, 9oE

, _lI
AFIT/GAE/ENY/9ID-2) ili till
AD-A2441111'
1111
t l11111
l~l
t051

ANALYSIS OF AN ADVANCED FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

USING JET FLAP TECHNIQUES AND
THE VORTEX LATTICE METHOD

Thesis

Steven P. Snyder, Captain, USAF

AF IT/GAE/ENY/9 1D-27

DTIC
,b JA 3aa !9Q
92-00100g

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

AFIT/GAE/ENY/91D-27

ANALYSIS OF AN ADVANCED FIGHTER AIRCRAFT USING JET FLAP

TECHNIQUES AND THE VORTEX LATTICE METHOD

Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the School of Engineering

of the Air Force Institute of Technology

Air University

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering

Steven P. Snyder, B.S.

Captain, USAF

December 1991

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Milton Franke, advisor,

who provided support and guidance for this project; Mr. Ray

Fredette. the designer of many interesting aircraft. who

contributed a subject which made this study more than just

an academic exercise: and Mr. Jim Snyder, aerodynamicist.

who provided his personal analysis program and patiently

endured countless questions and blank stares. I would also

like to thank my father, Don Snyder. He sowed the seeds

early in my life which instilled within me a love of

aviation. Without him, I never would have made it to this

point.

Most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Vicke, who

provided the endless love, support, and understanding which

made this all bearable.

Steven P. Snyder

Acoe~1onFor

ii

WI -
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements....................
. . ...
.. .. . ....

List of Figures.......................v

List of Tables......................xi

List of Symbols.....................xii

Abstract.........................XV

I. Introduction........................

Il. Background........................4
The Jet Flap......................4
Applications of Blowing..............6
Jet Flap Theory................
The Vortex Lattice Method...............10
Vortex Lattice Theory..............11
Calculation of Aerodynamic Coefficients . . . 16
Application Of The Jet Flap ........... 17
Panel Distribution...............19
Jet Sheet Convergence..............21
Planform Study....................21
Vortex Lattice Software ............. 2
Data Collection...................24

III. Aircraft Configuration ............. 25

Design Philosophy . . . . * * * ' * ' * * ' * * 2-
Requirements and Figures of Merit..........26
The Computational Model...............28
Panelling....................28
Blowing Coefficient................30
Nozzle Vector Angle................31
Modification for Control Surface Sizing . . . 31

IV. Verification.....................32
Verification of Vortex Lattice Code.........32
Two Dimensional Case With Camber (NACA
64-206)..................32
Jet Sheet Convergence..............32
Three Dimensional Wing With Camber ....... 33
NADC Jet Flapped Fighter Study.........33

V. Results........................38
Force Accounting....................38
b.lOJF-B Results...................40
2.1 influence of Blowing Coefficient . . . . 40
2.2. influence of Flap Deflection.........44

iii
 influence of Nozzle Width.............49
Stability and Control Results............51
Planform'Study Results.............. 2

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations............56

Bibliography.......................58

Appendix A: Philosophy of Designer.............60

Appendix B: b.lOJF-B Aerodynamic Data ........... 63

Appendix C: Stability and Control Data..........86

Appendix D: Planform Data.................92

Vita...........................122

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Wright Lab b.1OJF-B Two View .... ........ 2

Figure 2 Jet Control Volume (Adapted From Spence) 8

Figure 3 Vortex Filament (From Bertin. et al.) . 13

Figure 4 Horseshoe Vortex (From Bertin, et al.) . 14

Figure 5 Paneled Wing ...... ................ 14

Figure 6 b.1OJF-B Panel Model .... ............ 28

Figure 7 NASA Transonic, Sharp Leading Edged Airfoil 29

Figure 8 DTRC Fighter Comparison Lift Curves ..... . 36

Figure 9 DTRC Fighter Comparison Drag Data ...... .. 36

Figure 10 DTRC Fighter Comparison Moment Data . ... 37

Figure 11 CDjet Schematic ..... ............... 40

Figure 12 Variation in CLa with Respect to Cj ..... . 42

Figure 13 Example b. IOJF-B Lift Data, 6j=40* ..... . 42

Figure 14 Variation of CL6j with Respect to Cj . ... 43

Figure 15 Example b. IOJF-B Moment Data, 6,=40* . . . . 44

Figure 16 Variation in Static Margin with Respect to

Ci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 17 Example b. IOJF-B Drag Data, 6j=40. .... . 46

Figure 18 Example b. IOJF-B CL vs 5, BC=2 ...... 47

Figure 19 CLI Variation with Respect to 6. *..........47

Figure 20 Example b.IOJF-B Drag Data, BC=2 ...... .. 48

Figure 21 Example b.IOJF-B Moment Data, BC=2. ..... ... 49

Figure 22 Variation in Static Margin with Respect to

5. ........................ 49

V
Figure 23 Example b.1OJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison,

Lift ......... ...................... 50

Figure 24 Example b.IOJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison,

Drag .......... ....................... 51

Figure 25 Example b.1OJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison,

Moment ......... ...................... 51

Figure 26 Example b.IOJF-B With Canard Removed,

Moment ......... ...................... 53

Figure 27 Lift Curve Variation with Respect to AR 54

Figure 28 Drag Polar Variation with Respect to AR 54

Figure 29 Moment Variation with Respect to AR . . . . 55

Figure 30 Variation of Lift with Respect to I . . . . 55

Figure 31 Variation in Drag with Respect to 1 .... 56

Figure 32 Moment Variation with Respect to I . . . . 56

°
Figure 33 Lift Curve for 6j=-10 ... .......... 65

6 °
Figure 34 Drag Polar for j=-lO .. . . . . . ... . . .
65

Figure 35 Pitching Moment About °

the CG for 6j=-10 66

Figure °
36 Lift Variation Due to Cs for 5,=-10 .. .... 66

Figure 37 Lift Curve for 6i=O. .... ........... . 67

°
Figure 38 Drag Polar for bj=O .... ........... 67

Figure °
39 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6=0 68

Figure 40 Lift Variation Due to C. for 6i=0. . ....... ... 68

°
Figure 41 Lift Curve for 6j=lO .. . . . . . ... .. . . .
69

Figure 42 Drag Polar for 6j=lo ...... ........... 69

°
Figure 43 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6jlO 70

vi
Figure 44 Lift Variation Due to Cj for 6j=10.....70

Figure 45 Lift Curve for 6j=20" .... ........... 71

Figure 46 Drag Polar for 6,=20" .... ........... 71

Figure 47 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6,=20 . . 72

Figure 48 Lift Variation Due to C. for 6j=20 0 . . . . . .. 72

0 °
Figure 49 Lift Curve for 6j=3 .. . . . . . ... .. . . .
73

Figure 50 Drag Polar for 6 j=30" .... ........... 73

Figure 51 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6?30" 74

Figure 52 Lift Variation Due to C. for 6j=3 0 " . . .. . . 74

Figure 53 Lift Curve for 6j=40 .. . . . . . .. ... . . . 75

° 75
Figure 54 Drag Polar for 6j=40 .... ...........

Figure 55 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6,40" . . 76

Figure 56 Lift Variation Due to Cj for 6j=40* . .... 76

Figure 57 Lift Curve for BC=O .................... 77

Figure 58 Drag Polar for BC=O ...... ............. 77

Figure 59 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=O .... 78

Figure 60 Lift Variation Due to 6i for BC=O ...... 78

Figure 61 Lift Curve for BC=I. ...... ............. 79

Figure 62 Drag Polar for BC=I ..... .............

Figure 63 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=I .... 80

Figure 64 Lift Variation Due to 6i for BC=I ...... 80

Figure 65 Lift Curve for BC=2 .... ............. 81

Figure 66 Drag Polar for BC=2 .... ............. 81

Figure 67 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=2 .... 82

6i for BC=2 ... ...... 82
Figure 68 Lift Variation Due to

vii
Figure 69 Lift Curve for BC=3 .... ............. 83

Figure 70 Drag Polar for BC=3 .... ............. 83

Figure 71 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=3 . ... 84

Figure 72 Lift Variation Due to 8i for BC=3 ...... 84

Figure 73 Lift Curve for BC=4 .... ............. 85

Figure 74 Drag Polar for BC=4 .... ............. 85

Figure 75 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=4 . ... 86

Figure 76 Lift Variation Due to 5i for BC=4 ... ...... 86

Figure 77 Pitching Moment About CG, 8j=-10*, No Canard 88

Figure 78 Pitching Moment About CG, 6j=0*, No Canard 88

Figure 79 Pitching Moment About CG, Sj=10*, No Canard 89

Figure 80 Pitching Moment About CG, bj=20", No Canard 89

Figure 81 Pitching Moment About CG, 8j=30', No Canard 90

Figure 82 Pitching Moment About CG, Sj=40", No Canard 90

Figure 83 Pitching Moment About CG, BC=0, No Canard 91

Figure 84 Pitching Moment About CG, BC=I, No Canard 91

Figure 85 Pitching Moment About CG, BC=2, No Canard 92

Figure 86 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=2, 1=0.05 94

Figure 87 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.05 94

Figure 88 Drag Polar Comparison for 8j, AR=2, 1=0.05 95

Figure 89 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.05 95

Figure 90 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=2, 1=0.05 . . 96

Figure 91 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.05 . . 96

Figure 92 Lift vs 5j, AR=2, 1=0.05 . . . . . . . . . . 9"

Figure 93 Lift vs C., AR=2, 1=0.05 . . . . . . . . . . 9"

viii
Figure 94 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=2, .=0.25 98

Figure 95 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.25 98

Figure 96 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=2, 1=0.25 99

Figure 97 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.25 99

Figure 98 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=2, X=0.25 . 100

Figure 99 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.25 . 100

Figure 100 Lift vs 6j, AR=2, 1=0.25 .. .......... 101

Figure 101 Lift vs Cj, AR=2, 1=0.25 .. .......... 101

Figure 102 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=3, 1=005 102

Figure 103 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.05 102

Figure 104 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=3, =0.05 103

Figure 105 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.05 103

Figure 106 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=3, 1=0.05 . 104

Figure 107 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.05 . 104

Figure 108 Lift vs 6j, AR=3, 1=0.05 ... .......... 105

Figure 109 Lift vs Cj, AR=3, 1=0.05 .. .......... 105

Figure 110 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=3, 1=0 .25 106

Figure 111 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0,25 106

Figure 112 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=3, )=0.25 107

Figure 113 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.25 107

Figure 114 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=3, 1=0.25 . 108

Figure 115 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.25 . 108

Figure 116 Lift vs 6,, AR=3, 1=0.25 ... .......... 109

Figure 117 Lift vs Cj, AR=3, 1=0.25 ... .......... 109

Figure 118 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=3, 1=0.5 110

ix
Figure 119 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.5 110

Figure 120 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=3, )=0.5 111

Figure 121 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.5 ill

Figure 122 Moment Comparison for 5j, AR=3, )=0.5 . 112

Figure 123 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.5 . 112

Figure 124 Lift vs 8j, AR=3, 1=0.5 ... .......... 113

Figure 125 Lift vs Cj, AR=3, )=0.5 ... .......... 113

Figure 126 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=5, 1=0. 5 114

Figure 127 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=5, 1=0.5 114

Figure 128 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=5, ;=0.5 115

Figure 129 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=5, ).=0.5 115

Figure 130 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=5, 1=0.5 . 116

Figure 131 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=5, 1=0.5 . 116

Figure 132 Lift vs 8j, AR=5, 1=0.5 ... .......... 117

Figure 133 Lift vs Cj, AR=5, 1=0.5 .. .......... 117

Figure 134 Lift Curve Comparison for 6, AR=5, X=1 118

Figure 135 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=5, 1=1 118

Figure 136 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=5, I=1 119

Figure 137 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=5, )=1 119

Figure 138 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=5, 1=1 . ... 120

Figure 139 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=5, =I . ... 120

Figure 140 Lift vs 6j, AR=5, 1=1 ... ........... 121

Figure 141 Lift vs Cj, AR=5, 1=1 ... ........... 121

x
 List of-Tables

Table I Planform Study wing Parameters .........

Table I1 b.lOJF-B Engine Characteristics..........30

Table III LATJET Comparison for NACA 64-206........32

Table IV Analytic and Computational Values for

b.lOJF-B Wing....................33

Table V b.lOJF-B Constant Parameters............41

Tabile VI b.IOJF-B Blowing Conditions............42

Table VII b.I0JF-B Dimensions and Weight.........62

xi
 List of Symbols

AR Aspect Ratio

b Span

BC Blowing Condition

c Chord

c Mean Aerodynamic Chord

C i Induced Drag Coefficient

cg Center of Gravity

Cj Blowing Coefficient, Gross

CLa Lift Curve Slope

C, Two Dimensional Lift Coefficient

CL Three Dimensional Lift Coefficient

Cm Moment Coefficient

C .,n Influence Coefficient

C1 Blowing Coefficient, 2D

deg Degree

F' Force Per Unit Span Acting on Jet

FS Fuselage Station

I length

L Li ft

L' Lift Per Unit Span

mj Mass Flow Rate of Jet

- Mass Flow Rate of Jet Per Unit Span

N Total Number of Panels

p Pressure

x1ii
q Dynamic Pressure

r Radial Distance

R Jet Sheet Deflection Radius

S Area

SM Static Margin

TR Taper Ratio

V Induced Velocity

vj Jet Velocity

w Nondimentionalized Downwash

a Angle of attack

y Circulation per Unit Area

Fc Wing Circulation Per Unit Span

rj Jet Circulation Per Unit Span

F., Local Circulation

ai Flap Deflection Angle

68n Kronecker Delta

0 Jet Sheet Curvature Angle

X Taper Ratio

Ac/2 Sweep of Wing Half Chord Line

p Air Density

Subscripts

CLmax Pertaining Maximum Lift

i Induced Parameter

j Pertaining to the Jet

L=0 Pertaining to Zero Lift Conditions

xiii
m Panel of Current Interesi

n Influencing Panel

00 Freestream Condi tion

xiv
 Abstract

A computer code employing the vortex lattice method

with modified boundary conditions was used to determine the

induced aerodynamic characteristics of high aspect ratio,

vectoring, exhaust nozzles located at the wing root of a

canard configured fighter aircraft. Comparison with

existing wind tunnel data verified results of the method.

The exhaust was modeled as a singularly blown jet flap at

deflection angles of -10, 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 degrees.

