EXTENSION OF A NUMERICAL SOLUTION FOR THE

AEBODXNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING TO INCLUDE A

CANARD OR HORIZONTAT TAIL

By Barrett L. Shrout
Langley Research Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, Virginia

--A

(CODE)

0/
(CATEGORY)

I
I

A method for predicting the aerodynamic lifting surface characteristics

of wing-horizontal tail configurations or canard wing configurations at
supersonic speeds is discussed. The numerical solution has been programed
for a digital computer and is part of a complex of computer programs used
in the design, optimization, and waluation of aircraft configurations at
supersonic speeds. The method is an extension of the Carlson-Middleton
numerical solution for lifting surfaces, which is briefly rwiewed. The
present method predicts lift, drag, and moment characteristics over a
range of lift coefficients and for various control settings. Theoretical
and experimental data are compaxed for wing-horizontal tail configurations
and for canard-wing configurations at various Mach numbers. These comparisons show both the basic data with control deflections and some final
trimmed drag polars. Some data are also presented to show the extent to
which program limitations affect the accuracy of the analytic methods.

SYMBOLS
weighting f a c t o r f o r p a r t i a l g r i d elements
mean geometric chord
drag c o e f f i c i e n t , D / ~ S
l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t , L/S
pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , M1 /qsT
pitching-moment c o e f f i c i e n t a t zero l i f t
increment i n Cmo

f o r control deflection

s t a b i l i t y l e v e l , measured i n the v i c i n i t y of zero l i f t

l i f t i n g pressure c o e f f i c i e n t
drag
lift
coordinates of influencing g r i d elements
coordinates of f i e l d - p o i n t g r i d element
free-stream Mach number
pitching moment
dynamic pressure
g r i d element influence function
wing reference area
downwash s t r e n g t h
Cartesian coordinate system, x-axis streamwise
camber surface ordinate
angle of a t t a c k

horizontal t a i l deflection, p o s i t i v e t r a i l i n g edge down

canard deflection, p o s i t i v e t r a i l i n g edge down
f l a p o r elevon deflection, p o s i t i v e t r a i l i n g edge down
Subscripts:

wing
body plus v e r t i c a l t a i l
horizontal t a i l

EXTENSION OF A NUMERICAL SOLUTION FOR TIIE

AER0DYNAMI:C CWCTERISTICS OF A WING TO INCLUDE A
CANARD OR HORIZONTAL TAIL
By B a r r e t t L. Shrout
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, V i r g i n i a

With t h e a r r i v a l of t h e supersonic j e t e r a , t h e aerodynamicist has r e a l i z e d Ohat t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a

c o n f i g u r a t i o n can no l o n g e r be considered t h e sum o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i t s component p a r t s . Mutual
aerodynamic i n t e r f e r e n c e between components has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e o v e r a l l aerodynamic charact e r i s t i c s of a configuration; a s a consequence, extensive wind-tunnel t e s t i n g must be done f o r configurat i o n design and a n a l y s i s . As an a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e aerodynamicist can use a n a l y t i c techniques f o r much of
t h e preliminary design and e v a l u a t i o n work with wind-tunnel t e s t i n g used f o r f i n a l v e r i f i c a t i o n .
NASA's Langley Research Center has been working i n r e c e n t years toward t h e development of a systematic
method of a n a l y s i s f o r supersonic c o n f i g u r a t i o n s u t i l i z i n g high-speed d i g i t a l computers. From t h i s
e f f o r t has evolved a complex of computer programs used t o e s t i m a t e wave drag, s k i n - f r i c t i o n drag, and
d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t o f supersonic a i r c r a f t configurations. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , it has been necessary t o estimate
s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u s i n g empirical techniques, o r t o o b t a i n them from wind-tunnel d a t a ,
The method and r e s u l t s of modifying t h e l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e a n a l y s i s program t o p r e d i c t s t a b i l i t y and contra:
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t a i l l e s s , wing-horizontal t a i l , and canard-wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e presented i n t h i s
paper. The experimental d a t a presented were taken p r i m a r i l y from r e f e r e n c e s (7) through (15).
DISCUSSION
A block diagram i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e Langley supersonic a n a l y s i s computer program complex i s shown i n f i g w e 1.
I n b r i e f , t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o be analyzed i s reduced t o a numerical model i n which a l l wing coordinates,
t h i c k n e s s r a t i o s , camber l i n e s , body contours, empennage, and so f o r t h , a r e expressed i n x, y, and
z coordinates, a s a computer card deck. This numerical model, o r components o f it, i s then i n p u t t o t h e
s e l e c t e d computer program and t h e d e s i r e d component o f drag i s c a l c u l a t e d .

