https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19980228064 2018-03-16T23:45:05+00:00Z

NASA TN D-970

I==
<
<

TECHNICAL NOTE
D-970

i
EFFECT OF GROUND PROXIMITY ON THE AERODYNAMIC

CHARAC TE RISTICS OF ASPE CT-RATIO- 1 AIRFOILS

WITH AND WITHOUT END PLATES

By Arthur W. Carter
l IF

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL NOTE D-970

EFFECT OF GROUND PROXIMITY ON THE AERODYNAMIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF ASPECT-RATIO-I AIRFOILS

WITH AND WITHOUT END PLATES

By Arthur W. Carter
L
i
6 SUMMARY
9
5
An investigation has been made to determine the effect of ground
proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of _spect-ratio-1 airfoils.
The investigation was made with the model moving over the water in a
towing tank in order to eliminate the effects of wind-tunnel walls and
of boundary layer on ground boards at small ground clearances.

The results indicated that, as the ground was approached, the air-
foils experienced an increase in lift-curve slope and a reduction in
induced drag; thus, lift-drag ratio was increased. As the ground was
approached, the profile drag remained essentially constant for each air-
foil. Near the ground, the addition of end plates to the airfoil
resulted in a large increase in lift-drag ratio. The lift character-
istics of the airfoils indicated stability of height at_positive angles
of attack and instability of height at negative angles; therefore, the
operating range of angles of attack would be limited to positive values.
At positive angles of attack, the static longitudinal stability was
increased as the height above the ground was reduced.

Comparison of the experimental data with Wieselsberger's ground-

effect theory (NACA Technical Memorandum 77) indicated generally good
agreement between experiment and theory for the airfoils without end
plates.

INTRODUCTION

The large thrust augmentation obtainable with annular-jet configura-

tions in ground proximity has promoted considerable interest in ground-
effect machines (GEM's) as possible transport vehicles. Although this
thrust augmentation can be obtained in ground proximity during hovering,
the inlet momentum drag of the air required to produce the jet results
in relatively high drag at forward speeds and relatively low lift-drag
/. " • 2

ratios (see refs. i and 2). The inlet momentum drag will probably have
k
to be reduced if reasonably high speeds and long ranges are to be
achieved. This drag reduction may be accomplished by transferring some
or all of the lift from the jet thrust and base lift to something
approaching an airplane-type wing.

In order to obtain some data for use in predicting the performance

of ground-effect machines at forward speeds with the annular jet and
the inlet momentum drag completely eliminated, an investigation of the
aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils in close proximity to the ground
has been made in Langley tank no. i. The investigation vas made with L
the model moving over the water in the tank in order to eliminate the i
effects of wind-tunnel walls and boundary layer on ground boards at %he 6
small ground clearances desired. Inasmuch as most of the ground-effect 9
machines built or contemplated at present have aspect ratios of i or 3
less, the present investigation has been made on a_pect-ratio-i airfoils
only. Lift, drag, and pitching-moment data were obtained on 22-percent-
thick and ll-percent-thick airfoils. In addition, data were obtained'
on the ll-percent-thick airfoil with vertical end plates attached below
th_ lower surface. A related investigation on wings in close proximity
to the ground is presented in reference 3.

SYMBOLS

The positive directions of the forces and moments are shown in

figure i.

b2
A aspect ratio, -_

b airfoil span, ft

c airfoil chord, ft

D
CD drag coefficient,
1 2
_ov s

CL lift coefficient, L

Cm pitching-moment coefficient, My
_i_'!
__U_
_

_CD i change in induced drag coefficient

D airfoil drag, ib

L airfoil lift, ib

h
height of c/4 above ground plane, ft

h'
height of trailing edge of airfoil above ground plane, ft
• •• L

My airfoil pitching moment, ft-lb

• • 6

9 S airfoil area, sq ft
3
V
free-stream velocity, ft/sec

angle of attack, deg •

ground-influence coefficient

D
mass density of air, slugs/cu ft

(LID)= lift-drag ratio of airfoil out of ground effect

Subscript:

max max S_num

MODEL ANDAPPARATUS

The airfoil sections tested and ordinates are shown in figure i.