Jet momentum coefficients were based gross engine thrust for

maximum afterburner and military power settings at a Mach

number of 0.6 and an altitude of 20,000 ft. Lift, induced

drag, and pitching moment coefficients were calculated for

untrimmed conditions. The nozzle provided lift augmentation

at all deflections and blowing conditions, a reduction in

induced drag at high lift coefficients, and an increased

nose down pitching moment. An optimum flap deflection to

achieve minimum induced drag existed for each unique lift

and blowing condition. Measurement of the static margin

showed that the aircraft as configured was statically

unstable. Example cases of comparable wing planforms

varying in aspect ratio from 2 to 5 and taper ratio from

0.05 to 1 showed similar behavior.

xv
 ANALYSIS OF AN ADVANCED FIGHTER AIRCRAFT USING JET FLAP

TECHNIQUES AND THE VORTEX LATTICE METHOD

I. Introduction

Conceptual aircraft design generally concerns itself

with trends or technology that may be 15 to 20 years in the

future. At this early point in the life of an aircraft, the

designer must be able to comprehend how proposed

technologies will enable accomplishment of requirements put

forth. This comprehension leads to well founded decisions

throughout the process. One technology which has been

proposed for use on advanced aircraft for many years is the

jet flap.

In the case of this study, the designer, Mr Raymond

Fredette, proposed the use of a very high aspect ratio jet

exhaust nozzle located at the wing/body juncture of a canard

fighter configuration.(See Figure 1) One reason for

incorporating this type of nozzle was to improve the drag

polar of the aircraft due to the increase in circulation

provided by a jet flap. There were also survivability

benefits and weight penalties to be investigated. The key

question was whether or not the benefits would outweigh the

penalties.

1
 N
'N
N

/ -

/
/

'I

7 /

0
- 2~
-i

-- -J

r------- -.

I' 'I

\' I -

Figure 1 Wright Lab b.1OJF-B Two View

 Fredette had no verified aerodynamic methods to predict

the effects of the nozzle. Additionally, the aircraft

itself was pushing the capability limits of existing

empirical methods because of its unusual configuration. He

believed that some sort of computational method was needed

to generate useful aerodynamic data. By treating the thin.

vectored exhaust like a jet flap, it was felt that

worthwhile aerodynamic coefficients could be determined.

After studying several methods of calculating jet flap

effects, a vortex lattice method with modified boundary

conditions was selected.

A secondary study of generic wing planforms similar in

aspect ratio and taper ratio to the b.LOJF-B wing was also

performed in order to demonstrate the effects of varying

wing parameters on the aerodynamic characteristics of a jet

flapped wing.

3
 II. Background

I The Jet Flap

According to Kohlman, (Ref 2), Shubauer first proposed

the jet flap in 1932. Kohlman goes on to state that

Hagedorn and Ruden carried out the initial experimental work

in 1938. The concept involves a sheet of high velocity air

blown from a thin slot near the trailing edge of a wing.

Because the sheet has a finite amount of momentum, it can

support a pressure difference which deflects the freestream.

(Ref 14) This is analogous to the Kutta condition being met

somewhere aft of the trailing edge. The result is an

increase in lift beyond the circulation lift of the wing and

the lift component of jet thrust. According to McCormick,

under strong blowing conditions, the jet can also act like a

boundary layer control device and delay leading edge

separation, resulting in 6 to 8 degree increments in acL.ar

The change in induced drag compared to a standard wing

depends on the amount of blowing and flap deflection, 6i.

Induced drag reduction is realized at high lift conditions

while some penalty is paid at low lift. There is a point in

between these conditions where the unblown and blown drag

polars cross over each other. This point is dependant on

the amount of blowing and the flap deflection.

Theoretically, all thrust from the deflected jet is

recovered if it is turned parallel to the freestream.

4
However, due to a finite value of downwash at infinity, a

fraction remains unrecovered and is accounted for as an

induced drag component, CDjet. Some thrust is also lost due

to friction at the jet/freestream boundary.(Ref 14) One

penalty paid is in the form of a severe nose down pitching

moment at high lift conditions. The drag associated with

trimming this moment can be significant enough to outweigh

many benefits.

Jet flaps come in two distinct varieties. The first is

a singularly blown flap where the jet sheet exits the wing

at the trailing edge and is vectored by a nozzle

arrangement. The second type is known as a blown flap. It

blows the jet over a mechanical flap which deflects it due

to the Coanda effect. Each concept has its shortcomings.

The singularly blown flap is tough to incorporate both

structurally and mechanically into a thin trailing edge,

while the blown flap has problems with the hot exhaust

interacting with the flap. This study will model the jet

exhaust as a singularly blown flap.

Confusion sometimes exists between the concepts of the

jet flap and circulation control since they both use a form

of blowing to achieve high lift conditions. With

circulation control, a thin jet of air is blown over a

rounded trailing edge, eliminating the Kutta condition.

This moves the aft stagnation point to the lower surface,

5
thereby increasing circulation and lift.(Ref 14) On the

other hand, the primary purpose of blowing in a jet flap is

to add momentum to the wake in order to support a pressure

discontinuity. Each method has different means of achieving

similar objectives.

1.1 Applications of Blowing

One of the few purely jet flapped aircraft to fly, was

the Hunting H.126. (Ref 2, 15) Engine air was ducted solely

to full span, blown flaps along the trailing edge of this

research aircraft. All thrust used to propel the aircraft

in forward flight came from the jet flaps.

Two forms of blown flaps were utilized in competing

prototypes for the Air Force Advanced Medium STOL Transport

(AMST) program in the 1970s. (Ref 15) McDonnell Douglas

used an externally blown flap on its entry, the YC-15. The

exhaust of its underwing mounted turbofan engines was blown

through large two-segment slotted flaps. Boeing employed

upper surface blowing on the .C-14. The exhaust from its

over the wing mounted engines was deflected downward over

large flaps via the Coanda effect.

The Navy tested a rather bulky circulation control

high lift device on a Grumman A-6 in the late '7 0s. (Ref 2)

Bleed air pulled from the engines was ducted through plenums

mounted at the trailing edges. A slot running lengthwise

along the plenums provided an exit for the jet sheet. The

6
rounded outer surface of the plenum acted as a Coanda

surface in order to deflect the flow. In order to counter

the strong nose down pitching moment, the horizontal

stabilizer was increased in area and recountoured with an

extreme negative camber.

Blowing is typically associated with lift enhancement

in aircraft. However, reference 6 proposed the use of a

circulation control stern plane on a submarine. The

purpose was to prevent a catastrophic crash dive which could

be caused by a mechanical stern plane becoming jammed.

1.2 Jet Flap Theory

The basis for most analytical theory of the jet flap

can be attributed to D. A. Spence of the Royal Aircraft

Establishment. (Ref 17) The following development was

adapted from Reference 14. Spence used a control volume

approach to represent the jet exiting the trailing edge of

the wing. Although it entered at some angle against the

free stream, he reasoned that it would evcntually be turned

parallel. The pressure, Ap which turned the jet.

transferred itself in part to the lifting surface. Figure 2

depicts this concept in schematic form.

 x
A8

IP
vi
, t+Aj
/ 4

p4IAp

Figure 2 Jet Control Volume (Adapted From Spence)

Applying the momentum equation to the control volume,

mjvAe = ApRA0 (1)

and solving for Ap.

Ap = mgV. (2)
R

The force per unit width acting on the jet is,

F1 = ApR46 (3)

Using a vortex with strength per unit width, the force can

be represented by:

F = p.V.yRAe (4)

Solving for y as circulation due to the jet, yj,

8
 = MJV (5)
7-p.V.R

With a large radius of curvature and small A8, this becomes

-mjvj d~z (6)

p.V. dx 2

Integrating yj from the trailing edge to infinity yields Fr,

jet induced circulation per unit span.

mIv
dx= a+~ (7)

given small values of a and di. The total two dimentional

lift coefficient is then expressed as a combination of

factors due to the airfoil and the jet.

C-v.c + q.c
+ -2- +8) V.c+cP (a + 6) (8)

where the blowing coefficient, CP, is the primary

nondimensional parameter used in describing jet momentum in

two dimentions. C, is a gross blowing, or jet coefficient

for three dimentions.

1 =c
c-q. c qs
1=
m_= (9)

The solution of rc and ri involves a pair of

simultaneously solved integro-differential equations.

9
Spence graciously provided curve fit solu*ions to the

equations, Eq (10).

ac, =[4.1(1 I+0.151CI 2 +0. 139C)2

ac = 2( I+0. 151C+0.219C,) (10)

ac aaJ

These allow painless determination of jet flapped airfoil

solutions.

Spence continued on to a three dimensional solution

with Maskel. A very good description of this method is

found in Reference 14. However, the solution assumes that

the lift distribution and the blowing coefficiert vary

elliptically over the span. Because this is an idealized

case, and the objective of this study was to analyze a

specific configuration, a method with more flexibility was

pursued.

2 The Vortex Lattice Method

One of the primary computational methods used to model

the jet flap has been the vortex lattice method. Using

boundary conditions similar to those set up by Spence, the

jet sheet can be modeled as a component interacting with

wing and body.(Ref 4)

10
 The level of detail involved with methods varies

greatly from code to code. The author wrote a relatively

short BASIC program as an undergraduate to solve for the

incompressible aerodynamic coefficients of basic planar

geometries. On the other hand, Douglas Aircraft developed

the Elementary Vortex Distribution, or EVD, panelling code

which modeled circulation singularities at the wing leading

edge with square root singularities and hinge lines with

logarithmic singularities.(Ref 13)

2.1 Vortex Lattice Theory

The theoretical development described here is actually

from a combination of sources. (Ref 3,4,5) Some variable

and indices have been changed to assure uniformity.

Essentially, the vortex lattice method models the velocity

induced by a wing of finite aspect ratio with a distribution

of horseshoe vortices. Each vortex is of a strength which

satisfies a set of boundary conditions. These strengths are

solved simultaneously over the planform with a system of

linear equations. Given the strengths, the aerodynamic

characteristics of the configuration can then be determined.

The foundation of vortex lattice theory is the Biot

Savart law, which is used in determining the velocity

induced by any given vortex filament at a particular control

point. In vector form:

11
 4Kr 3

integrating Eq (11) determines the induced velocity at a

given point in space for a given vortex strength, Fr.

0,

V "rsinOd= (co s ,-cose 2) (12)

(12

and

Rx
=F 2 21 cosl - O=F cose, - YO r 2 (13)
1o r r1 r.r 2

so that

- . Y. Xr-e2 (_ I-
4t W1 X f21 rir (14)

The most general form of Eq (14) is the formula for the

induced velocity of a straight infinite vortex filament,

v =-r, (15)

Figure 3 shows a generic vortex filament and its associated

parameters.

According to the Helmholtz theorem, any vortex in

inviscid flow must either, extend to infinity, terminate at

a wall, or form a closed loop. (Ref 14) In the case of the

horseshoe vortex in Figure 4, points A and B define the

bound portion of the vortex. and both ends trail off to

12
 B

rpr

r
1

Figure 3 Vortex Filament (From Bertin, et al.)

positive infinity. The induced velocity at a point may be

deLermined once the influences of the individual segments

are known. Due to the linear nature of potential flow and

its elementary flows, the influences of the legs may then be

added together to get the total velocity. In turn, the

induced velocity at any given point may be determined by

summing the contributions of all the other horseshoe

vortices.

Assuming the wing in Figure 5 is to be studied,

modeling begins with dividing the planform up into spanwise

and chordwise panels. Each panel corresponds to a horseshoe

vortex.(The distribution of these panels will be discussed

later.) The sides of each panel are parallel to the X axis.

and their fore and aft sides follow the taper of the wing.

13
 z

I A(xl-yl zl)

Figure 4 Horseshoe Vortex (From Bertin, et al.)

_ 114
panel and the free ends are allowed to trail back to

infinity in the X direction. Surface boundary conditions

are enforced at the control points located at the 3/4 chord

location, midway between the sides.

The following notation is helpful when summing up

velocities. The panel number of the current control point

is represented by the m index, and n represents a horseshoe

vortex influencing it, such that:

Tmn ~(16)

C is the influence coefficient based on the location and

orientation of the vortex. It is the only known portion of

Eq (14) since it is determined by geometry alone. Summing

the individual velocities together,

N = -(
r . 17 )

Where the right hand side is the normalized velocity at

induced at control point m. The left hand side sets up a

system of linear equations which may be solved for Fr/V,.

Boundary conditions specify the normalized velocity.

2.1.1 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions for the vortex lattice method

result from the requirement that the flow be tangential to

the surface at the control points located at the 3/4 panel

chord, and mid panel span. The easiest way to enforce this

15
constraint is to force the normal component of velocity to

zero at all control points.

(V.+ = 0 (18)

The sysLem of linear equations is then solved using the

matrix inversion technique of choice.

2.2 Calculation of Aerodynamic Coefficients

Once the individual panel circulations are calculated.

the values may be used to determine the forces acting on

individual panels. Starting with the Kutta-Jukowski law in

its most general form,

B'.'

= f pTxrds (19)

The lift per unit span becomes

L' = p.v.r (20)

and CL is solved in terms of the local singularities in both

the chordwise and spanwise directions.

CL 4 NTF
- rn A,,, (21)

N is the total number of panels on one half of a symmetric

wing. The moment is simply the summation of the various

panel lift contributions multiplied by the moment arm from

the point of interest to the panel vortex location.

16
 4(x*-N -- r) (22)

The induced drag coefficient is slightly more complicated.

For the near field drag value used in this study, the

induced velocity normal to the surface at the local bound

vortex must be determined. This velocity then takes the

place of V, in Eq (20), and the summation becomes

D 4 IV r,(23)
CD E E -g Vww
AYn
rnM-1n-1 V.

2.3 Application Of The Jet Flap

Applying the jet flap to the vortex lattice method is

an exercise in enforcing a specific set of boundary

conditions over an additional set of panels representing the

jet sheet. Since the jet sheet supports a pressure

discontinuity, it can be modeled with a typical horseshoe

vortex panel. The following development was adapted from

Bonner et al. Some variables and indices have been renamed

for the sake of continuity.

The change in jet inclination due to the pressure

discontinuity causes the major difference to boundary

conditions.

First, starting over with Eq (4)

 '= p.V.yRAe (4)

and note that for a large radius of curvature,

1 . d 2z dw (24)
R dx dx

where w represents the downwash nondimentionalized with

respect to V. and dw/dx represents its change along the

length of the jet. Then

=jjd
-c
____ (25)
V. p.V.aR p.. dx 2 "d2

or

c = 0 (26)
"dx V.