An i l l u s t r a t i o n of a t y p i c a l numerical model i s shown i n f i g u r e 2 . The complexity of t h e l~umericalmodel.

and t h e a t t e n t i o n t o d e t a i l i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e configuration a r e obvious i n t h i s drawing. The
drawing, which i s machine p l o t t e d from a t a p e made using t h e numerical model a s i n p u t , serves a very u s e f u l
f u n c t i o n i n t h a t i t provides a check on t h e accuracy of t h e numerical model. Misplaced decimals o r
i n c o r r e c t numbers become q u i t e obvious i n these drawings, which may be three-view, oblique, o r perspec-t,iiie.
The t h r e e p r i n c i p l e programs required t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s i c drag p o l a r a r e t h e s k i n - f r i c t i o n drag program.
t h e wave drag program, and t h e d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t program. A t y p i c a l drag p o l a r , i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e use of
t h e s e t h r e e programs i s shown i n f i g u r e 3 . The wave drag program c a l c u l a t e s t h e drag due Lo volume a t
zero l i f t using t h e method o f r e f e r e n c e ( 1 ) . The method u t i l i z e s a f a r - f i e l d approach by r e l a t i % Lhe
drag t o t h e momentum flow outward through a l a r g e c y l i n d r i c a l c o n t r o l s u r f a c e whose l o n g i t u d i n a l
.
t h e f l i g h t p a t h . Skin f r i c t i o n i s evaluated by t h e Sommer and Short T' method of r e f e r e n c e ( 2 ) witn the
s k i n f r i c t i o n of each component c a l c u l a t e d and t h e n summed. The drag-due-to-lift c a l c u l a t i o n u t i l l z e s
t h e Carlson-Middleton method of r e f e r e n c e (3) and u s e s a n e a r - f i e l d method whereby d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e s
a r e c a l c u l a t e d over t h e mean camber plane o f t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n .
The sum o f t h e s e drag components y i e l d s t h e b a s i c drag p o l a r . Performance a n a l y s i s , however, r e q i u r e s
drag p o l a r f o r t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n a trimmed condition. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , it has been necessary t o o b t ~ l n
pitching-moment curves and c o n t r o l increments from wind-tunnel d a t a i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h trimmed drag
p o l a r s . The d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t program has been modified t o provide c o n t r o l increments f o r t a i l l e s s
configurations and t o provide s t a b i l i t y l e v e l s and c o n t r o l increments f o r wing-horizontal t a i l coniigu?;urat i o n and f o r canard-wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .
The method u t i l i z e d i n t h e d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t program i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 4. The mean camber plane i s
represented i n t h e program by a g r i d element system, each block o f which i s i n c l i n e d t o t h e flow a t an
angle determined by t h e camber plane i n t h a t region. For an uncambered wing, t h e i n c l i n a t i o n angles a r e
a l l zero.
Consider a p a i r of elements i n t h e g r i d system. The forward element ( c o o r d i n a t e s L, N) generates a downwash w which a f f e c t s a l l t h e elements i n t h e t r a i l i n g Mach cone. The d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e ACp , a t t h e
f i e l d p o i n t L*, N* i s c a l c u l a t e d from t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e element L, N (and a l l o t h e r elements I n t h e
f o r e Mach cone from t h e f i e l d p o i n t ) using t h e equation shown. The term a z c / a x i s t h e slope of t h e
camber s u r f a c e a t t h e f i e l d p o i n t . The term A(L, N) i s a weighting f a c t o r f o r g r i d element s i z e allowing
p a r t i a l g r i d elements t o be used along t h e l e a d i n g and t r a i l i n g edges. The term T? i s a n i n f l u e n c e funct i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h e f i e l d p o i n t p o s i t i o n i n t h e downwash o f t h e preceding elements. The c a l c u l a t i o n
process begins a t t h e apex and proceeds a c r o s s each g r i d element row while proceeding toward t h e t r a i l i n g
edge. Thus t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e of each element i n t h e f o r e Mach cone of each f i e l d p o i n t has prev i o u s l y been c a l c u l a t e d . Simultaneously, c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e made f o r t h e planform a s a f l a t p l a t e a t lo
a n g l e of a t t a c k . Once t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e s over t h e s u r f a c e a r e known, t h e y a r e i n t e g r a t e d t o prov i d e f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s . A s u p e r p o s i t i o n technique u s i n g t h e f l a t p l a t e and cambered wing
d a t a provides f o r t h e v a r i a t i o n of drag w i t h l i f t .
A more d e t a i l e d explanation of t h e numerical s o l u t i o n can be found i n r e f e r e n c e s

