TECHNICAL
NOTE
NASA TN D6800
O cO
I
Z I===
AIRPLANES
H.
and
Roxanah
B.
Yancey
Research Calif.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
JUNE 1972
r_L_
1. Report TN
No. D6800
4. Title and Subtitle LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC ENGINE, PROPELLERDRIVEN CHARACTERISTICS AIRPLANES OF LIGHT, TWIN
6. Performing
Name and Address Center 93523 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 73605000124 11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring
16. Abstract
stateoftheart analytical the longitudinal static and of light, propellerdriven characteristics are also
Procedures
to
The calculated characteristics are compared flight data. Included in the comparisons are Istics, period and damping of the shortperiod windupturn characteristics. All calculations
with windtunnel and levelflight trim characteroscillatory mode, and are documented.
18. Distribution
Statement
characteristics
 prediction
Unclassified
 Unlimited
22. Price"
$6.00
22151
Technical
Information
Service, Springfield,
Virginia
1i'i,
CONTENTS Page TABLES RELATED TO SUBJECT AIRPLANE ................. FIGURES COMPARING CALCULATED CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY .................................... i. 0 INTRODUCTION .............................. 2.0 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ......................... 3.0 THE AIRPLANE .............................. 3.1 3.2 ......... vi ix 1 2 2 3 6
4.0
CenterofGravity Positions Used in the Analysis ....... Geometric Parameters of the Wing and Horizontal Tail Used in the Analysis ...................... 3.2.1 Symbols ......................... PREDICTION OF PROPELLEROFF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS .......................... 4. i Wing and HorizontalTail Airfoil Section Characteristics .... 4.1. i Symbols ..... .................... 4.2 Lift Characteristics of the Wing and Horizontal Tail ..... 4 2 1 Symbols 4.3 Lift Due to Fuselage and Nacelles ............... 4.3.1 Symbols ........................ 4.4 Lift Due to Combined WingFuselageNacelle ......... 4.4.1 Symbols ........................ 4.5 Cmo and Aerodynamic Center of the Wing and Horizontal Tail 4.6 4.7 4.8 ............................... 4.5.1 Symbols ......................... WingFuselage Pitching Moment at Zero Lift .......... 4.6.1 Symbols ......................... Fuselage and Nacelle Pitching Moments ............. 4.7. I Symbols ......................... WingFuselageNacelle Pitching Moments ........... 4.8.1 Contributing Factors to V_;ingFuselageNacelle Pitching Moments ................... 4.8.2 Static Margin of WingFuselageNacelles ....... 4.8.3 PitchingMoment Coefficient of WingFuselageNacelles ....................... 4.8.4 Symbols ......................... Downwash and Dynamic Pressure at the Horizontal Tail 4 9 1 Downwash 4.9.2 DynamicPressure Ratio ............... 4.9.3 Symbols ........................ Lift of the Complete Airplane (5 e = 0 ) ............ 4. I 0.1 Symbol s ........................ Pitching Moments of the Complete Airplane (5 e = 0 ) ..... 4.1 i. i Symbols ........................ Drag of the Complete Airplane ................. 4.12.1 ZeroLift Drag of Wing, Horizontal Tail, and Vertical Tail ..................... 4.12.2 4.12.3 ZeroLift Drag of Fuselage and Nacelles ....... ZeroLift Interference Drag of WingFuselage, TailFuselage, and WingNacelles ..........
.oo
4.9
....
4. i0 4. II 4.12
111
CONTENTS
Continued Page
4.12.4 4.12.5 4.12.6 4.12.7 4.12.8 4.12.9 Effect of Pitching 4.13.1 4.13.2 4.13.3 4.13.4
Drag of Wing and Horizontal Tail at Angle of Attack ......................... Drag of Fuselage and Nacelles at Angle of Attack ......................... WingFuselage Interference Drag at Angle of Attack .........................
127 129 130 131 131 132 156 156 160 161 162 165 184 184 191 192 215 216 217 221 223 224 256 262 282 285 300 301 310 311 311 313 315 325 325 328
5.0
6.0
Cooling Drag ...................... Summary Drag of the Complete Airplane ........ Symbols ......................... 4.13 Horizontal Taft and Tab Deflection on Lift and Moments ....................... Lift of the Horizontal Tail in the Linear Range .... Maximum Lift of the Horizontal Tail .......... Lift Curves of the Horizontal Tail Through Stall . . . Lift and PitchingMoment Curves of the Airplane Including the Effect of Elevator Positions ...... 4.13.5 Symbols ......................... 4.14 HorizontalTail Hinge Moments and Stick Forces ........ 4.14.1 HorizontalTail Hinge Moments ............ 4.14.2 Stick Forces ...................... 4.14.3 Symbols ......................... PREDICTION OF POWERON AE RODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................. 5.1 Power Effects on Lift ...................... 5.1.1 TailOff Lift Characteristics With Power On ..... 5.1.2 HorizontalTail Contribution to Lift .......... 5.1.3 Net Characteristics of the Subject Airplane ...... 5.1.4 Symbols ......................... 5.2 Power Effects on Pitching Moments ............... 5.2.1 Symbol s ......................... 5.3 Power Effects on Drag ...................... 5.3.1 Symbols ......................... 5.4 Power Effects on HorizontalTail Hinge Moments and Stick Forces .......................... 5.4.1 Symbols ......................... DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS .................... 6.1 Lift Due to Dynamic Motions .................. 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.1.3 Pitching 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 Lift Lift Due to pitch Due to Vertical Rate, CLq .............. CL_ .......
Acceleration,
......................... Due to Dynamic Motions ........... Moments Due to Pitch Rate, Cmq Moment Due to Vertical Acceleration, Rate and Transient .............
......
......................... Vertical
+ Cm_)
33O
CONTENTS
 Concluded Page
6.3 6.4
6.2.4 Symbols ......................... ShortPeriod Transient Oscillation Characteristics 6.3.1 Symbols ......................... WindupTurn Characteristics ................. 6.4.1 6.4,2 Variation of Otrim and 5etri m With Stick Load Factor ........................ Variation of Hinge Moments and With Load Factor .................. 6.4.3 Symbols ......................... .................................
.....
REFERENCES
4 9
AIRPLANE WING AND HORIZONTALTAIL AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS .................. LIFT CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRPLANE WING AND HORIZONTAL TAIL ....................... CONTRIBUTION OF FUSELAGE AND NACELLES TO AIRPLANE LIFT COEFFICIENT ................ WING LIFT OF AIRPLANE INCLUDING MUTUAL WINGFUSELAGE INTERFERENCE .................. SUMMARY OF WINGFUSELAGENACELLE LIFT ........ Cmo AND AERODYNAMIC CENTER OF WING AND HORIZONTAL TAIL ....................... WINGFUSELAGE PITCHING MOMENTS OF AIRPLANE ZERO LIFT ............................ FUSELAGE AND NACELLE PITCHING MOMENTS OF
AmPLANE ...............
G6
67 80 81 83
TABULAR INTEGRATION OF FUSELAGE PiTCt{IN6MOMENT PARAMETERS .................... WING PITCHING MOMENTS OF THE AIRPLANE ......... " FREE MOMENTS" OF FUSELAGE AND NACELLES ...... PITCHING MOMENTS OF WINGFUSELAGENACELLES CONFIGURATION ......................... PERTINENT PARAMETERS FOR COMPUTING AVERAGE DOWNWASH AT HORIZONTAL TAIL OF SUBJECT AIRPLANE ............................ SUMMARY CALCULATION OF AVERAGE DOWNWASH AT HORIZONTAL TAIL OF SUBJECT AIRPLANE ......... DYNAMICPRESSURE RATIO AT THE HORIZONTAL TAIL OF THE SUBJECT AIRPLANE .................. LIFT OF HORIZONTAL TAIL IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FUSELAGE (6 = 0 ) ...................... e LIFT OF THE COMPLETE OF AIRPLANE THE COMPLETE (6e = 0) .........
96 97 99 113 114
4.102 4.111
PITCHING (5 e 0 )
MOMENTS
SURFACE ROUGHNESS HEIGHT k ................ ZEROLIFT DRAG OF WING, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TAILS ........................ ZEROLIFT DRAG OF FUSELAGE AND NACELLES ....... ZEROLIFT DRAG OF THE COMPONENTS ............ DRAG OF WING AND HORIZONTAL TAIL DUE TO LIFT .....
vi
TABLES
 Continued Page
DRAG DRAG
DUE TO OF THE
LIFT CONTRIBUTION OF THE HORIZONTAL TAIL WITH TABTOELEVATOR GEAR RATIO OF i. 5 .......... MAXIMUM LIFT COEFFICIENTS OF THE HORIZONTAL TAIL .............................. EFFECT OF ELEVATOR DEFLECTION ON LIFT AND PITCHING MOMENTS OF THE AIRPLANE ........... LIFT CHARACTERISTICS OF HORIZONTAL TAIL ALONE IN THE AND PRESENCE 6e, WITH OF TAB THE BODY AS A FUNCTION GEARED IN RATIO OF OF a_ h
6tab/6 e = 1.5 4.14.12 4.14.13 4.14.14 PREDICTION 5.1.11 5.1.12 5.1.13 5.1.14 5.1.21 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.41 5.42 DYNAMIC 6.1.11
..........................
PERTINENT RELATIONS FOR HORIZONTALTAIL HINGE MOMENTS ............................ HORIZONTALTAIL TAB CHARACTERISTICS .......... HORIZONTALTAIL HINGEMOMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF POWE RON CHARAC TE RISTICS
. . .
LIFT DUE TO DIRECT ACTION OF THE PROPELLER FORCES ............................. WINGLIFT INCREMENTS DUE TO PROPELLER SLIPSTREAM EFFECTS ....................... TAILOFF LIFT CHARACTERISTICS WITH POWER ON ..... POWER EFFECTS ON MAXIMUM LIFT .............. EFFECT OF ELEVATOR DEFLECTION ON LIFT WITH POWER ON ............................ PITCHINGMOMENT INCREMENTS DUE TO PROPELLER FORCES ............................. ZER OLIFT PITCHINGMOMENT INCREMENT DUE TO POWER .............................. PITCHINGMOMENT INCREMENT DUE TO POWERINDUCED CHANGE IN WING LIFT ............... PITCHINGMOMENT INCREMENT DUE TO POWER EFFECT ON NACELLE FREE MOMENTS ................ TAILOFF PITCHINGMOMENT CHARAC TE RISTICS WITH POWER ON .......................... EFFECT OF ELEVATOR DEFLECTION ON PITCHING MOMENTS WITH POWER ON .................. ZEROLIFT DRAG INCREMENTS DUE TO POWER ....... INDUCEDDRAG INCREMENT DUE TO POWER ......... CHANGE IN COOLINGSYSTEM DRAG DUE TO POWER ..... POWERON DRAG OF THE COMPLETE AIRPLANE ....... HORIZONTALTAIL TAB CHARACTERISTICS .......... HORIZONTALTAIL HINGEMOMENT CHARACTERISTICS . . CHARACTERISTICS LIFT DUE TO PITCH RATE, CLq vii ................
230 232 235 236 237 267 268 270 271 272 273 289 290 294 295 304 305
319
TABLES  Concluded
Page
LIFT DUE TO VERTICAL ACCELERATION, CL& ...... PITCHING MOMENTSDUE TO PITCH RATE, Cmq ...... PITCHING MOMENT DUE TO VERTICAL ACCELERATION, Cm_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .............
WINDUPTURN VARIATION OF _trim AND 5etri m WITH LOAD FACTOR ......................... VARIATION OF HINGE MOMENTS AND STICK FORCES WITH LOAD FACTOR IN WINDUP TURN ...........
354 356
...
Vlll
FIGURES
COMPARING
CALCULATED
CHARACTERISTICS
Page PROPELLEROFF 4.44 4.8.32 4.101 4.111 CHARACTERISTICS wingfuselagenacelles Sw = 178 sq ft ............. tailoff data. lift curve 54
Comparison of predicted with windtunnel data. Comparison of calculated istics with windtunnel
86 115
Comparison of predicted airplane lift curve data. 5 e =0; S w = 178 sq ft ................. Comparison of predicted tunnel data. 6 e = 0;
wind=
0.10 w ..............................
4.12.81 4.13.41 Comparison windtunnel of predicted airlSlane drag data. 5 e = 0; propellers characteristics with off; S w = 178 sq ft...
120
152
Comparison of predicted propelleroff lift and pitchingmoment characteristics of the airplane with windtunnel data as a function of o_ and 6 e. b S w= 178 sq ft; 5tab/6 e = 1.5 (propelleroff windtunnel data data at T% = 0 with propeller of gravity = 0. 106 w ....................... of calculated coefficients and of the windtunneldetermined horizontal assumed tail. 5tab/Se hinge= 1.5; 214 obtained from propelleron effects calculated out); center 182
4.14.110
Comparison moment
data at T_ = 0 ...........................
equivalent
to propeller
CHARACTERISTICS Comparison of calculated and experimentally determined (ref. downwash at the horizontal tail of the subject airplane at several power settings ..................... Comparison of calculated and windtunneldetermined variation of C L with oeb at different power conditions and elevator deflections Comparison ........................... of calculated and windtunneldetermined at T_ tailoff = 0.44 and 275 variation and elevator 276 variation and elevator 277 2) 253
5.1.31
255
5.22
lift and pitchingmoment center of gravity = 0.10_ 5.23 Comparison of Cm of calculated with c_b Center of calculated with CL Center
 0. 106 w ...........
at different of gravity
deflections.
 0.10_ w ............
ix
FIGURES
 Concluded Page
5.25
Comparison of neutralpoint modified calculated and characteristics. Center Comparison determined and angle Comparison
from 278
5.26
of the variation of calculated pitchcontrol effectiveness of attack ........................ of calculated static pitch,
5.27
fectiveness, Cm_ e, with windtunnel values as a function of angle of attack. O. 12_ w ............................. 5.28 Comparison of calculated C L, ab' and
= 280
5e
for
trim level flight tunnel and flight Center of gravity 5.34 5.35 Comparison of C D Comparison of C D Comparison
conditions with those obtained data as a function of calibrated = 0.12_ w ................... windtunneldetermined power conditions. windtunneldetermined power conditions. _qndtunneldetermined
of calculated and with _b at different of calculated and with C L at different of calculated and
5.41
5.4 2
hinge moment Chh(t ) with angle of attack at different power conditions and elevator deflections ............... Comparison of calculated hingemoment and stickforce characteristics in level flight with those obtained from windttmnel and flight data as a function of airspeed. Altitude = 6000 ft; center of gravity =0.12_ w .................... Comparison values Center of calculated Cmq + Cm& with flightdetermined pulse maneuvers.
309
6.2.31
6.31
Comparison of calculated shortperiod frequency characteristics with flightdetermined values airspeed. Center of gravity = 0.12_ w ............. Comparison of calculated and flightdetermined airplane response to pulsetype input. Center 0.12_ w ..............................
6.32
6.4.21
Comparison of calculated hingemoment and stickforce characteristics in a windup turn with those obtained from x_indtunnel and flightdata as a function of load factor. Altitude = 6000 ft;center of gravity = 0.12Cw; V = 220 ft/sec .......
358
LONGITUDINAL
CHARACTERISTICS LLERDRIVEN
OF
LIGHT, S Yancey
TWINENGINE,
SUM MA RY
Representative stateoftheart analytical procedures and design data for predicting the subsonic longitudinal static and dynamic stability and control characteristics of light, propellerdriven airplanes are documented. Procedures for predicting drag characteristics are also included. The procedures are applied to a twinengine, configuration to determine the lift, pitchingmoment, zero lift to stall conditions. Also determined are period and damping of the shortperiod oscillatory istics. All calculations are documented. The calculated lift characteristics as a function of angle of attack, elevator correlated settings, propellerdriven airplane in the clean and drag characteristics from levelflight trim characteristics, mode, and windupturn character
data
The calculated drag characteristics also correlated well with fullscale windtunnel data as a function of angle of attack, lift coefficient, and power settings in the linear range at zero thrust conditions. With increasing thrust, the correlation was good at the lower angles of attack, but tended to deteriorate with increasing angle of attack. When the increment of induced drag due to power was omitted, good correlation resulted throughout the power range at the high angles of attack. It was surmised that the wide, builtin nacelles had a significant nullifying effect on the powerinduced drag of the immersed portion of the wing. Calculated propelleroff tunnel data for zero elevator slope correlation was good dicated than was reflected liftcarryover effects onto of the airplane investigated. improved if this carryover pitchingmoment characteristics agreed well with winddeflection. When different elevator settings were included, but larger calculated control effectiveness in pitch was inby tunnel data. Study of this discrepancy indicated that tail the body are nil for the horizontaltail and body configuration Correlation of pitch control effectiveness would have been effect had been eliminated from the calculations.
The addition of power effects to the calculated pitchingmoment characteristics resulted in an increasing disparity between the calculated and the windtunnelderived pitchingmoment slopes with increasing power. It was deduced that the deterioration in correlation with increasing power was due to inadequate design data for the powerinduced downwash increment at the tail. When the powerinduced downwash was reduced by 40 percent, good correlation of slopes for all power conditions resulted. It H646
was concluded that the design data used properly account for the slipstreamflow type used on the airplane analyzed. Using the modified powerinduced ments correlated relatively well with acteristics for level flight and windup
downwash of wide,
downwash, the calculated elevator hinge windtunnel data. Calculated stickforce turns agreed reasonably well with flight
mochardata.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
As part of a NASA program to enhance general aviation safety and utility, the NASA Flight Research Center has undertaken the documentation of analytical procedures and design data, oriented to the needs of the industry, for predicting the subsonic static and dynamic stability and control characteristics of propellerdriven aircraft. In partial fulfillment of this project, representative stateoftheart methods have been compiled and, in some instances, extensions proposed. The results have been applied to a representative light, lowwing, twinengine, propellerdriven airplane in the clean configuration, and the accuracy of the methods has been determined by comparing calculated characteristics with windtunnel and flight data. This report summarizes methods and guidelines which should enable obtain improved estimates of the stability and control characteristics for conditions in general and the power effects on twinengine, propellerdriven in particular. Axis systems, in accord with sign conventions, and standard NASA practice definitions of stability and usage. and control a designer propelleroff designs to
derivatives
are
2.0
SCOPE
OF THE
STUDY
As a logical starting point for the study, use was made of the USAF Stability and Control Datcom handbook (ref. 1). This is a compendium of methods and design data for predicting the stability and control characteristics of jet and propellerdriven aircraft from subsonic through hypersonic regions of flight. It deals primarily with winged configurations with untwisted constant airfoil sections. A considerable portion of the material is based on NACA and NASA reports. In the present report, Datcom is listed as the reference when it provides a unique treatment of information from other sources. The basic source is referenced when Datcom repeats pertinent equations and design data from another source. During this study, it became necessary to supplement the Datcom methods and to provide some innovations. The analysis of longitudinal characteristics zero lift to stall and involved stall conditions on conditions are considered in all instances. moment, drag, and hingemomentcoefficient attack and elevator position. Elevator trim in the clean configuration ranged from of the elevator. Propelleroff and powerIncluded are analyses of the lift, pitchingcharacteristics as functions of angle of and stickforce characteristics for 1 g
H646
flight and windup turns are also included, as well as shortperiod and damping characteristics. In the systematic buildup of the predicted longitudinal characteristics, procedures, design charts, calculations, and correlating figures used to illustrate the accuracy of the results are presented. The report is divided into three phases: propelleroff static characteristics; effect of power on the static characteristics; and dynamic characteristics, both with the propeller off and with the power on. The propelleroff static characteristic buildup initially considers tailoff lift and pitching moments in sequence. This is followed by a consideration of the effects of the horizontal tail on the characteristics, drag buildup of the complete airplane, and, finally, the derivation of the horizontaltail hingemoment characteristics. The effects of power on the lift, pitch, drag, and hinge moments are considered in the secondphase. The third phase considers the derivation of the dynamicstability derivative s. Throughout the report, comparisons are made with windtunnel and flight data when appropriate data are available. Notations and symbols are defined in each section as they are used. 3.0 THE AIRPLANE The airplane used in the analysis is representative of generalaviation, personalowner aircraft. It is a sixplace, lowwing, twinengine, propellerdriven, allmetal airplane with an allmovable horizontal stabilizer. Pertinent physical characteristics, as provided by the manufacturer, are listed in table 31. A threeview dra_dng is presented in figure 31. The allmovable horizontal tail (referred to herein as a stabilator or elevator) is equipped with a trailingedge antiservo tab geared to move in the same direction as the tail with a gear ratio of 1.5 tab per degree of stabilator. The servo tab is geared to increase the elevator controlforce gradient.
H646
H64 6
12.5
35.98
Figure
31.
Threeview
dr;_wing
of the
tesi
airpl,_ne.
Dimensions
in feet.