The 22-percent-thick airfoil is the Glenn Martin 21 section (ref. 4)
with the lower surface modified to have a flat bottom between the
30-percent-chord station and the trailing edge. The ordinates of the
ll-percent-thick airfoil were obtained by dividing the 22-percent
ordinates by 2. Both airfoils had a 48-inch chord and an aspect ratio
of i.

Vertical end plates were attached to the ll-percent-thick airfoil

for some of the tests. These end plates were made of 1/16-inch-thick
sheet metal. As shown in figure l, the end plates were flush with the
trailing edge and the bottom edges were parallel to the water surface.
The end plates were changed for each angle of attack so that the bottom
edges of the plates remained parallel to the water surface.
 I • i_i _

The investigation was made in Langley tank no. i. A description

of the tank and the apparatus used in the test is presented in refer-
ence 5. For these tests the airfoils were attached to the towing gear
by a single streamline strut as shown in figure 2. Lift, drag, and
pitching moment were measured by three external strain gages. The
pitching moment was measured about a pivot point on the gear above the
airfoil and then transferred to the moment center at the quarter chord
on the lower surface (fig. i). All tests were made at a forward speed
of 72 feet per second, which corresponded to a Reynolds number
of 1,840,000. Data were obtained through an angle-of-attack range from
i
-6 ° to 18 ° at heights of the trailing edge of the airfoil above the L
water surface ranging from 0.015 chord to 2 chords. The height varia- 1
tion was obtained by changing the water level in the towing tank as 6
well as by raising and lowering the airfoil through a limited range. 9
3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results showing the effect of the ground on the aerodynamic

characteristics of the aspect-ratio-i airfoils are presented in fig-
ures 3 and 4. The variations of CD, _, and Cm with CL for the
22-percent-thick airfoil and for the ll-percent-thick airfoil with and
without end plates are presented in figure 3 for a range of height-to-
span ratios. The variation of CL, CD, and Cm with height• of the

trailing edge of the airfoil above the ground is presented in figure 4

for several angles of attack. Lines of constant height of the quarter-
chord point are also shown in this figure.

Lift

The data of figure 3 show that, at small angles of attack, the

lift-curve slope increased as the ground was approached. This increase
in lift-curve slope was accompanied by a change in the angle of attack
for zero llft. As the ground was approached, the angle of attack for
zero lift became progressively less negative.

The lift for both the ll-percent-thick and 22-percent-thick air-

foils near an angle of attack of 0 ° was essentially invariant with
height of the airfoil above the ground. At positive angles of attack,
the lift was increased as the ground was approached, whereas at negative
angles of attack, the llft was decreased. These results suggest that
the increase in lift at a given positive angle of attack, as the ground
was approached, may be due to the ram air on the lower surface which
increased the positive pressure on that surface. Pressure-distribution
data presented in reference 6 for a wing with an aspect ratio of 5
 } • •

indicate that the increase in lift at positive angles of attack was due
to an increase in lower surface pressures_ the upper surface pressures
were essentially unaffected as the distance above the ground was changed.

The loss in lift as the ground was approached at a given negative

angle of attack apparently was due to venturi action which increased the
negative pressures on the lower surface as the ground was approached.
The pressure-distribution data of reference 6 show the rapid increase
in negative pressures on the lower surface near the airfoil leading edge
L as the ground was approached; whereas, again the upper surface pressures
were essentially unaffected by changes in height above the ground at
1 these negative angles.
6
9
The additional lift obtained by the airfoil with end plates (com-
3
pare figs. 3(b) and 3(c)) apparently was due to the reduction of flow
out at the tips of the airfoil, which greatly increased the ram-pressure
effect on the airfoil lower surface, especially at heights very near the
ground.

Near an angle of attack of 0 °, the lift coefficient for the

22-percent-thick airfoil (fig. 3(a)) was approximately twice that for
the ll-percent-thick airfoil (fig. 3(b)). For the ll-percent-thick
airfoil, the lift coefficient was only about 0.15. These low lift
coefficients near an angle of attack of 0 ° and the fact that lift was
essentially invariant with height at this attitude suggest the desir-
ability of operating a ground-effect machine which has an airfoil-
"shaped body at positive angles of attack so that a reasonably high
Operating lift coefficient may be obtained. A further reason for
operating a ground-effect machine only at positive angles of attack can
clearly be seen in figure 4. These data graphically show that a reduc-
tion in height caused a loss in lift at negative angles of attack and
an increase in lift at positive angles of attack. This lift character-
istic would provide stability of height at positive angles of attack
and because of the venturi action at negative angles of attack would
limit the operating range of angles of attack to positive values.