Integrating this equation in the x direction, between

control points

CC, f -Ldx - 2 f 4Y-Idx - 0 (27)

resulting in

cC,,[wa,.4-, - 2Ln = 0 (28)

Given the fact that w is a function of r, the governing

equation becomes

18
 N r
= 0 (29)
fl-I V

where 6s. is the Kronecker delta. (Not to be confused with

6j, the flap deflection angle) The jet panel adjacent to

the jet exit must take into account the flap deflection

angle relative to the wing.

cc[.(.1 )- V. = 0 (30)

Now, the summation becomes:

[CCI,(c" C. ,,-) - - = cc-8n, (631)

n-i

Essentially, this means that the influence coefficient on

the jet, Ca, becomes a function of the traditional

influence coefficient on the current panel and the one

immediately aft of it.

6
,=:C,(Cm~n-C )-2 mn (32)

on the jet, and the right hand side becomes:

cC,,, on the jet, adjecent to the nozzle (33)

0 elsewheze

2.4 Panel Distribution

Panel distribution remains as one of the few black arts

left regarding paneling methods. The fact that the vortex

19
lattice method actually solves the flow only at the control

points implies that it probably misrepresents certain

phenomena. One of the primary things it does miss are the

singularities in the vorticity distribution at the leading

edge and hinge lines. One solution to this problem

increases panel density in the location of a singularity.

However, this quickly eats up computer time and storage, and

some codes may only have a limited number of panels to use.

The McDonnell Douglas EVD Method (Ref 13) models the

chordwise circulation at these points with logarithmic and

inverse square root singularities. Another approach to

increase convergence, using significantly fewer panels, is

to space the wing tips and hingelines fractions of panel

widths from their actual boundaries.

The number of spanwise panels necessary for a given

convergence has been shown to be significantly reduced by

insetting the wing tip 1/4 of a panel span. Hough proved

this by deduction for an elliptic planform. By induction,

he shows it to be the case for wings with sweep and constant

chord.

A similar method exists when modeling the circulation

singularity existing at a flap hingeline. The bound vortex

of the flap panel will better represent the circulation if

it overlaps the flap and wing by approximately 1/4 of a

2O
panel chord. (Ref 19) This places it closer to the

hingeline.

In general, adjacent panels should be kept relatively

similar in size and shape. Significant differences will

exist between the root and tip panels of a highly tapered

wing, but the variation is minimal from panel to panel.

This rule becomes important when joining separate components

like a wing and flap. Adjacent panels should be aligned and

of the same span. The chords should also be similar.

2.5 Jet Sheet Convergence

Theoretically, the jet sheet extends to infinity. To

limit the size of the model, an investigation was conducted

to determine the minimum sheet length required to achieve

acceptable convergence. A wing planform was run with jet

sheets varying in length from I to 10 chord lengths. The

lift coefficient converged to within 0.1% of the final value

in three chord lengths. The bound vortex strengths on the

jet sheet were negligible aft of this point.

3 Planform Study

This additional investigation was included to give the

reader some idea of how the characteristics of a wing

planform affect the influence of the jet flap, especially

for lower aspect ratio wings. The study varied planform AR

from 2 to 5 and I from 0.05 to 1. Table I lists the

21
parameters which specifically describe each planform. Each

case was run for the following values of a.6. and C..

a = 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 deg

j= 0, 15, 30 deg

C = 0. 0.5, 1.0

Table I Planform Study Wing Parameters

AR I . b (1) j S (1 I (1) Ac/2 (deg)

2 0.05 2 121 2. 25 1.35 0

2 0.25 2.121 2. 25 1.188 0

3 0.05 2.598 2.25 1.102 0

3 0.25 2.598 2.25 0.97 0

3 0 .5 2.598 2. 25 0.898 0
5 0.5 3.354 2. 25 0.696 0
5 1 3.354 2. 25 0.671 0

4 Vortex Lattice Software

The computer code used in this study, LATJET, was

written by Mr James Snyder, ASD/XRH. (Ref 18) LATJET allows

relatively complex shapes to be developed. Components are

developed by defining chords from root to tip.

Subcomponents between chords are divided into evenly spaced

spanwise and chordwise panels. Up to 300 panels may be

defined.

22
 Camber and twist are modeled by modifying Lhe local

angle of attack at a given panel to account for the

variation in surface slopes. The local angle of attack is

factored into the boundary conditions when the vortex

lattice method constructs the set of linear equations.

Slopes can be input by hand or a table may be created using

CAMBER. CAMBER is a FORTRAN code developed in house by

ASD/XRH for producing specific camber distributions. Camber

lines may be defined in one of several ways.(Ref 7) One

method generates camber lines given a combination of one or

more NACA airfoil types. Lines are defined at both inboard

and outboard chords so that spanwise variations can be

determined by interpolation.

The jet sheet is defined as an individual component

linked to the trailing edge of another. C. and 6j are

specified on a strip by strip basis.

At subsonic speeds, the program uses vortex lattice

panels, while above Mach 1, constant pressure panels are

employed. A Prandtl-Glauret correction accounts for

compressibility. The set of linear equations is so!ved

using Lower Upper decomposition. This solution method

allows a significant reduction in computation time if

multiple boundary conditions such as camber, control

deflections or a, are to be run for the same geometry.

23
 The LATJET output file can vary greatly in size

depending thesettings of the user defined print options.

Individual component, strip or panel information may be

output in addition to a final table which contains the

resulting aerodynamic, moment and jet flap coefficients of

the model being studied.

Since the method is predicated upon potential flow, no

viscous effects are modeled. This is especially important

when looking at the CL vs a curves. No maximum lift

coefficient is implied. The relationships are linear. In

this case, the designer will use empirical methods to

determine the effects of viscosity. All components are

assumed to be thin, t/c << 1.

5 Data Collection

LATJET was run on the VMS cluster at the Air Force

Institute of Technology. Individual data cases were piggy-

backed into large files with similar blowing conditions.

These files were then processed in the background mode using

multiple batch files. A FORTRAN sortinp code distilled the

large output files into manageable sized ASCIr files.

Finally, these data files were imported into Quattroo Pro

3.01 where they were parsed and lumped into a large

relational data-base. Data could be plotted at will for any

available choice of parameters using a custom made

spreadsheet.

24
 11. Aircraft Configuration

1 Design Philosophy

The personal philosophy behind the design of the

b.1OJF-B is described by Fredette in Appendix A and

reference 8. One potential benefit derived from choosing

the high aspect ratio nozzle is survivability. It is widely

circulated in open literature that a nozzle of this type

masks hot parts and mixes the exhaust plume.(Ref 16) In

addition to the jet flap benefits mentioned, there is also

the prospect that this type of nozzle can reduce the boat-

tail drag (drag caused by the separation of airflow over the

aft portion of the fuselage), if it can induce favorable

flow conditions over the aft portion of the fuselage.

The advantages of the jet flap seem very lucrative.

However, there are several disadvantages. The primary are:

nozzle weight and the additional fuselage weight acquired

when accommodating the greater transition section weight,

length, and width of the nozzle. Using first order

estimates, the nozzlk and transition section combination can

constitute from 40 to 60 percent of the bare engine

weight.(Ref 8) Weight penalties magnify several times when

actual take off gross weight is addressed. In the case of

the b.lOJF-B configuration, each additional pound of nozzle

A
weight ;icrtazcd the gross weight by 3.9 pounds when

considering the extra body weight and additional fuel

25
required to meet mission radius requirements. Complexity is

another detractor. However, standard nozzles, especially

two dimensional vectoring types, are approaching the jet

flap in overall complexity. The extreme length of the

nozzle and the fact that it must transition the flow from a

round to rectangular cross section indicates that propulsive

losses will be higher than standard. If th, nozzle reduces

boat-tail drag, the length could be shortened. The shorter

transition will create steeper slopes at the aft end, but

separation conditions might be avoided due to favorable

influence thte flowfield by the jet.

2 Requirements and Figures of Merit

When determining whether or not the nozzle will be of

benefit to the aircraft, there are several performance

requirements to be considered. These requirements, set at

the beginning of the design study, can be divided into two

main categories, maneuverability and mission performance.

Maneuverability concerns itself with the aircraft's

performance at specific points in the operating envelope

usually defined with Mach number, altitude, and power

setting. The different criteria include instantaneous turn

rate, sustained turn rate and specific excess power.

Mission performance deals with ranges, loiter times, take-

off distance, etc.

26
 Generally two or three of these requirements play a

pivotal role in sizing the wing, engine and take-off weight.

Instantaneous turn rate is directly related to the amount of

lift the wing produces. Sustained turn rate depends on lift

and the amount of associated drag that engine thrust must

overcome. The specific engine and wing sizes chosen to

fulfil these maneuverability criteria will then affect the

overall weight of the aircraft needed to meet mission radius

requirements. Generally. wing and engine sizes must be as

small as possible in order to minimize take-off weight.

This makes it crucial for the designer to have sound

aerodynamic data early in the conceptual design process to

optimize performance and maneuverability for the smallest

possible weight. The fact that the lift and drag of this

aircraft are linked directly to the propulsion system

magnifies the significance of being able to predict the

aerodynamic characteristics with accuracy and convenience.

As stated by the designcr in Appendix A, page 63, the

high aspect ratio nozzle can reduce the weight of the

aircraft by improving the efficiency of the drag polar to a

point where a wing with lower aspect ratio and/or area could

be used. A smaller, lower aspect ratio wing generally

weighs less, which thereby lowers the empty weight of the

aircraft. The major question remaining is whether or not

2-
this weight savings can offset the weight increase of the

installed nozzle.

3 The Computational Model

3.1 Panelling

The model as specified to LATJET was essentially a

planar configuration with a "butterfly tail." Four major

components, the forebody, canard, wing and v-tail modeled

j/77

Forshody Canard Wing jet

NfM; V-Tal Omltld for OCIty

Figure 6 b.10JF-B Panel Model

the aircraft, and a single component represented the jet

sheet. (See Figure 6) All tips and sides have been inset

1/4 of a panel width. The angled edge of the forebody has

been approximated with a side parallel to the freestream.

This was done in order to prevent extreme panel distortion

caused by tapering a component to zero over a very small

displacement in the Y direction. In order to represent the

singularity at the jet, a 1/4 panel overlap was used as

28
recommended by reference 19. The jet sheet extends out

three chord lengths past the trailing edge of the wing.

Fredette supplied the NASA sharp edged transonic airfoil

used in this study and seen in Figure 7. Since sizing the

canard surface was one of the design objectives, the

influence of wing camber was especially important in

NASA TRANSONIC AIRFOIL W/SHARP L.E.

t/c:.055
, I I
0.40
0.30
i I ii

-0.40-a i I -T-71
i I

-0.20 -o
>0.0 .1 2
~
Fiur 7NAA
0.
rasoi
I I ,
-. 0.4
1_ _
0.
Ledn
_ 4____
_060._
_
_ __
Ede I Airoi
__
080.
1
__29
_ _ I

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Figure 7 NASA Transonic, Sharp Leading Edged Airfoil

determining the overall pitching moment. A camber line

constructed with upper and lower surface coordinates was

input to CAMBER.FOR. No twist, or camber variation was

assumed in the spanwise direction.

29
 3.2 Blowing Coefficient

In calculating the blowing coefficients for this study,

the mjvj term was assumed to be equal to the gross engine

thrust at the specified flight condition. The mass flow

rate and velocity across the nozzle exit plane were also

assumed to be constant. This implies that the nozzle has a

constant height side to side. rhis also means that C.

varies in the spanwise direction proportionally to the

chord. As far as flight parameters go, C. was a function of

Mach, altitude, and power setting.

All engine data supplied by the designer was generated

with a parametric engine deck employing the characteristics

in Table II. The resulting gross thrust data was multiplied

by an engine scale factor of 1.169. When calculating C.,

the mjvj terms used were the gross thrust divided by the six

panels across the exit plane of the nozzle.

Table 1I b.10JF-B Engine Characteristics

Bypass Ratio 1.0

Air Flow 350 Ibm/sec
Overall Pressure Ratio 30
Turbine Inlet Temperature 3000'R

To comprehend the effects of fanning the exhaust out, a

reference case was created to see the characteristics of a

30
configuration with a smaller 2D vectoring nozzle. For the

comparison case, the exhaust spanned over a width of 36

inches (two panels) compared to 110 inches for the baseline.

3.3 Nozzle Vector Angle

The nozzle vector angle, or flap angle 6, was allowed

to vary from -10 to +40 deg. It was assumed to act as a

singularly blown flap, and have a constant mass flow rate in

the spanwise direction.

3.4 Modification for Control Surface Sizing

To remove the influence of the existing canard for the

canard sizing process, the canard component was terminated

at the buttline even with the forebody. Individual moment

curves were generated for this modified configuration.

31
 IV. Verification

I Verification of Vortex Lattice Code

1.1 Two Dimensional Case With Camber (NACA 64-206)

The verification studies were initiated by creating a

flat plate model with a constant chord of one unit and a

span of 100 units. This provided a pseudo 2D approximation.

The lift curve slopes came out to 2I/rad, and aL.-O deg.

Next, the functioning of the camber option was

verified. Using the CAMBER program, a local angle of attack

table was produced for a NACA 64-206 airfoil. This airfoil

was chosen because it was relatively thin, its camber line

could be easily generated by CAMBER.FOR, and its aerodynamic

characteristics were readily available. The result are

compared to values from Reference 1, in Table III.

Table III LATJET Comparison for NACA 64-206

LATJET Theory of Wing Sections

CLa (deg -') .1095 .105
atLo (deg) -2.07 -1.5
CMac -. 05 -. 04

It should be reemphasized that although the example airfoil

has a 6% thickness, no thickness was modeled.

1.2 Jet Sheet Convergence

Convergence of the aerodynamic parameters with respect

to jet sheet length was alluded to earlier. Jet sheets of

32
varying lengths were attached to the trailing edge of the 2D

flat plate. CL was monitored as the sheet length increased.

After approximately 3 chord lengths, the parameters converge

to within 0.1% of the stabilized values.

1.3 Three Dimensional Wing With Camber

The b.IOJF-B wing was analyzed without its jet sheet.

CL, results were compared to analytic values. According to

Hough (Ref 10), Eq (34) is accurate to 0.75% for 16?ARI.

C 2nAR
AR+2.903+'7
AR

The results are found in Table IV. Values for the wing with

camber are also included. The negative zero lift angle of

attack indicates that the camber is generating lift at a=0

deg.