(3) and ( 4 )

'_'he modifirations made t o t h e program t o account f o r a h o r i z o n t a l t a i l a r e shown i n f i g u r e 5. The wing

2nd forebody a r e rlandled i n a manner much t h e same a s t h e o r i g i n a l program. The afterbody and h o r i z o n t a l
4311 have been added and t h e g r i d system extended a s shown on t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e sketch. The region
cutbonrd of t h e body, a f t of t h e wing t r a i l i n g edge, and forward of t h e t a i l l e a d i n g edge i s a region of
~ e r oloadlng; t h a t i s , t h e r e i s no s u r f a c e w i t h i n t h i s region t o support a p r e s s u r e d i f f e r e n t i a l . Grid
elements on -che t a i l a r e s t i l l influenced by t h e p a r t of t h e wing w i t h i n t h e i r f o r e Mach cones, and t h e s e
vrng pressures a r e included i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e t a i l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
Some of t n e general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e l i f t i n g s u r f a c e programs a r e l i s t e d on f i g u r e 5. The mean
camber plane i n p u t t o t h e program may b e cambered and t w i s t e d o r a f l a t p l a t e . The forebody may be
c-qbered ind t h e wing planform i s a r b i t r a r y . For t h e h o r i z o n t a l - t a i l program s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e t a i l may
b e of a r b i t r a r y planform and c o n t r o l i n p u t s may b e f o r e i t h e r a f u l l s l a b t a i l d e f l e c t i o n o r d e f l e c t i o n
of e l e v a t o r s on t h e t a i l .

It should be noted t h a t t h e program i s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o use. I n p u t s c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y of l e a d i n g and