H646
3.1
CenterofGravity
Positions
Used
in the
Analysis
The center of gravity of the airplane, for analytical purposes, was fixed at 10 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord and 12 inches below the Xbody axis (located on the zero waterline) to conform with the fullscale windtunnel data (ref. 2) used in the correlation of analytically predicted characteristics. For preliminary design purposes, a more typical assumption of centerofgravity position for the start of analysis would be 25 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord. In correlations windtunnel data centerofgravity with flight data, both the analytically predicted characteristics were modified to conform with the 12percent mean aerodynamic conditions of the flight data. and chord
H646
3.2 Geometric Parameters of the Wing and Horizontal Tail Used in the Analysis In analytically predicting the longitudinal characteristics, the wing and horizontal tail were considered on the basis of total planform and exposedpanel planform, depending on the characteristics being determined. Total planform was considered to extend through the nacelle and the fuselage; exposedpanel planform terminated at the fuselage. Pertinent dimensions for the wing and tail are shown in figures 3.21 to
3.23. The wing was considered to have zero leadingedge sweep, although there is actually some sweepback between the fuselage and the nacelle. As a result of the assumption of zero leadingedge sweep, the reference total planform area used in determining the characteristics was 172.3 square feet in contrast to the manufacturer Ts reference area of 178 square feet, based on a projection of the actual leading edge through the fuselage. Because windttmnel data and flightdetermined characteristics were based on the 178squarefoot area, the predicted characteristics were ultimately referenced to this area for comparison purposes. Table 3.21 analysis. Symbols b2 A b
b e
lists
the
geometric
parameters
of the wing
and horizontal
tail
pertinent
to the 3.2.1
ratio, ft or in. of the exposed in. chord, chord in. of the exposed panel, in. panels, ft or in.
btab
span,
_e
Cr
(Cr) e ct Ctab lh
exposed
panel,
in.
to the chord,
quarter in.
chord
Y_
to the
mean
aerodynamic
chord
from
the
root
(Yc)e H 646
lateral distance to the mean aerodynamic chord panel from the exposed panel root chord, in.
of the
exposed
F
Ac/2 A c/4
A1 e X
line,
edge,
H646
3.21 PARAMETERS
Symbol
De scription Total
tail
S b A c t
Cr
aMean b Lateral
chord, of mean
in. aerodynamic
59.50 96.48
57.10 86.58
32.45 33.10
31.2 30.10
39.2 d24.6
chord,
Dihedral angle, deg Leadingedge sweep, deg Sweep of e/4 line, deg Sweep of c/2 line, deg
5 0 2.5 5
5 0 2.5 5
0 12 8 5
0 12 8 5 35 3O 25
_=
Cr(!+X+X2'_
/ b
reference on 178 in theoretical feet, the determination reference as given area in of characteristics. for figure the windtunnel 3.23. The and final values data. of calculated square flight
b ye=
CArea characteristics dFrom
,(, +
as basic are based
u_d
root
chord
of exposed
verticaltail
panel
H646
g_
,,
,d
. _I_
_ _
_
m
"_
p.,,.. I'0 O0 .i,.11'% ..+,,. ,tO I Yu,O _0 l,_ 0,,i,, ,i,,, II
_._
_._
/
_++_+ /
._='_
b _'_ __..__>"
_'_
..i.+
_.,',
I I
/
<
0 Z
(33
10
H646
11
ct = 21.4
f
!
4.6
Ac/4 Ale = 12 ,
= 8
Ctab = O. 18c
b= 2
75
259.33
ICr) e  39.3
I I !
15
41.5
Figure All
3.22. dimensions
Pertinent in inches
horizontaltail except
dimensions
used
in the
analysis.
as noted.
H646
11
ct = 24
/ / /
(Cr)e = 51.0
verticaltail as noted.
panel
used
in drag
12
H646
4.0 PREDICTION OF PROPELLEROFF AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Wing andHorizontalTail Airfoil SectionCharacteristics Somesuccess has been achievedin predicting airfoil section characteristics; however, where possible, section characteristics should be based on experimental data (ref. 3, for example) with the maximum lift coefficient corrected to the Reynoldsnumber being considered. The discussion in this section is presented to showthe trends created by the variation of pertinent section geometric characteristics. Theoretically, airfoil section liftcurve slopes for nonseparated, incompressible flow conditions are affected by airfoil thickness ratio, t/c, andto a much lesser extent by trailingedge angle, (Pte(fig. 4.11), as shownby the following equation from reference 1: cl
(4. ii)
Ol
= 6.28
+ 4.7(t/c)
(1 + 0.00375_0te
) per
radian
where
ete
is in degrees.
Practically,
boundary
layer
(which
is influenced
by surface
roughness, leadingedge sharpness, surface curvature, and pressure gradients) reduces the section liftcurve slope significantly. Leadingedge sharpness is normally expressed as a leadingedgesharpness parameter, Ay (fig. 4.12). Effects of leadingedge sharpness and surface roughness are illustrated in this section. The variables of section q_e and Ay are used as correlating parameters throughout the discussion characteristics. It is affected only number effects, howin reference 5 and
Section zerolift angle of attack cannot be predicted accurately. slightly by Reynolds number and surface roughness (ref. 4); Mach ever, can be significant in the higher subsonic regions as indicated shown in figure 4.13 (from ref. 1). Lowspeed of stall section separation stalling patterns characteristics and a fourth
types
can be classified into three "pure" "impure" type (ref. 6) as shown in the adjacent sketch.
Leadingedgestall
/Combined stall
VCo?_,?ed
(a) Trailingedge stall is characterized by a gradual turbulent boundarylayer separation starting at the section trailing edge and moving forward with increasing angle of attack. This type of stall occurs on wings having a thickness of 12 percent or greater. The stall is mild with a gradual rounding of the lift and moment curves near maximum lift coefficient.
Angle of attack
ized H646
flow separation near the leading edge. For this separation pattern the lift and pitchingmoment curves showlittle or no changein liftcurve slope prior to maximum lift and an abrupt, often large, changein lift and pitching moment after maximum lift is attained. (c) Thinairfoil stall is characterized by laminar flow separation from the leading edge, followed by a turbulent reattachment at a point along the chord which moves progressively downstream with increasing angle of attack. The stall is characterized by a rounded liftcurve peak, generally preceded by an inflection in the force and moment variation in the linear range for airfoils with roundedleading edges. (d) Combined trailingedge and leadingedge stall is characterized by either a semirounded or relatively sharp liftcurve peak and followed by either an abrupt or relatively rapid decrease in lift. The type of leadingedge stall, (b) and (c), and the occurrence of trailingedge and combined stall are dependenton leadingedge geometry and on the Reynoldsnumber of the boundary layer at the point of separation andthus on the freestream Reynolds number. This is reflected in figure 4.14, from reference 6, where the upper surface ordinate at the 0. 0125 chord was used as a correlating parameter. The type of leadingedge stall affects the section maximum lift coefficient. This is reflected in figure 4.15, from reference 1, for an uncambered airfoil at a Reynoldsnumber of 9 106; the leadingedgesharpness parameter, Ay (fig. 4.12), is the correlating parameter. The effect of Reynoldsnumber on the maximum section lift coefficient can be accountedfor by using figure 4.16, from reference 1, which uses the leadingedgesharpness parameter, Ay, as the correlating parameter. The effects of surface roughness on maximum section lift coefficient are not so readily accountedfor. Figure 4.17, from reference 3, showsthe effects of Reynoldsnumber and NACA standard roughness on an airfoil section. Figures 4.18 and 4.19, also from reference 3, showthe effects of roughness at the leading edge and at various chordwise locations. It should be noted that NACA standard roughnessis considered to be more severe than that caused by the usual manufacturing irregularities or deterioration in service. The aerodynamic center of thin airfoil sections at subsonic conditions is theoretically located at the quarterchord point. Experimentally, the aerodynamic center is a function of section thickness ratio andtrailingedge angle, as shownin figure 4.110. For the subject airplane the section airfoil characteristics of the wing andhorizontal tail, summarized in table 4.11, were determined from table 4.12 (from ref. 1), which is a summary of experimental data (at NRe = 9 106) for NACA fourand fivedigit airfoils section characteristics table 4.12; tained from 0009 airfoils. and NACA sixseries of the wing airfoil airfoils reported in reference (NACA 642A215) were obtained 3. The directly from
airfoil (NACA 0008) were oblisted for the NACA 0006 and
attack
in table slope.
4.12
is the
upper
angleof
14
H646
4.1.I
a.a.
Symbols aerodynamic section section section section chord, drag lift center in. or of an airfoil ft section, fraction or percent of chord
cd cl
C_ma X
maximum
(ez a )base
Ac/max
lift coefficient at reference on section chord, ft for Reynolds rad or deg at zero about lift the number
Reynolds
number
of
C/max slope,
Cl_
Cm O
coefficient coefficient
Cmc/4
quarterchord
point
on the
chord
in ft
dimensions
(fig.
section leadingedgesharpness of chord angle angle limit angle sweep section of attack, of attack of linearity of attack of the at rad for of or deg zero Cla lift
parameter
Ot
%
$ 0/
%1 max Ac/4
quarterchord angle
trailingedge
H646
15
o o N O ts_ O
_<
O O LO O,1
r_
I I _.._ _._ I
_1
a
r_
_44_ __
4 _
4 _
4 .._
I I I
i ___
, !
.<
,_ , I_
t_ ,.4
0 r_
r._
i q_ I
,__
_<
_ c"q o,_
I
c'_,1
I
_
I
c_
I
i I
_
I
z_4
, I
I I
4
_ .._
4
.._
4
bJ_ 0
'Ig"
,'_ 0
"CI
x
0
Z
N
g
_
_
o _ _ o ,_ ._
i_ o o
o
"g<I
._ F _ _.
""__,_ 0
_'_
_._
_,_
_ _
_ _
o o
"_/'2
e_g_ g
o , ._._
_ _a _ _
._
N
r_
,_
u N
N <
od
16
H646
(a)
4
and
5digit
airfoils,
106,
smooth
leading
edge
Airfoil 0006 0009 1408 1410 1412 2412 2415 2418 2421 2424 4412 4415 4418 4421 4424 23012 23015 23018 23021 23024
%,
deg 0 0 .8
Cm o 0 0 .023 .020 .025 .047 .049 .050 .040 .040 .093 .093 .088 .085 .082 .014 .007 .005 0 0
cla
per 0.108 .109 .109 .108 . 108 .105 ,i06 ,103 .103 .098 .105 .105 .105 .103 .100 .107 .107 .104 ,103 ,097
deg
a.c. %/max' 0.250 ,250 ,250 .247 .252 .247 .246 .241 .241 .231 .247 .245 .242 .238 ,239 .247 ,243 243 ,238 .231 9.0 13.4 14.0 14.3 15.2 16.8 16.4 14.0 16.0 16.0 14. O 15.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 deg
C/max 0.92 1.32 1.35 1.50 1.58 1.68 1.63 1.47 1.47 1.29 1.67 1.64 1.53 1.47 1.38 1.79 1.72 1.60 1.50 1.40
c_,
deg 9.0
11.4 10.0 11.0 12.0 9.5 10,0 10.0 8.0 8.4 7.5 8.0 7.2 6.0 4.8 12.0 10.0 11.8 10.3 9,7
1.0 I.1 2.0 2.0 2,3 1.8 1,8 3.8 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 .8
_)
6series
airfoiIs,
NRe
= 9
106,
smooth
leading
edge
Airfoil 63006 63009 63206 63209 63210 631012 631212 631412 632015 632215 632415 632615 633018 633218 633418 633618 634021 634221 634421 63,4420 63,4420 63(420)422 63(420)517 64006 64009 64108 C_ll0 64206 64208 64209 64210 641012 641112 641212 64_412
(Yo,
deg 0 0
cl_
deg
a.c. 0.258 .258 .254 .262 .261 .265 .263 .271 .271 .267 .262 .266 .271 .271 .272 .267 .273 269 .275 .265 .265 .271 .264 .256 .262 ,255 ,261 .253 .257 .261 .258 .262 .267 .262 .267
%l
max' 10.0 I1.0 10.5 12.0 14.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 14.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 14.5 16.0 16.0 17.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 15.0 9.0 11,0 10.0 13.0 12.0 10.5 13.0 14.0 14,5 14.0 15.0 15.0
(leg
el max 0.87 1.15 1.06 1.40 1.56 1.45 1.63 1.77 1.47 1.60 1.68 1.67 1.54 1.85 1.57 1.59 1.38 1.44 1,48 1.42 1.35 1.36 1.60 .8 1.17 1,10 1,40 1.03 1.23 1,40 1.45 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.67
or*,
deg
7.7 10.7 6.0 10.8 9.6 12.8 11.4 9.6 11.0 8.8 10.0 8.6 11.2 8.0 7.0 4.2 9,0 9.2 6.7 7,6 6.0 6.0 8,0 7.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.8 8.9 10.8 11.0 12.2 11.0 8.0
1.9 1.4 1.2 0 2.0 2.8 0 1.0 2.8 3.6 0 1.4 2.7 3.8 0 1.5 2.8 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 0 ,8 1.3 2.6
0 .035 .075 0 .030 .069 .108 0 .033 .064 .097 0 .035 .062 .059 .037 .065 .084 0 0 .015 .020 .040 .039 .040 .040 0 .017 .027 ,065
.116 .114 .117 .117 .116 .118 .117 .i18 .118 .118 .118 .118 .118 .120 .109 .li1 .112 .108 .109 .110 .110 .110 .110 .113 .107 .110 ,111 .113 .113 .112
a =
.3
I Lift coefficients
H646
17
TABLE
4.12
(Concluded)
Airfoil 642015 6,12215 6,12415 643018 643218 643418 643618 644021 644221 644421 65006 65009 65206 65209 65210 65410 651012 651212 651212 651412 652015 652215 652415 652415 a = .5 a = .6
ceo,
deg 0
Cm 0 .030 .070
c laper 0.112 .112 .115 .111 .115 .116 ,I16 .110 ,117 .120
deg
a.c. 0.267 .265 .264 .206 .271 .273 .273 .274 .271 .276 .258 .264 .257 .259 ,262 .262 .261 .261 .269 .265 .257 .269 .268 .264 .265 .267 .262 .266 .273 .267 .263 .265 .267 .276 .265 ,267 ,274 .272 .272 .276 .252 .259 ,257 .257 .261 .258 .259 .265 .260 .260 ,260 .262 .257 .265 .254 .257 .253 .251 .254 .252 .252
_Clmax, 15.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 12,0 12.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 15.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 20.0 15.0 18.0 17.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 18.5 20,5 22.0 20,0 20.0 9.0 10.0 10,5 11.0 11.0 14,0 15.0 15.5 16.0 17.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 3.0 15.0 14.0 15.0
dog
C/max 1.48 1.57 1,65 1.50 1.53 1.57 1.58 1.30 1.32 1.42 .92 1.08 1.03 1.30 1.40 1.52 1.36 1.47 1.50 1.66 1.42 1.53 1.61 1.60 1.44 1.60 1.44 1.58 1.60 1.37 1.48 1.54 1.50 1.64 1.51 1,40 1.46 1,56 1.43 1.52 .80 1.05 1.00 1.17 1.27 1.25 1.46 1.35 1.50 1,60 1,33 1.55 1.46 1.60 1.20 1.43 1.23 1.44 1.61 1.54 1.50
_,
deg 13.0 10.0 8.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 5.6 10.3 6.8 6.4 7.6 9.8 6.0 10,0 9.6 8.0 10.0 9,4 9.6 10.5 11.2 10.0 8.7 7.0 10.5 6.0 i0.0 4.4 4.9 i0.0 8.8 4.9 6.0 5.2 5.3 7.4 6.0 5,0 5,6 4.7 6.5 1O.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 11.2 11.6 12.0 11.4 10.0 10.0 8.8 7.0 4,0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
1.6 2.8 0 1.3 2.9 3.8 0 1.2 2.8 0 0 1.6 1.2 1.6 2.5 0 1.0 1.4 3.0 0 1.2 2.6 2.6 .7 a =.5 3.0 0 3.0 4.0 0 1.2 a= .5 2.4 2.8 4.0 4.2 0 1.3 2.8 a = .5 2.8 2,4 0 0 1.6 1.0 1.3 0 1.2 0 1.3 2.6 0 a = .6 2.0 1.2 2.6 0 1.5 0 1.5 3,0 2,0 2,0
.004 .027 .065 .095 .005 .029 .068 0 0 .031 .031 .034 .067 0 .032 .033 .070 0 .032 .060 .051 .019 .057 0 .081 .100 0 .030 .059 .055 .102 .078 0 .029 ,066 .052 .061 0 0 .038 .034 .035 0 .032 .005 .031 .069 0 .044 .030 .068 .005 .040 0 .040 .080 .040 .040
.105 ,107 .105 .106 .108 .112 .110 .108 .108 .111 .111 .112 .iii .lll .I12 .106 .I00 .I12 .110 .100 .I00 .110 .i15 .113 .104 .112 .115 ,116 .116 .116 .100 ,103 .108 ,107 .110 .106 .t02 .105 .106 ,106 ,105 .114 .100 .100 .105 ,103 .llO .105 ,100 ,100 ,095
65(215)114 65(216)415
65,3018 65418 a = .8 65618 653018 653218 653418 653418 653618 653618 654021 654221 654421 654421 65(421)420 66006 66009 66206 66209 66210 661012 661212 662015 662215 662415 66(215)016 66(215)216 66(215)216 66(215)416 63A010 63A210 64A010 64A210 64A410 641A212 642A215
a = .5
18
H646
I1
4O
OOXXX5
airfoil
series
OOXXX4 / 32 16XXX
/ /
/ 24
16
.04
.08
.12 tlc
.16
.20
.24
.28
Figure
4.11.
Variation
of trailingedge
angle
with
airfoil
thickness
ratio
(ref.
1).
H646
19
3 _Y, %chord
Double wedge
.04
.08 tic
.12
.16
.20
Figure ratio
of leadingedge
sharpness
parameter
with
airfoil
thickness
_o)M (%)M = . 3 12 I .3 4 .5 .6 .7
\9
M cOSAcl 4 Figure 2O 4. 13. Mach number correction for zerolift angle of attack (ref. 1). H646
I!
!f
O0 2 i 1.5
<> <>
0 o
Thinairfoil
stall
o
<>_<>
\ \
I
I
Trailingedge
stall
0
2.8
3.2
3.6
Uppersurface
Figure 4.14. Lowspeed stalling Reynolds number and uppersurface chord station (ref. 6).
characteristics ordinates
of
sections sections
correlated at the
with 0. 0125
H646
21
1.6
1.2
Position
of maximum % chord
I
.4 0 (Long bubble) 1 I (Short bubble) 2 Ay, _/o chord 3 4 5
section
maximum
lift
coefficient
of uncambered
airfoils
(ref.
1).
2 Ay, % chord
Figure
4.16.
Effect
of Reynolds
number
on section
maximum
lift
(ref.
1).
22
H646
_J
1_ :Lt,j
J
0 . . _ 0 J_ 0
I I X N _ " I"
\
c_ 0 I _J u
00_0
_0
% 0
EE
I
2;
%..i 0 m O0 _J
N oo i
I
,.i o:1 ! m
'
I I I
}
%
L_I__I_
I
I
!
I _ l __1
I I I
(.J
g_
H646
23
le
t
i i
j
1
,.4
o o
Q_ 0
L.
0
$
0
_.
r
t
_oG
_
! r_
_gccc_
i _.._
c
0 r_
oo
0_
0o<]
c_ c'_
. o c_
< r_
i_:r
....
r_ c_
o
! ! I
g_
i
H646 24
xO
li oo
_d I C) i
O i 00 i
! _0 I 0 0 0 0 0
.4
_o
(x) O.) A O O,1 v _D
L.)
< C_
C
c_ O O ,_..4
"_
b_C
0,_

O0 ! _C_ xO
0 0
od ! 0
H646
25
28
27
26
ao
c.
25
"fochord
24
23
22 0 4 8 12 16 (Pte, deg 20 24 28 32
Figure (ref.
angle
on section
aerodynamiccenter
location
26
H646
4.2
Lift
Characteristics
of the
Wing
and
Horizontal
Tail
Lift characteristics of the wing and horizontal tail are considered in terms of total (which includes the portion covered by the body) and exposed areas of the respective surfaces (section 3.2). Body in this context includes fuselage and nacelles. The exposed panel concept is used in obtaining the net propelleroff lift and pitchingmoment characteristics of the airplane; the total wing concept is used in determining maximum lift coefficient, drag, and power effects on the lift and pitching moment. The procedures of this section are restricted to untwisted wings; lift characteristics of twisted wings are considered in reference 7. In the following discussion the expression "wing" is used as a general term and applied to both wings and tail surfaces. The wing and horizontaltail lift curves of the subject airplane, as determined by the following procedures, are shown in figure 4.21. Zerolift angle of attack for untwisted, constant section airfoil wings is relatively unaffected by wing planform geometry. It is primarily a function of section geometry (section 4.1). Therefore, the section zerolift angle can be assumed to be the value for the overall wing. Liftcurve slopes of tapered wings, in the subsonic determined by the modified liftingline theory method simple and does not require the use of the taper ratio chord sweep angle, rather than the quarter chord, is liftcurve slope is determined as a function of aspect Ac/2, Mach number, in reference M, and 8: section liftcurve slope, developed region up to M = 0.6, can be of reference 8. The method is as a parameter because the midused as the sweep angle. The ratio, A, midchord sweep angle, Cla, by the following equation
2_r per (fi2 + tan2Ac/2 Figure 4.22 ) + 4 is the graphical equivalent of the radian (4.21)
and
Clc_ k = 2_"
to the
4.1
slope and
to be equal
The maximum lift coefficient and angle of attack for the maximum subsonic conditions (up to M = 0.6) may be determined by the empirical reference 1. The reference considered procedures for both high and ratio wings; however, because general aviation aircraft are concerned ratio wings as defined by 3 (C 1 + 1) cOSAle where ratio H646 C 1 is given data are in figure 4.23 as a function of taper ratio, only the
A >
(4.22)
highaspect
presented. 27
(4.23) ACLmax
CLmax
C/ma x
/max
CLma c_CLma x CL
Ol
x + _o + AC_CLma x (4.24)
where, Ay (fig.
as functions 4.12),
of leadingedge
sweep,
Ale,
and
leadingedge
sharpness
ratio,
AaCLma
at
CLmax
for
flow
is the
Mach
number
correction
from
figure
4.26
slope
obtained
from
equation
(4.21)
or figure
4.22
C/max
is the
section
airfoil
maximum
lift
coefficient
obtained
from
section
4.1
c_ o
is the
zerolift
angle that,
obtained basis
from
section
be noted a function
on the
of wing
area
Pertinent aspects of the horizontal tail of the subject in table 4.21. The results The fairings of the curves in the stall angle of attack,
calculation for the lift characteristics of the wing and airplane at windtunnel Mach conditions are summarized were applied to the lift curves shown in figure 4.21. figure 4.21 from the upper limits of linearity, a_*, to were based on the stall characteristics of section
O_CLmax,
airfoils (section 4.1). Regardless of where the separation first appears on threedimensional wings (inboard or tips), it is the type of separation on the section airfoil that determines the liftcurve shape near maximum lift. In figure 4.21, it is evident that rounding of the lift curves occurs near CLmax.