Table IV Analytic and Computational Values for b.1OJF-B

Wing

Analytic Plain Wing Wing w/Camber

-
CL. (deg ') .0431 .0463 .0463
aL. 0 (deg) - 0 -. 9365

1.4 NADC Jet Flapped Fighter Study

With the conventional aspects of LATJET checked out.

the jet flap results needed evaluation. There is a great

deal written about the jet flap. However, finding valid.

33
well presented wind tunnel data is very difficult. Quite a

bit of data is available on blown flaps and upper surface

blowing, but singularly blown jet flaps is another matter.

Reference 9 was the only document located which involved a

relatively simple configuration with a singularly blown

flap.

In reference 9, Hemmerly presents data for a family of

tapered wings with and without tip plates and washout. The

jet flap was intended strictly as a fixed high lift device

which would vary its effect by modifying Cj. Air exits from

a thin, spanwise, constant height slot placed just above a

trailing edge with a small radius of curvature. A jet

deflection angle of 65 deg was determined by tufting the

trailing edge. Hemmerly made no mention as to how varying

flight conditions and blowing coefficients affected the

deflection.

While reviewing data from this study, the importance of

properly presenting all assumptions and book keeping schemes

became apparent. In general, drag is assumed to be positive

when measured in the direction of V,. With the reaction

force of a jet flap to consider, the net force in this

direction may actually be negative when measured by a

balance in a wind tunnel. This would indicate that the

thrust component of the jet has overcome the drag of the

wing. This isn't always obvious if the drag never becomes

34
negative, which was the case with the NADC study. The drag

presented in the report included the thrust component of the

jet flap (strictly as measured from the force balance).

Drag curves compared here include the thrust of the jet.

Another confusing aspect was the calculation of the

blowing coefficient. The C. values as specified actually

corresponded to a gross blowing coefficient, or C., as

presented in Eq (9). Because the slot height was constant

over the span, there was essentially a constant mass flow

rate out the slot. All other things being equal, this meant

that CP varied over the span, inversely proportional to the

chord.

These facts were taken into account when a comparison

was run using LATJET. The cases involve a simple tapered

wing evaluated at three C. values and an assumed flap

setting of 65 deg. Rasults of the lift data can be seen in

Figure 8. Lift coefficient values in the three cases agree

well with respect to both slopes and intercepts.

Figure 9 shows the variation in drag coefficients and

highlights the typical dilemma the vortex lattice method has

with predicting drag. Each curve exhibits a parabolic

relationship between lift and drag, but all three LATJET

cases are optimistic compared to the wind tunnel results.

It should be pointed out though, that the wind tunnel data

35
 LATJET Comparison W/DTRC Fighter
S=12.04 ft'. cbcsr=1.834 ft. b=6.84 ft
2I | f E.
LAT JET CJCO

t LATJE CJ=.196

1.2 !.. LATJET CJ:.326

I i x 1 [ I DTRC Sj--O

0.6 A TRC Cj=. I9M

O__
0.4 o 6II
It IITRC ~ J
CJ.326

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
a (deg)

Figure 8 DTRC Fighter Comparison Lift Curves

includes viscous effects whereas the computational data does

not.

LATJET Comparison W/DTRC Fighter

S=12.04 ft', cbr--1.834 ft, b-6.84 ft

. LATIET CJ=O

LAJTCJ=.'196

1.2 ILAT CJ=.326

"-.-
f ' ." I IOtR C3J4
0.8 -----

0.6 CJ--. 19 6
ODTRC

0.4 -' DTRC CJ=.326

0.2__
0 "*---- [ -
-0.15-0.10-0.05-0.000.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
CD

Figure 9 DTRC Fighter Comparison Drag Data

Moment data in Figure 10 also shows similar trends.

LATJET data appears to be slightly optimistic by under

36
predicting the magnitude of the pitching moment. However,

the vertical distribution of DTRC data for Cj=O indicates

that the reference position that the moment is calculated

about may actually be the aerodynamic center, and not the

c/4 as stated by Hemmerly.

LATJET Comparison W/DTRC Fighter

S=12.04 ft', cbmr=,.834 ft, b=6.84 ft
2 r-9-

1.8 LATJETCJ-C
1.6 ___ -_
14I6 LA' JET CJ .196

1.2' LArJET CJ=.326

0.8 DTRC Cj=0

1_ 1. 1 TRC CJ=.196
0.6 _ _i 1 I
0.4 DT Ch.326
0.2-

--0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 --0.00 0.10

Cm c/4

Figure 10 DTRC Fighter Comparison Moment Data

37
 V.Res ult s

All cases were run from input files based on blowing

coefficients. In the case of the configuration study, this

refers t, specific power settings. Each input tile included

individual cases to account for every combination of a and

0'.

I Force Accounting

Before discussing the results themselves, the actual

accounting of forces due to both the wing and jet should be

explained. The lift coefficient. CL , as presented here

includes both the lift of the wing and the component of jet

thrust in the lift direction. In order to present a true

powered drag polar, lift effects were not separated. Jet

contributions to the lift coefficient can be calculated with

the following equation.

CLI., = Cjsin(a+ 6 J) (35)

Since the drag is based on forces acting on each of the

individual panels, the thrust of the jet must not be

accounted for twice. It is popular convention for the

designer to account for eneine. and/or jet thrust

independent from drag. This fact detaches the jet component

from the system of aerodynamic forces acting on the

aircraft. The induced drag presented here includes a near

38
field calculation and a component due to the jet' CDjet. ('Djet

is the resultof the jet sheet never really reaching a

horizontal position because of some finite value of downwash

at -. (See Figure 11) This difference between theoretical

and realized thrusts is accounted for as a component of

drag. In terms of the LATJET output parameters.

V.

C
Dist

lot

Figure II C Djet Schematic

CD = CDt + CW t + CJoC (36)

With the sharp edged airfoil used on the b.IOJF-B, the

Cm value used included no leading edge suction. This

equates to the situation of a sharp leading edge flap

deflected directly into the relative wind. At high blowing

coefficients. with increased circulation. the relative wind

will have a definite vertical component with respect to the

free stream.

39
 Table V lists the reference parameters used in

calculating the nondimensional coefficients shown for the

b. IOJF-B.
Table V b.IOJF-B Constant Parameters

Sre f ( ft ) 481 .5
C (ft) 19.36
b (ft) 37.58
Xcg (ft) 31.6

2 b.1OJF-B Results

Initial calculations showed that C. values would fall

within 2% of each other for identical power settings at both

10,000 and 20.000 feet of altitude and a Mach number of 0.6.

This indicates that for a given power setting, the change in

engine gross thrust varies directly with density. Because

of the similarity of the coefficients, only the data for

20.000 feet is presented on the curves. The blowin2

conditions. BC, describe the current power setting and flap

arran2ement. Jet coefficient values corresponding to each

blowing condition appear in Table VI.

2.1 Influence of Blowing Coefficient

Figures 12-17 display edited examples of data found in

Appendix B, page 63. They primarily exhibit the effects of

blowing coefficient on the various aerodynamic parameters

plotted. Blowing conditions 3 and 4 have been removed from

.40
 Table VI b.lOJF-B Blowing Conditions

BC Power Setting C, Nozzle Width (in)

0 Unpowered 0 110
1 Mil Power .1658 110
2 Max AB .2873 110
Of 3 Mil Power .1658 3b
4 Max AB .28,3 36

the plots to increase clarity.

Figure 13 shows how the blowing coefficient increases

the overall lift produced at a given angle of attack. At

first, there appears to be no variation in the lift curve

slope. Upon closer examination, Figure 12 reveals that CLa

actually varies linearly with respect to Ci. It increases

approximately 10% over the range of C 3 .

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-G

0
Mla-C.6, .-- . 'J" Leoding Edge Sucl*on
0.057 T

00553 - -
22 i

Jo 0.053 4 - - j:3C
0.052 . .. =40

0.051 - - . ._
0 0.05 0.1 0. 5 0.2 0.25 0.3
cJ

Figure 12 Variation in CLa with Respect to (C,

41
 The variation of CLj with respect to C, also has a

direct influence on lift. Figure 14 shows a non-linear

relationship with respect to C 1 . Since the study limited

Wrigrr I cm b.1OJF-R
M=.6, S*=4,J 0", 1eGcfrg ,de
-iig

I ' [ ' noowered

! i , ! i - _-"
I MIL

_4 MA

o. -t-...... __ - - - -- ,- A
-0.5 . . - . ... ...- -

-5.0) 0.00 5.,CC 1I .0 15.0J 2C.O0

'A(aeg)

°
Figure 13 Example b.IOJF-B Lift Data, Oj=40

itself to investigating blowing coefficients corresponding

to only three power settings, the exact relationship is

unclear.

The effect of Cj on the pitching moment is similar to

its effect on the lift curve. As Cj increases, it shifts

the curves downward. Figure 15. The slope of this curve has

an important relationship to the static stability of an

aircraft. The negative of its value is the static margin of

the aircraft.

SM = _C- (37)
CL

42
 Wright , Lab b. 10JF-E
M-tC.6. c- ,,,L ,c-,, 'dy Sa~
3.V'7 L07c;J-"9 -U-1

N - R

0.02 4

0.04)1

0 0.05 0i. 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

CJ

Figure 14 Variation of CLeJ with Respect to Cj

Wright Lob b.1( JF-B

V=.6, i=40°, C'". LecdIng Edge Suctior

T Lhnoower d
0.2 "* i

0-1

0~ -- K JMAX(

-0.3
-0.4 ,....I..
-. . .. . ..- .. .
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 '.00 1.50 2.00
CL

Figure 15 Example b.IOJF-B Moment Data, 6 j=4 0 '

Static margin is a convenient term which describes the

distance of the CG from the aerodynamic center as a

percentage of C. A negative static margin implies that the

aircraft is statically unstable. Figure 15 shows that the

static margin for the b.IOJF-B lies between -.21 and -. 24 as

43
C, varies from 0 to .2873. The relationship between SM and

Cj is non-linear.

Wright Lcb 3. 10 J-
- 0 .2 15 -. . .. . . .. ... . .. . .. . ...-

o-
-0.225 t I

" -- 0.23 -

9 1=20

-0.235 -< -. I -30

-0.24 l =I

--0.245
0 0,05 0.1 0, 5 0.2 0.25 0.3
CJ

Figure 16 Variation in Static Margin with Respect to Cj

A mechanical flap analogy may explain the increase in

static margin as Cj increases. Theoretically. a larger

blowing coefficient represents a flap with more area. Since

this increase in "area" is downstream of the trailing edge.

the aerodynamic center shifts aft. This rearward shift in

corresponds to the increasing static margin.

The influence of Cj on induced drag can be seen in

Figure 17. When compared to the drag polar for Cr=0. BC=O.

the blown cases show induced drag penalties at CL=O. As a.

or CL, increases, the blown curves begin to cross over the

unpowered condition and show a decrease in induced drag.

BC=l crosses over at approximately CL=0. 5 and BC=2 does so

at about CL=. 6 . This demonstrates that an optimum Cj exists

44
for a particular flap deflection and lift condition. The

induced drag increase at low ai is due to the upset of the

spanwise lift distribution from the flap deflection.

Wright L th. 1",J'-B

M-.6, -4 u, 9'" Lecc'ng Eige ,Licn

, 4 ' : +

t -- - -

J p

.C 0., C 0.24) 0 3U 0.40 ),51) 1.b-1

CD

Figure I- Example b.IOJF-B Drag Data. 6,=40'

2.2 Influen,.e of Flap Deflection

Example effects of flap deflection are presented in

Figures 18-22. Each plot illustrates a blowing condition

representing maximum afterburning thrust. BC=2. For

clarity, flap deflections have been reduced to 0, 20. and 40

degrees.

Effects of 6, were found to be very similar to those of

a mechanical flap. The lift curve in Figure 18. shows a

definite lift increment for each level of 6 with no

discernable variation in (:[. Looking at CLU values with

respect to , in Figure 19, a smoothly varying trend becomes

apparent.

45
 Nrigh-t lb .1 OI--B

B(-2,
4-., "" I, a~ Ed-e S,zfi on

0.5- -

- .1 5 1 ',7 . Z5, F - 4
v1=r.ghq ...... IF

COY' ------------- - -- ----

--5 '-- ,. '

Figure
"-O5 19 - Ex apleatio- Respet
Cit -'---
.
60 J=
S

relationship.n Ede ~c~o

0I -- -1-- -'- . . ,- - -- -----

. ..
- 0 -5 ,0 5 l) '5 2 , L5 30 35 40
The
rainl fo oieaprxmto asta th

Figure 19 C La Variation with Respect to 0j

64
The curves can be approximated with a cosine

re lat ionship.

The rationale for a cosine approximation was that the

projected "area" of the jet flap varies with respect to the

46
 CL = .00292COS(6j) - .051463 [deg - '] for BC 1

CL. = .00502COS( 8 1) +.051463 [deg - '] for BC 2

cosine of the flap deflection. In Figure 19 the

approximations overlap the actual values almost exactly.

Induced drag in Figure 20 is minimized at 6,=O and a=u,

but there is a cross over phenomenon similar to the one see-n

in Figure 11. Knowled2e of this is very beneficial since an

aircraft will generally be flying at a fixed power setting

and weight which would correspond to Cj and CL respectively.

The optimized flap setting appear to reduce the induced drag

by approximately 10%.

The drag reduction may be short lived. This reduction

comes with the corresponding increase in nose down pitching

Wright L cb b. 10 JF-B
V_-.6, BC-2, .' LtcG 'r _cge S:.ictlon

1.5:-- 1-- Z.,

I - .. . .. . .. -- -----..
. . 4

0.00 0 0. o.2 0.30 0.4 . --50 ....

. .r

Figure 20 Example b.IOJF-B Drag Data, BC=2

4-
moment, Figure 21. The control surface drag required to

trim the moment to zero may be prohibitive. Again, like the

lift data, there is a cosine variation in SM with respect to

'right Lcb b. 1 ,JF-B

M=.6, BC-2,") LeGdYrg Edge S~cfin
0.3 '. . . . ". . . .T . . . r.
T .. .• - -

---
0.2'
.. .. - m---
......------ -f !1-
O.1
.. .. - - - - - -- -~ - -. . "i'

-~~ 4, - "

-43.4 -+--r--,,---r'-
. - ..... -- -- - ,- r--- -r ~--r-1
-0.50 --0.00 0.5(1 .C i.50 2.J0

Figure 21 Example b.IOJF-B Moment Data, BC=2

6, in Figure 22. The approximations are

Wright Lab b.1OJF-8

M=0.6. o=83, 0- .eading Edge "ucicr
•-0.215 - I

0 .22
-- 7T - - -T - 1 _ ._

0 .225
-- - - .