- , r a i l i n g edge coordinates f o r t h e wing-body and h o r i z o n t a l t a i l , and streamwise camber l i n e s composed
of z coordinates a t s p e c i f i e d p e r c e n t chord s t a t i o n s . The g r i d system i s imposed w i t h i n t h e program
~ n dIn interpolation r o u t i n e a s s i g n s a s u i t a b l e d e f l e c t i o n t o each g r i d element. The g r i d system shown
on t n e s l i d e i s only a crude r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e , depending on Mach number, a system 30 t o
LO elements f o r t h e semispan and 90 t o 100 elements i n l e n g t h i s u t i l i z e d . Computation time f o r a s i n g l e
Mach r m b e r and c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n t a k e s approximately j minutes on a CDC 6600 s e r i e s computer, using
70 003 o c t a l s t o r a g e .
Figure 6 sl~owsa comparison between experimental f o r c e and moment c o e f f i c i e n t s and e s t i m a t e s made using
t h e h o r i z o n t a l t a i l program. The c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s a d e l t a wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n with a r a t h e r close-coupled
h o r i z o n t a l t a i l . A t a Mach number o f 1.5 t h e agreement between theory and experiment i s e x c e l l e n t . No
:It-te~nptwas made -to c a l c u l a t e t h e minimum drag l e v e l f o r any of t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n t h i s paper, r a t h e r
;he experiroental drag v a l u e a t zero l i f t f o r undeflected c o n t r o l s was added t o t h e estimated drag-due-tol i f t values. Drag increments due t o c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s , drag a t l i f t , and t h e pitching-moment d a t a a r e
21-otted d i r e c t l y from t h e program o u t p u t . The d a t a f o r a Mach number of 2.5 a r e more t y p i c a l of t h e
program e s t i m a t e s when compared with experiment, i n t h a t t h e d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t i s s l i g h t l y underpredicted,
and t h e s t e b i l i t y l e v e l s l i g h t l y overpredicted. I n general, t h e s e d i s c r e p a n c i e s can be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e
l i r l d t a t i o n s of l i n e a r theory, t h e assumptions o f small angles and completely a t t a c h e d flow.
The overprediction of s t a b i l i t y l e v e l and t h e underprediction of d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t a r e compensating f a c t o r s
rihen a zrln. drag a o l a r i s c a l c u l a t e d i n t h a t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d a t a t r i m s a t a lower CL f o r a given t a i l
d e f l e c t s o n b u t a t a, lower drag l e v e l . The t h e o r e t i c a l t r i m drag p o l a r i s shown by t h e heavy l i n e and t h e
exper2menLsl t r i m p o i n t s by t h e s o l i d symbols.
Figure 7 shows estrmated and experimental d a t a f o r another h o r i z o n t a l t a i l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . I n t h i s example,
,he configuration has a n arrow wing and t h e s e p a r a t i o n between wing and h o r i z o n t a l t a i l i s somewhat g r e a t e r
"Ahan l o r t n e prevlous c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The s t a b i l i t y l e v e l s a g a i n a r e somewhat overpredicted and t h e dragd u e - t o - l i f t s l l g h t l y underpredlcted. I n t h e case of t h e d a t a f o r Mach number 1 . 4 1 , t h e C%
increments
I r e overpredicted by about 25 p e r c e n t . Whether t h i s d i s p a r i t y i n C m , i s p e c u l i a r t o t h i s configuration
br 1s g e n e r a l l y t r u e f o r configurations with l a r g e s e p a r a t i o n s of wing and h o r i z o n t a l t a i l w i l l r e q u i r e
~ u r t n e ri w e s t i g a t i o n .
Is mentroned e a r l i e r , t h e b a s i c l i f t i n g s u r f a c e program was a l s o modified t o handle a canard-wing
F ~ g u r e8 shows i n schematic how t h i s i s accomplished. The method i s much t h e same a s
;onfiguration.
chat used Tor t h e i n c l u s i o n of a h o r i z o n t a l t a i l except t h a t , f o r t h i s case, t h e c o n t r o l surface i s ahead
of t h e wsng and t h e region of zero loading i s outboard of t h e body, a f t of t h e canard t r a i l i n g edge, and
rorward of t h e wing l e a d i n g edge. Note t h a t a s f o r a l l t h e programs i n t h i s s e r i e s , p a r t i a l g r i d elements
o r e used t o b e t t e r d e f i n e t h e l e a d i n g and t r a i l i n g edges of a l l s u r f a c e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f e a t u r e s of
the o t h e r programs, t h i s program allows f o r a n a r b i t r a r y planform canard, b u t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o d e f l e c t i o n s
31" t h e e n t i r e canard surface; t h a t i s , t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r d e f l e c t i n g a t r a i l i n g - e d g e canard f l a p i s not
lncluded a t t h e p r e s e n t time.
Figure 9 shows a comparison between theory and experiment f o r a d e l t a wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n with a canard
c o n t r o l s u r f a c e . A t a Mach number of 1.41, t h e zero l i f t - d r a g increments and increments i n Cmo due t o
c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n a r e p r e d i c t e d q u i t e w e l l . The s t a b i l i t y l e v e l s a r e again s l i g h t l y overpredicted. The
drag-due- t o - l i f t v a r i a t i o n i s a c c u r a t e l y estimated with t h e exception of t h e d a t a f o r t h e 15' canard
d e f l e c t i o n . I n t n i s case i t appears t h a t t h e experimental v a l u e i s unexplainably low. I n general, between
l o o ~ n d15' c o n t r o l s e t t i n g , a s i z a b l e experimental drag increment occurs a t a l l l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s .
I n t h i s case, f o r the higher l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s , t h e experimental drag increment i s of t h e same order a s t h e
-ncremenL between smaller c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n s . A t t h e higher Mach number, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n i s much t h e
same; however, t h e drag increment f o r t h e maximum canard d e f l e c t i o n i s i n b e t t e r agreement than i t was a t
the lower Mach number.
D7za f o r 2 second canard c o n f i g u r a t i o n a r e shown on f i g u r e 1 0 . The c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e
previous configuration, except t h a t i t has a t r a p e z o i d a l wing. The c o r r e l a t i o n between theory and experi,nent i s q u l t e good. The-stability l e v e l i s overpredicted by about 4 p e r c e n t c a t t h e lower Mach number
2nd by about 2 percent c a t t h e high Mach number. Drag-due-to-lift i s s l i g h t l y underpredicted a t t h e
Lower Macn number, and t h e increment i n C m , f o r t h e maximum c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n i s s l i g h t l y overpredicted
aL both Mach numbers. Because t h e o t h e r Cm, increments a r e p r e d i c t e d so w e l l , t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
with canard d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e has become nonlinear between 10' and 1 5 O and, of course,
r ~ r l a t i o nof C,
the t h e o r e t i c a l method used h e r e i n does n o t account f o r such n o n l i n e a r i t i e s .
r s g w e 11 shows a c o r r e l a t i o n between experiment and theory of t h e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l parameters f o r
Lne two programs shown thus f a r . The d a t a cover s e v e r a l configurations i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e ones which have
aeen presented i n t h i s paper. The c i r c u l a r symbols a r e f o r h o r i z o n t a l t a i l configurations; t h e square
synbols r e p r e s e n t canard c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . The s o l i d l i n e r e p r e s e n t s p e r f e c t agreement between theory and