Pitching Moment

The data of figure 3 show that the pitching moments became less
negative at an angle of attack of 0 ° as the ground was approached. The
pitching-moment data also show that, for positive angles of attack, the
static longitudinal stability was increased as the height above the
ground was reduced. This increase in stability apparently resulted
from the ram pressure on the lower surface of the airfoil. As the
ground was approached, the increase in lift due to the ram pressure was
distributed more or less uniformly over the lower surface. (This effect
is shown in ref. 6.) The center of this lift increment was, therefore,
 • • " i¸ ' '• _I ••! ' •" , • '.._ _•_i_ '/_i _:_

_k

•6

near the half-chord point and thus tended to move the center of total
lift (aerodynamic center) aft and thereby increase the longitudinal
stability. This effect was particularly noticeable for the airfoil
with end plates (fig. 3(c)).

L • - Drag

The data of figure 3 show the effects of the ground on drag. As

the ground was approached, the induced drag was reduced although the
profile drag remained essentially constant for each airfoil. Near the L
ground, the addition of end plates to the ll-percent-thick airfoil 1
resulted in a large decrease in the induced drag. (Compare figs. 3(b) 6
and 3(c).) 9
3

Lift-Drag Ratio

The" results showing the effect of the ground on lift-drag ratios

of the airfoils are presented in figures 5 and 6. Lift-drag ratios are
plotted against lift coefficient in figure 5 for various heights of the
trailing edge above the ground and in figure 6 for various heights of
the quarter chord above the ground. The angle of attack for maximum
L/D was about 2.5 ° for both the 22-percent-thick and ll-percent-thick
airfoils. The addition of end plates increased the angle of attack for
maximum L/D to about 3°. Maximum lift-drag ratios have been obtained
from figures _ and 6 and are plotted against-height-to-span ratio in
figure 7. A reduction in thickness from 22-percent to ll-percent chord
increased the value of L/D approximately 45 percent at _- = 2.00
b
(no ground effect) and approximately 55 percent when the airfoil was in

close proximity to the ground = O.O1 . This increase was largely

due to the lower profile drag of the thinner airfoil. The addition of
end plates to the ll-percent-thick airfoil resulted in a large increase
in L/D when the airfoil was in close proximity to the ground because
of the increase in lift caused by the increase in ram pressure. The
effect of end plates became negligible when the trailing edge was 15 per-
cent of the span above the ground or when the quarter chord was 2_ per-
cent of the span above the ground.

The theoretical treatment of ground effect presented by Wieselsberger

in reference 7 indicates a method for predicting the reduction in induced
drag for a wing at various heights of the quarter chord of the wing above
the ground. According to reference 7, the reduction in induced drag of
a monoplane in ground effect is given by the equation
 •

/ •
7

where q is defined as the ground influence coefficient. At values of

h/b between 0.033 and 0.25, g may be obtained from the following
formula:

i- 1.32h
b
L 1.05 + 7.4 h
H

i b
6
9 where h in the present investigation is equal to one-half the qu/ntity
3 h defined in reference 7. The variation of _ with h/b (for h as
defined in the present investigation) is shown in figure 8.

The results of the present investigation are compared with theory

in figure 9, where the ratio of maximum L/D in ground effect to maximum
L/D out of ground effect is plotted against height-to-span ratio at the
airfoil quarter chord. At maximum values of the lift-drag ratio, the
theory of reference 7 reduces to the following formula (for finite aspect
ratio):

(L/D)max i

(LID)o%max _-

The theory is plotted as a solid line. The dashed portion of the curve
represents the range of values of h/b for which the author of refer-

ence 7 considered the theory inapplicable 0.033 < K < 0.2 . The agree-
ment Between experiment and theory appears to be generally good for the
airfoils without end plates.