28
H646
The shape of the lift curve beyond stall is not so easily approximated. Although reference 1 provided a technique for estimating the shape of the lift curve beyond stall, the technique could not be applied satisfactorily to the subject airplane. Thus, for the wing, the lift curve was terminated at maximum lift. However, because a study of the pitch characteristics of the subject airplane involved stalled regions of the tail, the shape of the horizontaltail lift curve in the stalled region was estimated on the basis of a study of the stall characteristics of various tails in reference 9. 4.2. I Symbols A C1 aspect constant aspect lift ratio (from ratio fig. 4.23) used in equation (4.22) defining high
CL
of a finite
surface
at the
subsonic
Mach
number
CLma
maximum considered,
coefficient obtained
surface (4.23)
at the
Mach
number
CLma
C/ma x
ACLma
Mach number correction ficient, obtained from liftcurve obtained maximum ditions, slope from
of the figure
incompressible 4.26
maximum
lift
coef
CL_
of a finite surface equation (4.21) lift coefficient from section slope section
at the Mach number or figure 4.22, per at incompressible 4.1 (M < 0.2)
C/ma x
section obtained
(M < 0.2)
cl
0t
conditions,
kM
planform Ay
O/
area,
of surface
H646
29
a*
limit
of linearity
of the
lift
curve at its
of a surface, CLmax,
aCLma
of a surface
obtained
A_ L
max
at CLmax
for
flow
separation,
obtained
_ ; (1  M2) 1/2
Ale Ac/2 sweep sweep taper Subsc ript s:
e
leading midchord
edge, line,
deg deg
panel tail
h
W
3O
H646
"_ r/l
_o
oe
_
,d _d _ _d _. _:=.
,._y_ c __ _
,4 o _._
o
d #_ d = d =..d .
_z _._
o
_4
%. o . =o ,_{ _ . d .
%0
Z 0
o
0 < L" 0
_
Lr_
_
. ClO L_
_
.0 _t_
oo %4
_
o=
':.
o=
d#
',
o=
c:) II 0 < 0
o ==
_. z
o=
_ ,d
N N o N
o_ _
o '_ == _ <
F
I._
g .i
o
w %
_._
3
+
<_#
._ <_?R_._ _
H646
31
L.____
 .,a )
_I:
"_',,_.,,___
l:I
,I
O,l
0 1_ 1 .,_
.r_
4) N o,=.i 0
_,
'"_ _
I_
! ,._ ,_
k
N iii _
,.i
32
H646
.9 [
,p.._
oO
e'
_9 O
I 'q
_9
OO
o
H646
33
O0
0 0 (D 0 0 0
O., c_
d
I CI
*pI
34
tt646
lo6
m_
1.4 <1,4...
1.2
2.0
.6
I
.4 0 I0 20 30 Ale , deg Figure 4.24. Subsonic constant airfoil section 12 maximum lift of highaspect wings (ref. 1). M _0.2. ratio, untwisted, 40 50 60
10
......./y
I0 20 30 Ale , deg 40 50 60
CL :___
i
AaCLmax
AaCLmax, deg 6
increment constant
35
0!
0 Ay _Y
,2
ACLma x .4
__
ACLmax
4 Ale 20 4.5
.6
.g
Ay
13.o
_'_ i I
2. 0
4.3
Lift
Due to Fuselage
and
Nacelles
Techniques for predicting the lift contribution of bodies assume that the normal forces acting on bodies of revolution at angles of attack consist of a linear combination of potential flow and viscous crossflow contributions. As indicated by referencc 10, the normal forces acting on the forward or expanding portions of the bodies agree well with those predicted by potential theory, whereas poor agreement occurs for the aft or contracting portions where viscosity effects become more important. By assuming potential flow over only a forward portion of the body and viscous flow for the remainder of the body, reference 10 arrived at equations for lift, pitching moment, and drag of bodies which showed good correlation with experimental data for a number of bodies of revolution up to 16 to 18 angle of attack. The method of reference 10 is empirical only to the extent of the definition of the arbitrary longitudinal boundary between potential and viscous flow. On the basis twothirds power of reference of the body Potential 10, the volume, flow lift Coefficient of a body of revolution, V B, is obtained from the expression Viscous flow based on the
2
_?rCdcdX
"
(4.31)
wh ere (k 2  kl) obtained ratio, Cdc function from dmax lB is the steadystate Mach angle crossflow number, drag M c, of the coefficient obtained from body for circular figure relative 4.33 to its zerolift line, cylinders, a is the figures apparent 4.31 mass and 4.32, factor, and r7 is the drag proportionality of body factor, fineness
respectively,
as a function
of crossflow is the
degree
C_Beff s x
of attack
equivalent
of integration 4.34
(the
determined rate
figure
arbitrary boundary between the two flows) x1 of where x 1 is the point at which the l B ' dSo x, dx ' is a negative 1 ccm_idercd [, "c the maximum the !imit at
of change To simplify
of the the x o,
reference :_,
of integration,
," bv
assumed
point
II646
37
dS o which _ is a minimum, that is, x1 is the point of maximum cross section. As a result of this simplifying assumption which results in slightly optimistic contributions of bodies, 2_Beff(k2  kl)
CLB _ 57.3 Soma x + (57.3) which is the equation used in this report. 2 (VB)2/3 2(_Bef? f Xo lB VrCdcdX (4.32)
(VB) 2/3
Because the equation for lift of bodies is based on bodies of revolution, it is necessary to replace the actual body of the airplane by an approximate equivalent body of revolution to serve as a mathematical model for analysis. This requires study of the profile as well as the planview outline of the body to arrive at the shape, based on judgment, which will provide the same lift characteristics. For the subject airplane, figure 4.35(a) shows the estimated equivalent circular fuselage in relation to the actual fuselage. It should be noted that the equivalent fuselage has a zerolift angle 3 below the reference Xbody axis. The nacelle, shown in figure 4.35(b), does not lend itself to such a simple estimate of equivalence because of its wide rectangular shape and irregular profile, As an approximation for equivalence, the crosssectional area of an equivalent circular nacelle at any one point, x, was assumed to be equal to the actual crosssectional area. The axis of the equivalent nacelle was assumed to be parallel to the Xbody axis (reference axis of the airplane). Table 4.31 lists the pertinent of the fuselage and nacelles of the terms of wing area (S w = 172.3): FuseI
g
of the airplane
contributions following in
Naccllcs Crossflow
Potential
P,_ter,tial B  3 ;2] +
Crossflow
CLf where
+ CLn
o_ B h 3.1 CL B
is the
angle
of attack
of the
airplane,
relative
to the
body
Xaxis,
deg
Sym b o Is lift coefficient to twothirds noted coefficient lage and of the body (where power of the body body is a general term) referred volume or to the wing area as
C Lf, C Ln
lift
CLB,
applied
specifically
to the
fuse
Cd c
of crossflow
38
H64 6
dmax
body,
k2  k 1 lB /f, In
as listed
length,
applied
M Mc
r
radius of an equivalent circular considered, in. or ff crosssection maximum reference volume area crosssection wing area, of an equivalent area sq ff circular
body
at the
body
cross
section
being
S o
circular
body,
sq ft body, sq ft
Soma x Sw VB Vf, V n
of an equivalent
circular
of an equivalent VB,
body,
applied
specifically
Xo
the nose or ft
of the
body
to the
point
where
potential
flow
xI
distance from the nose of the body of change of body crosssectional increment length of the body, in. body, axis
to the area or ft
point with
angle of attack of the actual attack, o_, using Xbody aBef f effective deg C_neff effective nacelle, _o B zerolift Xbody zerolift drag angle of attack
angle
of
of an equivalent
aB
+ ao B,
_feff'
angle
of attack,
O_Beff,
applied
specifically
to the
fuselage
and
re spectively angle axis angle, of an equivalent of the airplane, c_OB , applied factor from circular deg specifically figure body relative to the reference
_of
to the 4.32
fuselage
proportionality
H646
39
_>_I _
o
_
;_"_o .
fI_._
o.
c_
_=.
g
I o
d
I
L_
00
d
+
E
Z <
2 1441 I _ _
l
I I
I
 A 44
g
i
4
i i i
I I
I 4 ,
0 c_
,I
<
Z 0 Z < _I _
_I _
g
o
<
>
"_
_._ + _2
c_
II
2
a
Z
0 Z
e Em
_
i
Yi
= _._ _ _ o
g
,ii II
,
Z 0 LO
_ _'__
M
I_
M
_
_'_
o_
+ _ r..) I
2
e
4O
tl646
o
4_
4_
o o
,F_
4_
_:_ o
_2
H646
4 1
0r,,_
c_ 0
oO
ill....
1 ,
0 0_
c_
\
i \ cO
b_
_._
C',l
b__O
42
1.8
f_
1.6
Cdc
1.4
.6 M sin (aB+
drag coefficient
.8
1.0
oOB)
for circular cylinders (two
o.374I+ xl 0.533
.9
.8
x0
[B .7
.6
.5 .3 .4 .5 .6 Xl _B
Figure negative H646 4.34. rate Extent of applicability of body of potential crosssectional theory area as with a function body length of the (ref. maximum 10). 43
.7
.8
.9
1.0
of change
0 f! G.> 0
0,.i 0
o_.,_ 0
0 0
_ 0
0 0
(1) 0,._
,...i
L_ I
,_
44
H646
Actual
nacelle
__
_t_......_
I_< ,_ _
__
J / Parallel to Xbody axis of airplane
t xt__4Oin"
._0
F I"
(Io) Nacelle.
Figure
4.35.
Concluded.
H64
45
4.4
Lift
Due
to Combined
WingFuselageNacelle
The addition of a body to a wing results in mutual interference effects. Lift of the wingbody combination is influenced by the body upwash effect on wing lift and the lift carryover of wing panel loading onto the body. Net wing upwash and downwash effects on the body influence body pitching moments primarily. Symmetrical body vortices which result from flow separation just behind or above the area of minimum pressure along the side of the body near the nose are normally negligible for most airplane types of wingbody combinations. The lift of the wingfuselagenacelle ference effects of wing and fuselage combination be estimated accounting from for the mutual inter
may
Sw
CLwf n _CLf+ where CLf CLn Kw(f) an isolated Kf(w) from figure (CLoz)_'e 4.21 aWabs Because accounted The use is the absolute is the fuselage lift lift of the
CLn+
[Kw(f)
+ Kf(w)]
(CLa)we!Wab
(4.41)
(4.33) (4.33)
wing 4.41
of the 11 to wing
body
to the
lift
on
obtained ratio
from
of wing
lift
carryover
lift
alone,
obtained
liftcurve
slope
of the
exposed
wing
panels,
obtained
from
table
angle of suitable
of attack data,
of the the
wing,
equal
to
not
interference
effects
interference
factors,
Kw(f)
and
Kf(w),
from
reference
11 is releading of revolu
stricted to wings which do not have sweptback trailing edges. The factors were obtained for wings mounted tion but have been used for other configurations. For carryover
the subject airplane, the lift of the wing in the presence of the body and the of the wing lift onto the body is calculated in table 4.41(a) to be equal to
CLw(f)+f(w) 46
= 0.079(a+4)(referencedto
Sw=
172.3
sq ft)
(4.42) H64 6
The net lift of the wing, fuseIage, and nacelle combination in the linear lift range is obtained by summarizing the fuselage and nacelle contributions as obtained from table 4.31 and the Iift of the wing in the presence of the body as obtained from
table 4.41(a). Thus
CLwfn
= = [0. 00218(_
CLf 3) + O. 0000309(ot
+  3) 2 ] + [0. 00160c_
CLn
+ CLw(f)+f(w) 4)
The addition of a body to the wing in most airplane configurations tends to decrease the maximum lift coefficient and corresponding angle of attack, although an increase in the geometric stall angle is possibIe in some circumstances. The wing planform is a primary consideration. In the absence of theoretical methods, reference and 1 devised corresponding The empirical stall method in the relations angle, uses for predicting _(aCLma x) , for maximum wingbody correction lift coefficient, (CLmax)w up to c 2 (fig. factors, 4.42), f,
wf
combinations factor,
M = 0.6.
an empirical equations,
taper the
ratio
following
empirical
correction
(_CLmax)wf and of the .(LCLmax )w fuselage , from figure 4.43 span, as functions d _ : of (c 2 + 1)A tan Ale
diameter
to the
wing
L(CLmax)w j(CLmax)w

(4.44)
( CL
\ where maX]wf
[ J(lCLmax)w
(o_CLmax)
(4.45)
and from
(the absolute
stall
angle
from
zero
lift)are
for
aspects are
of the listed
calculations in table
for
( CLmax
)wf
and
(o_CLmax
) wf
for
the
sub
4.41(b). combination for feet (reference the subject airplane area of analysis) in and 47
terms H646
square
178.0 square feet (reference area of windtunnel data) is summarized in table 4.42. The results for a wing area of 178.0 square feet are plotted and compared with windtunnel data in figure 4.44. The fairing from the limit of linearity to the maximum lift coefficient was performed in the same manner as for the wing alone (section 4.2) In summary, the lift contributions attributed to the fuselage and nacelle crossflow effects are insignificant. The contributions due to the potentialflow effects on the
fuselage and nacelles are negligible for preliminary estimates but are large enough be significant for refined estimates. Although these fuselage contributions may be negligible or small for lift considerations, they are not necessarily negligible with regard to pitchingmoment considerations, as discussed in section 4.8. 4.4. I A b CLf CLmax)w Synzbols wing wing lift aspect span, coefficient lift ratio ft of the fuselage based on the alone, wing area from table to
coefficient
of the wing
obtained
CLmax)wf
of the wingfuselage
combination,
obtain
CL n C Lw (f)+f (w)
coefficient
nacelles
based including
on wing mutual
C Lwfn
lift
C L a)We
c2 d i
factor wing, ft
from
figure
4.42
width
between
the wing
chord
and
reference
Kf(w)
ratio of wing lift carryover tained from figure 4.41 ratio of the lift on the wing alone, obtained Mach number
on the
fuselage
to the
wing
alone,
ob
Kw(f)
of the
fuselage
to the
48
H646
Sw
wing
area,
Sw e oL
exposed
of attack
relative
stall angle of attack of the wing, deg stall angle of attack the zerolift line wing wing zerolift angle
zerolift
combination
relative
to
%w eWab s
chord, line,
deg
angle of attack relative  SOw + iw, deg of the taper wing leading
Ale
sweep wing
edge,
deg
ratio
H646
49
Sw e CLw(f)+f(w Symbol d b SW Sw e
(_O. W
) =[Kw(f)+ De sc r iption
Kf(w,](CL_)weC_Vab
Refcrence Figure Figure Table sq ft to wing axis, lift, chord, deg Table Table Table .2.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 4.21 31
width ft _x2ng
ft ft
exposed angle
iw C_Vab s
Xbody to zero
attack w, deg
slope
of exposed
wing
panels
per
deg
Table
4.21
0747
(CL4w d
e Fuselagewidth Ratio of lift on to wing wingspan in presence on ratio of fuselage fuselage to Figure Figure 4,41 4.4t 0.111 1.09 14
g Kw6) Kf(w)
Summaw:
carryover
CLw(O+f(w
) = O. 079(a+
4)
(b)
Maximum
lift
of wing
with
mutual
wingbody
interference
"(c Lmax) (Chmax)wf Symbol X c2 Ale A (c 2 + 1)A d tan Ale Wing Taper taper ratio =
wf (CLmax)w; @CLmax)wi
[(ceCLmax)wf =[_x
] _Fv ] Reference
(dLm=_a),_
Ratio
of
CLmax
of
wingfuselage
to
wing
alone
Figure
4.4
3
1.0
VCLm x):f
c_C .( Lmax)w. \ x }w
Ratio
of
stall
angle
of wingfuselage
to wing
alone
Figure
4.43
1. 025
lift
coefficient alo.ne
of
wing
Table Table
4.21 4.21
Lma
_C Lmax]w
of wing
relative
ffC Lmax)w f
= 17.8
5O
H646
rj t _;i o mN
o_
......
_i._
._,_
II
_y
v@
c=,
,%
0
d,.u
4It
__ ......
I_ _ I_
oo d
+ o= o
.,I
11
@
#
O0 _o
00000o0 000000o
.E
@
0
o
<:
o
+
rj
_d
g
,30 0 o ,o, II
_4
:__.. __oo
ff
.
+
,.t r_
i
ed
,_ _gN_NNNNN
,u,
1.1,1 .......
_e
2 _
0
H646
51
2.0
...... L_ +__
#
I
/ff
I/
1.6
i
1.2
Kw(f), Kf(w)
I i
..... LY2_____________+ _ / / / __ __ __ __
.8
I
I .4
I i !
I
I
!
i
.2
.4 d b
.6
.8
1.0
Figure wing
4.41. at fixed
Lift
ratios
Kw(f) relative
and to the
Kf(w)
based
incidence 1.5
fuselage
1.0 c2
.5
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Figure
4.42.
Taper
ratio
correction
factors
(ref.
1).
52
H646
1.4 /
/
.8 0 .2 .4 d b .6 .8
1.2
I I I I
/iI 1 2 I II
_CLmax/wf (aCLmax/w
.8__
5>5/
.6
12 0 .2
Wingbody 1).
maximum
of attack
for maximum
lift
below
53
1.4
0
1.0
aX
.8
(table 4.21)
CLwfn .6
.4
2/I
0 .2t 4 0 4 8 a, deg
Figure 4.44. windtunnel 54 Comparison of predicted data. S = 178 sq ft.
W
12
16
2O
wingfuselagenacelle
lift
curve
with
H 64 6
4.5
Cmo
and
Aerodynamic
Center
of the Wing
and
Horizontal
Tail air
Subsonic zerolift pitchingmoment foil lifting surfaces can be determined equation from reference 1:
coefficients approximately
Cm
The aerodynamic center, the point about which coefficient is invariant with lift, may be determined center on and as a ratio of the lifting surface mean ure 4.51 (from ref. 1) and the equation
the lifting surface pitchingmoment relative to a desired reference aerodynamic chord by using fig
=_
(4.52)
is the
static
margin,
the
distance to the
from
the
reference center
center of the
on the surface
mean as a
chord of the lifting surface mean aerodynamic chord distance chord distance in terms k, A tan from of the from of its Ale, and the lifting
aerodynamic
is the
apex
to the
desired
reference
center
in terms Xac
Cr
of root is the
of the function
surface of
positive
obtained
from
crr is the
C
ratio
of the
root
chord
to the
mean
aerodynamic
Xa c
chord
of the
surface
Care
is required
in using
figure
4.51
to determine
.
Cr
In this
study
the
best
re
tan Ale salts A tan curve were Ale obtained curves by crossplotting,
Xa c
at the Cr versus
desired k, and
fl
, to obtain
a family
of a
as functions k
of
again
to obtain
Xac
for the desired as a function of Cr versus
H646
55
Table
4.51
summarizes
the
calculations
made
to determine
the
Cmo
of the
wing
tail of the subject airplane and the location relative to the leading edges of the mean
centers of the
The following symbols are related that is, the wing or the horizontal aspect ratio center relative chord as a ratio of the surface
to the tail.
particular
lifting
surface
under
aero
CL Cm
pitchingmoment aerodynamic
o
reference
center
on the
mean
Cm c
of the
surface
Cm o cr M
Xac
coefficient
chord number
distance from the surface, chord, in. distance center, from in.
of
Xn
the
lifting
surface
apex
to the
desired
reference
Y_
lateral distance aerodynamic (1  M2) 1/2 sweep sweep taper of the of the ratio
from chord,
chord
of the
surface
to its
mean
A c/4 Ale
line, deg
deg
56
H646
r_
__J
_J
oo
.< E_ Z
c_ _, I I*
E _
__ oo
0 1
0 Z
"_
'<
I
I 1 I 1
'
1
I
+
I
', __
_ <_
I 11
1
I I
< _ <
<
Z
0 {fi
'7 I _
0
,_
< z <
0
cJ 0;
E
I
e_
"_
._ _
1 P_ C_ X _
H646
57
1.4 r
....... A tan Ale Unswept tra_ .8
Xac cr
J
A tan Ale
Xac cr
.8
.6
.4 .2
I
J
...2_
___4.__._____
2 
.6 .4 .2
Z/
Z:
i
Unswept 0 tan Ale 1 0 0 tan Ale 1 ]
P
tan Ale
B (b)x= o.2.
1.4 A tan Ale 1.2
J
tan Ale
(a) x = o. 1.4
1.0 .8
Xac
!
_____.J
J
f
.8
Xac Cr
Cr
.6
.6
2
edge 0 [3
position
2/
Unswept trailing
edge
.4 .2
1 tan Ale
0 tan Ale 6
(d) for
1 13 tan Ale
3. = 0.33. conditions (ref.
aerodynamiccenter
subsonic
1).
58
H646
s
J
3
.8 .6 .4 .2
T Un swept trailing
______
edge
0 tan Ale 15
(e) X=
1 [_ tan Ale
0.5.
Cr
1.2 .8 .4
0 tan Ale
H646
59
Moment
at Zero
in a fuselage may
contribution from
be estimated
{from ref. 12) which section for midwing negative from are the increment, figure.
bodies of circular or near or lowwing configurations respectively, the effects to the of the
is added, data,
obtained on Cmo
In the
absence
nacelles
considered
The wingfuselage pitching moment at zero lift for the mined in table 4.61. The summary results, on the basis 172.3 square feet, show the fuselage effect to be significant:
of
 0.0183
 0.004
(4.61)
pitchingmoment
( mo)w
pitchingmoment assembly aerodynamic of the wing of the chord, chord line line __Ow
coefficient
for
the
wingfuselage
wing iw
(iw) o
Xbody length,
If If
fuselage
of the
fuselage
to the
quarter
chord
of
Sf
of the
fuselage,
sq ft
6O
H646
planform area of the fuselage the wing mean aerodynamic reference width zerolift line, correction wing area, sq ft
forward chord,
of the sq ft
quarter
chord
of
of the
fuselage
at the wing,
angle deg to
of attack
of the wing
C m o) f
for
configuration configurations,
equal
H646
61
MOMENTS
(a) Symbol (C
\ nl
Wing
_
!W
0a)
Effect
of
fuselage
on
Cmo
(Cm)f+('_Cm)f Symbol
W
i_(iw)oSf f ]
ion ft the wing,
+(AC o),f
Re fe re nee Figure Figure 3.21 4.35 3.21 3, 21 drawings drawings 3.21 4. ,t  1 Magnitude 4.0 24.2 9.01 172.3 65. 26.3 4.96 4/57.3
De se rlpt Width of Fuselage Distance Reference fuselage length, from wing area area mean nose area, of of at ft
If if
of fuselage sq ft sq
to
c/4
of
wing,
ft
Figure Table
sf
fuselage, fuseIage
ft of ft 5/4 of wing, sq ft
forward chord,
(iw) o
Incidence Parameter
of
wing
aOw
+ iw,
tad
=. 0698
4.61
0. 239
sdf
Parameter
used
in
figure
4.61
.149
4.6I
. 141
Section 4,6
0.
