -
6f, deg
0
[] -20 i _! CD
1 : ii
_ ;2 i?ii
_iii!
!i!i _
i
ili
!il
H, i
:iii
,i
/ii
ill
!i-i _H
::ii
iili i ':;;i iii
!i:
v_
_!!!! ..... i}:
i/
T_
-1
ii
il
0 4 12 6 : 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(d) Concluded.
96
tit I
] i
.i::i 11[
C m
iirii iii ilbii.::

,, iil
it; . 2 2 x,
x:t:
iiii
_: _tt !i!l ..... ! l!!41:- _i
!%,
4 CA
H!
<
12 :t:
]0
! 8f, deg ,
[i 0 0 ,
-- :=:-4 !_ii+ilii! :::: :a
CN
Ni
[:i_ i!211 p
k.
!L.:
:i![
:: !_!!!
I[!i =':
H_
:! t:t!I:!_fiiii/iilliil _
2 :tli1[}iii]t [!It _,:m
i}il ; 7' i}ii ,,: H
:!ii i!ii !iiiil!!'i!"::l iili_: s_s ill i:iil iiii

4 8 12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(e) M : 3.95.
Figure IL- Continued.
9"/
LID
CD
CL
16 2O 24 28
12
a, deg
le) Concluded.
Q8
Cm
CA

[]
C
N
12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
(f) M = 4.63.
Figure ]l.- Continued.
99
LID
eL
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
If) Concluded.
Figure ll.- Concluded.
100
8
CN
(a) M = 1.50.
Figure 12.- Effects of wing-flap deflection on the longitudinal aerodynamiccharacteristicsof the model with canard C2 and 6c = 0.
Configuration WBC2.
lOi
+:1 :_
L 0
D :n
:x i_i
ili x:
i_ ili
4
iii _i!
!il ii!i
iil _ill
3
CD
!ii !i_i
2
i_i iiil
ix _:,
IX ]H
t2 !!! !q
I0
_i: ili
7 !ii
8 <_ iil
iii :ii
_i i!i
+:i ii_
CL 4 i i:i
,, .:+
i i
!ii :!i
;: i!i
P
]; iil
0
:.-!
0 12 2O 32
a, deg
(a) Concluded.
102
.4
Cm
12
I0
CN
12 16 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(b) M = 1.90.
103
L 0
D
CD
CL 4
0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28
a, deg
(b) Concluded.
104
8
4 cA
-8 -4 0 12 16 20 24 28 32
a, deg
() M = 2.30.
105
4
cD
0
8
CL
12 16 2O 24 28 32
0 4 8
e, deg
(c) Concluded.
106
Crn 0
.8
12
I0
CN
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
a, deg
(d) NI = 2.96.
107
_i _:_ 1111
i _t_i_
iiiii!!i_
I
!I "
i!!i!t
8f, deg
_L,
i
_:]
: o 0
ii_i _ _i [] -I0
J,il j 0 -20
-30
?::iii_i
-i .... ==i.......
!1 ] '
::l_ +itii_....
'i_ !i i!!_!!ii!li!I!!i!
I '.
1
:q:: i_ ii _....
:]::: !|
I :
I
: _ ::::
!q
!iilii :i CD
_'[" iii .......! ...... i ....
i i
. .!..: +--
i!: i
:idii iiiii'! ....
!!i !! :
o
X_
ill
;:;]: !T !!!!ii_
i!!i
i i:i !
)
!i!t(iiiiii.....
.
::_:::
.... fr:
H_
_H
i
-r--
i '' :111:
i:[ .... +'"' i_ '!H'"
!
i _ ii I!!
2
i i!i
X_ i :
0 4 20 24 32
a, deg
(dt Concluded.
108
ii:i
!+=
ii!i
iiii
:il
.8
.4 c_
i!ii
!i!i
0
!:!
iii!
I0
:i: ii!i
:ii
_ft
IH
6
HI !"
IN
:i:
4::
CN 4
_JL
i:!
ii!i
H_ i::i
0
tt_
]:i: !:i
F'I
0 4 8 2O 28 32
(el M = 3.95.
I09
4
L 0
D
CL 4
-4 0 4 8 12 16 2O 24 28
a, deg
(e) Concluded.
ii0

[]
<>
Cm 0
.8
.4 cA
I0
CN 4
0 4 8 12 16 20 32
a, deg
(f) M = 4.63.
iii
L 0
D
3 CD
I0 0
CL 4
0 4 8 12 2O 24 28 32
a, deg
(f) Concluded.
112
c
O0
C_
E
0
w_
O0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
_o"
E E
c_)
SA_-L_I_y, 1971-- 1 L-6163 113

Nasa Ntrs Archive 19710026939

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Nasa Ntrs Archive 19710026939

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NASA TECHNICAL.

by Charles D. Trescot, Jr.

Langley Research Center

VARIOUS CANARDS AND A TRAILING-EDGE FLAP CONTROL

Charles D. Trescot, Jr. L-6163

Hampton, Va. 23365

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

15. Supplementary Notes

17, Key Words (Suggested by Author(s) ) 18. Distribution Statement

Unclassified Unclassified 113 $ 3.00

AT MACH 1.50 TO 4.63 OF A MISSILE MODEL EMPLOYING VARIOUS

CANARDS AND A TRAILING-EDGE FLAP CONTROL

By Charles D. Trescot, Jr.

A cross-sectional area of body

Base axial force

CD drag coefficient, Drag

C m pitching-moment coefficient, Pitchin_ moment

longitudinal stability parameter measured near zero angle of attack

pitch-control effectiveness of canards measured between control deflections

pitch-control effectiveness of wing trailing-edge flap measured between con-

normal-force-curve slope measured near zero angle of attack, per degree

L/D lift-drag ratio

M free-stream Mach number

free-stream dynamic pressure

ot angle of attack of body center line, degrees

5f flap deflection with respect to wing-chord plane, positive trailing edge

Model-c omponent de signations:

C1,C2,C 3 canard surfaces (horizontalonly, fig. I)

APPARATUS AND TESTS

1.90 75.94 1586

3.95 229.35 4790

The results of the investigation are presented in the following figures:

Effects of the wing and canard C 1 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

Effects of the wing and canard C 2 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

Effects of the wing andcanard C3 on the longitudinal aerodynamic character-

Summaryof longitudinal characteristics ...................... 7

Effects of deflection of the canard C1 andthe wing flap on the longitudinal

Effects of deflection of the canard C2 andthe wing flap on the longitudinal

Effects of deflection of the canard C3 andthe wing flap on the longitudinal

Summary of pitch-control effectiveness ...................... 13

The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of the models as affected by the var-

For the canard-body configurations, there is little change in CA or CNa

tions where CA and CNa decrease with increasing Mach number.

Langley Research Center,

1. Spearman,M. Leroy: Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch of a Series of Cruciform-

i!i!_!i ii1: '

6c, deg 6f, deg

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

6c, deg 6f, deg

_ i!it i-: ---i_

='+: !!I :::_x

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Continued.

6c, deg 6f, deg

Figure 4.- Continued.

6c, deg 6f, deg

Figure 4.- Continued.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

6c, deg 6f, deg