Data for the aspect-ratio-i wing of reference 3 are shown in fig-

ure 9 for comparison with data from the present investigation. Data
from the two investigations of aspect-ratio-1 airfoils without end
plates appear to be in generally good agreement. Although only limited
data were available for the model with end plates from reference 3, the
effect of end plates on lift-drag ratio was considerably less than that
of the model with end plates from the present investigation. The reason
for this lack of agreement between the two sets of data is not known.
The wind-tunnel data of reference 3, however, were obtained at a much
lower Reynolds number than the present investigation, and the end plates
were applied in a somewhat different manner.

t
 8

CONCLUSIONS

The results of an investigation of the effect of ground proximity

on the aerodynamic characteristics of aspect-ratio-1 airfoils led to
the following conclusions:

i. As the ground was approached, the airfoils experienced an

increase in lift-curve slope and a reduction in induced drag_ thus, an
increase in lift-drag ratio resulted. The agreement between experiment
and Wieselsberger's ground-effect theory appears to be generally good L
for the airfoils without end plates.
1
6
2. Near the ground, the addition of end plates to the airfoil"
9
resulted in further increase in lift-curve slope and reduction in induced
3
drag which resulted in a large increase in lift-drag ratio.
@

3. As the ground was approached_ the profile drag remained essen-

tially constant for each airfoil.

4. At positive angles of attack, the static longitudinal stability

was increased as the height above the ground was reduced.

5, The lift characteristics of the airfoils indicated stability of

height at positive angles of attack and instability of height at nega-
tive angles. These characteristics would limit the operating range of
angles of attack to positive values.

Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Langley Air Force Base, Va., August ll, 1961.
I _ L I¸

REFERENCES

i. Kuhn, Richard E., and Carter, Arthur W.: Research Related to

Ground Effect Machines. Symposium on Ground Effect Phenomena,
Oct. 21-23, 1959, pp. 23-43. (Sponsored by Dept. Aero. Eng.,
Princeton Univ. and U.S. Army TRECOM.)

2. Kuhn_ Richard E., Carter, Arthur W., and Schade_ Robert 0. : Over-
Water Aspects of Ground-Effect Vehicles. Paper No. 60-14, Inst.
L Aero. Sci., Jan. 1960.
i
6 3. Fink, Marvin P., and Lastinger, James L.: Aerodynamic Character-
9 istics of Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings in Close Proximity to the Ground.
3 NASA TN D-926 , 1961.

4. National Advisory Committee for A@ronautics: Aerodynamic Character-

istics of Airfoils - IV. NACA Rep. 244, 1926. (Reprinted 1928.)

5. Truscott, Starr: The Enlarged N.A.C.A. Tank, and Some of Its Work.
NACA TM 918, 1939.

6. Serebrisky, Y. M., and Biachuev, S. A.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation

of the Horizontal Motionfof a Wing Near the Ground. NACA TM 1095,
1946.

7. Wieselsberger, C. : Wing Resistance Near the Ground. NACA TM 77,

1922.
!1%. :k :

i0

Airfoil ordinates
CL !Station,
percent chord
percent
chord
Upper Lover

0 8.86 8.86
1.29 ]2..21 6.03
2.5 15.81 4.79
15.98 3.33
17.65 2.55
i0 18.92 1.72
15 20.72 .75
20 21.68 .28
22,13
21.13
O.
0
V
19.20 0
i 60 16.64 0 kO

Woter $urfoce-____._ " 70

8o
15.35
9.43
0
0
_ 90 5.OO 0
95 2.57 0
lO0 0 0

(a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

Airfoil ordinates
Station,
percent chord
percent
chord
Upper Lower

0 4.43 4.43
1.25 6.10 5.02
2.5 6.90 2.40
5 7.99 3.66
7.5 8.82 L ].8
lO 9.46 .86
15 10.36 .
2o i0.84 .i_
50 11.o6 o
_o lO.% o
50 9.6o o
60 8.32 o
70 6.68 0
8o 4.72 0
#
9o 2.50 o
Woter surfoce-_ t 95 1.28 o
100 0 0

(b) ll-percent-thick airfoil with end plates.

Figure i.- Airfoil sections, ordinates and principal dimensions.

 / "I¸ ,i_ • •...... _ :_

• k
p •
ll

(a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

A"

(b) ll-percent-thick airfoil with end plates. L-61-_064

Figure 2.- Photographs of airfoils and setup on towing carriage in

Langley tank no. 1.
 H

_0

• " (a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 3.-Aerodynamic characteristics of aspect-ratio-i airfoil at various height-to-span ratios.