004
Summary:
(Cmo)f
+ (ACmo)f=
0.0183
0.004=
0.0223
(c)
Summar)"
(Cm)wf=0"0240
 0.01_3
 0.004
0.0463
on
basts
of
_v_
172.3
sq
[t
62
H646
.30 w2 Sf
. 25
. 05
f
0 .2 .4 Sf_f Sf[f .6 .8 1.0
Figure
4.61.
Effect
of a fuselage
on
Cmo.
Midwing
configuration
(ref.
12).
H646
63
4.7
Fuselage
and
Nacelle
Pitching
Moments
The slope of the pitchingmoment Mach numbers may be determined based on potentialflow lift effects the afterbody, which were discussed Potential
curve of the fuselage and nacelles at subsonic from the following equation, from reference 10, on the forebody and on viscousflow lift effects on in section 4.3Viscous crossfiow
flow
 kl)
/ 0 O (Xm
x) dSx
(4.71)
on the of the
area
about
a chosen
moment
center
Xm
from
the
body
nose,
sq ft ft
the of the
of the
chosen
moment
center,
V B is the is angle
volume
cu ft
of attack,
deg
The remaining symbols are defined below and also in table 4.71, which summarizes the calculation of the slope of the pitchingmoment curve of the fuselage and nacelles the subject airplane about the leading edge of the total wing mean aerodynamic chord. Table 4.72 shows the tabular integration procedure used to obtain the values of the integrals for the fuselage. The same procedure was used for the nacelles when xm was taken to be 53 inches from the nose of the nacelles (propellers off).
of
slope of the pitchingmoment curve of the fuselage and nacelles of the subject about the leading edge of the total wing mean aerodynamic chord, as sumin table 4.71, is accounted for by
 0. 000128_
(4.72)
(Cm_)B
variation of the body pitchingmoment ence wing area) with angle of attack (Cmo_)n variation attack, respectively of the body pitchingmoment applied specifically
coefficient
(based
on refer
(Cm_)f'
coefficient to the
with fuselage
angle
of
(Cm_)B'
and nacelles,
64
H 64 6
wing
mean
Cd c k2  k1
lB lf, In
coefficient, potentialflow
obtained
length, length,
respectively
r
effective reference
body wing
radius area,
of
Ax segment
of the
afterbody
length,
ft or in.
Sw
Sx
VB Vf, V n
body,
body volume, re spectively width (diameter) station being distance forebody, from
applied
specifically
circular
body
at the
foregoing
to the Ax
of
AS x
for
the
and
afterbody,
ft or in.
Xm
distance from the nose of the body to the (leading edge of the mean aerodynamic ft or in.
X o
distance from the nose of the body to the point (demarcation body and afterbody in this instance) where the potential ceases, ft or in. angle change ment of attack, deg area of the body being considered, body, from ft or in. table 4.31 across sq ft the
of foreflow
Ax
seg
Ax
incremental drag
proportionality
H646
65
,.) a_
cq
' I I ,
I
I I
I
Y 4 _
._
_
II
d
II
v v
66
H646
TABLE TABULAR INTEGRATION xo (a) _2] 0 Distance from nose to area Sx, in. 0 6 9 19 25 37 44 55 63.5 72 80 87 94.5 106.5 119 123 127.5 139 150 157 167
X o
OF
FUSELAGE
(XmX)dSx=
x,
in.
w,
in.
nw 2 Sx = 4{_ sq ft 0
'
AS x,
sq ft
(93.2
 x),
in.
(93.2
 x)AS x
1.39 1. 396 2.59 3.98 3.50 7.47 2.15 9.62 1.42 11.04 1.26 12.3 0.8 13.1 0.3 12.8 0.2 12.6 2.0 10.6
87.2 74.2 56.2 38.2 21.2 _6.2 13.3 29.8 45.8 63.8
121 192 197 82.1 30.17.8 10.6 8.9 9.16 127.6 
63.8 0 12 If
cuft
__.= 765.5
If
(b) 17_fr(XmX)dx= xo
E x O =167
Distance
nose,
Ax,
in.
r,
in.
x,
in.
(93.2
 x),
in.
35,20037,40037,14034,51029,48029,400 
1 1728 J
X o
]_=
203,130
H646
67
4.8 WingFuselageNacelle Pitching Moments The wingfuselagenacelle pitchingmoment characteristics are considered in terms of pitchingmoment slopes, aerodynamic center, and pitchingmoment coefficient. A firstorder approximation of the variation of the pitchingmoment coefficient beyond the limit of linearity of the liftcurve slope up to the stall is also considered.
4.8.1 Contributing Factors to WingFuselageNacelle zerolift were Pitching pitching accounted Moments moments of the wing, for in section 4.6. fuselage, For the
Zerolift pitching moments: The nacelles, and wingfuselage interference subject airplane, from table 4.61(c),
(Cm)x_ffn
= 0. 0463
(4.61)
Fuselage and nacelle pitching moments: The fuselage and nacelle pitching moments due to potentialand viscousflow lift effects were accounted for in section 4.7. For the subject airplane, with the moment center about the leading edge of the total wing mean aerodynamic chord, the results of table 4.71 indicate that
Cma ) fn = 0,00375
 0.000128a
(4.72)
Wing pitching moments: The wing pitching moments due to effective wing lift, which includes the effects of body upwash on the wing and wing lift carryover onto the fuselage, can be accounted for (on the basis of relations in ref. 11) by equation (4.8.11) for a moment center about the leading edge of the root chord of the exposed wing panels. For the subject airplane, because of the zero sweep of the leading edge, this is synonymous to the moment center about the leading edge of the reference mean aerodynamic chord of the wing.
(Cm_)w(f)
+f(w )
L\ ere
,w(f) Kw(f)
\ c re/f
,w)Kf(w)J
_'_w)_'_w
) (C L _)We (4.8.11)
whe re
of total mean
wing
area
and
mean
aerodynamic
chord
about
aerodynamic
chord
'w\Cre](f) as 68 a fraction
center edge
in the chord
presence of the
of the exposed
on the  M2
aerodynamic
c re ]f (w)
1 bd = _ + 2___tan re
(4.8.12)
The wing pitchingmoment slope for the subject airplane about the leading edge of the mean aerodynamic chord due to the effective wing lift in the presence of the body is summarized in table 4.8.11(a) in terms of the reference wing area of 172.3 square feet, or
= _
0.0195
per
deg
(4.8.13)
drag
pitching
moment
due
to wing
/we)
 C Lw whe re zw 8w Aw e is the vertical is the is the wing wing distance mean aspect efficiency wing lift from the Xaxis chord,
\dcT Iw
(4.8.14)
zw
c% to the feet c/4 of the wing, positive down
is the
wing
induced
drag
CLw
is the
H646
69
After
converting
and
expressing
CLw
in terms
of
CLwfn,
zw
(4.8.15)
(Cm )w(D)=CLwfn
Wing table pitchingmoment slope due to drag for 4.8.11(b) in terms of wing area equal
_w
in
C ms ) w(D)
= 0. 000197
CLwfn
per
deg
(4.8.16)
Fuselage and nacelle "free moments": The fuselage and nacelle "free moments" due to induced flow from the wing can be estimated by the technique developed by Multhopp in reference 13. Multhopp indicates that, in considering wing lift carryover onto the body, there remains an essentially free moment (or couple) of the body due to wing upwash ahead of the wing and downwash behind the wing. This wing interference contribution was accounted for by the following equation, which indicates the free moment to be a function of angle of attack:
= ("_"Cma!B(E)
1 36.5Sw_" w
1728 (4.8.17)
1
1 36.5SwC whe re wB is the mean width of the body flow planform with segment, Ax to be zero in the body planw S 0 wB2 Ax 1728 dfl dc_
is the variation dc_ form area overlapped Curves ahead fuselage, segments tegrated wing of the
of
ol (considered
4.8.11 where cw
as
of
Ax
wing
chord
and the
nacelle edge,
nacelle.
immediately values, d_ d_
so abruptly adjacent
given segments
based
length trailing
leading
edge.
For
aft of the
7O
It 64 6
d(_
lh
8_ /
(4.8.18)
where De w
is considered lh
]
from
table last Ax
4.9. Ax
12,
column
24
is the is the
distance distance
to the to the
segment
xI
table
Fuselage 4.8.12
and nacelle "free moments" for in terms of a wing area of 172.3 (Cm_)f(_)+n(c) = (Cm_)f(e)+ = 0. 00558 = 0.0109
(4.8.19)
,1.8.2
Sl_ltic Margin of WingFuseltlgeNacelles The pitchingmoment the center of gravity characteristics in terms of the static margin, to the aerodynamic center, are obtained from the the distance expression
from
(dCm_  \d_L whe re Xeg is the distance chord to the center )cg
Xcg Cw
_(Cm_)l ECL_
(4.8.21)
from
the
leading chord
edge
of the
total
wing
6w
mean aerodynamic as a ratio aerodynamic
is the
pitchingmoment
slope
about
the
leading
edge
of the
mean
aero
configuration
of this
(dCm_
n + (Cm_)w(f)+f(w)+
t,
:
of the subject airplane, to the reference center
(LOD n +
(4.8.92)
relative of the to the center of gravity at 0. 106 windtunnel data), is thus estimated
71
fdCm
 0. 000128_)
kdC L/, w
The preceding The net CLa
CLwfn
+ 0. 0109
(4.8.23) Cm_ quantity quantities in the numerator in the denominator was were obtained from section 4.8. i. from equation (4.43), with
obtained
a terms
C Lwfn 3.7 (4.8.24) + _ = 0.0831 from figure reference liftcurve 4.44 wing area, slope is the static margin
of attack
of the
of the
=0.0456
+00162 CLwfn
(4.8.25)
curve
f( (Cmwfn). 10_= J
dCm \d_L/. _.dCm_ 106w dCLwfn obtained 10_,,. + (Cm)wfn from equation (4.8.25) (4.8.31) and
For
the
subject
airplane,
with
\d_L/.
from
table
or equation reference
the
coefficient is deter
on the
of 172.3
Cmwfn).
10_ w
= 0. 0456 CLwfn
2  0. 0081CLwfn
 0. 0463
(4.8.32)
The
calculation which
of also
..(Cmwfn ) includes
10_ w the
for results
the
linear the
lift
range
is summarized range
in table
4.8.31, 72
for
nonlinear
to bc discussed. tt6.16
Nonlinear lift range: No methods appeared to be available pitchingmoment coefficient in the lift region between the upper the liftcurve slope and stall. The apparent need to account for characteristics in this region resulted in an empirical approach provide a first approximation of the variation of C m with CL nacelle configuration.
for determining the limit of linearity of the pitchingmoment to the problem to for the wingfuselage
The empirical approach takes into consideration equations (4.8.22) and (4.8.23). The equations were simplified by eliminating the pitchingmoment contributions of the winginduced drag effects. Because the stall characteristics of the wingfuselagenacelle configuration are generally governed by the stall characteristics of the wing, it was assumed that the potential flow and crossflow contributions of the fuselage and nacelles were unaffected. It was also assumed that the free moment contributions of the fuselage and nacelles were not significantly range of the liftcurve slope approaching stall. that most of the free moment contributions are affected through This assumption from the upwash most of the nonlinear is based on the fact of the wing.
As a result of the preceding assumptions and the fact that the stall characteristics of the wingfuselagenacelle characteristics are generally governed by wing stall characteristics, the format of equation (4.8.22) was modified to that of equation (4.8.33). The equation is restricted to the region extending from the upper limit linearity of the liftcurve slope to stall. (Cm_)f n + (Cma)w (CL_)wfn with data substituted s + (Cmc_)  (ACLa)ws from equation (4.8.23), + 0. 0109 fie)+n(e)
of
dCm_
aeT)s
10_ w For the subject airplane,
0.10
(4.8.33)
(0.00375
 0.000128_s)
+ (Cma)
w_
(4.8.34)
whe re is the average is the a average in the nonlinear of total range wing Cma in the nonlinear to an average slope range in the to stall non
(Cma)ws
value
is a correction
W s
to reduce
( CLa ) wfn
linear
range Because the aerodynamic center of the wing is normally at 0.25_ w in the linear
range of the lift curve and moves aft with increasing 0. 505 at stall, an average value of the aerodynamic (aC)w s, is assumed to be 0.3755.
H646
73
An average value of
stall, used to obtain (A CL_) Ws, is considered to be the average of the sum of (CL_)w in the linear range and the slope of the line connectingthe upper limit of ]inearity of the CLw versus a curve and the CLmax point. This average slope, referred to as CLo_) , may be determined from
w s
(_)ws =_ _)w
= 0. 063 for the The subject airplane using the and total
;
in table is determined 4.21. from
(4.8.35)
wing
lift
characteristics slopes
difference
in linear
nonlinear
liftcurve
wing
from
nonlinear
range
determined
=1(10 2 12
+ 13. S)
(4.8.38)
Substituting
the
determined
values
of
\_(Cm'_]Ws'
(ACLa)w
s,
and
c_ s
for
the
subject
74
H646
airplane
into
equation
(4.8.34)
results
in the
pitchingmoment
slope
= 0. 0496
(4.8.39)
This curve
slope
is drawn,
4.8.31,
from
on the to
pitchingmoment Finally, to a
(CLmax)wfn. point
reasonably
from,
C*L_ffn
(CLmax)wfn.
Summary: The pitchingmoment characteristics of the subject airplane, including the nonlinear region, are summarized in table 4.8.31. The results, referenced to a wing area of 178 square feet, are compared with fullscale windtunnel data in figure 4.8.32. The lift coefficients for the Cmwfn versus CLwfn plot were obtained
from figure 4.44. The agreement between predicted pitchingmoment data is good. All contributions were 4.8.4
A w
(aC)w s
average value of the aerodynamic center of the wing in the nonlinear range of the wing liftcurve slope to stall expressed as a fraction of the wing mean aerodynamic chord wing lift x span, coefficient lift coefficient of the wing alone configuration , at the upper limit of in.
maximum
of the of the
(C Lc_)wf n
CLmax)w
lift lift
of the
(O m X)w n
(CLa)w(f)+f(w)
at stall
of the lift of the wing the wing lift carryover per deg
inof
H646
75
(cL ) w
of the of the
isolated exposed
wing, wing
per panels,
(O )We r
(CLc_)Ws
of the wingfuselagenacelle
configuration,
average liftcurve slope of C L _) wfn approaching stall, per deg correction nonlinear pitchingmoment zerolift nacelle to reduce range C L o_,, ,,.fn approaching coefficient coefficient
in the
nonlinear
range
AC L_)w s
slope
in the
pitchingmoment configuration
of the
wingfuselage
Cmwfn).
106 w
pitchingmoment coefficient figuration relative to the chord point slope of the "free moment"
con
coefficient
of the
body,
per
deg
"free
moment"
slope,
specifically
to the
fuselage
and nacelle,
Cm_)f(_:)+n
() = (Cm_)f(e)
+ (Cma)n(c)
slope of the pitchingmoment coefficient of the fuselage and nacelles about the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord as obtained from section 4.7 (does not include "free moments"), per deg slope of the per deg pitchingmoment coefficient due to the wing drag,
(Cm_)w(D)
slope of the pitchingmoment coefficient about the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord due to the effective wing lift, including the effects of the fuselage upwash on the wing and wing lift carryover onto the fuselage, per deg average slope of the wing pitchingmoment leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic linear lift range to stall, per deg coefficient chord about the in the non
Cm O_)ws
76
H646
summation of the contributions of the wing, fuselage, nacelles, and interacting effects to the slope of the pitching moment about the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord, per deg
dCD_
rate
of change
of the
wing
drag
with wing
lift
/'dem_
\dd/cg
(dCm_
as a fraction
\
_dCm_
log
static margin relative to the the wing mean aerodynamic at 0. 106 w average to the static center
center chord
105 w
region
to stall
relative
dC e/w(D)
c n
rate of change of the pitchingmoment drag, with the wing lift coefficient chord root root wing wing width wing of the chord chord chord, mean of the efficiency wing at the centerline at the
coefficient,
due
to wing
of the
nacelle, of the
in. in.
C r
centerline panel,
fuselage,
Cr e
exposed
wing
in.
c w
Cw
in. in.
or ft
d
e
(assumed fuselage
equal
to 1.0) alone,
K f(w)
ratio of the wing lift carryover obtained from table 4.41(a) ratio of the wing alone, obtained
to the wing
Kw(f) d b
of the
fuselage
to the
wing
k_=
H646
77
lh
distance from the wing trailing edge to the centroid of the aft Ax segment of the fuselage length (table 4.8.12), Mach number wing area, sq ft wing body panels, planform sq ft segment, applied to the Ax, in. and
last in.
M Sw Sw e WB w f, w n
exposed of the w B,
specifically
fuselage
nacelle,
respectively xI distance ward from the wing leading edge to the Ax segment of the body planform centroid of the area, in. area for
adjacent
x1
the wing trailing edge of the body planform segment of the body
of the
aft
Ax
planform
c re/f(w)
contribution to the aerodynamic of the wing onto the fuselage, of the exposed wing panels
c re/w
(f)
aerodynamic center of the wing with the wing the fuselage, as a fraction of and about the root chord of the exposed wing panels distance to the center of gravity from the as a ratio of the wing mean aerodynamic vertical chord angle distance from the center of gravity point of the wing mean aerodynamic deg at the upper limit of linearity
Xcg _w
zw
leading chord
edge
of and
of attack,
a*
angle of attack slope, deg angle angle average of attack of attack value
of the
liftcurve
% C_CLma x
for
zero
lift,
at maximum
of angle
of attack
from
a*
to
c_CLma x tt646
78
0_0A_
_er
variation of upwash and downwash with angle of attack Ax segment of the body forward of the wing leading and aft of the wing trailing edge, respectively variation of the
at the edge
of upwash with angle of attack of the Ax segment body forward of and adjacent to the wing leading edge
Iafh
average with
the
horizontal
tail
aCw
of downwash,
behind
the
wing,
with
angle
of
Ae/4
quarterchord
line
of wing,
deg
H646
79
to wing
wingfuselage
FtXae\
/ac\
llcrc\/Swe\
Description Total Root wing chord mean of wing panel slope of aerodynamic wing sq area, ft sq ft wing panels of fuselage onto wing leading with fuselage wing of in to per deg to wing wing alone alone of fuselage, as chord, panels, in. in.
Re fe rence Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 3.21 3 21 3 21 3.21 4.21 4.4 1 (a)
Cr e
Sw Swe
(CLt_)W Kw (f) Sf(w) e
of wing
lift center
carryover of about
4.41(a) 4.51
ae\
e re)w d b k h c/4 (f)
Aerodynamic fraction of
presence Cre
and
edge
at
wing,
in.
Figure Figure
3.21 3.21
line,
Table Equation
2.21
2.5 .25
(Xac
e re 1]_(w )
fraction
(4.8.21)
C m Summary: _ a)w(f)+f(w)
(b)
Due
to wing
drag
Zw
.
(Cmc_)w ,D): Symbol
i w
[(CL0w
_W
Aspect Mean
ratio
of
total
cw
Zw
aerodynamic
"Fable From
(CL.)w (cLDwfn
Vertical distance from _lndtunnel center of gravity to Cw/4, positive down, in. Total wing liftcurve slope, based on S w = 172.3 square feet per deg Taftoff liftcurve slope, based on S w = 172.3 square feet per deg Wing efficiency factor
Summary:
(Cmo_)w(D)
= O. O00197Ct.wf
per
deg
8O
H646
[.., > t
am
._._ _
0
._. oo
_'_.1
_t_
0
,,%
;_ _
. . _
.=,_
o_'
x_ 0
_
,=4
_g
oo _
_
g
_.
:
'
z
m
N_
'
g
l
<1
_
._
_'_
,,a
Z 0
[.,.1
_
2 _ _ "_
._
'_
: _:
_ _
_omo _
,_
_
_
_ "_ _
" o
g_
__ _
H646
81
TABLE
(Concluded)
wf 2Ax
d_
d_
d_
dc_ x1 8c
Cr
1.17 1.00 .78 0.53 .21 .... .... .... .... ....
lb
(fig. 4.8.11) 1.15 1.20 1.23 1.32 3.50 0.02 0.15 .45 0.76 1.00 .... .... .... .... ....
wf 2AX 1728
da'
Zh(10.38 5.00 13.40 .... .... 0.01 0.08 .23 0.40 .52 21.78 125.3 0.06 1.86 4.21 2.10 .13
1
L:
9.0 16.0 18.5 18.5 31.2 5.1 27.5 41.0 35.4 17.0
8.0 21.25 32.0 39.25 44.5 44.0 38.25 27.75 16.0 5.0
0.33 4.17 I0.90 16.50 35.80 5.7 23.3 18.3 5,24 ,25
88.7 76.2 58.9 40.4 15.6 2.8 18.0 52.0 88.0 116.0
wf2Ax 1728 per Summary: (Cmce) f (c) = 0. 00558 deg based on S w= 172.3 sq ft
dfl da,
= 174.22
(c)
Nacelles
E
x1 Cn 0.75 0.69 .59 0.44 .18
da
Wn2AX Segment
=
Ax,
in.
wn
Wn2
1728
x 1,
in.
d_
(fig. 4.8.11) 1.25 1.27 l, 32 i. 38 3.65
1
L
7 3 i0 i0 23
2 3 4 5=n
= 82.53
172.3
(d)
Summary
(Crnce)f(e)+n(e)
= (Crnoe)f(_)
(Cma)n(e)
= 0.0109
per
deg
82
H646
[i
@ "F_
@ _
,2+_g
Z 0
4 N
r) u
__
_ ti
o
0
_q <
,_
I
d
I
_,_
,. ,
r,..)
t_ _'_ LO _._ I__ _ a_ _ I I t I
Ol
V.)