" -0.23 . . .
o.. (ML AFpx

S-0.235AX Apo.
I,

-10 -5 0 5 I) 15 20 25 30 35 4J

Figure 22 Variation in Static Margin with Respect to o

48
 SM = .01384COS(6j) -. 24063 [deg-I ] for BC 1
SM = .02250COS( 86) - .24063 [deg -'] foz BC 2

These values do not match quite as well at high flap

2.3 Influence of Nozzle Width

Figure 23 shows a lift curve with varying nozzle width.

Both cases have the same value for C.. 0.2873. However, the

narrow nozzle has a much larger value for C. across its

Wr iht nib h- 1 JF-B

M7.6, 5i-c.O g ecchg Edge Su or

SI ,,_... -r;,,
K . -. .-- -- -. . ---...
-J 1T
.I -

4W I

Figure 23 Example b. IOJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison, Lift

center panels. With equal mass flow rates, the narrow

nozzle must have a larger value of m'. There is no

variation in slope. The increase in lift of the wider

nozzle is the result of it acting on a much larger area of

the wing.
 Figure 24 indicates a small induced drag increase due

to the narrow nozzle. The overall shape of the polar is the

same, and the is no cross over tendency.

W 6-gnt h. t OJF-B
Lab ...n dge &~cfiorI
y=.5, " , C'T ....
-:....
2 .. . T ... . . .. . - - - _

1.5
I0 I

-0. 4 ,,.----

0.5 0 C . 0.20 0.30 0.40 C50 0.60

Figure 24 Example b.1OJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison, Drag

0 - --- r------j- A-- It ,

Pitching moments created by the narrow nozzle. Figure 25.

are less severe.

x I I
Wright Lab b.1IOF-
Vz--.6, 87:-400, C". ..ccd&rg EdAge Suciican
0.05 Tn-- v - V T

--. 0 36

0.2

-. 0.3 - ----- j-. I

-0.35 I i
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1..j 1.50 2.00

Figure 25 Example b.IOJF-B Nozzle Width Comparison, Moment

50
 One assumption which needs to be addressed is jet

thickness. As the jet width was reduced to 36 inches. the

thickness increased to maintain a constant exit area. This

case is presented as an example only. Any conclusions drawn

from it must be regarded skeptically. Reference 12 presents

a method for dealing with thick jets.

All curves in Appendix B, except for the drag polars.

show linear trends due to the absence of viscous effects.

The CL vs a curves shows linear data up to and including

a=20 deg. This does not necessarily mean that this is an

achievable, unstalled angle of attack. especially in the

linear portion of the curve. Ctmax and CICLaax values

determined empirically will have to be faired in to the

curves.

3 Stability and Control Results

Removal of the destabilizing canard changed the static

margin to a positive value of approximately .02, Figure 26.

This indicates aft movement of the aerodynamic center. The

blown cases still show strong nose down moments which will

have to be trimmed somehow. Moment variation due to Cj and

Oj is similar to the full configuration. Given the pitching

moment without the canard, the size of the actual co-itrol

surface can be calculated so that it produces an adequate

level of control. Appendix C, page 86, contains the full

51
 set of moment graphs pertaining to the stability and control

invest igat ion.

Wright Lao b.1 JF-B, NO CANARD, M=.6

'
5--,00 Lecd~rg Edgje V6c iNon

A i a rpow'r -d
- - ,
'00I . .F I
-0.050 -4 - . 2 .- I

2i)k.'
VCx
--0.200
,- I I
- -0.200
-0.30o
--0.300
1---- '1*---- 4--...-___ --I
..

-4350 I I

th I i -
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.30 1.50 2.30
CI

Figure 26 Example b.IOJF-B With Canard Removed, Moment

4 Planform Study Results

Wing planform data can be found in Appendix D, page 92.

Cases were run for each planform with variation of C. and 6i

about nominal values of 0.2 and 15 deg respectively. With

respect to 5j, and C., the generic wing planforms behaved

like the aircraft configuration. Similar trends were seen

in all graphs.

Since the primary purpose of this part of the study was

to provide additional data to the designer on a variation in

wing planform, the influence of AR and I characterized in

the following example figures.

52

- pII i l ll
 LAT JET Wing Planform Test Data
CJ=0.2, DJ=15.0, TR=C.05, 07 Lecdlrng Ecge Suciior

2~

1.5

X+
44

-4, --- -- - -- -

,a.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.J0 '4.00 '6.00

Figure 27 Lift Curve Variation with Respect to AR

As the planform parameters, AR and X, varied, results

typical of conventional wings occurred. Increasing AR

raised the slope of the lift curve, Figure 27, and relaxed

the drag polar, Figure 28.

LATJET Wing Plonform Test Dcta

CJ0.2, DJ-,5.O, TR-O.05, 0% Lecding Edge Suctior

-I AR-2
1.5 -+-:
-4-

i4 _--
AR -3
1 -_-4 +.. ... .

0.51

01

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

CD

Figure 28 Drag Polar Variation with Respect to AR

53
 The moment curve, Figure 29, shifted downwards and

became steepeir. This steeper, negative slope would have

indicated an increase in the static margin had the moment

been taken about a known or predicted CG instead of the

planform quarter chord.

Variation in I showed little influence over the curves.

There was essentially no change in the lift curve,

LATJET Wirg Planform Test Data

CJ-.2. L)J:15.0. R-0.425, O% .eadig Ejdge .S'cton
-0.076 _ - - -

-0.078 A 2

--0.08 AR-Z3

-0.082 4-

-0. 50 - 0 1
I+
-
-0.088 .F u ....
-o.0g~ -

-0 .092 4i . . -- - -- - - - r--, - - --
-'0.50 --0.00 0.50 1.00 1.5Q 2.00
CL

Figure 29 Moment Variation with Respect to AR

Figure 30. The drag polar. Figure 31, also shows

insignificant changes. There was however, an appreciable

change in the pitching moment. Figure 32 shows the moment

shifting downwards with the increase in A.

54
 ATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AR=2.0, CJ=0.2. D = 5.0C), 0 Leading E ge Suctior
{ R =.,5

1.51. -II

-J I
0
1

0.0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 .00 10.00 12.00 4.00 16.00

-(.eq)

Figure 30 Variation of Lift with Respect to ,

LATJET Wing Planform Test Daot

AR-2.0. CL-0.2, DJ =-15.00, 0 LeGding Edge Suctior

,.R2.25

'1'
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
CD

Figure 31 Variation in Drag with Respect to ).

55
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AR-2.0, CJ4O.2, DC15.CO, Oa Leuding Ldge Suclon
-0.07 . -
-0.072 4-... . .... 0

- . -

- .0 7 8 -r .. x
--0 .0821 .. ..

-0.09

4
- .09 . . . .. .

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

LL

Figure 32 Moment Variation with Respect to .

56
 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of this study have shown unequivocal

influence of the high aspect ratio nozzles on the

aerodynamic characteristics of the Wright Lab b.1GJF-B

fighter configuration.

Raising the blowing coefficient showed positive shifts

in the lift curve and increases in CL. Pitching moments

moved in the nose down direction and the static margin

increased. The drag polars showed that induced drag

increases at low CL due to the disruption of the smooth

spanwise lift distribution. As CL increased, the drag

penalty disappeared, and the curves crossed over the unblown

case, exhibiting an induced drag reduction.

Variation of both the lift and moment curves with

respect to 5j was very similar to the Cj cases. However,

the slopes of both curves varied with respect to the cosine

of 5j. The drag polar also behaved similarly with regarding

6j. An induced drag penalty at low CL transitions to a

benefit at high CL as the curve for a specific 6j crosses

over the undeflected case. This suggests that an optimal

flap setting exists for a given biowing condition and lift

condition. These conditions correspond to the power setting

and weight of the aircraft respectively.

57
 Removal of the canard for the stability and control

study resulted in a larger, positive static margin, and

indicated a rearward shift in the aerodynamic center.

All in all, the impact on the design can be summed up

in the following points. The nozzle shows induced drag

reduction at fixed power setting and optimum flap

deflection. Drag reduction will be minimal at the partial

power settings typical to cruise (Low C.) and the relatively

low CL values required. Trim drag as the result of

countering the extreme pitching moment may overwhelm any

drag reduction realized.

The true benefits of the jet flap lie in the high lift

region. This makes it most suitable for reducing take-off

and landing distance and increasing sustained and

instantaneous turn performance. However, this all hinges

upon developing an effective way to counter the extreme

pitching moments.

Other aspects not included in this study must be

accounted for prior to making any final decisions on design

feasibility. Potentially, the high aspect ratio nozzle can

reduce separation over the aft end. It may also cut down on

the infra red signature of the exhaust plume. Nevertheless.

production cost, weight and/or complexity may be

prohibitive. The only complete answer will be the result of

of a full blown multi-variate optimization study.

58
 Bibliography

1. Abbott, I. H. and A. E. Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing

Sections. New York: Dover Publications. 1958, pp 558-
559.

2. Kohlman, David L. Introduction to V STOL Airplanes.

Ames, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1981.

3. Bertin, John J. and Micheal L. Smith. Aerodynamics for

Engineers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1979.

4. Bonner, E., W. Clever, and K. Dunn. "Aerodynamic

Preliminary Analysis System. Part I Theory." Contract
NAS1-14686, Los Angeles: Rockwell International
Corporation. April 1978. (NASA Contractor Report
145284).

5. Crawford, Donald R. Airplane Design. Torrance.

California: Crawford Aviation, 1986.

f. Engler, Robert J. and Robert M. Williams. "Design of a

Circulation Control Stern Plane for Submarine
Applications." Bethesda, Maryland: Naval Ship Research
and Development Center, March 1971, (AD-901 198)

7. Ferraro, Drew T. "Users Guide for the Vortex-Lattice

Camber Inputs." Unpublished report, ASD/XRH, August
1984.

8. Fredette, Raymond. Unpublished notes. 1991

9. Hemmerly, Rodney A. "Subsonic Investigation of a

Semispan Jet Flapped Wing Designed Primarily for High
Speed Flight." Bethesda, Maryland: David W. Taylor
Naval Ship Research and Development Center, June 1975
(AD-A024 798).

10. Hough, Gary R. "Lattice Arrangement for Rapid

Convergence." Vortex Lattice Utilization. NASA SP-
405, 325-342, Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics ans
Space Administration, 1976.

11. "Remarks on Vortex-Lattice Methods." J.

Aircraft. Vol. 10, No. 5, 1973, pp 314-317, (May 1973).

12. Lan, Edward C. and James F. Campbell. "Theoretical

Aerodynamics of Upper-Surface-Blowing Jet-Wing

59
 Interactions. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Nov 19'5, (NASA TN D-7936).

13. Lopez, M. L. and C. C. Shen. "Recent Developments in

Jet Flapped Theory and Application to STOL Aerodynamic
Analysis." 4th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference,
Paper No. -1-5'8. New York: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, July 19-1.

14. McCormick, Barnes W., Jr. Aerodynamics of V/STOL

Flight. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc., 196-.

15. Mondey, David, Ed. The International Encyclopedia of

Aviation. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 19".

16. Richardson, Doug. Stealth. New York: Crown

Publishers, Inc., 1989, pp 50-51.

17. Spence, D. A. "The Lift Coefficient of a Thin Jet

Flapped Wing." Process Royal Society, A238, 46-68,
1956.

18. Snyder, James R. LATJET Vortex Lattice Computer Code.

May 1991.

19. Unpublished Notes, 1991.

60
 Appendix A: Philos ohv of Designer

The Wright Laboratory Configuration b.IOJF-B is a

baseline layout for a future multi-role fighter design

possibility. This single place, single engine concept

incorporates a high aspect ratio jet flap type nozzle at the

base of a wide, flat body. The design philosophy employed

here is that the jet flap may upgrade the trimmed drag

polars of low aspect ratio wings to the extent that its

additional propulsion and integration weights can be offset

by the reduced structural weight of the wings. canard and

tails for a net reduction in weight empty, which will

thereby improve the fuel load. The viability of this

approach resides in the amount of aerodynamic improvement

that can be derived from jet flap effects.

Inspection of the 2 view drawing of the b.IOJF-B

layout. Figure 1, and data sheet shows a design combining

very high thrust and moderate wing loading. Highly

favorable effects may make it possible to reduce both engine

size and wing area in the interest of increasing fuel

fraction. If the benefits allow changes in maneuvering wing

loading to the region of 80 psf and a thrust-to-weight ratio

of approximately 1.5, then the fuel fraction of a 30,000 lb

fighter could be boosted 35% above the baseline case

typified by the b.IOJF-B.

61
Table VII b.10JF-B Dimensions and Weight

Takeoff Gross Weight(lbs) 30,000

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.7066
Wing Loading, takeoff (psf) 62.35
Wing Loading. maneuver (psf) 57.00
Overall Length (ft) 60.625
Span (ft) 31.573
Maximum Body Width (ft) 14.543
at FS 654.281
Body Width at c/2 wing (ft) 13.413
at FS 557.292
Body Depth at FS 375 (ft) 5.333
Overall Height, gear up (ft) 10.167
Nominal C.G. at FS 451

Raymond Fredette
Senior Design Engineer
WL/XPAD

62
Appendix B: b.IOJF-B Aerodynam~ic Data

63
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
M=.6, ,=-1O, O Leading Edge Suction
2I I -i
4 I I
i
..5 I
....
li I IUnpcwered
+
d,'I
I 1 I ___MAX 2D-',

t: ] 1 I2 D--MiL

O.S I ---
2D-MAX

-5.00 0.00 5.00 10.0C 15.00 20.00

O,(oeg)

Figure 33 Lift Curve for 6 =-1O*

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, 6j=-1 00, 0% Leading Edge Suction
21
np
-j I Iu owered
1.51 - __i_--

1______ ___~___ ______,_ _~_ FMAX

. . . . __.