• _691-_ .
 : ,L •

L-1693

L8

16

:2
0 .I .2 .3 -5 0 5 I0 15 20 0 -.05 -.15 •i

o,deg cm

(b) ll-percent-thick airfoil.

F-,
Figure 3.- Continued. k.n
 , L-1693

I
"paPUlZOUOD -'_ a,n'_]:._'

(o)

.-.H-

/
_i;i;_ii:
_ _

17

:. • . •

O_
kO
rH

A.
0

•4 .6 .8 lO L2 14 L6 L8 20 "

(a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 4.- Variation of aerodynamic characteristics with height-to-span

ratio for aspect-ratio-i airfoil.
 16

• : 0

(_

.05

LO

A"

.6 .8 lO L2 1.4

(b) ll-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 4.- Continued.

 i _ii _ i¸k_ 'ii

1T

L
Cm

prc_ 15
o_
ko

.2 .4 .6 . .B lO L2 L4 L6 L8

(c) ll-percent-thlck airfoil with end plates.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

 18

18

16

t_
I

_C
xj,

L/D lO

O0 .2 .4 .6 .8 I0 12 /.4
CL

(a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 5.- Variation of lift-drag ratio with lift coefficient for aspect-
ratio-i airfoil at various heights of the airfoil trailing edge above
the ground.
 19

O_
kO

A"

0o 2 4 lO

(b) ll-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 5.- Continued.

 llllllllllllllllllllltlllllit.llll:llllllllll[llllllllllllllllll"_.
iiiiiiiii!!!!!!iiiiiiiiii '
11

lllllll!!lllliiiiiiiilliilill: llllllllllll
!!!i!!!lilll.!!!]!!_billll IIIIIII IIIItllllillllltllllllllllllllllllllllllil
I.l
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:
_ _ li_i_ i_ el _ _ _ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I t tr_-4-.J
lllllllllllllllllll_.+-_r_,lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
t I Itll IIt I I 11 I I I I IA,_I"TI IIt I III t I I I I I I I I11 I III I I I I I I I III I I III I I I I ©
II

llllllllll"""-_'llllll'_"lllllllllillllllllllllllllll_,,_,,,
,,,_ I I
IIII
0 DO_ _vV IIIIIIIIII_/I ,_tlt II IIll
I I L_._/I IIIlllllll
I I I I I I I III I!!!IIIIIIIIIIIII'_
1 IIIItllllllllll'llltl ',III
r f I III 11 IIXI III I I I I I I t I I!,_I'_11 I I I I III I I IIt I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I11 I I I
_1 I tTTIllFIIlIIFT]7-
tllllllllllllllll llllll-_rllllllllllll_,_Gllllllllllll_llllllllllllllllllllllllll
illl[iltlltllltll
III'I_"IIIIIIIIII'_"IIIIIIII:IIII'"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,.+,
i ,_._, ,_, (D
lllllilllllllll_ " I _
l.)ll_.ll
I I YI
III tl II II tl II II II tl 1111I/I I II II I I II II i i I i II I II I I1#11
I'1
I #t I I I t I 1t II II II II i II II il II li II II II II 11II III II tt
"

,
1 llllJilliil l
I)111]11[..¢"111111 i _11111t1111lt1111#1111]
tl
II
IIIIIItllt111_1111tl
IIIIIlilll Illlllllll
I IIIIIIIIil
III1111111
IItlIIIIIL'_IIIIIItlII
I¥1111111t11111111111111
711111i1111111111111
IIItlIIII
IIII
I III11111111
Illlll
IIIItl
I
I
I ItlIIIIM"llEIIIII] •r4 _J
' ll'_'_ltiliitlIll , IIIIIIII]III'_'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII]-,_711111'_'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
'_, ,_-,
t _,.N_lilllillllt[lll II ItlItlIItlAIIIIIIIII IIIIIIt/IIIIIIIIZIII Illlllllll IIIIIII111
I1 I I/I lxl II ,-_ ,-_
IIIIIIIII'<"IIIIIIIIIIIIII,/1tlIIII,_.._, ,.,^,II,,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ o
,,, ,,, 0
,,_,IIIIIIIIIIIIII""II !!ti ii11 I/I i,,,,i,,i,,ii,,i :,,,,ii,, 0