Y_
0 I r._ I0
Y_
I
YY
I
_
I
I ,
I I1
% 2:
o
!
_ I_ II
_,
@ 2: r_
_'_''0''_ I
I_
ao
H646
83
direct
(CLa)w 08 O.
Xl
versus
S_1 _
da
1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 XI Cw
.4
.8
1.2 Xl Cw
4.8.11. Variation of the wing upwash the leading edge of the wing. For use (ref. 13).
derivative with position along the body in determining T_free moments ty of the
84
H646
.I
1(3
I
EP
0
Z 0 _
_0
_ _
E c._
H646
85
.2
(Cmwfn).tO_w
oor
D '"
.2
Z
8 a, deg
12
16
20
.2
(Cmwfn),
lO_w
O
Figure with
4, 8, 32. windtunnel
tailoff
pitchingmoment
characteristics
86
ti646
4.9
Downwash
and
Dynamic
Pressure
at the
Horizontal
Tail
The methods presented for predicting the subsonic downwash and dynamic pressure in the region of the tail plane for preliminary design purposes were developed for the linear lift region for sweptand unsweptwing airplanes. Their use in the nonlinear region below stall, however, provides reasonable approximations. The total downwash picture is complex, as the following discussion illustrates. A limitation of the method for downwash determination is its neglect of the interference from fuselage and nacelles. Also neglected is the small effect of the tail itself on the flow ahead of it. For conventional configurations of general aviation aircraft, and propelleroff conditions at least, the interference effects do not appear to be significant. 4.9.1 Downwash
The downwash behind a wing at subsonic flow conditions is the result of the wing' s vortex system. A vortex sheet, shed by the lifting wing as in figure 4.9.11, is deflected downwind by the bound (lifting) and trailing (tip) vortices. The curvature of the vortex sheet is relatively small in the plane of symmetry for straight wings with reasonably large aspect ratios. Wings with large trailingedge sweepback produce a vortex sheet that is bowed upward in the plane of symmetry. The vortex sheet does not extend unaltered indefinitely downstream but, as it is displaced vertically, distends rapidly and rolls up like a volute about the tipvortex cores. The tip vortexes have a relatively small vertical displacement from freestream direction as they tend to move inboard. When all the vorticity is transferred from the sheet to the tip vortexes, the vortex system is considered to be rolled up. Rational tailplane design depends on a knowledge of the velocity and direction of the airflow in the region behind the wing. The shape of the vortex sheet significantly influences the downwash experienced by the tail in the flow field of the wing. For a complete rollup the spanwise downwash distribution is dependent upon the spanwise lift distribution of the wing. When the rollup is complete, however, the downwash angles for all wings of equal lift and equal effective span at the tail are identical. Since the tip vortexes are somewhat above the vortex sheet, the downwash above the sheet is somewhat greater than the downwash below the sheet. The tip vortexes originate at the wing tips at angles of attack for which the flow is unseparated. Certain thin, highly swept wings have a significantly different flow pattern in the higher angleofattack range. These wings are characterized by a leadingedge separation vortex that lies above the surface of the wing. From its inception near the plane of symmetry, it moves outboard in the approximate direction of the wing leading edge and is finally shed in a streamwise direction near the wing tip. For wings stalled at the tip a characteristic of highly tapered, untwisted, straight wings and highly swept wingsthe downwash in the region of the tail will be greater for a stalled wing than for an unstalled wing for a given lift coefficient. Wings with low taper ratio, or with washout, stall first at the center, and the wake does not c leave the wing at the trailing edge but at a point _ sin a above the trailing edge. In general, H646 when the wing stalls at the center, the center of the wake moves upward and 87
the vortexes rolling off the edge of the stalled portion reduce the downwash. Several methods are available for predicting downwashat subsonic conditions. Reference 14 considers wings with zero sweep of the quarterchord line and presents design charts for various taper ratios and aspect ratios for incompressible flow conditions. The design charts are for flapped as well as unflapped configurations and include load distribution, downwashdisplacement, and downwashangles. Reference 15 considers unflapped swept wings and compressible flow conditions. Reference 16 uses graphical procedures and considers unflappedwings of various sweepsat compressible flow conditions. Because of its relative simplicity andversatility, the method of reference 16 (also considered in ref. 1) is presented and applied to the subject airplane. The method of reference 16 is for configurations in which the tail span is less than twothirds of the wing span. The basic approach of the method is to: (1) Determine the downwashin the plane of symmetry at the height of the tip vortexes at the longitudinal station of the horizontal tail mean aerodynamic chord quarter chord. (2) Correct this value for tail height above the vortexes. (3) Evaluate the effect of tail span by relating the average downwashat the tail to the downwashdetermined from step 2. Details of the development of the method are included in reference 16. It should be noted, however, that the method assumes the vortexes to be essentially rolled up at the longitudinaltail station. Thus it is fortunate that the vortexes roll up in a shorter distance as the angle of attack increases, becausedownwasheffects become increasingly important at the higher angles of attack. The procedural steps in applying the method are as follows (pertinent dimensions defined in fig. 4.9.11): Aweff bweff (1) The effective aspect ratio, Aw , and effective span ratio, bw , are determined from figure 4.9.12 as functions of wing angleofattack ratio,
_w%
, taper O_Lma (2) symmetry of tail and x  % The lowspeed downwash gradient, core ratio, \0o_ , in the /Vlow speed figure 4.9.13 sweep, as a function (Ac/4) w, from plane of ratio, k w, and sweep of the quarter chord, (Ac/4) w.
at the height of the vortex 2l_____2 length bw , effective aspect gradient at infinity
quarterchord
downwash
obtained
_c OoL
_2(57_.3 7rAw
(CLo_) w
(4.9.11)
88
H646
where (CL0w
and quarterchord
is in degrees.
_E
At the
wing
trailing
edge,
0"_ = 1.
(3) The vertical position, a, of the horizontaltail quarterchord the vortex core depends upon the type of wing separation as determined ure 4.9.14 as a function of leadingedgesharpness parameter, Ay sweep, (Ac/4) w" For trailingedge separation,
to 4.1),
a = z h  /eft (___.. 3 where chord the /eff of is the bweff angle distance quarter wing. in the
bweff 2 from
tan
(4.9.12) quarter F is
wingchord of the
the vortex
to the
chord For
aerodynamic
dihedral
of the
leadingedge
separation, 0.41CLw_
_
a: 4
where the 13 is the edge span, distance of the from wing root the
(z2+z3 w3
leading edge and l2
Weft wing
of the
is as defined longitudinal
in figure location
bvo r,
of the
at the
of the
(bweffrolled
bru)tb_ur up vortexes,
(4.9.14)
bru and
= [0.78
+ 0.10(A m  0.4)
+ 0. 003( Ac/4)w]
bweff
(4.9.15)
(4.9.16)
speed
Iv_vc
I low speed
c0 ,,o
\0_/low speed
(4.9.17)
H646
89
is obtained
from
figure
4.9.15
(ref.
17) as a function
of
conditions, of reference
an adjustment 1, by
to
(4.9.18) _oz / M Figure 4.9.16, determined downwash index for the accuracy \_o_ /low speed (CLo_)wlo w speed and experimentally provides a qualitative conditions.
from reference 16, compares variation with a for several of the prediction procedure
Figure 4.9.17 shows the calculated downwash characteristics for the subject airplane. No test data were available for comparison. However, on the basis of the correlation of calculated and experimentally determined propelleroff pitchingmoment characteristics presented in section 4.11, the calculated downwash characteristics appear to be accurate. Tables 4.9.11 and 4.9.12 list the pertinent parameters and summary calculations, respectively, for the subject airplane. 4.9.2 DynamicPressure Ratio
A horizontal taft operating in the wake of a wing experiences a loss in effectiveness due to the decrease in dynamic pressure in the wake. This decrease is caused by the loss in flow energy in the form of friction and separation drag of the wing; the greater the drag, the greater the pressure loss. The wake, usually thin and intense near the trailing edge, spreads and decays with increasing downstream distance from the trailing edge in a manner such that the integrated momentum across the wake is constant and not a function of longitudinal distance. The centerline of the wake coincides with the centerline of the trailing vortex sheet. The wake occurs in all speed regions. A basic method for predicting the dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail in the linear lift range up to a Mach number of approximately 0.65 is given in reference 14. This method, which was applied to the subject airplane, neglects fuselage interference effects and was developed on the basis of wings with zero sweep of the quarter chord. Reference 18 extends the application of the method to nonlinear conditions approaching stall. A modification of the basic method, to account for fuselage interference and wing sweep, is presented in reference 19. The procedures of the basic method are considered at this time. On the basis of reference trailing 4.9.21) 14, the halfwidth of the wake, AZwak e, at distance x
meanaerodynamicchord
x_ _ + N/ "Cw
H646
9O
where, in accordance with references 14 and 1, CDf, is the wing zerolift drag coefficient. Curves of this equationare shownin figure 4.9.22 for different values of CDf. The maximum loss of dynamic pressure in the wake at the tail which occurs at the wake centerline is obtained from
1/2 __I = 2.42 CDf _x (4.9.22)
q_o
or its graphical representation, loss figure at any 4.9.23. point
_w+.3
The centerline
in the
wake
normal
to and
from
the
wake
__ ()()  _
q_ h
or the its graphical representation, loss distance, figure is zero. z_, is given
q_o
cos2 _ _Zwa k
U
(4.9.23)
is greater than 1,
4.9.24.
When
Zh AZwake
by the
equation
l/
z h=xtan where ch is the downwash in the plane 1.62 c h = 57.3 and where The 7 is defined pressure in figure is then CLw =
(7+
eh
(4.9.24)
_A w 4.9.21.
in degrees
(4.9.25)
dynamic
determined
to be
(4.9.26) h Although the preceding below the stall, reference the stall if the profile drag relations 18 indicates coefficient were developed from results obtained at lifts that they apply with reasonable accuracy above of the stalled wing is known.
H646
91
The accuracy of the procedure, developedon the basis of unswept wings, may be estimated from table 4.9.21 (from ref. 1) which includes swept as well as unswept configurations. The table compares calculated dynamicpressure ratios with the lowspeedmodel test data of references 20 and 21. The foregoing procedures for determining the dynamicpressure ratios at the horizontal tail were applied to the subject airplane. Basic pertinent parameters and a summary of the calculations are listed in table 4.9.22. The results indicated that the horizontal tail is outside the wake and thus the dynamicpressure loss is zero in the linear and incipient stall region. At full stall, in the absenceof an applicable profiledrag coefficient, the dynamicpressure ratio was assumed to be equal to 1.00, although a more realistic value would probably have been closer to 0.80. The results are included in figure 4.9.17. Although not used, a modification of the preceding method which considers wing sweep and combined wingbody profile drag was given in reference 19. The procedure is in the form of a nomograph (fig. 4.9.25). The accuracy of the method may be estimated from figure 4.9.26 (from ref. 19)which uses data from references 21 to 26.
4.9.3
A w
Symbols wing aspect ratio aspect position relative ratio of the wing (from fig. 4.9.12)
Aweff
a
(fig.
quarterchord 4.9.11),
in.
bh bru bvor
completely
up tip vortexes,
ft
span of the tip vortexes at the longitudinal location of the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord (fig. 4.9.11), ft wing span, ft span of the wing zerolift (from fig. 4.9.12), coefficient, ft respectively
b w
drag
liftcurve
per
deg unaccounted
92
H646
mean
ft of the wing, to the plane, of the ft Xbody from bweff mean axis, the to the aerodynamic tip deg
_w
iw /eft
mean
lru
rollup
of the
wing
12
length in the wing rootchord plane from the rootchord trailing edge to the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord (fig. 4.9.11), ft of the wing mean edge of the wing aeroroot
13
distance from the leading edge dynamic chord to the trailing chord, ft Mach number dynamic horizontaltail pressure,
freestream
_o
lb/sq
ft dynamic pressure
_h
ratio
of the
to freestream
dynamicpressure q_ dynamicpressure
loss
at the horizontal
tail
as a ratio
of
loss
at the
wake
centerline
as a ratio
of
Sw
wing
area,
V
X
airspeed,
distance, parallel to the centerline the trailing edge of the wing root chord of the horizontaltail mean (fig. 4.9.21), ft leadingedgesharpness parameter
Ay
!
zh
vertical distance from the rootchord plane of the to the quarterchord point of the horizontaltail aerodynamic chord (fig. 4.9.11), ft
wing mean
H646
93
t/
zh
vertical distance from quarter chord of the chord (fig. 4.9.21) halfwidth of the wake root chord
of the mean
AZwake
from ft
trailing
edge
of the wing
Ol
deg relative of the to the wing, Xbody axis, to the deg chord, at
ab _C Lmax
relative
CLmax wing zerolift angle of attack relative relative to the to the wing wing chord, chord, deg a b + i w,
Ol o
Ol w
(aW)ab y
angle
of attack
of the
wing,
aw
 so
angle between the wing chord pIane the trailing edge of the wing root chord of the horizontaltail mean (fig. 4.9.21), deg plane deg of symmetry deg
and the line connecting chord and the quarter aerodynamic chord
downwash,
eh
at the
vortex
sheet
_h OCvc Oa
across
the
horizontal
tail,
deg
rate of change of downwash, in the plane the height of the vortex core, with the of attack downwash gradient at infinity
_EQO
_o_
Oa/low
speed'\
Oz /M
average downwash gradient tail with compressibility for, respectively wing sweep taper ratio wing wing leading
of the of the
edge,
sweep
quarterchord
94
H646
wing
dihedral
angle,
deg
H646
95
4.9.11 AT
Reference Table Table Table chord lengths Table Table Table Table 4.21 4.21 3.21 4.11 3.21 3.21 321 3.21 draw
Magnitude 2 15.4 2.5 .0316c 513 7.5 36.0 5.0 2.5 8.68 6.33
Wing angle of attack at maximum chord, deg Wing sweep along c/4 line, deg Wing Wing Wing Wing _ng leadingedgesharpness taper ratio aspect span, d_edral, ratio ft dog
lift coefficient,
hy
Aw
parameter,
bw
v
P
Table
zh l2 l3
I Perpendicular distance from wingchord plane to c/4 of horizontal tail, ft Tail length in wing rootchord plane from _tngroot trailing edge to 5/4 of horizontal tall, ft Distance from leadingedge wing mean aerodynamic chord trailing edge of wing root chord, ft; used only if flow separation is at leading edge {fig. 4.9.14) Ratio of effective to geometric aspect ratio
to
Aweff
1.00
bWeff bw /eft Ratio Tail of effective length to to geometric plane wing from tail, span vortex ft; function tip of of e/4 bwe ff of Figure 4.9.12 Scaled from drawings Table 4.2I 1.00 14.18
0.0759 369
Downwash
gradient
at infinity
= 114"6(C _
L )w
Equation
(4.9.11)
482 .472
(yvc
\as
bru
/low
speed
gradient core
in plane
of symmetry
at height
of
/ru
rolled up wingtip vortexes, w  0.4) + 0. O03(Ac/4)w] Deft , ft for complete rollup of'wingtip vortexes 0.56Aw CI__ _W
0.7836bwef 4.20/CL w
bvor
Span
of vortexes
at longitudinal  ( b w eff
horizontal .u
[36 b_ ](0:,_1/2:
Vertical core, separation distance I from [O_v
ft
bru_/2_'ff /\bwlru]
Zh teffk573is at trailing
to vortex P if
Equation
(4.9.
i2)
Variable
a_h
0_ 0evc .0_ low speed Ratio of average downwash acting height, downwash at vortexcore on horizont_tail f 2a "n (_or' _or) to Figure 4.9.15 Variable
gg]M
Downwash
gradient
at horizontal
tail
at Mach
number,
Equation
(4.9.18)
_41o
speed
at Mach
_'low
speedL(_TL_Jlow
speed
windtunnel number
96
H646
_._
,6
@ ,,'=
@
_o
d e,i # d
,_
_._.
@ @
# s_ .....
. _. _ "..
r_
"_
o
@
.....
i
!
0 [,
g
o;
[, Z i O
t. t.
,6 .,,.2._
,6444#
4_
II
..]B
< < 0 Z O
5
< I
@ _ _
$ ,:; .....
_] io
I
..... .....
__
,d
_,_
i
,,_
_
ii'"
_,,_
_s_ .4x_44x
_=
_I=
,....
2s
H 64 6 97
LE
4.9.2
i DYNAMICPRESSURE (FROM REF. i) 14] Percent alculated 0.88 .89 0. 92 .95 .98 1.9 0.88 .89 .93 .97 .99 1.0 1.0 .98 .91 0.88 .89 .92 .95 .98 1.0 0.88 .89 .92 .96 .99 1.0 1.0 .996 .94 .88 0.89 .895 .91 .93 .96 .99 1.0 0.92 .93 96 .99 1.0 0.85 .86 .89 .93 .96 1.0 0.90 .92 0.94 .95 ,96 .96 0.87 .89 .92 .93 .95 .97 0.97 .96 .93 0.96 .96 .95 ,95 ,94 .98 0.95 .94 .94 .94 ,94 .96 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.95 .95 .95 .94 .94 .97 1.0 0.92 .93 .95 .97 .99 .... .... .... O. 86 .88 .92 est 2.2 3.3 2.1 0 2.1 4.2 I.i 0 1.1 4.3 4.2 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.2 8.3 7.3 3.2 0 4.3 2.0 7.4 5.3 2.1 2.1 5.3 4.2 1.0 2.4 7.8 13.0 6.3 5.8 4.2 1.1 2.1 4.1 O 0 0 1.1 2.1 1.0 error RATIOS AT
TESTDETERMINED TAIL
IIORIZONTAL based
of reference
Source
Aw
(Ale)w,
deg
_,v
x Cw
Reference
20
I. 0
0 1 2 3 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 6 6 8 10 0 I 2 3 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 6 6 8 i0 12 O I 2 3 4 6 8 0 I 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 6
Figure
27
...........
Figure
12
i. 0
Figure
12
1.0
0.28
Figure
30
4.5
30
1.0
Figure
15
5.2
30
1.0
Figure
15
5.2
30
1.0
0.28
Figure
36
1.5
60
1.0
Figure
24
60
1.0
Reference
21
3.5
47.5
0.5
1.213
98
H646
TABLE DYNAMICPRESSURE RATIO AT THE (a) Symbol Description Wing angle of attack relative to chord line
ItORIZONTAL parameters
Pertinent
Magnitude abe 15 2
%,
Y cw Aw x CDf
Angle between wing chord plane edge of wing root chord and Wing mean aerod3mamic chord, Wing Distance aspect from ratio trailing edge
of _lng
root
chord
to
5/4
of Section 4.12
horizontal tail measured along centerline Wing zerolift drag coefficient of total wing dure of table 4.121 Downwash 1.62 57.3in plane C Lw from o_w + vortex eh), ft _ _/CDf(X/Cw sheet to _/4 of symmetry at vortex
0097
eh
sheet
Equation
(4.9.25)
3.94
CI% "
z zz h
Vertical tail=xtan(Y
_rA w distance
of horizontal
Equation
(4.9.24)
8.68 ,458
tan
[15
 (%;
c)]
&Zwak
Halfwidth
of wake
= 0.68
+ 0.15), 2.42
Equation (4.9.21) (fig. 4.9.22) Equation (fig. Equation (4.9.22) 4.9.23) (4.9.23)
.116 It
Dynamicpressure
loss
at wake
centerline
= X/Sw
l_,namtcpressureloss
at horizontal
tail
oo52 116 I. )
Variable
cos_ _ra_d
qh Equation q_o Dynamicpressure ratio at horizontal tail = 1 q_ (4.9.26)
(b)
Summary
calculations
0)
c_b, to relative Xaxis, deg 4 0 4 8 10 12 13.4
@
Figure c%, = ab+2' deg 2 2 6 10 12 14 15.4
@
4.21, ft 2 S w = 172.3 CLw
Y  _v + eh
(9
zff
z;
AZwakc
15Qg+@,
17.0 14.18 11.38 8.58 7.18 5.69 4.45
_an 8.G8@_/o.458
0.3057 .2527 .2013 .1509 .1260 .0996 .0778 2.65 2.19 1.75 1.31 1.09 0.86 .68 5.78 4.78 3.8l 2.85 2.38 1.88 1.47
q_=0.116 =1 @
greater is than outside 1. O, of the taft
q.
H646
99
i / / / /
O
__/ /
/ ,p,i
100
H646
...... :l
.......
Z
l
=_
....
t
.4 .6
.......
.8 i.0
7
.4
_7
.6
' lf
8 1. 0
, = 
,i
N% ....
1.0 ........
Awo.ff i
Aw
aeLma x  %
__
_.
Neff 8:_
/.
//
/ .....

__o .__/r /
. _ _'
7_.o
Figure
4.9.12.
Effective
wing
aspect
ratio
and
span
for low
speeds
(from
ref.
19).
H646
101
o
,""4
oo
0 > o ,=
i
B
m 0
0 %
g_
102
H646
..__"_
..\_,._
I
I0
I
20
I
30
I
40
I
50 6O
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
.4
.8 bh bvor
1.2
1.6
Figure H646
4.9.15.
Average
downwash
acting
on aft lifting
surface
for low
speeds
(ref.
17). 103
/kVl
t_
P
.
.O.I_ b_ 7
z_
tt_clA_w"
.0.6,0 Xw bt_ . O._Z
hw
.5.Z6_N
p
zh
. O. ,O_" b
bh
.0._0
"._. 1
t
_,
deg
I
_h %0 .98 0 2 1.00
I \
J qh
8
I
I
4
l
6 10
[
12
I
14
I
16
I
2
I
0
I
2
1
4
%, deg i I
6 %, deg 8
[
10
i
12
I
14
Figure tail
downwash
and
dynamicpressure
ratio
at the
horizontal
_" of horizontal
tail
V_ Wingroot chord
rY
Free stream
_Wake limits Jr._Centerline _vortex _Wingchord Figure H646 4.9.21. Relative positions of horizontal tail, wing wake, plane and wingchord plane. 105 of wake and sheet
.9 .8
L
.7
.7
CDf
cD,
,6 .....