experiment.
The Cmo increments show g e n e r a l l y good agreement; f o r t h e most p a r t , t h e estimated values
a r e between zero and 15 percent high. For t h e s t a b i l i t y parameter, AC,/AC~, t h e d a t a f a l l on e i t h e r s i d e
of t h e l i n e of p e r f e c t agreement; f o r a majority of cases t h e s t a b i l i t y parameter i s s l i g h t l y overpredicted.
Examination of t h e d a t a f o r both parameters revealed no p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n r e l a t e d t o Mach numbel-. The
canard c o n f i ~ u r a t i o n sg e n e r a l l y appear t o c o r r e l a t e b e t t e r ; however t h e r e were fewer of t h e s e c o n f i g u r e t i o ~ s
examined and t h u s no conclusions a r e drawn a s t o t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of t h e two programs.
The t h e o r e t i c a l method of t h i s paper assumes a p l a n a r system, t h a t i s , a l l t h e g r i d elements l i e i n a
constant z plane. To i n d i c a t e t h e magnitude of e r r o r t h a t occurs when t h e configuration does not
s a t i s f y t h i s assumption, d a t a a r e shown i n f i g u r e 1 2 f o r a configuration with a h o r i z o n t a l t a i l l o c a t e d
above o r below t h e wing plane.
The upper p a r t of t h e f i g u r e shows t h e experimental d a t a f o r t h e two t a i l p o s i t i o n s a t two Mach numbers,
The p r e s e n t method which, of course,yields a s i n g l e curve, i s shown by a s o l i d l i n e . For comparison, a
p r e d i c t i o n made using t h e Nielsen-Kaattari method ( r e f . ( 5 ) ) , which i s a l s o a p l a n a r method, i s shown.
The bottom p a r t of t h e f i g u r e shows t h e d a t a a s a f u n c t i o n of a n g l e of a t t a c k , with t h e b o d y - t a i l moment
c o n t r i b u t i o n s u b t r a c t e d out so t h a t t h e remaining increment i s t h e wing c o n t r i b u t i o n p l u s t h e e f f e c t of
t h e wing on t h e h o r i z o n t a l t a i l . It appears t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e e f f e c t of t a i l l o c a t i o n on Cmo, f o r t'nis
configuration, i s t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e t a i l t o t h e body, r a t h e r than t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e t a i l t o t h e wing.
Regardless of t h e cause f o r t h e Cm, change, t h e p r e s e n t method does n o t account f o r i t , and a s can Se
seen from t h e b a s i c d a t a a t t h e top of t h e f i g u r e , t h e e f f e c t can be r a t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, f u r t h e r
study i s i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s a r e a .
F i n a l l y , a n attempt was made t o modify t h e b a s i c program t o c a l c u l a t e c o n t r o l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for- t a l l l e s s
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . This merely consisted of a s s i g n i n g t h e d e s i r e d c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n t o a l l g r l d elements
which f a l l w i t h i n t h e f l a p o r elevon planform. A c o r r e l a t i o n f o r two c o n f i g u r a t i o n s with t r a i l i n g - e d g e
c o n t r o l s i s shown on f i g u r e 13. The configuration on t h e l e f t has t r a i l i n g - e d g e c o n t r o l s over approximately
70 percent o f t h e span. For t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n on t h e r i g h t , t h e c o n t r o l s extend approximately 30 percent
of t h e span. The d r a g - d u e - t o - l i f t e s t i m a t e f o r both configurations i s considerably lower than t h e experimental d a t a . This was unexpected because, f o r zero c o n t r o l d e f l e c t i o n , t h e modified program 1 s t h e sarre
a s t h e b a s i c program which g e n e r a l l y g i v e s much b e t t e r e s t i m a t e s . The increment i n Cmo f o r t h e c o n f ~ g u r a t i o n with t h e wide span f l a p s i s somewhat overpredicted. This d i f f e r e n c e between theory and e x ~ e r l n l e n t
can be r e l a t e d t o t h e r e s u l t s o f r e f e r e n c e ( 6 ) , where i t was shown t h a t c o n t r o l s i n t h e v l c i n i t y of t h e
wing t l p , operating i n a r e g i o n where a e r o e l a s t i c deformation and flow s e p a r a t i o n can occur, y ~ e l d e d
experimental increments only 70 percent of t h e estimated increments. For t h e configuration with t n e sliort
span c o n t r o l s , t h e drag and moment increments f o r t h e 10' d e f l e c t i o n a r e good; f o r t h e 20' defiec:lon,
only f a i r . The s t a b i l i t y l e v e l s f o r both configurations a r e s l i g h t l y overpredicted.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A method has been discussed i n which t h e Carlson-Middleton numerical s o l u t i o n f o r l i f t i n g s u r f a c e s can be
extended t o i n c l u d e a h o r i z o n t a l t a i l o r canard. I n general, t h e method s l i g h t l y o v e r p r e d i c t s s t - , b l l l t y
l e v e l s , and p r e d i c t s r e l a t i v e l y well drag increments and increments i n C m , due t o c o n t r o l deflections.
The s o l u t i o n i s f o r a p l a n a r system, and s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r s may be introduced i n t h e p r e d i c t e d dnL; i f t o e
c o n t r o l s u r f a c e i s well o u t of t h e wing p l a n e .