IIt I I I II II I_
t, yl I iI II II I! II II II II I! II tI II iI 11
I 1 I/I
l_f I I1 t I I I I I Ift
I/I IJll
I 11 I I1_[7 II tI II II 11
I I II II tI II II iI tI II II II II Jt II i1

jiiilll Itill i IIIII'"IIIIIi_

_,,,
I I Ill#11tllll
I 11 I I I I I / I I_11
11
I t I I I I 1_! I f_-#l ILI
l#'l
1 t_LL

_,,,,,iIIIItI NI I I Ill/l I ]11 I t I I11 I I I I I I ILl I I I I I I I i'_iLI Ill IIL#rt I I I I 11t I I t I I I I I I I I I I

tl_llllllllllll
III_I i IIIII II_IIN
_1
IIIIZlIIIIIIIIIIIIIItI_IIIIIIII_I_'II_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
III_4111111111111111111111111111,',IL_I_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I11_11 I II tt I II I I I II I I 1_ I I I I II I I I#11#l lillITII I I111 I II I I I I I I I I II I I I

lllilllll_lll llllklllllllllllllllllllllllllllAIMl_I/llllllllllllllllllllllll I
-_ -,-4
[llllllllIIIIl"_-lt I III I_ill II tl I Itli IIi I I IIII I I I I I I_ IZt I/1/I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I11 I I

_bi@ llllllllllllIIIl? _ I I I I I I_LI I I I I I I I i I I I I I IIIt t l I I I I!'11/I t,4 I_1 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I

I I I II1111 I 1

;1it-tlll - ft,, kX,, - "

Ilillllllllllllll
_I'_LIII,,,_-,,,,I
_Li)I"t-.I
I IIt I'I_ I I
I I_I_11

t I I 1_4. I I II II IIII I,,_,,,

I _<.11
1 ii1%111 t
I I
II1#11ZI I !1/1,,,_, _,,I
IJl I I I I
I II II I1{
IIII I II IIII I,
I I I
I IIIII
II I II II
II II
I I I
I

IIIIlllllliliiiii I I I_f',t..LI I'_'%.11 I_t_J. I I I I I I I I%J I I I I d III I]11r_'_t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I

!
IIllllllllllllIil llllllllllll_'_'_"_'"l_l'"_'IlllllllIllllllIlllllllllllll,,,
_.,_-,._, , _,, ,--t
IIIIIIit1111111tl
[llllllllllIlll',ll'_'_t_''""ll:"ll:llll'llll_llIIiilllll,_,,
_.1 _,_, ,._ ,, _.
IIIIIiiiiiiiiiiii
IIIIIIIIit1111111 I 1IIII 1II II 1II 1II ill 1I 1l',_,,_'_,_IIl III II 1fill III I 11III :'_',II 11
I I 111 I f IIt I I Itl I III I I III III III i F_lle_ll I III I I t I I I I III I I III I I III I I I 0
IIIIIIIIIIIIit111 I I IIIIIIit111111111111 IIIII II11111",1"11111111111 IIII1111111111tl
IIII1,111111111111
]il[ll]lltlllllll
111111111t1111111
IIIIIIIIII11111IIII
IIIIIIII111111111 I iiiiiiiiiiitl IIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllJlllllltllllllllll _-

. . ,'. ,'
 : I ;:. _ !_: .... ii i l _l,j:,_/ '-. • • •• • ,1 .:

21

14

L/D lO

(a) 22-percent-thick airfoil.

Figure 6.- Variation of lift-drag ratio with lift coefficient for aspect-
ratio-1 airfoil at various heights of the airfoil quarter-chord line
above the ground.
 22

IIIIIIIIIIIII I " ,,Ill;

Jllllltill_f]

llllllflllflt ,i lllIIllIl"l,, ,, h/A

llIllIIIl"l,,,, ._
IFtlIIIIIIIII lllllllll"I",,
Irlllllllllll
IIIIIIIII" Itll[
rlo o.05
IIIit11][1111
/8 IIIIIIIIIIIII ,, ,,a .09
lllrli[iJlJll :::::::::if:"
IIIIIli[lllll
III1111111111
IIIIIIIIIF[FI _ Iiii ,,
I II ,,'' ,vii ._--,-.,
7
I[t111i111111 IIII, +," fly .50
Ill Iiiii
!!F,,,!!ill I i !!o ./z
IIII l!l' _ 2.00
Illlllllilllt
Illllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIfIII
IrllllllllltF IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII
/4 IIIIIIII1[111 I
IIIIIII1[1111 llllllllllllIlllllllllllllll
lllllll[llllllltllllllllll]l
IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII1111111111111111111111
IIIIIIit11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIII ',,0