Cw
.2 .1
1 / 0 .8
X
p
1.6 chord
2.4
3.2
4.0
.8 x
CW'
1.6 chord
2.4
3.2
4.0
lengths
CW
between trailing
distance _z_q\'\]<)
2.42 CDfl/2
0.68
Df
+ 0.1
+ 0.03
1.0
__
_/(_
.5
0 7 1.0
_/ _Z
_ q __x,,
.5 1.0
.5
4"
Z_Zwake Figure 4.9.24. Variation of dynamicpressure loss across the wake (ref. 14).
z_
= cos2 (2 AZEke)"
106
H646
Aw tan
16 14
12 I0
%, deg
16
+p y  aw +e h 14 12 I0 8 6 4
Nomograph of reference
tail
H646
107
1.0
.9
.8 1.0
zh  0
bw
 0.50
_h
_ qoo .8 Reference 21)
......  i_,,_._M
I 0. II
1.0
_h
.9
(Ac/4)w ;_w
 0.50  0.342
Reference 24 .8
42.05
Reference 25 .8
I
_ .
M  O. 14
I z_ :,.0,?';"e'w Aw 0 b_,
[2 1.18 _w 0.62
bw
 0.25
1.0 .9 .8
I
....
A w  3.5
bw
(A1. e)w bh
42'.5 0.50
L
Reference 21 M  0. 07 z_ 0. 14
0.375
1.0
qh
.9
.8 0
A w  3.94
bw
Re,erence26 12 L__ _I 4 8
aw, deg
o.21 b,, bw
ratios,
using
the
nomograph
108
HG46
Lift
of the
Complete
Airplane
tail
of the
airplane
C L = CLwfn wh e re CL)wf CLh(hf) interactions, n is the tailoff is the wing lift lift
+ CLh(hf ) + (ACL)h(fv)
(4.10i)
coefficient of the
considered horizontal
4.4
(4.41) tailfuselage
contribution and
downwash, effect
dynamicpressure vortexes
is the
of fuselage
The maximum or stall lift coefficient of the lage is determined in a manner synonymous maximum lift considered in section 4.4. The lift contribution, CLh(hf), of the
of the fusewingfuselage
horizontal
tail
in the
presence
of the
fuselage,
due to angle of attack at the tail, is given by equation (4.102) from reference 11. This equation, as noted in section 4.4, accounts for bodyinterference effects on the lifting surface and lift carryover from the lifting surface onto the fuselage. It should be noted that in the derivation of the equation, reference 11 considered a midwing configuration on a cylindrical body. The horizontaltail and fuselage configuration of the subject airplane does not represent this idealized condition. The tail is near the top surface and at the end of the fuselage; also, there is an air gap between the tail surface and the body. Thus the application of the equation represents an approximation, and the amount of lift carryover from the tail to the fuselage may be questioned. The magnitude of this carryover would be of more concern in considering tail contributions to pitching moments than to lift. On the basis of the principles of reference 11,
(4.102)
whe re
is the ratio
slope
of the
exposed
of the to the
tail local
(section angle
4.2) of attack,
is the
on the alone,
horizontal obtained
presence
of the body
to tail
figure
4.41 109
taillift figure
onto the
body
to tail
alone
due
to local
to tail
downwash
dynamicpressure
tail
parameters in table
and
summary
calculations
for
CLh(hf)
4.101(a).
The effect of body vortexes on the lift of the horizontal tail can be considered negligible when the tail span is greater than three times the body diameter at the This ratio is exceeded in general aviation aircraft; therefore, the effect of body vortexes is neglected. The maximum and used wing the corresponding liftcoefficientof the tailin the presence angle of attack, ( _c_CLma x ) (4.44))to , are the of the fuselage, determined stall by the
tail.
h(hf)'
h(hf) obtain
characteristics
and
calculations listed
for
( CLmax 4.101(b).
) h(hf)
and
in table
At airplane stalled conditions, the lift contribution of the tail is dependent upon its position relative to the wing wake. The wake of the stalled wing can be considered, in accordance with reference 1, to be bounded by the lines emanating from the leading and trailing edges of the wing parallel to the freestream direction. For tails outside the wake _ D_h ac_ and }h can be assumed to be equal to zero.
For tails inside the wake, reference 1 recommends that the lift contribution of the tail be assumed to be equal to zero at airplane stall. This does not appear to be a realistic assumption because it implies complete loss of pitch effectiveness of the tail, which is in contradiction with the statement on downwash in section 4.9. I at stall: "For wings stalled at the tip.., the downwash in the region of the tail will be greater for a stalled wing than for an unstalled wing for a given lift coefficient .... when the wing stalls at the center, the center of the wake moves upward and the vortexes rolling off the edge of the stalled portion reduce the downwash. " In the absence of specific quantitative procedures to estimate the downwash at the tail at stall conditions, when the tail is inside the wake, the downwash as determined from figure 4.9.17 was assumed, as a first approximation, to be fully effective up to stall. 110 H646
The summary calculations for the lift of the subject airplane are presented in tables 4.101 and4.102. The resulting lift curve is compared with windtunnel data in figure 4.101. The shape of the curve from the limit of Iinearity to the stall was obtained in the same manner as for wings alone (section 4.2).
alone As a matter of interest, a buildup of calculated to the complete airplane, is shown in figure lift characteristics, 4.102. from wing
4.10. I Symbols Ah bh CL CLh_ horizontaltail horizontaltail lift lift coefficient coefficient of the horizontal tail with tailfuselage interaction effects included, referred to the wing area and freestream dynamic pressure unless noted otherwise lift coefficient lift coefficient of the isolated area and a dynamicpressure value lift of CLh(hf) of the referred horizontal to the tail wing due area to the and effect horizontal ratio of 1 tail referred to aspect span, ratio ft
CLwfn (CLmax)h
tailoff
C Lmax) (ACL)h(fv)
coefficient
of fuselage vortexes, dynamic pressure tailoff liftcurve taperratio fuselage liftcurve slope slope, of the
freestream
C L a)wf n (ACLa)h c2 e
per
tail, equal
ih
incidence
Kh(0
Kf(h) qh' q_o
in the
presence
taillift
carryover
onto
the tail
to the free
tail
alone
stream,
Sh Sh e H646
horizontal exposed
horizontaltail
panels,
sq ft 111
Sw
wing
area,
sq ft angle of attack isolated horizontal relative to the tail, Xbody deg of the fuselage, axis, deg
0%
of the of the
( _C Lmax)
h stall angle deg horizontaItail horizontaltail liftcurve elevator average downwash sweep presence
( CLm x)h(hf
c_h , c_h
angle
of attack,
ab + ih at the limit
_h'
of linearity
6 e
present tail,
analysis, deg
deg
_h
D_h _c_
of the
Xh
horizontaltail
112
H646
Kh(f) Kf(h)
Ratio Ratio
of lift
on tail
in presence on
of fuselage fuselage
alone
Fi}ur e 4.41
Figure 4.4I deg Table 4.2I Table ._. 2I Table 3.21 4.9.11
of taiIlift slope
e
Sh e Sw
Liftcurve Area
horizontaltail panels,
panes, sq ft
per
of exposed wing
Reference
Dynamicpressure
at the horizontal
tail
Figure
Summary:
CLh(hf)
= 0.01406(_
b
}h) onbasis
of
Sw=
172.3
sq ft
up to
a_
= 10.6
(b)
Maximum
lift
and
stall
angle
of horizontal
tail
(CLmax)h(hf)
= (CLmax)h
F(CLmax)h(hnl
/_
[(n_CLmax)h(
hf)l
L(CLma)h
S_mboI (A/e)h Ah kh (dr) h bh (CLmax)h Horizontaltail Itorizontaltail Horizontaltail Ratio of body leadingedge aspect taper width ratio ratio to tail span lift at the coefficient
(_CLmax)h(n0 = k_ama_)hL(_Camax) h
Reference Table Table Table tail (based on Table Table Table 3.21 3.21 3.21 4.10l(a) 4.21 4.21 Magnitude 12.0 4.8 515 .10 935 14.45
deg
e2 (c 2
factor
Figure
4.42
1.06 2.10
+ 1)A h tan
(A/e) h
(CLmax)h(hO
(CLma )h
Figure
4.43
99
Figure
4.43
1.00
Summary:
(CLmax
h(h0 = 0.926based
on on
Sh= Sw
32.5 sq ft
=172.3
sq ft
H646
113
II 00
rj
tL
........ 0
I
It
6"
0 04 I
CXl
t_
r..q Z _q
0,1 I
It
II
@ 2
r_ 4
O0 oo.,.,.,_ I O0 0"1
#
r.q .< F_
o
IL II
@
:.) 0
"_"
._
lllllll' I 0 0
_(_)
_,
I ,.4 v
@a#
114
H646
1.4
f
f / /
/ 1.2 / /o I o
0 0 0
o CL
.2
4 0 4
I
8 C{b,deg
I
12
I
16
I
2O
4.101. 5 e = 0;
airplane
lift
curve
with
windtunnel
115
nacelles
.z
4 0
I
4 ab, deg
I
8
I
12
I
16
Figure
4.102. sqft.
Predicted
buildup
of the
lift
characteristics
of the
airplane.
6e
= 0o
Sw=178 116
H646
II
Pitching moments
Moments of the
of the
Complete airplane
Airplane (5 e = 0 ) are
(5 e = 0 ) determined equation: by
complete
previously
determined
information
in the
following
C m = Cmwfn whe re Cmwfn Cmh(hf ference The ) is the is the tailoff pitchingmoment
+ Cmh(hf )
(4.111)
coefficient tail
in section tailfuselage
4.8 inter
contribution
effects} pitching
to the
moments
from
= \6 w __ xcg
xE_/
CLh(hf)
(4.112)
centerofgravity
location
from
the
wing
leading
edge
c is the distance to the _ of the horizontal tailfrom the wing leading edge
_w
CLh(hf) is the liftof the tailin the presence of the fuselage, considered in section 4.10 airplane in table relative 4.111. data that in the versus it is by ab to in the
the
Summary calculations for the pitching moments of the subject center of gravity of the windtunnel data (0.10_ w) are presented pitchingmoment Although the calculated windtunnel Cm characteristics are compared correlation appears to be good, versus data. slightly pitch ab curve is slightly that the more calculated
corresponding
curve (fig. 4.8.32) had evident that the calculated the windttmnel data.
For the geometric fuselagetail that the lift carryover from the tail cause of its location on the fuselage between taillift suggested H646 the horizontal equation that (eq. Kf(h) tail and the (4.102))
configuration of the subject airplane to the fuselage may be insignificant (see section 4.10) but also because fuselage. have negligible This been for implies assumed tailfuselage that the Kf(h) to be equal
it appears_ not only beof the gap factor in the It is similar 117
should
to zero.
be considered
configurations
to that
of the
subject
aircraft. factor neglect affects 4.41 to the discrepancy between calculated of the thickness of the boundary layer the effective fuselage diameter used for use in taillift equation (4.102). is shown in figand windtunnel of the fuselage in obtaining the
Another contributing pitching moments is the at the tail. This neglect factor Kh(f) from figure
ure
of the
calculated
pitchingmoment
characteristics
4.1 I. 1 Symbols CL CLh(hf) lift lift coefficient coefficient of the horizontal tail with tailfuselage interaction effects included, referred to the wing area and freestream dynamic pressure lift liftcurve coefficient slope coefficient contribution CLh0af) coefficient chord, ft chord, carryover tail ft onto the fuselage of the to the fuselage tail alone to the to the pitchingmoment coefficient
maximum tailoff
Cmwf n
8
_W
aerodynamic
Kf(h) Kh(f)
on the
in the
presence
S w
sq ft
Xcg,Xh
distance, parallel to the Xbody axis, from the airplane center of gravity and quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord, respectively, to the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord, ft airplane stall elevator angle angle of attack deg equal to zero in the present analysis, deg relative to the Xbody axis, deg
ozb
of attack,
deflection,
118
H646
(a) Contribution
Cmh(hf)
:pg
VSw wing leading
__w
CLh(hf)
Symbol
Description Airplane mean Distance Wing centerofgravity location aerodynamic chord to _/4 of the horizontal mean aerodynamic chord, ff from tail edge/wing edge, ft Windtunnel Figures
x_g
cw xh
_W
from
wing
leading
Table 3.2i
.....................
xh
CW
C Lh(hf)
Lift
coefficient
of horizontal
tail
on
basis
of
S w = 172.3
sq
ft
Figure
4.101
Variable
Summary:
Cmh0af}
= 2.
924 CLh(hf)
on basis
of
S w = 172.3
sq ft
(b)
Summary
C m = Cmwf. n + Cmh0a0
On basis of Sw=
@
172.3 Cmwf table sqR
C m
ab,
deg
S w = 178 table
Cmh_0 2.924@ 0.1637 .1228 .0789 .0380 %0058 .0468 .0906 .1374 .1842 .2251
n,
Cm=
on
basis
of sq ft
4.102 0. 074 .099 .274 .447 622 .797 .972 1. 149 1.290 1. 355
4.8.31 0.0472 .0399 .0330 .0264 .0204 .0148 .0096 .0049 .0045 .0115
0.1165 .0829 .0459 .0116 .0262 .0616 .1002 .1423 .1887 .2366
Sw = 178
0.056 .042 .027 .013 .002 .016 .031 .047 .063 .077
0.1128 .0802 .0444 .0113 .0254 .0596 .097 .1377 .1827 .2290
alAmit of linearity (C L ) of (r_. 4.44). \ a 1wfn bst_dl ,ingle (table 4.42 or fig. 4.44).
H646
119
.2o 0 Cm /Analytical
o
o Windtunnel data
0
.4 Z
_____
0 4
_I
8 ob ' deg
I
12 _ aCLmax
I
16
I
20
.2 B
0
0
Cm
0 0 0
.2
.4
.2 0
I
.2
I
.4
I
.6 CL
I
.8
I
1.0
I
1.2
1
_1.4 CLma x
120
I
i
....
.2
Total airplane
0 Cm
.2
.....
.4
t
I
0 4 ab, deg
I
8
I
12
I
16
.2
0
Cm
j2
_
I
0 .2
I
.zl
I
.6 CL
I
.8
]
1.0
I
1.2
I
1.4
Predicted buildup of the pitchingmoment characteristics 5 e = 0; Sw = 178 sq ft; center of gravity = 0.10_ w.
H646
121
4.12 The (1) (2) (3) nacelles (4) (5) (6) (7) contributions Zerolift Zerolift Zerolift drag drag to the of the of the
of the of the
Complete
and vertical
interference
wingfuselage,
tailfuselage,
and
wing
Drag Drag
of the of the
wing
and
tail
at angle
of attack
fuselage
cooling at this
contributing
is considered
Tail
The zerolift or profile drag caused by the boundary trailing edge. For subsonic
drag is composed of a skinfriction drag and a pressure layer, which prevents full pressure recovery at the conditions the pressure drag is usually small.
The magnitude of the skinfriction drag, caused by shearing stresses within the boundary layer, depends upon the roughness of the surface and upon whether the flow in the boundary layer is laminar or turbulent. According to reference 1, transition from laminar to turbulent flow on a straight wing can be assumed to occur at a Reynolds number of approximately 1 million, based on the distance from the leading edge. Transition occurs at a lower Reynolds number on a swept wing. Thus, for all practical purposes, the boundary layer is considered to be turbulent for the subsonic conditions of general aviation airplanes. For subsonic conditions (M < 0.6), the profiIe drag coefficient of a Iifting may be accurately determined by using the following empirical equation (ref. on the lifting surface area under consideration: 4 surface 27) based
'_
_Sk where Cf a function 122 is the skinfriction coefficient NRe, of a fiat and the
drag
term
plate, parameter
obtained L k
from
figure
4.12.
I1
as
of Reynolds
number,
H646
is the
reference
length
in inches,
the
mean
aerodynamic
chord
of the
lifting
estimated
from
table
4.12.11
on the
basis
of
only the exposed panels of the lifting surfaces are considered in drag of the surfaces to avoid overlap with the fuselage surface
On the basis of equation (4.12.11) and the summary calculations of table 4.12.12, the contributions of the exposed panels of the wing, horizontal tail, and vertical tail of the subject airplane to the zerolift drag of the airplane were determined, based on a reference wing area of 172.3 square feet, to be as follows:
Wing
(o) w
tail tail
Sw e
Sw0
 0.00159
Horizontal
Sw
(4.12.12)
Vertical
Sve
(CDo)v and Nacelles =(CDo)v e Sw0.00077
4.12.2
ZeroLift
Drag of Fuselage
The zerolift drag of an isolated body may be estimated by using the following empirical equation from reference 1 based on axisymmetric bodies of revolution. It can be applied to nonbodyofrevolution configurations by treating the actual body as an equivalent body of revolution having an axially distributed circumferential area similar to that of the actual body. For subsonic conditions (M < 0.6), on the basis of the frontal area, SB,
(Co)
D B
CDf + CD b (4.12.21)
ssuredrag term
coefficient
of the
body
H646
123
Cf is the skinfriction coefficient of a flat plate, obtained from figure 4.12.11 as a function of Reynolds number, NRe, based on actual body length, 1B, and the parameter lB T where k is obtained from table having 4.12.11 a perimeter equal to the perimeter of the
diameter area
maximum
of an axisymmetric
body
having
a diameter,
d B,
surface of SB
area
of the body,
and
may
be approximated
from
fig
/db_3
=0
whe re db is the diameter of the equivalent circular perimeter of the base area
(4.12.22)
The preceding equations were applied to the estimation of the fuselage and nacelles of the subject airplane, as isolated bodies. culations in table 4.12.21 show, on the basis of a reference wing feet, the zerolift drags to be as follows:
of the calsquare
Fuselage
(Co)
D f (CDo)n
= 0.00780
(4.12.23)
per nacelle
Nacelles
= 0. 00374
4.12.3
ZeroLift
Interference
Drag of lt_ingFuselage,
TailFuselage,
and lFingNacelles
Zerolift interference drag of wingfuselage combinations is at a minimum and tends toward zero at low subsonic speeds when the wing is at the nose or tail of the fuselage. It is at a maximum when the wing is at approximately midlongitudinal position on the body. This is substantiated by limited lowspeed windtunnel data in reference 27. When these data were applied to the subject airplane, the wingfuselage zerolift interference drag was approximately 5 percent of the zerolift fuselage drag. A more uptodate and substantial lift interference drag for conventional provided by the use of the correlation the ratio of fuselage drag in the presence omitted. Thus the zerolift drag of the to wing area, is obtained from procedure to account for wingfuselage zeroorientation of a wing relative to a fuselage is factor, Rwf, from figure 4.12.31, which is of the fuselage wing to fuselage in the presence alone with base drag of the wing, relative
124
H646
SB
(4.12.31)
is the
ratio
of the
_4ngfuselage of Mach
to the number
zerolift number
drag, based
with on fuse
test
for several wingbody combinations. The data for all classes of composite planforms distinction was made in planform type. When the net the correction factor, I_,f, drag was
technique (table
was
applied
to the
subject
airplane,
zerolift
wingfuselage
4.12.31(a)) SB
(4.12.32) = 0. 01688 Zerolift interference drag of tailf_selage or tailtail j_mctures: The zerolift interference of tailfuselage or tailtail junctures may be estimated from empirical relations based on subsonic experimental data. When a tail panel intersects the fuselage, the subsonic interference drag at the junction of the two surfaces may be approximated by equation (4.12.33), which was formulated in reference 27 for the interference drag at the junction of a lifting surface (or strut) with a plane wall in turbulent flow conditions. On the basis of a reference wing area, S w, the increment of tail drag due to fuselage interference is approximately
= nl [0.8(t) whe re nI Cre t) is the is the is the the number root of junctures chord ratio tails of the of the tail exposed section the panel at
3  0. 0005]
cre2Sw
(4.12.33)
surface
with
the
fuselage
thickness vertical
of the intersect
When H646
horizontal
each corner of the intersection may be approximated from the following empirical equation from reference 27, based on the experimental data of intersecting streamlined struts: 2 "_ Cint2 n211 t 4 (ACDo)v(h)=2  7(C)intwhere n2 is the number of corners thickness (a cruciform ratio of the intersection intersecting would have four at the corners) interO.
05 t
(C)int j
Sw
(4.12.34)
is the
average
surfaces
is the
chord
at the
intersection
For the subject airplane, the horizontal and vertical tails intersect the fuselage in an area where the fuselage contour is changing. In the absence of pertinent information on the effects of surface contour, the zerolift interference drag due to the juncture of the tail surfaces with the fuselage was conservatively estimated on the basis of equation (4.12.33), the equation for the juncture of a lifting surface with a plane wall. On the basis of the summary calculations in table 4.12.31(b), the net zerolift verticaltailfuselage and horizontaltailfuselage interference drags are approximately
(CDoo) h =(CDo)
h + (ACDo)h(f)
= 0.00159 (4.12.35)
(CD)
v = (CD)v
+ (ACD)v(f)
= 0.00077
Zerolift interference drag of nacellewing combinations: drag of nacellewing combinations in which a relatively slender the wing was considered in reference 27. The study concluded drag of nacelles faired into the wing may be roughly accounted zerolift wing drag due to the wing area covered by the nacelle.
The zeroIift interference nacelIe is faired into that the interference for by the increment of Thus, for one nacelle
( Sw) n
(ACDo)n(w) where = (CDo) w Sw (4.12.36)
is the of the
of the area
exposed
wing
panels,
based
on equation
(4.12.1
reference
square
feet H646
(ASw) n is the wing area overlapped by one nacelle, square feet Whenapplied to the subject airplane, the summary calculations of table 4.12.31(c) show the net zerolift drag of the two nacelles to be, on the basis of the reference wing area, S w, (CDo)n(w) =
Summary: mating The zerolift components is (4.12.37)
2[(CDo)n
+(ACDo)n(w)]=
0. 00854
drag
of the
components
plus
the
interference
drags
be
tween
+(CDo)
h +(CDo)
v + (C_Do)n(w)
(4.12.38)
in table
4.12.31(d),
CDo = 0. 02778 based reference 4. 12.4 on a reference area (178 wing area of 172.3 windtunnel square data, feet. When this is converted
(4.12.39) to the
sq ft) of the
CDo = 0. 02681.