(1)

Harris, Roy V., Jr.:

An Analysis and C o r r e l a t i o n of A i r c r a f t Wave Drag
NASA TM X-947 (1964)

(2)

Sommer, Simon C . ; and Short, Barbara J . :

Free-Flight Measurements of Turbulent-Boundary-Layer Skin F r i c t i o n i n t h e Presence of Severe
Aerodynamic Heating a t Mach Numbers From 2.8 t o 7.0
NACA TN D-3391 (1955)

(3)

Middleton,WilburD.;andCarlson,HarryW.:
A Numerical Method f o r C a l c u l a t i n g t h e F l a t - P l a t e P r e s s u r e D i s t r i b u t i o n s on Supersonic Wings of'
A r b i t r a r y Planform
NASA TN D-2570 (1965)

(4)

Carlson, Harry W . ; and Middleton, Wilbur D.:

A Numerical Method f o r t h e Design of Camber Surfaces o f Supersonic Wings With A r b i t r a r y Planforms
NASA TN D-2341 (1964)

(5)

Nielsen, J a c k N.; K a a t t a r i , George E.; and Anastasio, Robert F.:

A Method f o r C a l c u l a t i n g t h e L i f t and Center o f P r e s s u r e of Wing-Body-Tail Combinations a t Subsonic,
Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds
NACA RM A53G08 (1953)

(6)

Landrum, Emma Jean:

E f f e c t of Skewed Wing-Tip Controls on a Highly-Swept Arrow Wing a t Mach Number 2.031
NASA TN D-1867 (1964)

(7)

Smith, Norman F.; and Hasel, Lowell E . :

An I n v e s t i g a t i o n a t Mach Numbers of 1 . 4 1 and 2.01 of Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Swepc-Wing
Supersonic Bomber Configuration
NACA RM L52J17 (1952)

Driver, Cornelius:
Longitudinal and L a t e r a l S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Two Canard Airplane Configurations
a t Mach Numbers .of 1.41 and 2.01
NAGA RM ~ 5 6 ~ 1(1957)
9
Spearman, 81. Leroy; and Driver, Cornelius:
Lomitudinal and L a t e r a l S t a b i l i t v and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t Mach Number 2 . O 1 of a 60 DeltaAirplane Configuration ~ ~ u i & eWith
d
a Canard Control and With Wing-Trailing-Edge Flaps
MACA RM ~ 5 8 ~ 2(1958)
0