JI"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiIIIIIIIiIIr

IIIIIIIIl[lll lllllllllll.lllIllllIlllllill
/2 IIIlIIlIIIIIL_ llll[llllllllllllllIllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIll!J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIl'llllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIII
IIil111111 _1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIII
I1[1111111_11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIII

IIIIIII'"III,,, ,
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIl
IIllllllllllllllllllllIlllIl
IIII I[lYlIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIII VtlIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi
. llll"_llrlll,,,
IIII VIIIILIII llllllllllIlllIllllllllIllll
I[IIAIIIIIlll IIIIIIIIIIllllltllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllIlll
II1_'IIIIIII1,_, I]fllllllllllllfttJlllllltll
llllllJlllllllllIIllllllJlll
1_1111112_ .... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII
IAIIII_IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIII
Xll],kTlglllll IIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
8 /
'llflllLIIllll
IXIIIIILIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
YIIIIIII]IIII
ql14111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH
IIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIlIIIIIIIPII[I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIlIIII

lllllllllllllllIllIllllIIllll
! I I I I I ]'_,._1 I I I Illlllllllllllll[llllllllllll
llll]llllllllllllllllllllllll
6 llllllllllllllllllllIIlllllll
I "NIMJ "_,_1 | ] I ] I Illllllll]l[lllllllllllllllll
I I l*4J,l_l I P'/'_L I I I 'llllllllllllllllillllllllllll
IIIII_'-.LIIIT"_'J _! llllllllllllllllll_llllllllll
lllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIII
.k&IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIII
llllllll[r"_,b_ . _-P'_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIllll " III l_IIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIllll

4 IIIIIIIIIIIII " IIIII*_,_IJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIll _KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIilllllll _,lll,,,,llllllIllllllllllll
IIIllllllllll lllll1111llllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIllllll IllIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIllIIllII
Illilllilllll
IIIIIrlllllll llIlllllllIllllIlllllllIlllIl
IIIIIllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1[11111111111
11111111111111111111111111111
IIIllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1111
+ 2 IIIIIIIIII!11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!]llllllllfll
L"
IIIIIIIIlllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIt11111111111111111111IIIII
IIIIIitliii[I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1111111111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIj111

0 IIIII!11[1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIII1111

0 .2 4 .6 .8 lO 12 /4 "

(b) ll-percent-thlek airfoil.

Figure 6.- Continued.

 < . ,.;

!._7.:- : :-

23

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIfll
IIIIIjlllllllllll
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
lllllllllllllll .i.._iill_llllt
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIt1[ IIII',I11_I1t, 1111
lljll!!Sillllllll
11111 Jill[Ill
' Illlli

Ili11111111111111

lillllllll It
o o.o6 I_EE
/8 n .09
Iiiiiiiiii II III/Iiliii illlll li
IIIIIIIIIIII11111 _',III1I',I',
IIil1
0 .17_
Liiilll i
Ill]tit
lll
III J, iiilili,,,,,,.,,,
IIIIIIIIII A .25
I 11111111111111111 ' IIlllllllllllllll
v .50
/6 IIIIIIIIZlBillitl iiiiiil]lii][il!!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /.00
__
11111111111111111 ,_
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII]

lllill jlliiii17 Ill

III,
i iI',',1,1111
,,I'11,11111 I 1_1"90_
IIIIIIIIIIIII
O_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II I
IlIItlIIIIIIIIA
I lil
II
I'll ','11', ',
',1',','I1
,
14 III 111,111,11
IIIIII,,1, illll!
lllll I, I I IIII _, I,',I IIIIIIIII
IIIIIli1111_
Illi111111Z11iIll
III11
I I I II II I, II II II II IA.-t_I I I
I I I I L.,_r"
II11,1111111!1
IIIIIIII11,1,11
llllllll'_'llilli,.,
IIl[llllgllll
II1_11111111"1
IJ,.,ff"l