The drag due to lift of a wing is made up of the induced drag downwash and a viscous drag caused primarily by the uppersurface which increases in thickness as the angle of attack increases. On the conventionally basis of simple represented theory by the induced drag of a wing
at subsonic
conditions
is
CL 2 CDi 
7rAwe
(4.12.41)
where e is the Oswald spanefficiency factor which is equal to 1 for elliptic wings and can be calculated for wings having other shapes. The equation has limited utility. It provides reasonable values for straight wings below the angle of attack for maximum L . Above this angle, separation of flow at the trailing edge usually causes the drag to increase significantly above the theoretical value obtained from the equation. The equation becomes invalid for swept and lowaspectratio _ings because the shedding of the vortex inboard of the wing tips reduces the effective aspect ratio of the wing. Many attempts have been made to develop empirical methods for predicting the subsonic spanefficiency factor, e, over the parabolicinduceddrag region. Development of empirical relations for predicting viscous drag has been handicapped by lack of fullscale correlation data. Substantiation of proposed techniques for calculating H646 127
the drag due to lift has been hindered by the need to refer to smallscale windtunnel data. Several methods were considered for application to general aviation aircraft. These included the method of reference 29, which was refined in reference 28, and
method presented in reference 1. A spot check of the results of applying the two methods to the subject airplane and correlating them with the fullscale windtunnel data of the airplane indicated that the former method predicted wing drag which appeared to be excessive with increasing angle of attack. Predictions by the latter method, which is used in this report, appeared to be more reasonable. The from _C Di w where CL its is the lift coefficient area determined obtained from correction figure factor for the taper ratio of taper of the ratio, sur_w' of the lifting surface being considered and referenced to 2 Lw (1 + 5152) + k3A (4.12.42) drag of the untwisted wing (and horizontal Induced tail) due to lift can be determined a
Viscous
7rAw
own lifting 51
surface
face and
being aspect 52
4.12.41
as a function
correction figure
factor
for
the
sweep
angle of sweep
of the angle,
sur
face Ac/4,
being and k3
4.12.42
as a function
for the
viscous of
drag sweep
of the
as a function
A obtained and
increment of
considered, parameter J
a function
tan(o_abS)CLma
where
J = 0.3(c
1 + 1)7
cos
Ale
l
the
(c 1+
1)(c 2 + 1) 
[ c2+X tanAl }
7 figures 4.23 and 4.42, of table 4.12.41(a)
(4.12.43)
ratio
constants
c 1 and
c2
obtained
from
to the
subject
aircraft,
summary
calculations
128
H646
show
that
the
liftdrag
contributions
of the
wing
and horizontal
tail
can be represented
by
C Di ) w = 0.0432CL_
+A wonthe
basis
of
Sw=
172.3
sq ft (4.12.44)
(CDi)
Sh=32"5sqfth =0"0669CL_
+Ahnthebasisf
These drag
equations contributions
are in the
in tables
and of 4.12.7.
4.12.41(c) ab and
the
liftfeet
to be applied 4.12.5
Drag of Fuselage
and Nacelles
The drag of flow is potential done for the lift of a body due to
a body at angle of attack is related to its lift. By assuming that the over the forebody and is entirely viscous over the afterbody, as was of the body in section 4.3, the following equation for the subsonic drag angle of attack (in effect, due to lift) was arrived at in reference 10:
(CDi)B whe re oz is the angle line, radians SB feet VB is the volume is the
(4.12.51)
of attack
of the
equivalent
body
of revolution
relative
to its
zero
lift
maximum
crosssection
area
of the
equivalent
circular
body,
square
of the
equivalent factor,
cubic figure
(k2  kl)
is a reduced of drag
mass
from
coefficients
length
is a erossflow
drag
coefficient
of an infinite
length
cylinder,
obtained
from
figure 1B xo from
4.33 is the is the length location feet of the from body, the feet nose of the body where potential flow ceases, obtained
figure
4.34,
H646
129
is half feet
of the
projected
area
of the
equivalent
circular
body
from
Xo
to the
of equation
(4.12.51)
with
the
equation
for
the
lift
of a body
in section
4.3
(CDi)B where CLB is the lift of the of attack body per equation body,
= CLB_
(4.12.52)
(4.42)
c_ is the
angle
of the
radians
Because the subsonic drag of a body due to lift is simply a matter of multiplying its lift by the angle of attack, the drag due to lift of the fuselage and nacelles of the subject airplane, on the basis of the treatment of these components in section 4.3 for the lift of the components, is obtained from Fuselage
2'
Two nacelles
"_/ \
3) + CLn
ca o 57.3 (4.12.53)
where CLf CLn is the is the sum sum reference of columns of columns angle 3 and 5 and of attack 4 in table 6 in table relative 4.42 4.42 to the body axis naceIIes of wing area.
0% is the
Table 4.12.51 summarizes the the subject airplane due to lift. 4. 12. 6 WingFu selage In t erference
calculation of the drag of the fuselage and 2_ne calculations are based on a reference
Little appears to be known about wingfuselage interference drag at angle of attack. There is undoubtedly some increase in parasitic drag at the juncture of the lifting surface and the body. There is also some modification of the induced drag of the wing due to the upwash from the body acting on the wing. This upwash modifies the loading across the span and, for an elliptic wing, could increase the induced drag. For a rectangular wing, the resulting load across the span is made "more elliptic" (tending toward lift distribution of an elliptic wing) and could result in some decrease in induced drag. In the absence of applicable wingfuselage interference drag 130 representative data, no attempt is made to account for at angle of attack. However, it is believed that the H646
of the
subject
airplane
by less
than
The discussion of nacelle drag in the previous section did not take into account the effect of drag due to the cooling system, which could be a significant factor. An analytical treatment of cooling drag is beyond the scope of this paper because of the complexity and uncertainties in its determination. Some general considerations in its analytical determination may be obtained from reference 27. To account for the cooling drag in the predicted drag characteristics, which were to be compared with windtunnel data, consideration was given to the fact that the windtunnel tests of the subject airplane were conducted with the inlet and cooling flaps open and that unpublished, propelleroff, windtunnel data were available for the increment of drag due to the cooling system. These data, shown in figure 4.12.71, were used to account for the cooling drag. It should be noted that this cooling drag has a characteristic reversal in trends which would be difficult, if not impossible, to predict. The relatively sharp increase in cooling drag above an angle of attack of approximately 8.5 is particularly significant in providing improved correlation of predicted drag characteristics with windtunnel data at high angles of attack, as is shown in the next section. 4. 12.8 Summary Drag of the Complete Airplane
The net drag of the subject airplane is summarized in table 4.12.81 in the following format. The data for the contributing factors, with the exception of the cooling drag, were obtained from the tables noted above the individual terms. The cooling drag data were obtained from figure 4.12.71.
Table 4.12.31 4.12.41(b) 4.12.41(c) 4.12.51 4.12.5I
w + (CDi) h + (CDi)f
+ (CDi) n + (CD)cooling
system
(4.12.81)
result is for a reference wing area of 172.3 square feet. of the calculated drag with windtunnel data, the results wing area of 178 square feet in the last column of table
calculated drag characteristics with the cooling drag increments omitted and are compared with windtunnel data in figures 4.12.81(a), 4.12.81(b), and as functions of %, C L, and CL2 , respectively. Although the calculated omitted correlates well with the of 4 to 12 in figure 4.12.81(a) the addition of attack. of the cooling the drag windtunnel data (and a correspondincrement resulted o_ plot b
drag with cooling drag increments through the angleofattack range ing CL range in fig. 4.12.81(b)),
in excellent
correlation
up to 4 angle
Whereas
C D versus
at the
which
increase analytically.
in cooling
H646
131
The predicted buildup of the drag characteristics shownin figure 4.12.82 indicates that all contributing factors considered were important.
4.12.9 Symbols
The following list of symbols constitutes the basic symbols used. In several instances, such as in the equation in table 4.12.12, a subscript "i" is applied to parenthesized quantities, with an identifying notation on the left side of the equation (such as i = w, h, v), to signify that the equation applies to the surfaces thus identified. If the wing is being considered, i = w and all parenthesized quantities having an i subscript apply to the wing; for example, Sic = Sw e, the area of the exposed wing panel s.
A w
wing drag
aspect
ratio
CD CD b
coefficient coefficient referred to the maximum section) area of the body involved of the cooling system to the airplane frontal
base drag (cross system contribution coefficient skin friction maximum fuselage induced noted CDi (CDi)h' (CDi) n '
CD)cooling
drag
CDf
drag of the
to the
CDf)f CD i
referred
to the
wing
area
unless
C Di) B (CDi)f,
of the
or nacelle)
of the respectively,
fuselage, to CDi
horizontal
tail,
nacelles,
and
w
CD o
contribution
of the
fuselage referred
and
to
CDo) B
of a body
referenced
to the
frontal
(CDo)
f'(CDo)n
of the
isolated
fuselage
and to the
one wing
isolated area
nacelle,
respectively, CD o of the
(CDo)f(w)
accounted 132
CDo of (CDo)h'(CDO)w'(CDO)v the and vertical area CDo (CDO)he' (CDo)we' (CDo)ve of the
exposed tail,
panels
tail,
wing, wing
respectively,
to the
respective
exposed
panel
surface
areas
(C o),s
zerolift drag coefficient of the exposed panels of a lifting surface, referenced to the exposed panel area net contribution of the horizontal tail, nacelles, and vertical tail, respectively, to the zerolift drag coefficient with interference effects accounted for, referenced to the wing area
( )hv :
+( O)v
increment of the zerolift drag coefficient of the and vertical tail, respectively, due to fuselage ference, referenced to the wing area horizontal inter
: ('O)w +('o),(w)
ACD)
n(w)
increment of the zerolift due to wing interference, net zerolift drag of the wing coefficient
drag coefficient of one nacelle referenced to the wing area of the nacelles in the presence
expression referenced
(ACDo)h(f) area
or
increment of the zerolift drag coefficient of the vertical tail due to the horizontaltail interference when the vertical tail intersects the horizontal tail, referenced the wing area skinfriction face area, lift coefficient wise coefficient to the wing coefficient obtained referred of a flat plate, based from figure 4.12.11 to the wing area unless on a wet
to
Cf
sur
CL
noted
other
CL B
lift
of the area
body
(fuselage
or nacelle),
referenced
CLf,
CL n, CL w
lift
anJ
wing,
re_
....
r_
,ec
H646
133
CLh edc
Cint
lift
coefficient area
of the
horizontal
tail
referred
to the
tail
chord at the intersection when the horizontal vice versa, ft root chord secting
tail
Cr e
of the
tail
surface
inter
c I,c2
taper ratio correction factors, used in calculating parameter J, as obtained from figures 4.23 re spectiveIy diameter mum diameter area, of the equivalent frontal area of the of the ft factor used in the equivalent
dB
maxift base
db
induceddrag
the
Jh ' Jw
the parameter J applied to the horizontal tailand wing, respectively equivalent sand roughness in. apparent mass of a surface (table4.12.11),
k2  k 1 k3
lifttodrag ratio of the wing reference length, for liftingsurfaces, equal to the mean aerodynamic chord of the individual surface, for bodies, equal to the length of the body, in.
1B
reference length of the body (fuselage or nacelle), in. reference length of the fuselage, in.
If
134
H646
M NRe n1 n2
Mach
Reynolds number
number of corners in the juncture of the vertical tail with the horizontal tail (cruciform intersection would have four corners) ratio of the wingfuselage to fuselagealone with the base drag omitted radius maximum sq ft horizontal of the body, ft area of the body (fuselage or nacelle), zerolift drag
Rwf
SB
frontal
sh, Sw
She, Sw e , Sve
tail
and
wing
area,
respectively,
sq ft tail, wing,
surface area of the horizontal tail, respectively, sq ft area, sq ft by one ratio nacelle, sq ft
Swet
(ASw) n t
C
overlapped thickness
section
( t nt
VB
Xo
vertical
and
deg relative of attack of the to the relative fuselage zerolift to the and nacelle, line, Xbody deg axis, deg
Ohbs _b
angle airplane
af,%
respectively,
_hab s,
of the
horizontal
tail
and _ing,
of attack,
deg
horizontal
tail
viscous
drag
6 e
deflection,
deg
51,62
correction factor for the taper ratio and sweep angle of the quarterchord line, respectively, in calculating the induceddrag coefficient of the wing and horizontal tail net downwash at the drag horizontal tail of finite to infinite length
_h
ratio of the cylinders A c/4' Ale sweep of the respectively, taper ratio
coefficient
line
and
leading
edge,
Xw
136
H646
TABLE SURFACE
4.12.11 HEIGHT k
ROUGHNESS [ ref. 1]
Type
k,
in.
Aerodynamically smooth Polished metal or wood Natural sheet metal Smooth matte paint, carefully applied Standard camouflage paint, average application Camouflage paint, mass production spray Dip galvanized metal surface Natural surface of cast iron
HORIZONTAL
[1
(t_ + 120W/
i4]
Sie_w on basis _
of
Sw=172.3
sq
ft
Magnitude Symbol Description Reference Exposed wing panels in. Table Table 4.12.11 3.21 57.1 0.25 Exposed horizontal tail x 10 .3 smooth 31.2 matte Exposed vertical tail paint 39.2
ki li li
height,
2.28 ki NRe, i Reynolds = 1_(0"65 Cf i Skinfriction Thickness number at 63.4 mph, sea level Windtunnel condition Figure Table 4.12. 4.11 test 3.09
105 X 106
1,25 I. 69
105 106
1.57 2.12
X 105 106
106 ) coefficient ratio of surface of flat plate 11 3.65 .15 X 10 .3 4.08 .08 X 10 .3 3.9 .08 X 10 3
(t),
2(cf)i[
Si e (CDo) i
on basis
of
(4.12.11)
0.00993
0.00951
0.00909
of component
surof Sie ] Sw
148.0
28.73
14.6
on basis 2(Cf)[
referencewing
(CDo) w : .00853
(CDo)h .00159
(CDo) v = .00077
H646
137
S w = 172.3
+ CDb)i"
(Cf)i
+{'_3 [_]BB)i
\' B]iJ
OBi
0" 029_)
i #
(CDf)it_w
Magnitude Symbol De sc ription Reference Fus dB i SB i Diameter frontal Frontal vdBi2 4 l i db i Length of equivalent perimeter area, ft area of equivalent perimeter of maximum body, Airplane drawing 5.41 23.0 el age Nacelle 3.0 7.07 per nacelle
z4
[dB i db i dB i (Swet) i SB t (Swe t) i Ratio Wetted [(Swet)i SB i ki li Ratio ki (NRe)i Reynolds (NRe)i (Cf) i Skin number = (0.65 of at 63.4 mph (sea level); Windtunnel condition Figure 4.12.11 test in common units Surface of wetted surface 1 j SBi, sq ft (smooth matte finish) Table 4.12.11 surface area of area isolated to SBi body, Figure ............... 4.12.21
4.47
2.94
.15
.33
12.4 285
roughness
height
0.25
X 10 3 in.
10 3 x 106 x 106
friction
2.8xi0
3
3.3
10 3
(C Df)i (cf)i 1 +_
60
.+0.0025(_] B]i
(Swet)i SBi
Equation (4.12.21)
0.0584
0.0912 nacelle
per
"/db \
3 Equation (4.12.22) _0 _0
i _'  SBi
on basis sq ft
of
_Do)
f =
CDO)
00780 Sw = 172.3
138
H64 6
of wingfuselage
Symbol Zerolift Base ZeroliR drag M SB If Sw NRe Mach Frontal Length Reference Reynolds Wingbody drag drag
Description of isolated exposed wing panels Table Table fuselage with base Table
(CDo)w CD b
omitted number area of the wing number of fuselage, fuselage, area, = 0.65 ft sq ft x t06 If factor sq ft Windtunnel Table Figure Table 4.12.2t ,t. 35 3.21 test condition
Windtunnel Figure
1.57 1.07l
I0 7
_f
Summary:
interference
correlation
,t. 12.31
(C_o)
wf = 0. 01688
(b)
Net
zerolift
drag
of tail
surfaces
in presence
of fuselage
(_D_DO)h v : (CDDo)h Symbol Zerolift drag tail panels ZeroliR drag taft Number Thickness Root chord panel of junctures ratio of tail
+ (CDDo)v = (CDo)h
+ (ACDo)h(f)+
(CDo)v
+ (ACDo)v(f) Magnitude
tail
tail
CDo)h
(COOL
n1 t e ere, Sw (ACDo)h(f) ACI)o v(O
with
fuselage at juncture ft
.............. Table Table Table 4. II 3.2I 3.2I (4.12.33) ....... 172.3 _0 .08
2 .08
surface surface
Equation Equation
(4.12.33)
Summary:
(_Do)h
v = 0.00159
+ 0 + 0. 00077
+ 0 = 0.00236
(c)
Net
zerolift
drag
of nacelles
in presence
of wing
Reference
sq ft
7 =0.00854
(d)
Summary
zerolift
drag
of the Sw=
components; sq ft
on basis
of reference
172.3
wf
hv
n(w)
=001. +000230+000'54:00"7
139
H646
LO oe0
o._
0o
LO
0'_
oO
.o
O0
0._ o_ LO
o_
0 I oO ! I I I 0"
II
'q
CXl _
Xl
44_4
I
II
._)
_._
g a
.0
o_
b_ ,._
_
it
_ _ _ _ 0
,1
Z
b/_ 0
o
0 oo
o
0
o
_
o
0
o
0
._
0
0 0 <
""
0 0
d
II
._ :n
b_
b._
b_._
_1
_;
II
rs
I
r.)
m m bl
_4
r_
"_
140
H646
TABLE
4.12.41
(Concluded)
(b)
Drag
of wing
due
to lift
= 0.0432CL2
+ Aw
Jw
= 7.86
(from
(a));
Wab
CLmax
: 17.4
(from
(a));tan
(.)
Wabs
Clmax _
3134
AW j
'Wab 8 = _b + 4
CIr. 2
,%Vab s
0) (('Di)w
C_b, deg
= O_w+2, deg
2
0 .0225 o. 0930 2025 o. 366 .576 0,828 1. 113 1,416 1.513
O. 0432
kaWabSlCLma = (_/0.3134
figure
4.12.44
+ 0
0010 0.0040 .01125 o. 0238 0409 0.0618 .0876 0.1 192 1424
4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 174
0 900972 O 00402 00875 0.0158 .0249 o. 0358 0481 O. 0612 0654 .0349 0. 0699 .1051 0. 1405 1769
aOn barn of Sw = 172.3 uI ft. 2 (c) Drag of horizontal tail due to lift = 0. 0669 CLh + Ah
Jh = 4.50
(from
_h,
4.9.17 0 . 96 1.90 2.93 3.87 4.86 5.77 6.61 7.55
@
C_hab s
(,)
@
CL 2 h (_2 0.0807 .0441 0.0182 .0044 0.0001 .0066 0.0253 ,0581 0,1005
0. 0669CL 0.0669(_ 0.00540 .00295 0.00122 .00029 _ 0 .00044 0.00169 ,00389 0.00672 _
tan tan ahabs = tan(_) 0.0699 .0517 0.0332 .0162 0.0023 .0199 0.0389 .0592 0.0778
Xhabs
Ah.
%  ,3_
:(_(_. deg 4 2.96 1.90 . 93 O. 13 1.14 2.23 3.39 4.45 figure
CL h . 4.21
.....
figure
4.12.44
of sq ft
4 2 0 2 4 6 8 tO 12 13.4
0.284 .210 0.135 .066 0.009 .081 0,159 ,2.1l 0,317 ........................
H646
141
I1
_'_
_ c_
_1
_'_
2
o
r/3
O0 O0
0 0
O0 O0
O0 O0
O0
"
" d
"
v@
@#=
II
II
,_
cx]
,, .
d 4
_ _
_o oO Oo
oO Oo oO
O0 O0 oO
_ Oo oO
_ O0 Oo
0 F,
"'d
" d
@
I_ II 0 II It _ 0 "0
c_
A C',l !
,, _.
_'_0 O0 I
_,_ c",l O0 I
cxl _.._ O0
,._ _ O0
Cxlt "_ O0
b_ 0
,d _" d
," d
" d
"'d
"
142
tl646
'I
_I _ _~
@
f
_"
_
,d
"
"
'
'
_t _:
c:, i m oo oo m m oo _
,.1
7
a..l a.1 ,.1 ,J ,'_
d"
d"
d'd'
_"
7
rj IzI _,d _._J@ ' d " d " d " d_
_ 7
d
E
d"
d'd'd"
d"
?e _ ...........
d " d " d " d_ :,4
]
_
.S m "
H646
143
,_
o o
_'_
N?
._
144
H646
32
db
20
Swet 16 SB
12
5 Fineness ratio,_B dB
10
12
Figure
4.12.21.
Wetted
area
of bluntbase
ogive
bodies
(ref.
1).
H646
145
1.2
1.1
Rwf
1.0
.9
Figure
4.12.31.
Wingbody
interference
correlation
factor
(ref.
1).
146
It 64 6
18
,olI
61
/ ?
8!I I o61_
.04 1
02
/
I
J
.6 .8 1.0
factor (from ref. 1). 147
.2
.4 _w
Figure
4.12.41. speeds;
Taper Ac/4
ratio correction = 0.
Subsonic H646
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2 52 2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Figure
4.12.42.
Sweep
angle
correction
factor
for
52 (from
ref.
1).
148
H646
k3
j2
__0
20
40 A[ e' deg
60
8O
Figure
4.12.43.
Sweep
angle
correction
factor
for
k 3 (from
ref.
1).
H646
149
.?