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

CD
6
Figure 34 Drag Polar for j=-10*

64
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
=-
M=-.6, 61 ,0 Leoding Edge Suction
.1 1*

0 Unpowered

0.I 5 = ,I I;l'V I

0.2 - MAX

0.15 , {,
____// _/ t2D-MIL

-I / 2D-MAX
0.05

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 35 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6j=-10"

Wright Lab b.1OJF-B

M=.6, 1=-1 00, 07 Leading Edge Suction
2- I I --

ES I --- 40

I t1 I I <=40
.i i [ __ _I ~ 4

+ B
ox=12 o

_ _ _ I 1 _

-0.5 ' I -

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

C

Figure 36 Lift Variation Due to Cj for 6,=-10o

65
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
M,.6, Fi=gO, O Lealing Edge Suction

I'UrDO wereo

-- - - - - -- ----- 1.2 DI
- - IMA)X
A Ea--

I 2 D-MIL
-I

A2 I2-M A,)

0.5 + ....
-.. . . .. ..
- .. - - r - - -

-5.00 0.00 5.00 0 30 15.00 20.u7j

a(cieg)

Figure 37 Lift Curve for 6i=O0

Wrighi Lab b.1 OJF-B

M:.6, 6=00, 0 Leacing Edge Suction
2T

A Ij unpowered
L 0-MIL

1I
C) I I I I 2 0-14l

D-MAX
A ,
0 - +-- I--

0.00 0.1 0 0.20 0.30 J.40 0.50 0.60

Figure 38 Drag Polar for 6iO

66
 Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B
M 6,
-.0 , 0 7 Leadcng Edge Sucton
V=0

OK Ojr~oooerer
0. 2 T - M--

MAx
U u' 0.1
- __

2D-MAX

-0.05 -0.4) 0.50 ,.0 1.5", 2.00

CL

Figure 39 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6O 0

Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B

M=.6, 3;=00, 0" Leding Edge Suction
.52-r--- I T I O -
- Iri
I
-.
9 i .. .i 4 -

.r 4 -" ff
005 --- ... - ..- . .15 - A.
d- . 30
-4-
J i . .. . ..4- .. - .,-I
Si " i -
0 I" ---
- - .

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

°
Figure 40 Lift Variation Due to Cj for 63=0

6'
 Wright Lab b.10Of--B
C
V=6 :1O 0 " Lecaing Edg~e SCT'Cr

2 __-

6mowereci

kA

-0.5~ i
-,A 2 Deq'

VA

-0.5 -- {--
-. 00 0.0 0.0 3 .0 .50 200

Figure 41 Lift Culr for 6 J=1O0

WrihtLab0.1 OF-
 Wright LabLeadng
b. 10 Edge
JF-BSicton
M=.6, F-101 , 0
0.3T
0.25,

15 iL r)

u * 2--. 0 .. ," _- 2D-MIL

2-MAX
,0.1 50v --. "i .-. .
I.. - ~
.--T ....... -- 2D-M-AX
-L.O5 i ------- I-. ...- I _T

L CL

-G . 15 + . . . ,, , , , ,- - - -- -- - --
r--- ---
-,0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
CL

°
Figure 43 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6j=10

Wright Lab b.1OJF-B

M .6, 10, 07 Leading Edge Suction
2 I I -

1 __ I i- - - -- 1
--4

15 i-- T 1--
-. I 0.

0 .5 I I I , ...
I 4

0____ ___ i--------------- -

i _ _: I I
-0.5 -k-- - - + - ,--- ,+------ *
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Figure 44 Lift Variation Due to C. for 6j=lO

69
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
V=.6, Fi=200, 0, Lecdrng Edge Suction
-4 II

-tI I n o ee
(2

-4 i;4 j V
- 4 El-
V:-
A,<

. ....- : Z. I 2D-MIL

1 -D- A

4 C'; '5 .. __ _

-5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 15.30 20.00

ca(deg)

Figure 45 Lift Curve for 6j=20

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=6, 6j=200, W' Leading Edge Suction
2]I -H--

Unpowerec
_ _ II _ +

I.T MIL

-- __. .-
Z-

0.5 w
, ' 2 D MAX&:

0 ____
I IiI

- 0 .5 ) . .1. . - -- -- ,- - - - , , , t . .
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 J.40 0.50 0.60
CD

Figure 46 Drag Polar for 6j=20"

70
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
M=.6 =20 , 0"7 LeGoYng Edge Sucion
0.3 --- - - -,
0.25 p- - ,- - ~~~
LJrio~ere i
0.25.

0.1 . A. MA.

. . 4 2D-MIL
. ,.,. I J2 D-M AX
-0.05 -4--- --- ;r .- " +. ________ ____ J-A

-0.1 -, t F i
-02--- --- t---- -i----- . .. -1..

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 i.00 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 47 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6j=20'

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, j=200 , 0' Lead*ng Edge Suction
2.
I - .+
.5F

4 4

- 4- ---- ,--,-----" - --- - -

.. .._--
.5 F
0 ---- -- -- x- - 2---,-...-c%12c
2
l1

0.0C 0.05 0.10 C.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

CJ

Figure 48 Lift Variation Due to C, for 6j=200

-r1
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
V=.6, ;=30 ',, Leeding Ege Suc+ion
'<

4 I ! ! I un cov'er ea
1.5

t I 1 I,-Ut

21-

1-
C1 - - -2D', e

0 .5 .. . .. -. . - -
5 .,0 0.00 5 ,., 0.00 15.30 20.00
o,(ceg)

°
Figure 49 Lift Curve for 6j=30

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, 6i=300, 0': Leading Edge Suction

; unpowereo
-:

1.5 T r .. . - -. . - -. .. ..

... . . . T--

2D -MAX
0----__ -- -_-____

__I-_ I

0.00 0.1 0 0.20 0.36 3.40 0.50 0.60

CU

Figure 50 Drag Polar for 6,=30'

I I
 Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B
M=.6, 5!=30 °. 07 LeaQ~ng Ege Suction
0.3 r- - .. -..

0.2 ;
I

-X-L MAX

0m .I ,4'-

U 4

I k i
-C..1 x .. -i2~ v A

-C.2 -

-0.3 - --- '--"--r-- ,-- -- , -,- ---.. .. . -I

-0.5ol -0.00 0.50 .00 1.50 2.00
CL

Figure 51 Pitching Moment About the Co for 6j=30'

Wright Lab D.1OJ -B

M=.6, 01=300, 0"' Leodng Edge Sucilon

oz14

4 -4

0
- Cg4

b--------- I _-

-- .5-... .-..

0. 0 05 0.10 ,.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Figure 52 Lift Variation Due to C, for 6,=30"

'3
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
M .6, , 07 Lecoing Edge Suction
i -=400
2 1
Lrpcwered

-I I .-- ,::: : . ~

4'MA
0.5 ±
4 -- "-

-EY

SI
-0 . 5 T . -
- 5 00 0 .C0 5 . 03 C. 0 15 . 0 2 ' 0C
0,(dag) ,

Figure 53 Lift Curve for 6j=40 "

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B -

M=.6, 6i=400, O ,Leoding Edge Suction
T I I
1.5 ) I unpowerea
+ _-_

1.5 1MIL

0.5

1 __2
) MAX,

-4). 5 ) . ..± . . . I . . . -t -------

, . . . , ,, -,
----
0ct

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

CD
6
Figure 54 Drag Polar for j=40*

74
 Wrighf Lab b. 10 JF-B
M=.6, 0=400, 0'. Leading Edge Suction
0 3
. i

0.2 - r - ; I ; d:)owereo

I
O1 0' 4' I x ¥ A:

-0.2i
" I - ., l2 D-YAX
0..

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 Cl) 1.50 2.00

CL
0 °
Figure 55 Pitching Moment About the CG for 6j=4

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, 8i=400, 0", Leading Edge Suction

t !I c 40
t
,.5 -, -- 4--

-
0. -__
---.--- .. . . , -- - ---- ,-

0 .5
012 0

--C.5 .. . . +
0.00 0.05 0.10 C.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Figure 56 Lift Variation Due to C, for 6j=40'

75
 Wright Lab b. 10 J-B
M K.6, G"' Lero('g Ecge Sucttor'
=C--,

ii
2- . T. .. . A
. . .... .. . E3- -
4 -I
cq; deg)
F
-.- i r--- 57;7-
Lif Cu In
v fo BC I .--

Wr1+ Lc b.1IJ -
5
-5.00 - 0.00 5.50 - '0.00 5.00 20.'00
1.5.,._

Figure 57 Lift Curve for BC=O

Wright Lob b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, BC=0, 0'7. Leolding Edge Suction

-a.1 I ; 5= - g
If

II ! -
I I. t . m Lj' G= O

0. -~-~ __ - i i ;V 2 '
1i

0.0 .2 0.30 0.40 050-0.0o

CL)

Figure 58 Drag Polar for BC=O

 Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B
M=.6, BC=0, 0 Leading Edge Sucf on
0.3 7 I I

0.25 - . . - i
0.2 4-. ii _ ;i _]
i i0,

2 0. ; i ; I -
" I I II;ii5: 0

0.1 - r- -5-------

i / - - ! ;

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.0) 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 59 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=0

Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B

M=.6, BC=O, 0' Leading Edge Suction

-J I l I I I [ - 4
A I ; ] - .
S--- -

- -,- 0
E-

1 k___ J i .4 l i 8

-12
0.5J I.-,- I -- x-

4 I I - I I ,

-1 r
-0.5 - - -.-
-10 .G5.00 0.00 5.00 0.001 5.0C20.0025.0C30.0035.0040.00

Figure 60 Lift Variation Due to 6i for BC=0

-7
 Wright Lob b. 10 JF-B
M=.6, BC=I, O Leading Edge Suction
2

2j- &100
0.5! . . . .. i -w..
-
5-,31)o

-40

-5.0 0.00 5.00 , 00 115.00 20.00

Figure 61 Lift Curve for BC=I

2 _________

Wright Lcb b. 10 JF-B

V=.6, BC=I-, 0" Leading Edge Suction
0.00 0.00 20.

-0.5 W ih Lb .1 JF
-1 I j--10

Figure 61 Lift Culr for BC=1

t lV ' --0o

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60i

Figure 62 Drag Polar for BC=1

78
 Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B
M=.6, BC=I, 07 Leading Edge Suction
0 .4 - --
---------- ---------------

-" I I C

tX - - - -i 0.
II 5,- 2 0

-i.---
- - 4
-0.2
-- r- .
rrr. . .
-o0.3 4
.--- -r- - ----- t----
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
-0.50 -0.00
CL

63 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=1

Figure

Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B

M.6, BC=1, 0' Leading Edge Suction

SI I I

____ I ! I I -.---

0.--5---x---

0 _ -_- - --- __------ ,---- x=

T i

1
5oo .00 . o2o.0025.003o.03s.04o(.o=

Figure 64 Lift Variation Due to 63for BC:I

79
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
V=.6, BC=2, O- Leadirg Edge Suction
2 ---- - --

- -0 S-
A

.5 -517t--:+-0

-
_
__- -- z " . i

fS--I---

, ff
".... .. : f [_-40 c'

-5.00 ).00
-.5ir 5.00 1' "1 15.00 20.00 00

Figure 65 Lift Curve for BC=2

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, BC-2, 0' Leading Edge Suction
I ', I

0.00
i ,X 0.0 05 0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

CD

Figure 66 Drag Pola: for BC=2

80
 Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B
M:.6, 9C=2, 0 7 Leccing Edge Suction
0.4 H

0-2-
Qri
0.2 - -. i u - - -
4. - -- r,"1 53z2- 0
-0.31 -- s "-- H

- 4 -. . .-- ....
. . .
C)- r " - --
-0. 1 .. .- -... _-_"[ _ _-

-- [ 5>4oO
-032 ' _ _ _ _ _ _- -_

I i-J----i-!

-0.50 --0.00 0.50 .00 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 67 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=2

Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B

M=.6, BC=2, 0 Lecding Edge Suction
I I I = 4
t I I
S-
I
1- I or-- °

I ,=4
__ I -- - _ _-- _-- 4
i-= __=4_

0.5 jvj -- -' - - --

4-- _

0 -1-- 116 0

-0.5 - , ! ! -, -...
L..
-I 0.OG-5.00 0.00 5.00 10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.C040.00

Figure 68 Lift Variation Due to 6i for BC=2

81
 Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B
V=.6, BC=3, O%Leading Edge Suction
2
i I

.51. .. - . . . . t . . . . .. . ._;

41' si= 100

I I
0 " t '6i=400

-5.00 .00 5.C. 5.0 2000

Figure 69 Lift Curve for BC=3

Wright Lcb b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, BC=3, 0" Leading Edge Suction
2r
0
I I -J-1 CC

1.5 ____ _ _ -

_____-~ =10o
())
J 6i--2 0
0.5 ---

V 81=A- 0 0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.6o

CO

Figure 70 Drag Polar for BC=3

82
 Wright Lab b.10JF-B
4z=.6, BC=3, 0" Leodjng Edge Sucfton
0.3 7,;
0 °
0.25 T-1 --

~ # t I -Z
--
S 0.1 03

-0.5 T - . ... 4)
-0.1V. I
L " . . .O

-0.50 -0.00 0.5 1.00 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 71 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=3

k + I y 4O

Wright La-b b. 10OJF-B

M=.6, BC=3, C' .eaang Eage Sucf*on
2 --- -----
-4--
___ I y 4
-4 -- 4
2-

-- - I - --
0 .5 } Ii.ii_ -- ___ : - . _ - _.
0* -- ---- _

Figure 72 Lift Variation Due to 6i for BC=3

83
 Wright Lob b. 10 JF-B
V=.6, BC=4. 0' Leadrg tdge Suctior

i I I
4 j 4

,-
J1--I.-7-:.-:
1 - !i~ S

1.5 Tj )
•J
I
__ _ _ _ _ _ _
.-
_ _ _ -_ _ _ _ ...
_
u1----
. "
ii - 0

-0.5 -r I

.. . . . . . 1".. . . . . . . I

-5.0o 0 0 .00 23.00

c.flg,,

Figure 73 Lift Curve for BC=4

Wright Lcb b. 1OJF-B

M=.6, BC=4, 1" Leading Edge Suction

1.5
2 I
1
" 1 -'[0

01 I

Q!

0 ---- i- '1- 1 T=

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

CD

Figure 74 Drag Polar for BC=4

84
 Wright Lab b. 10JF-B
kA=.6, BC=4, 0 " Leoting Edge Sucton
0.4 I - T

Co. --------
4 I+ - -------

1- 'd3-,....