IIL.t'ffllll,llllll'
J.'_111111111111111
I I I I L I

IIIIillli1111
'11i1111111111
IIIIIIIIAIIIIIIII

/2
IIIIIIIVII1111111
IIIIIIIAIIIIIIIII
illllllllllll
III1111111111

IIIII'"
IIIIIVII
,.1!!!!!.,
II_. llllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIll1111111
1 IIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII

llll"llill"-_'1,,, I,,,I lllllllEillll

IIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIi]IIIIIYIIIII
IIII/11111Iy11111 IIIIIIIIIIII
II1%11111y1111111

II _ 111'/1111111 i'.i',',lllll',ii[i
llillllllll,,,,.
ill

I IIIllllll_
IIIIIII
IIIIIIII
I

IIAIIIylIIIIIIII IIIll IIIII1 i

Illllltllll Ill
I/ll_llllllllll IIllllll'l III

_ ,,,"AIIIIILI]III III ,,lllliiliill, ILII '1 IIIIlIttll1111

' II II111111
11_1111111111111 Illllllllll I
.- IIII 111111
g_lllllllllllll _1 IIIIIII
I I r'_kl iii i i
t _1111111111111111, -i1111111ilL III
8 '41111111111.lJ.4q_. IIII 111111111111
ItlE iiii

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIII IIIIllllllll
i/ I[llllllJ-_'qlllll
_" IIIIIIIIIIlllll Ill iliillib4-1!
IltlIII
ll,_,,--t, IIIII II IIIIIIII111111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIIII
III

1_111111111111
M"I lkl I 11111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII
11111111111111111
L_.IIIIlllI"I--'I3-T"_-.F._ IIIIIIIIjlllllll] IIIIIIIIIIII

6 I
.._/l_t"(,.JIIIII111111
I vl- I I IW'I_--,I-_ I"IIIIII
'_1,, ,i,
id I I "I,,_I_,L IvT',,,1K_ I I I I I I
I I I r-_M::_J_ I I F",I_L I 11 I
I I Ill lii IIII1,1,,,1
III _--_, ,11,,,1
1, , I ,
II1111111111
I I I I I I I I ]<3L-.t1_. I 11 T_b IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111'11
IIIIIIIIII1"%.._L_
IIIIIIIIIIIIIT._/_
_] _11"11,1111',IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII
F_-_.1111 il II II III I IIIIIIIIIIII
IIII111111111111_ _
IIIIIIIIIIII

4 IIII!IIIIIIIIII
IIII IIIIIIIIII
I "11'"in!
,ill
,11,1
IIII',IIII
,i,,,,,i, I!111111"II,,
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIII11ilIIIIIIII IIIII',IIIIIIIIIII 111111111111
i1111111111i1111 IIIIIIIIIII1-11111
LIIIIIIIIIII
lllIlillllllllll
i,
IIIIIllfllllllll 11111111111
,11',11 IIIIIII[IIII IIIIIIIIIIII

III_,III
2 II, lllllllilllll
IIIIII I II II IIIIIIIllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII

IIIlll :! Iiili
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
iii!i', i,'111,'11
III! i IIIllllllll
111111111111
Illlllllllll

IIIIIIIII1111111
llllllllllilll
IIIIIIIIIIIIII]1

[lllllllllllllll ilII1,1111[111il liliiii!!!!! -

0o 2 .4 .G .8 10 12 14 -
q

(c) ll-percent-thlck airfoil _ith end plates.

Figure 6.- Concluded.

 ,. , L-1693

"TTo_Te
T-oT_-_o_ds_ _o soT_ _P-_TT ummTx_ uo sa_Td pua pu_ gsau_oT_ _ do _oa_ -'Z _zu_T_
v
t

• a_pa _uTTT_% ITo_T_ $_ oT%_ T._ds-o%-%T_Ta H (_)

¢/ql
OI 9 ¢, Z I 9 zF Z" I" IO"
0

. .i. _
a_
ct/
 °

•puuoa_ oq$ aAoq_ %_TO_ q%T_ $uoToTj_ooa oauouTsuT-puruo_ $o UOT%_T_A -'_ o_ru_T_

%
gZ"
04

I0"
Ol

gl

_row'_(O/ 7)

Ox

_69I_
I
- ';