~i.4

.;

Hilton, John H., Jr

and Palazzo, Edward B. :
Wind Tunnel I n v e s t i g a t i o n of a Modified 1120-scale Model of the Convair MX-1554 Airplane a t Mach
Numbers of 1.41 and 2 . O 1
NACA R14 SL 53G3O (1953)
Driver, Cornelius; and Foster, Gerald V.:
S t a t i c Longitudinal S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Model of a 45'
Airplane a t Mach Numbers of 1.41, 1.61, and 2.01
NACA RM ~ 5 6 ~ 0(1956)
4

Swept Wing Fighter

Church, James D.:

E f f e c t s of Components and Various Modifications on the Drag and t h e S t a t i c S t a b i l i t y and Control
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a 42O Swept-Wing Fighter-Airplane Model a t Mach Numbers of 1.60 t o 2.50
MCA RM L57K01 (1957)
Spearman, N. Leroy:
S t a t i c Longitudinal S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a 1 / 1 6 - ~ c a l eModel of the
Douglas D-558-11 Research Airplane a t Mach Numbers of 1 . 6 1 and 2.01
NACA RM L53122 (1953)
Spearman, M. Leroy; and Driver, Cornelius:
Effects of Canard Surface Size on S t a b i l i t y and Control C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Two Canard Airplane
Configurations a t Mach Numbers of 1.41 and 2.01
NACA RM L57L17a (1958)
Foster, Gerald V.:
I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Longitudinal Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Trapezoidal-Wing Airplane
Model With Various V e r t i c a l Positions of the Wing and Horizontal T a i l a t Mach Numbers of 1 . 4 1 and 2.01
NACA RM ~ 5 8 ~ 0(1957)
7

r----- 1
I ENGINE

OPTIMIZATION
AND
DIRECT ANALY s Is
F i g u r e 1.

'PERFORMANC~'- - - m e

-w? IX

- ----.-.-.id ESTIMATES

Complex of com~)u%er
programs f o r supersonic a i r c r a f t d e s i g n dnd ev-ilu- lo-

MODEL USED FOR W E DRAG

ODEL USED FOR DRAG DUE TO LIFT

Figure 2.

Computer drawings o f numerical models.

>-fi
NEAR FIELD

DRAG

LIFT
Figure

3.

A c o q p o s i t e system o f s u p e r s o n i c d r a g a n a l y s i s .

PAIR OF LIFTING ELEMENTS

Figure

4.

ARRAY OF LIFTING ELEMENTS

Lifting-si~rfacerepresentation.

CAMBERED AND TWISTED WlNG

CAMBERED FOREBODY

@ ARBITRARY PLANFORM WlNG

Figure 5 .

ARBITRARY PLANFORM TAlL

SLAB TAlL DEFLECTION

OPTIONAL ELEVATOR DEFLECTION

Wing horiz,onto.l- t;:til c o ~ ~ f i g u r s i i o n .

TRIM POLAR
4

Figure

6.

Figure 7.

Delta-wing corifiguration with h o r i z o n t a l t a i l .

Arrow-wing configuration

with h o r i z o n t a l t a i l .

CAMBERED AND TWISTED WlNG

CAMBERED FOREBODY

ARBITRARY P L A N F O R M WlNG

@ ARBITRARY PLANFORM CANARD

@

Figure

8.

S L A B CANARD DEFLECTION

Canard-wing c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

Figure

9.

Figure 10.

Delts-wing configuration with canard

Trapezoidal-wing configuration with canard.

HORIZONTAL TAIL CONFIGURATIONS

o CANARD CONFIGURATIONS
0

- .5

ac m
'L

EXP

- - . ' 2 5 v ,

T H EORY

Figure 11.

-.25

A cm
A 'L

-.5

THEORY

Theoretical and experimental stability and control parameters.

HlGH TAlL
LOW TAlL
PRESENT METHOD
NIELSEN - KAATTARI

HlGH

Figure 12.

Effect of vertical location of horizontal tail.

0
Figure 13.

cL

.4

Configurations with trailing-edge controls.