{A--

u~~~~7 -, 4. 0-:7r-
4 "
L 1 i L -t.-
-0.2

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 i.50 2.00

CL

Figure 75 Pitching Moment About the CG for BC=4

Wright Lab b. 10 JF-B

V=.6, BC=4. 07 LeGding Edge Suc-on
2- T I I
' I I i J I I O,

1.5
22~

- -4 -
0.5 t

0 - .... 'I- 16"

S4 I ....
-10.OG-5.oo0.oo 5.00 10o.oo 5,oC20.0025.003o.Qo3s.0043.oc

Figure 76 Lift Variation Due to 6, for BC=4

85
Appendix C: Stability and Control Data

86
 Wright Lab b.1 OJF-B, NO CANARD, M-.6
5;=-100, 0"' Lecd-'g Ecge Suct,0n
0.1I00 T ",-._ F - - -

I I -- npow.r'eG
0.C09.) -F-i' -- -h-- - -4-

I -- _ I [: 20K'Mc>

.,' '~i
444,"L I .4 I __
I

." - -5 - . 0 I I

E-.000 .-- --- - - 7

IC L
-v.020 -r-- --r- --- r---- --- r
....... rI
.--T... -- - i'£
-0.510 -0.0oC G.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
CL

0,
Figure 78 Pitching Moment About CG. 6j=-10 No Canard

Wright Lab b.° 10JF-B, NO CANARD, M-6

5= 0% Leoding Edge Suction
0 .0 1 0 v1 I - I

I I I I LlPl:ower eo

!! ' t, i20K/M:
I I i

c~0 4
t i

SI l,

II :

-0.020 - - - - - - --- -- - - - .. -,- - - , -

-0.50 -0.00 0.53 1,00 1.50 2.00
CI-

° ,
Figure 'S Pitching Moment About CG. 6j=0 No Canard
 Wright Lab b.1°, OJF B, NO CANARD, M=.5
;5j=0 0, LeGaarg Edge Suct~on
-
0.020 ,, - - -

S-0.020 - ---..... . -- . .. . -- . . ..- ... . .. 20K Nai

-0.00 - - -
-00
0 b -- - - -- _-_,--

+ + +

- .50 -. >0 0 .501 2..0

Figure 79 Pitching Moment About CG, 6j=10*, No Canard

QU I -- - + -r.w : ,4.--

Wright Lab b.1OJF-B, NO CANARD, M=.6

TV20 0, T7 Leadr'g Ed~ge Suctior
0.050 - . ., -
Jr.po w e re

20K/mox
-0.150--- - ----- - . -4

--0.1200---- . .-

-0.50 0-.0 .50 i.0"0 1.50 2.00

Figure 80 Pitching Moment About CG, 6j=20'. No CanarJ

88
 Wrighf Lab5i=30
b.°10JF-B,
, n"' Leac~rg
NO CANARD, M=.6
Edge Suc+on
0.050 1--v -

,Dol0Owere

i
-i ------- '

I( I 2
- 2 0'0

-0. .200

-0.250 t-- . -t-........-- - - - - - -

*~~_ - - -

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 .0o .50 2.00

CL

Figure 81 Pitching Moment About CG. 6j=30 °

, No Canard

Wright Lab b.1OJF-B, NO CANARD, M=.6

3I=400, 07 LeGding Edge Sucior
0.050 ---- - T-
0 .0 0 0 - -s _ ILbnPOW red

-0.050 - I H-
}/M 2
' 20K/M;1
, I _ _ _

t 0.150 j'--~-- + 14 I

-0.400 +
I
-0.50 -0.00 0.5 !.00 1.50 2.00

Figure 82 Pitching Moment ° ,

About CG, 6j=40 No Canard

89
Wright Lab b.1 OJF-B, NO CANARD, M=.6
CJ:O.O000, 0', Leading Edge Suction
0.010 ___- - --- -

I I i I6 C-IO0

ii

0.005 -
:
-0. 1.C)i ;3; -4 0

-Oi.O15---------- - _ __..Z6._-0

i i ! , :400

-0.50 -0.02 0.50 1.0c 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 83 Pitching Moment About CG. BC=0, No Canard

Wright Lab b. 1OJF-B, NO CANARD, M-.6

CJ=0.1658, O'. Leading Edge Suction
-
0.r050 i -
.. -_ - I v5i0o

-0.050

4--- AC- -
-02
0 I - -- I

-0.300
-0.250 - ,1 ._ _ ... 4-

-0.50 -O.O0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.C O

CL

Figure 84 Pitching Moment About CG, BC=I, No Canard

90
Wright Lab b. 10JF-B, NO CANARD, M-.5
C:.0.28 7 3, Q' LeGding cCge ',;cC

-
,3.C50 - " ... -.. .- - " ... - 1 i

co -'

-4). 5C
0 °
-0.14Op 3< : 0.4
" -. C-" 50: . 2..
.0: 6

L)-

Figure 85 Pitching Moment About CG, BC=2, No Canard

91
Appendix -D: Planform Data

92
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP=2.0, CJ=0.2, R=L-0.05, 0Y", Lecdrig Edoe SUction

I i I

4 4-
-'*.:-
-i

0.5!
.. . - - -+ - " ,t
SI

-,
I I
- .-
-,. ---
O.C0 2.00 4.0 6. C
, O 0'0 12. 4.0 16 00

6
Figure 86 Lift Curve Comp&rison for j, AR=2. 1=0.05

LAT ET Wing ,lanform Test Data

AR=2.0, I 0.
J-S P--0.0%, ')" Leading Edge Suction
2 T - -7 - ---
- -.----
,' ', I CJ--O

d I
I i - rI - -

<5 ji i . - - -

-0.5
o.C0 2.00 4.0C 6.OG .,, ,., 2.CC 14 16.00

Figure 87 Lift Curve (ompari.;on for BC. AR=2. 1=O.05

93
 LATJET Wi-g Pcnform Test Data
AR:?.O, CJ:O.,? '" e-G.ing Ecge " -"

~~I , i -

0.5 . ..'~~*-
.5 I-.-- '-. - 0

0.IG. -- .5 . .... 0 i .. 24- . 25 0..30-'

r2, __
CF.35

CJ 2.

2. T--- - -
...

-I'
-0.5 -i-- .... +---....
.- .- -, -, - . . . - 'J ,

A- 21 O D00 54 C. 0T . . . ... .2 0..30 03

0 .5 4- - ' . .... .

Fiue8
0.00 Dra
0.05 Poa
0. 0 Coprsn
0 . 5 , J.20o 0.25 R=,X00
0.55
o.

Figure 89 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1,=0.05

AR1.,Dz5O TRzO05,(' Lecn EdeS:t
. 20 + +-*. . . . ... -

- cc
Fige8 Drg olr opa io fo B ,AR2 =.0

I CJ~94
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP=2.0, CJ=0.2, TR-O.5, C0' -e'-inc E,:.ge Suction
o '" --- -- : -' -- T- - ,----- - ]1 -..---

-0].02 -p-- _- --.. ... . .. ..--

- I .

-0. - -- .. .0

-0. -0 .50 .60 1.50 2.00

C-

Figure 90 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=2, 1=0.05

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR-2.0, DJ:15.0, TR-O.05, O Leading Edge Suction

-O0------ - -- ---------- l -J"

-0.04 I , CJ.2

-0.06 -J - - =.4J

-0.12
(. .. .- .

-0.16 I I--a
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00o 150 2.003

Figure 91 Moment Comparison for BC. AR2, 10.05

95
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Datc
AR--2.Q, CJ--0.2, TRL-0.O5, 0" izeciang Edjge SUC 1on

-4- -4 h

3.00 O..JO
1.O 5. 00C 2C. 0 25.00 3C.CC

Figure 92 Lift vs 6j, AR=2. ).=0.05

LAIJET Wing Planform Test Data

AP=2.O, DJ=1 5. Leading Edge Suctior,
0").5,O

I 2,

4-

Fiue9 L , x
-~ -~9b
 LATJET Wing Planfcrm Test Data
AP--2.0, CJ.:0.2, TP--).25, 0' Leaicg Eoce S ic",Cn

I ,-4- --

-0.5 "4
-J i

., 2.0C ,4.,D 6.G 8.0^ :C.00 12.30) 4.0C 16.G,

Figure 94 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=2. X=0.25

LATJET Wing Plonform Test Data

ARz2.0, DJ:z 5.0, TR=O.25, 0 , Leacing Edge Suction
2 1-- - -r-- - --- - -
! i I i Cr

,CJ=.2

_____ __ - ---L -L

3 I i I,

O0C 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 0.00 12.OC 4.00 16..0

Figure 95 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.25

9-
 LATJET Wing Pcnform Test Data
4R=2.0, CJ:O.2, TR-0.25, , -' ing Ecge Succn
2 -

4 I
21 B;:,- 0
1 ...

J .5 i

I Id

O.GO 0.05 C. 0 0.; 5 0.20 .25 0.30 0.35

CS2

Figure 96 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j. AR=2. 1=0.25

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR=2.0, DJ15.0, TR=0.25. 0-7 LecdIng Edge S.ciio-
2 - -- - -
4 -', _
___5t- .-,----.....
-4-
.. . .
I I I CJ.2

t I
I I C J--- 4
,. .. ...- .

-0 .5 + ---... . .- . . . .
0.00 0.05 0.10 C. '5 320 0.25 .30 0 35

Figure 97 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=2, 1=0.25

qS
 iATJET Wing Planfor-m Test Data
A=:2.O, CJ=0.2, TR=0.25, C"' -ewing Ecge Suction

-0.02
0F -- -
-0.04 -- +-- -T- - -~ r- r,O

I9 M C ,1=30o

4 -- - - C 2--~--

-0. 1 4 . - . .

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 .o0 1.53 2.0

CL

Figure 98 Moment Comparison for 6j. AR=2. 1=O.25

U "

AR=2.Q,
LATJET Wing Panform Test Dat
DJ!!5.0, TR=.25, 0O"i Leading Edge Suc~1o,"
-0.16 i

-0.02 -¢ F----4 {- CJ:O

- - - - .........
i I

.....
.
i-4-
f- -
0.ji.
. . ..
_, ___ .2

U i I '
- 01 I I _

-0.l2 {I, i

-0. 16 I- - -- - --
r- -m--- .
r- ... - - -- t-
--- y-- '
. --
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 i.00 i.50 2.00
CL

Fig~ure 99 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=2, X.=0.25

99
 LATJET Wing lanform Test Datc
AR2.(, C i,0.2, T-.25, 0" tecng-Cge Suctior

2 D ,-=1-.0 , 7- E

, i __- - ---
l~-~ _ ___ ---,, ...
_8 I"

t~ . .
0 .... __ _ _ -

0.53.00 4=
5. 0 10 .0 5.00 20.00 25.0 0.0

Figure 100 Lift vs C,, AR=2, ;,=0.25

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR=2.0, DJ15.0,
O LeGding Edge Suctior T. =.25,
2] -- y---------x-
;--.
S i F F!
At II i -0
1 i iI +
4 'K1 i~ i ,-A ="
1 4- t 1 --

o --- ---.. - -
_-u--- 1 -___

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Figure 101 Lift vs C1 , AR=2, XL0.25

100
 LATJ[T Wing Planform Test Data
AP=3.O, CJ=0.2, Y Lecdnrg Eoe S!,ct'on
T7QQ5

F 15

0. 2O - 4.13 6.( 8-6 .0--.n 6. '-401

1 ,((deg

Figur 102LiftCurv Comarisn fo 6-, AR=. ;=00

0.5 --- ~CJ---.. 4

4- -4

-0.5

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8. 00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

c,(ceg

Figure 102 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=3, ;.=0.05

1011
 LATJET Wing Pcnform Test Dato
AR=3.0, CJ-0.2, T -, ._5, I__-oding E_ge
2 -'--- __ . . .- " - 7. .

I I

MO 005 010.1b.0 .25 630 03 ) 4 --

, C . ,

2 T. T - : --- '-
II I '

----- r- -' - -. I t-- -- - - I -

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2,. 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

6
Figure 104 Drag Polar Comparison for C AR=3. 1=0.05

------------- I

LATJET
APz3.C,
Wing lanform Test Dat
D.J-I5.C, TRz0.05, O'X Leodini Edge 5ucior'
4-
S

-I II p

I I I CJz.O
I t, -4
"1 I C, 4
4
--- -- , -

0.5 ,-" .- ---..- -- . - . . -- .....-

II/ I
-I I

0.00 0.05 0.)0 0.15 3.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

CO

Figure 105 Drag Polar Comparison for BC. AR=3. A,=0.05

102
 -ATJE-T Wi-ig Planf a-m Test Dato-
APz3.O, C1JzO.2, T~4~,C'- _e'icin E-ge Sucr'on

-13 -~-
'1 -- - -

41 69

-4u 4i -

-00LI
C, .2V 1.50 2.0c

Figure 106 Moment Comparison for 6j. AR=3. 1=0.05

LATJET Wing Flanform Testf Data

AR::-3.3, DJ=1 5.0, TR:-O.'05, I-Y .ec'ing Edge SUc<Or'

-0.12 b------- - -

-05 -00 Gt.5 G1).o

Fiur 10 oen opaio frB,-R 100

-0.103
 LATJET Wing lanform Test Datc
R= . CJ=0.2, t- - .C5, 0 Pe fn E e , ,-

2 --

0
Cc---

-~-4-

. . 0
.. 10.0 S. .
2 0. .. 3C.00
2 o.CO

Figure 108 Lift vs 6,, AR=3, 1=0.05

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

ARz3.C, DJ=1 5.0, T RzC.05, 0') Leading Edge Suclio
16-

0-4-
,- .. .,....
I.I... . . . .
- . ...
2_4 ---- --
- i! 2.-zY7
I --
Ip- -
i ~ -i
--. . . 4
-J -4 .. . ----- .--- - --
0--.

- - _ L -i-
I. ..... I c 2u
" -
-_ _ -- ---.... 4
0 * Z- 14L -t - 4 ...... ...--- -- ...- 6
-1 _

J I

-- + -.5
-- - , - . ... .- - ---- 1 . . .
0.00 ~05 0.!Q0 .15 0.2,. 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Figure 109 Lift vs Cj, AR=3, A.=0.05

104
 ,LAIJET vNing Planform Test Data
AP=3.D', Cj-:-C.2, ~~O2,@~Lecoic Eco9 S,,c~

- - - - T30-

-4-

.5 4

0.02.00, 4.0G'0 6.0C . 3 .0' 12.30O 4.03O 16 .0

c(deg)

Figure 1 10 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=3. 1=0.25

LATJ[T Wing D1ianform Test Data

AR=3.O, DJ=-15.O, TR-z.25, 0Y' Leading Edge Sucian

2- - , - T-

IC I

J -- 4-

II

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.30C 8.03V 3.,) 2.3C 4.0 16.0

Figure I1l Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=3, 1=0.25

105
 LATJET 'Ni-i P cnfor-r Test Data
4R-:--3 J), CJ4 .. TR-j.25, Q Leading E'-ge u,--'on

4.-

7- 3
,G

~
-E2 - - -
4...
-- - - - -.. . .. :

2
Figure 2 112 Drag Polar Comparison for 6
-i-- AR=3. =0.25

LATJET Wing Hlanform Test Data

AR-3.C, D: "15.71R:: C,
0, ecding 7iCge Sjc'or

CJ=.2

0I J.05 0.10 0.15 C.2 C .25 .30 0.35 C.40

Figure 113 Drag Polar Comparison for BC. AR=3, 1=0.25

106
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Dat
AP:3.O, CJ:O.2, TR=0.25, C(',e,:iIn,. Edrge Sucnn
0.02 T.------..
o ___-- +-

-- 4-,r,

4
-0.04 __ . __

U'2 -#I. ID4

'
• -0. 4
6 ;.... .

.08-

-0.50 -0.(0 Go 1.50 2C

CL

Figure 114 loment Comparison for 6j. AR=3. 1=0.25

-0.2 ..
*-- . . . .-. ..-..... . . . . .

Il

S-,].06 2--s.....
-- - . ... .. .. . - - - -
LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
-0.1 4 -- -- - -- -t 'Dj-15.Ci,
. . TRzC.25,
. . . ...-. - ..... . Edge
Le~dnc .. . . Suction
.

-.0 -0.00 ,.50 - .0 >.50 2

I T-----

Figure 115 Moment Comparison for BC. AR=3. 1=0.25

io
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Datc
AR-3.Ci, CJ::-0.2, TR-0.25, 0 -e anfg
L (oge ui'

2 -- -. - __ - =

'-4-

I der, --

4 I
A 3C D 5.0 10.79:C.5 I.OCin25.00
Ed.ge 30.

-116

F ig u re II Lift vs C'j, AR=3. 1=0.25

LATET ingPlnfom Tst0at

 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP-=3.0, CJ=0.2, TP=0.50, 0" Lecaing Edge Sdcon

1 -T

I.. I:3)---- ,

-7;

0.5 4-

0 ---
i i -+- •,68g ,)
----
r-- I
I I
- i I I I -4'- -

0).C0 2.00 4.00 6.00, 8.00 80.00 12.00 4.00 16.00

Figure 118 Lift Curve Comparison for 6j, AR=3, X=0.5

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AP=3.O, DJ=15.0, TR=0.O5, O" Leading Edge Sucfion

I CJ=O
I { I ---J=.4
I - - I I i I ... .. . J ,2

t .5
t-7~

- - O- -.-- S .... . . .

O.00 2.00 4.00 6.03C 8.00 1,0.00 1,2.0^C '4.00 16.00

Figure 119 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR3, ;L= .5;

109
 LATJET Winq Pocnform Test Data
AR -3.C, CJ=O.2, T.RO.50, 0' teGding Edge Suc<on

41 I I t ; O
1 I I ! _+

-, ',I I -- . . . i;' -:-

I I 130
1~gg I

'
I I

-0 .5 +- - . . . . . . . . . -
]~ I

0.00 0.05 0.10 G.15 2.20 0.25 0.32 0.35 0.40

Co
Figure 120 Drag Polar Comparison for 6,. AR=3, 1=0.5

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

ARz3.0, DJ=z15.C, TR=C.5O, OT Leading Edge Suction
, I i t I
I
1.5 V -.......+ r m
i
T...--..... --
.... r-- -
-4--

4 .. CJ=.2
* i .V - !4~
.. . i-.
_-_----

, L. . .. . ..... .. ...5 _. .. i -- - i_] __ .. .J CJ= .4

I sj:, -* i- -.

0.5 , _ ._ -, _ L_ _ . . -.. .
o .t - -4 ---- -- - - - -,.. . ,---
. ... -

*-i *I 1 I

- 0 .5 -- - - - . . . ..

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Cj

Figure 121 Drag Polar Comparison for BC. AR=3, 1=0.5

110
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP=3.0, CJ:O.2, TR0.5C, C," :eocin, Ecge Su,: .on
0.02 m __ _
o f---- ---- - -.----------.. - - - - - - ..
--... -

* -4--

U .,.!
-- --- -- .. . . . . ..---
- - - - - -
-~3 - ,,

-"0 [4 4- - . . . . -..-- .. ...

-c. 'S 6
O05uT -0.00
' 0P.
50 c00 1.5c
__T ____3C 2.00

Figure 122 Moment Comparison for 6j1. AR=3, 1=0.5

LATJK- Wing Planform Test Data

AR:-3.0u,II
D11-15.0, TR-.C (Y7I Leiding Edge Sclo~-
0.0- .

C,

-0.2 ---- 4-- - - -

- ..
LATJT Wng lanfrm es11at

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Figure 123 Moment Comparison for BC. AR=3. ;,=0.5

 LATJET Wing Planform Test Datc
A~3.,
C>4).. Vh4D.Q. 'j e(,ang icge Sucin-

AAC

-0.5 izi

At
4t i

-0.5!-L~

O.CO 0.5.0 150 .20 2.0925.30 .3 .40

Figure 124 Lift VS Cj. AR=3, 1=0.5

4 1 12
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP-5.0, CJ=0.2, 7PzO.50, 0' LecdiVg Erge Sc';on
:. -,-. - - -r ---
15

-1 1w

4---

-I - .... r
C.5 - - . .. I

- .

0.30 20 G, 4. (0 6. C0 8.0 S S0 C 12. 0,0 14. 0 O 16 . 3

Figure 126 Li ft Curve Comparison for 6,, AR=5, ;,=0. 5

LAT.JET I Wing Planform

-" .. . ..Test, Data I

AR:5.0,
0 DJ:15.0, TR:O0.50, o'/ Leading Edge Suction
2 -SII
- -

44

-.j CJ=. 4

LATET ingPlnfom Ts1 at

,0.5- - r --
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.0C 8.0C 0.0 12.00 14.0 16.00
/ g ,

Figure 127 Lift Curve Comparison for BC, AR=5, 1=0.5

 LATJET Wing Ponform Test Data
AR=5.0, CJzO.2, TIR:.50, 0" Leaidng Edge Suct*on
2 1
2 I1 I , !--;------ --

.. 1 I-- I--- !1 I -4
i/'S* + 30 0,I
I , --" '51'

-j -- j -.- +
I + "I I I

U
0 .5 i. '
- - -- - - - - -

0 -I'I- - - -- -- I--+. .
07.2.
-o.-5

1 I
I
iI
I

' I
.
-0 , ---- - - .. .. . ... . --

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 3.25 0.30 0.35 .).400.45 0.50
CD

Figure 128 Drag Polar Comparison for 6j, AR=5, 1=0.5

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR:5.0, DJ:15.0, TR:O.50, 07 Leading Edge Suctior
2 It
I I r 1 I

-J
I
II I i
I I
I !
i
c o

11 ' - -- - CJ-.2
I It ' I - L. -- +
_- I I-- -
, I L - -- LCJ=._4

• .t

0.5 -_..

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
co
Figure 129 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=5, 10.5

....
.. ... .
114
. ....... - - - -.
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP=5.0, ,
CJ0.2, TR=0.50, C' Leading Edge Sucyron
0.02 ,- , --

' 0 I T'
-0.2 b -- -
t
- - - -
-
-- . - . . ..d i

, Y- V -r r~ -- -- r -- -,'r-t--'- " r r
-4).j 6 t - 2 T--

4
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 11.00 1.50 2.00
CL

Figure 130 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=5, 1=0.5

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR=5.0, DJ=15.0, TR=0.50, 0 Leading Edge Suction
0.02 -

I, l-I - -- 4 --

-0.02 _CJ_.2

-0.04 1A

Q -0.06
U
I.. . ,I
-. +

-0.1 2
-0. 2- ---- - -
-0.1. . . , , - -- - --- -- , , , , i . . -

-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

CL

Figure 131 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=5, X=0.5

115
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Datc
AR-5.0, CJ-0.2, TR--O.,50, 0'' .eaang Ecge Suctio
2 -____ ! -. . . ,

I I __ --- o-40 -

1 I 1, =O
--

0.5 -
... I .. ... _____

-0.-
,.33 5.0 10.10 5.00 2C.0C 25.60 30.NC

Figure 132 Lift vs 6j, AR=5, 1=0.5

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR=5.C, DJ=15.0, TR:0.5C, 0% Leading Edge Suction
I
-i I I I° 0
.. .. ._
-f - ,_ 2 - -4 ='
--
,~ i- ~
------- I- -O

! --
. .-- r..... I I _ -+ . . -
: ! | J_... - -" I c --

1 ~ ~ -- I----
--- . i _...- o 12
0.5 r----i - 4-=--
~--~-- --= - - ----
I¢ -: .. . -
_"--- __ -_ i __.. .- -- -- '[ I - 16

. I-. .. - I
0I jI

-1 I I

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Figure 133 Lift vs C1, AR=5. X.0.5

116
 LATJET Wing Planfcrm Test Data
AP=5.0, CJQ=0.2, " TP=1.i), 0 Leeooig Edge SiJcion

-15
-4 . I ,5= ,

2 - i . i

0 .4

-4t
-4 I
I -

0.10 .00 4..00 6.30 800 1 0.01 12.30 4.00 16.00

Figure 134 Lift Curve Comparison for BC. AR=5, ,=1

. -J -- T- - f-

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR:5.0, D J!!5.O, TR:= .C0, ,'3 Leoding Ec, e Suctton
2' I j I

- I

.0 , ---- , __- -- . .r .-

t-

-0.5 i----------- -,- I _ ___ _ _ _ -

0.30S 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.03 13." 120 1.0 60

Figure 135 Lift Curve Comparison for BC. AR=5. X,=i

11-
 LATJET Wing Pocnformn Test Data
AR=5.O, CJ=O.2, .GC, Q7
07- ECge Suc,',n
2

1 I I I+

=313

U I)

Figure 136 Drag Polar C-omparison for 6j, AR=5, X=1

LATJET Wing Flanform Test Data

AP=5.0, DJ=15.O, T,=i.'QO. O, T L:ecding -cge 5,-ctior,

1.5]- _ -- 1 -

4-
- . -

-~ I-J=.2

~ L
LCJ=,4

0.5 __

-0.5 --- --

Figure 137 Drag Polar Comparison for BC, AR=5. 1=1

118
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Data
AP=5.0, CJ=0.2, TR-z .O0, 0'" Leoc6ng Ecge Suction
0.02 - - ____

a t& I , _
I_

: '-'i3

S-0.08 -- - - 4---- -- I _- I-- ]=- C

J
I __ __ __ _ __
-0].0 4r- m-
.- 1--
-0.16 I
I
- -- _

-0.0
0 -. 0.0 ~00 1.50 2.00
CL

Figure 138 Moment Comparison for 6j, AR=5, =1

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR=5.O, DJz!5.0, TR=1.00, 07 Leoding Edge Suctio,
0.02

! ! i i --
z.-

-0.04~
t -
t
' A
4 i

_ _ _ I _ __ _
U -_-0 .0 8
-

-0.14+t

"-. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .
-0.50 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
CL

Figure 139 Moment Comparison for BC, AR=5, ,=1

119
 LATJET Wing Planform Test Datc
AR 5.O, CJ 0.2, 7R-- .00, 0' L.eadng Eoge Suction
2T T -- r -- - ---

_1 -4 - - ---. ;

-1 ....-------------- -- - x-:4
4- --

H. 4--- -1 - - ,----

-1
4. I
0 4

. 1I - - I _ _ _

0.30 5.00 10.00 5,C 20.00 25.00 3C.z0

sj(oeg)
6
Figure 140 Lift vs j, AR=5, X1

LATJET Wing Planform Test Data

AR:5.0,
2 DJ:15.0,
Ii
TR=1.O0, 07 Leading Edge Suction
1 1

1.5 -4 0
4I -- - -i- I_ --I_ 4-

-j i
4-f- ! t - ...-- I
-- i--- I
0.5 ... 0 .0
-0 0 0I..0
0__-
,- --- - -- -_ i- -- 4 _,
,'
o
ft-- ---.
II I

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

C.;

Figure 141 Lift vs Cj, AR=5, ;=1

120
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estmate to average I hour per resporse, ncfuding the tnme for reviewing instructlOns, searching existing data sOUrcis.
gatheringand maintaining the data needed. and completing and reviewing the (ollecton of nformation Send com regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
sents
collection of nitrmatiOn, including suggestions for reducing this burden to -Vashington Headquarters Services. Directorate tor information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Arlngton, VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington. DC 20501

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 1991 Master's Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
Analysis of an Advanced Fighter Aircraft Using
Jet Flap Techniques and the Vortex Lattice Method

6. AUTHOR(S)

Steven P. Snyder, Captain, USAF

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH 45433-6583 AFIT/GAE/ENY/91D-27

9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING /MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

WL/XPAD, WPAFB OH 45433

ASD/XRH, WPAFB OH 45433

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1'2a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A computer code employing the vortex lattice method with modified boundary
conditions was used to determine the induced aerodynamic characteristics of high
aspect ratio, vectoring, exhaust nozzles located at the wing root of a canard
configured fighter aircraft. Comparison with existing wind tunnel data verified
results of the method. The exhaust was modeled as a singularly blown jet flap at
deflection angles of -10, 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 degrees. Jet momentum
coefficients were based gross engine thrust for maximum afterburner and military
power settings at a Mach number of 0.6 and an altitude of 20,000 ft. Lift,
induced drag, and pitching moment coefficients were calculated for untrimmed
conditions. The nozzle provided lift augmentation at all deflections and blowing
conditions, a reduction in induced drag at high lift coefficients, and an
increased nose down pitching moment. An optimum flap deflection to achieve
minimum induced drag existed for each unique lift and blowing condition.
Measurement of the static margin showed that the aircraft as configured was
statically unstable. Example cases of comparable wing planforms varying in aspect
ratio from 2 to 5 and taer ratio from 0.05 to 1 showed similiar hehavinr.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 1S. NUMBER OF PAGES

Fighter Aircraft, Jet Flaps, Paneling Methods 16. PRICE CODE

Aerodynamic Predicto Methos
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified UncIassified i1nIca sified I [.

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
PtP$ ' 0'bd.ANY.l St 139-8
298- 02