J (positive values) it
.2
.4 tan aabs
.6
.8
1.0
of drag
increment
due
to wing H646
OO52
0048
0
Windtunnel
data data
.0040
0036
(CD)cooling system0032
0028
0024
0020
o0016
0012
i
2
4 ab, deg
I0
12
Figure 4.12.71. Unpublished propelleroff, increment of drag of the subject airplane system being open. S w = 172.3 sq ft.
due
fullscale to inlets
data of of cooling
H646
151
Windtunnel
data
.32

?Calculated
I
0
.28

.24

.20
/ I /I // 0// // /
CD
.16
Stall 12 
.08

.,0,("
.04 
Calculated Ct_
limit
of
linearity
0 4 0
I
4
I
8 ab, deg
I
12 16 20
(a)
CD
versus
_b" with
Figure 4.12.81. Comparison of predicted airplane drag characteristics windtunnel data. 5 e = 0; propellers off; Sw = 178 sq ft. 152
H646
[i
Windtunnel data Cooling drag included Cooling drag omitted I Calculated Estimated
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
CL
.2
I
0 .04
I
.08
I
12
I
.16 CD
I
.20
I
24
I
.28
I
.32
(b) Figure
CL 4.12.81.
versus
C DContinued.
H646
153
32 
.28
.24
.20
/ / 0 /// // //
CD
.16 _
.12
.08
J ,._/ /_'" y
f
o Windtunnel data } Ca Icu lated Coo!!ng drag included Cooling drag omitted Estimated
.O4
I
.4 .8 (c) Figure 154
I
CL2 CD 4.12.8i. versus
I
1.2 CL 2. Concluded.
I
1.6
I
2.0
H646
.2O
Wing alone Wing, fuselage Wing, fuselage, nacelles Total airplane without cooling drag Total airplane including cooling drag
I !
I I gl
o I I
gl
I I
12 CD
.08
/
o
4 0
I
4
I
8
I
12
I
16
buildup
of the drag
characteristics
of the airplane.
H646
155
4.13
Effect
of Horizontal
Tail
and
Tab
Deflection
on Lift
and
Pitching
Moments
The contributions of the horizontal tail to the lift and pitching moments were considered in sections 4.10 and 4.11 on the basis of a fixed tail at zero incidence setting. In this section the tail is considered as an allmoving surface with a geared tab. Inasmuch as the results from this section are to be used also in obtaining horizontaltail hinge moments, the tail lift is initially obtained referenced to the tail area. 4.13.1 Lift of the Horizontal Tail in the Linear Range equipped with a tab is attributed to three of attack of the tail, with the tail at zero 6 e, from zero incidence position, and of the fuselage, following equation including referenced carryover to the
The lift of an allmoving horizontal tail superimposed sources: (1) lift due to angle incidence, (2) lift due to stabilizer deflection, (3) lift effects
due to the tab. The tail lift in the presence onto the fuselage, is accounted for by the area, Sh:
horizontaltail
= IC
6 e + CL6tab_X/5 \'e//Stab'
e] _h
(4.13.11)
The
three
contributing
sources
for
lift
of the
tail
are
considered
of the tail, with the tail at zero angle of attack of the tail, (_h, is represented by
setting
(CLh(hf))
5e=0 5tab =0
= (CL(_)h(hf)
(_b
(4.13.12)
This contribution, which includes the lift of the tail in the presence of the fuselage and the lift on the fuselage due to lift carryover of the tail onto the fuselage, is accounted for in section 4.10 by equation (4.102), referenced to the wing area. When applied to the subject airplane and referenced to the tail area, Sh, table 4.13.11(a) shows that
:0
5tab =0 for a dynamicpressure ratio, qh _, equal q from to 1.0.
(4.13.13)
Lift stabilizer
due
to stabilizer 5 e,
deflection with
zero was
incidence obtained
positionin a manner
The
lift
due
to to that
deflection,
5ta b = 0
synonymous
used to obtain the lift due equation the tail (abutting 156
the fuselage, and the lift of the tail due to angle of attack was considered on the basis of the combined tailfuselage movement relative to the local flow vector and consequent interaction of lift effects. In accord with the principles developed in reference 11, this interaction the present the and of lift instance tail effects where was the accounted lift due for by the to the use of the 6 e, factors of the Kh(f) tail + Kf(h). is to be on the In
deflection, fuselage
surface
desired, fixed
is moving
to the
abutting
which factors
the interaction
accounted
for by the
basis of reference 11. to stabilizer deflection, equation, which is subject (4.102), which accounted enced to the tail area:
Thus, 5 e,
fuselage, the lift due for by the following made at the for equation tail, refer
to the same cautionary remarks for the tail lift due to the angle
as were of attack
(ACL)Se=(CL_)he(kh(t)
kf{h))
Shc/qh\ _e_h _
(4.13.14) )
where
__(C L__a)he She kh(f) presence kf(h) the fuselage qh is the
slope exposed
of the tail
exposed
tail
panels
(section
(4.2))
panels deflection, alone, obtained 5 e, of the figure stabilizer lift on the 4.13.11 lift carryover onto stabilizer in the
to stabilizer
fuselage ratio,
from of the
to stabilizer is the
alone,
obtained ratio
4.13.11 4.9.2)
dynamicpressure
(section
subject
airplane
and
referenced
to the
tail
area,
Sh,
table
4.13.11(b)
0 0 0 6e
for a dynamicpressure ratio, _h , q_ equal to 1.0.
(4.13.15)
Lift due to the tab: The lift on the horizontal tail due to tab deflection linear lift range of the tail can be obtained by using the following equation developed in reference 8 to obtain the lift increment of high lift flaps: AC L = Ac/_CLc_/F _5)CL ]
H646
157
Whenapplied to the horizontal tail equippedwith a tab, as for the subject airplane, the lift contribution of the tab in terms of lift effectiveness (for [._hh 1.0) is obtained from =
(CLath(f) Kb CL6tab wh e re = Cl6tab (C/a) h (4.13.17)
is the
liftcurve
slope
of the
horizontaltail following
surface equation
alone
in which
She
and
from
is the 4.1 L
section
liftcurve
slope
of the
untabbed
tail
(6ta b = 0),
obtained
tabchord
factor,
obtained
from
figure
4.13.12
as a function
of
Cl be obtained from based the span, c/0tab _el^,_ \ _]h on theory. based n experimentaI data'
The
required the
ta insert
) 6tab Cl
or from
as for
a constantchord Crab
tab , may
\, UtabJcl
based
accuracy _6ta
in most Cl
with 6t a
reference
against Kb
by the
of 4.13.13
6tab
Cl
tabspan
obtained
as a function
of taper
ratio,
Xh,
and
span
ratio,
_,
as defined
in the H646
figure.
The equation
section from
lift
effectiveness 1:
of the tab,
c /Sta b
, is obtained
from
the
following
reference
1 (Cl6tab) theory
correction
factor
for
subcritical
Mach
numbers,
equal
to _/1  M 2
ure
/Stab 4.13.14
cz__
w
theoretical Cta b of ch
lift and
effectiveness ratio
of the
tab,
obtained
from
fig
thickness
is an empirical
correction
factor
based
on experimental (c/_) h
data,
4.13.15
as a function
of
cta_b and (c o_) Ch 1 theory untabbed tail, obtained from section 4.1
:l)
a theory
is the
section
lift
curve
of the
(c/_)theory
_ 57":3 1
[6.28
+ 4 " 7(t)
(1 + 0.00375_te)
(4.11)
K _ is an empirical correction for lift effectiveness obtained from figure 4.13.16 which was derived from windtunnel data Upon applying the preceding relations tab, referenced to the horizontaltail is shown in table 4.13.11(c)
of the
to the subject airplane, the lift effectiveness area, Sh, and a dynamicpressure ratio follows:
of 1.0,
to be as
6 , 0 , 15 21
The tab settings shown correspond to elevator settings used in this report with the tabtoelevator gear ratio H646
of 4 , of 1.5.
0 ,
5 ,
10 ,
and14
159
Summary: The net lift of the horizontal tail in the linear range as a function of ah, 6e, and 5tab with the tab geared to the elevator was accountedfor by equation (4.13.11). This equation, regrouped slightly and referenced to a dynamicpressure ratio of 1.0, becomes
(4.i3. iii)
CLh(hf)
=(CLa)h(hf
) (_b_h)
+[(CL6e)Stab=0
+ CLbtab
\ be lie
This equation may be abbreviated to the following format, airplane in the summary calculations of table 4.13. ll(d):
which
is applied
to the
subject
(4.13.112)
4.13.2
Maximum
Tail angle The of attack inclusion of the horizontal of the tab makes tail untabbed, the deter
The maximum lift and corresponding 5ta b = 0 , was considered in section 4.2.
mination of maximum lift somewhat more approximate than without the tab. The stall may begin at the tail, tips, or at the tabbed (or flapped) sections, depending on the amount of sweep, taper ratio, and difference in stall angle between the tabbed and untabbed sections. The increment of maximum lift coefficient due to trailingedge flaps can be determined to a first order of approximation by using semiempirical equation (4.13.21) developed in reference 1 on the basis of tabulated values of maximum lift coefficients and stall angles for many planforms with and without flaps (ref. 30). The equation applies to wings and tail surfaces with plain flaps or tabs. For convenience, the nomenclature of the following equation has been changed from a wing designation to a horizontaltail designation. On the basis of tail area, (Sh) tab CLma whe re
x) b 5ta
max]tab
Sh
of
CLmax
to account of (hc/4)h
figure
4.13.21
as a function
The
increment
in airfoil
maximumlift
coefficient
due
to the
tab,
(_c /max
),is tab
160
H646
obtained
from
the
following
empirically
derived
equation
(from
ref.
1):
(Ac/max)tab where
= klk2k3
(Ac/max)base
(4.13.22)
hc/
_ maX/base
is the
section angle,
lift plain
increment flaps
for or tabs,
flaps fig
flapdeflection
accounting accounting
for for
other
than
0.25, the
obtained reference
from value,
figure
4.13.23
angle
other
than
obtained
figure
5tab k 3 is a factor to 1 for The basis plain flaps accounting or tabs coefficient S h, from for any one the relation tab setting may now be determined, on for tab motion as a function of (5 tab) re fe re nce , equal
the
(CLmax) whe re
h(hf)]
6tab=0
+ (AC Lmax)
5tab
(4.13.23)
[(C ]Lma x) h(hf) presence The airplane elevator 4.13.3 of the summary for each in the
5tab=0
coefficient 4.10
ofthe
untabbedtail
inthe
fuselage,
calculations for the maximum of several elevator deflections 5tab ratio, _e = 1.5, are presented Tail Through Stall
lift coefficient of the tail in which the tab is geared in table 4.13.21(b).
Because the net lift and pitching moments of an airplane for different elevator positions are dependent upon the tail lift characteristics and could involve the stall region of the tail, operational tail lift curves for the subject airplane are plotted in figure 4.13.31 for several elevator positions through the stall region of the tail. The following procedure ure 4.13.31 for the subject for the subject airplane) and was used in constructing the liftcurve plots in figairplane on the basis of the horizontaltail area (32.5 a dynamicpressure ratio of 1. The resulting curves
sq ft
H646
161
are the graphical representation of equation (4.13. 112) for the linear range and extend through the stall. (1) Using the information in table 4.13.11(a), draw the slope of the basic lift curve (5 = 5ta b = 0 ) up to the limit of linearity. e
(2) Spot the stall point for 6e = 0 using [(C Lmax)h(h f )1 5tab =0 and
5ta b=0
as listed
in table
4.13.
21(a).
Fairacurve,
similar
to the
fairing for the isolated stall point. The shape shape in figure 4.101 (3) 10 , these On the 14 ordinate using
tail in figure 4.21(b), from the limit of the curve in the stall region should as well as in figure 4.21(b). at CL_ e to the ah = 0, obtained lift spot the values table of CLge6
for Draw
6 e = 4 , 0 , lift curves
5 o , through
from curve.
4.13.11(d).
parallel the of
basic
Using values
values
in table
4.13.21(b),
for
the
horizontal
Make a plot, to be used as an underlay in tracing, of the nonlinear and beyond the stall) of the basic lift curve (6 e = 0). Translate to the basic and complete lift the curve curves to the for selected the stall elevator regions. Including the Effecl settings and
relative CLmax
4. I3.4
Positions now be
from
C L = CLwfn
_ + CLh(hf
) S(_)
"qh__
(4.13.41)
Cm = Cmwfn where CLwfn__ and Xcg  x h 6w aerodynamic chord 162 Cmwfn is the chord are the
XcgX Cw
h (
CLh(h
f)) Sh qh Sw
(4.13.42)
from
section
distance of the
from
horizontal
in chord
lengths
The lift andpitchingmoment characteristics of the subject airplane are calculated in table 4.13.41 as a function of _b and 5e with the tab geared to the elevator in the ratio of 1.5. At stall conditions, the horizontal tail is at and in the lower edge of the wake, and its effectiveness at stall was considered as suggestedin section 4.10 for propelleroff and zerothrust propelleron conditions. The results, referenced to a wing area of 178 square feet, are compared with fullscale windtunnel data in figure 4.13.41. In the absenceof appropriate propelleroff windtunnel data, propelleron data for T_ = 0 were used with calculated normalforce propeller effects subtracted.
Such use of T_ = 0 data is not normally recommended for comparison after and with propellercomparison thrust power off predictions. It was used in the present instance only of pitchingmoment slopes at 5 e = 0 showed correlation effects at the tail. The calculated lift characteristics (fig. 4.13.41(a)) relation with windtunnel data. The divergence between lift at _b above 6 for 5 e = 4 , which is also reflected a preliminary implied zero
characteristics (fig. 4.13.41(b)), is attributed to flow separation on the horizontal tail. The design data used took into account flow separation as a function of tab deflection only (fig. 4.13.14). There is a need for design data which account for flow separation as a function of both angle of attack and tab deflection. At low angles and 14 . Both the of attack, calculated be noted elevator stall. the horizontal tail is in the stall lift region when 5 e = 10 reflect
and
windtunneldetermined
characteristics
the tail stall. It should involving large negative normally subject to tail
The calculated pitchingmoment characteristics (fig. 4.13.41(b)) show good slope correlation with windtunnel data up to an angle of attack of approximately 8 . Above this angle the calculated and windtunnel data diverge for all indicated elevator deflections except 5 e = 0 . The increasing divergence with increasing elevator deflection indicates progressive flow separation. As mentioned, design data are needed which account for flow separation as a function of both angle of attack and tab deflection. It is evident that the use of design data which take Into account flow separation as a function of tab deflection only (fig. 4.13.14) is not sufficient. Calculated pitchcontrol effectiveness, Cm_e, as obtained from figure 4.13.41(b) In an effort data available 5e the 2,
is approximately 20 percent higher than indicated by the windtunnel data. to locate the sources of the discrepancy, windtunnel controleffectiveness (ref. 2) for 5ta b =0 and geared conditions were used. These data were only for a total Tct power condition of 0.2; however, because
only incremental
effects were desired at constant purpose. The following schedule used in the study.
H646
163
Figure (in
ref. 6(b) 9 2)
tb' deg 5 5
5e' deg 5 5
AC m
Cm_e 0.058
Cm5 e
0.29 .17
0. 034
From
this
O. 016
/.5 tab_
The reduce
calculated Cm5 e,
ratio
for
Tc/=
0.2
(section ratio
5.1.2) Of 1.00,
was
used
to was
to a dynamic'pressure
which
the ratio used for calculated propelleroff conditions. The windtunnel data, thus reduced, are compared in the following table with calculated values excluding and including lift carryover onto the body. The values are referenced to a wing area of 178 square feet and a dynamicpressure ratio of 1.00.
Cm5 e From windtunnel based factor for this data on kh(f) neglected) report . 0355 (carryover included) only 0.0298 . 0318
. 0580
of the excluded
data
with
the
values
of
carryover than
effects,
calculated instance.
6 percent kh(f)
data for
in each the
is about
tailbody of
subject value,
value calculated
calculated
calculated for
value
corresponding value
is approximately
14 per
windtunnel
of 0.0510. for the tailbody configuration of the from the tail to the body, due to H646
the
of the implies
of the kf(h)
tail factor
on the
body
and
in equa
(4.13.14) Although
carryovers subject
included kf(h)
in the
calcula
tions
and
plots
airplane,
it is suggested
that
be considered
negligible for tailbody configurations similar to that of the subject airplane. This should result in calculated values of control effectiveness which would be within approximately 6 percent of the actual values. 4.13.5 Ah Symbols horizontaltail horizontaltail lift lift coefficient coefficient of the horizontal tail area, with tailfuselage of attack, elevator deflection, accounted for as CLh(hf) with the tail, referenced to the interaction effects, angle and tab deflection aspect span, ratio ft
bh
CL
(C Lh(hf))
6e=0 6tab =0
same
elevator
and
tab
settings
at
CLma x
CLwf n AC L
airplane increment
tailoff of lift
lift
coefficient,
referenced
to wing
area
increment of lift coefficient referenced to tail area increment of maximum lift referenced to tail area liftcurve slope, per deg
due to the
elevator
deflection,
ACLmax)Stab
coefficient
due
to the tab,
liftcurve slope of !he exposed portion of ihe h_rizontaltail panels, refcr,'need to the effective area of the ex: '_scd panels, pr.r deg
tI 64 6
165
/CLc_/h (f)
slope of the horizontal tail alone with fuselage on the tail accounted for, referenced to the tail per deg tail with interacting referenced to the tailtail
CL (_)h (hf)
liftcurve slope of the horizontal fuselage effects accounted for, area, per deg 3C L elevator setting, effectiveness, referenced 05 e to the
CL6e)6tab=0
the
tab per
fixed deg
at zero
/ tab\
CL5e
elevator with of effectivene the 5tab 5e tab geared ss, (C L6e)Stab:0 to the elevator + CLStab__e to deflect area, per deg in the _ , ratio
referenced 0C L
to the tail
CLbtab
tab
06tab
, referenced
to the
tail
area,
C m
AC m Cmwfn
Cm5 e
35 e per with of
the
tab
fixed,
geared , referenced
to the to
wing
chord flap chord, section, horizontaltail synonymous ft or in. chord, to the tab chord, Cta b, in this
cf
ch
ft or in.
166
H646
"I
cl Ac 1 (Ac/maX)base
lift
airfoilsection
maximum lift increment for the 25percentchord at a reference flapdeflection angle (60 for plain or tabs when obtained from fig. 4.13.22) maximum lift increment due to the tab
5c/max)
Cl a
(cz
cl6ta Ctab Cw b
horizontaltail
cl 0c/
of the
tab,
, per 06tab
rad
or deg
chord, at the
horizontal
factor
for
the
lift
effectiveness
of the
tab
at
deflections for the inboard carryover tail alone flaps (or tabs) onto the fuselage, with the
Kb
Kf(h)
span
factor
taillift to the
Kh (f)
ratio of the lift on the tail in the presence with the tail fixed, to the tail alone correction factor to account planform on the increment due to the tab position for the effects of maximum
of the
fuselage,
KA
kf(h)
ratio of the lift carryover, due to stabilizer onto the fuselage to the lift of the stabilizer obtained from figure 4.13.11
deflection, alone,
kh(f)
ratio of the lift on the stabilizer, due to stabilizer deflection, in the presence of the fuselage to stabilizer alone, obtained from figure 4.13.11
H646
167
k1, k2, k3
factors used in obtaining A C/ma x) tab to account for Ctab other than 0.25, tab angle other than the referc ence value, and tab motion, respectively Mach number tail and in the free
M qh' q_ Sh,Sh e
dynamic pressure at the horizontal stream, respectively, lb/sq ft area of the horizontal horizontaltail ft wing thrust area, horizontal tail and tail, respectively, area in front
exposed sq ft
panels
of the
(Sh)tab
Sw
of and
including
the
tab,
sq
coefficient
horizontaltail
thickness
ratio
Xcg  xh 6
W
distance, parallel to the Xbody axis, from the center gravity to the quarterchord point of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord as a ratio of the wing mean aerodynamic chord angle airplane of attack, angle deg of attack relative to the Xbody axis, deg
of
OZ
o_ b
[(_C Lmax)h
(hi)] 0tab =0
angle of attack of the horizontal tail, relative to its chord line, for the maximum lift coefficient of the tail when the tab deflection is zero, deg
_h = _b#
_h'
_h
cl
cL
and ac I
, respectively
168
H  64 6
8c 1 _tab and
8C L _tab 0C L , respectively
5ta
CL
cl
8c I
fl = (I M2) 1/2 6 5e 5f, 5ta b deflection, elevator deg deflection, deflection, deg respectively, used synonymously,
_h 7?
downwash
across
the horizontal
tail,
span, as a ratio of the tail extending from the centerline from the centerlinc respectively,
_i'77o
inboard tail
edge,
as a ratio
of the
A? = _o  '7i (A c/4) h sweep of the horizontaltail taper angle, ratio deg quarterchord line, deg
Xh te
horizontaltail trailingedge
H646
169
CLh(hf)
La)h(hf
)(_'b
_'h ,+
(CLbe)
6tab:06e
+ (CL6tab__e]
6e
qC
(a)
Lift
due
to
angle
of attack,
(CLh(hf))
6e=0 6tab=0
(CLh(hf))Se=O 6tab Description Liftcurve CLa)h(hf) included, Limit of slope of tail with to deg horizontal ratio tail, at the deg horizontal tailfuselage S h = 32.5 =0
= (CLa)h(hf)(ab
_l_ _hh
Symbol
Reference intersection sq ft Table Figure tail Figure 4.101(a) 4.9.11 4.9.11 effects Table 4.101_)
Magnitude 0.0746/deg
4
_h qh
Downwash Dynamicpressure
Summary:
___(CLh(hf))Se: 5tab
0 =0
= O. 0746
(_b
_h)
(b)
Effect
of taiI
deflection
on
lift
(5ta b = 0),
(ACL)6e
(ACL)6e
= (CL6e)Stab=06e
qh
= (CLc_)he(kh(f)
+ kf(h,)(Se)
Sh
Magni
tude
1.25 12.5
of horizontal
.10 Ratio Ratio of lift on movable lift tail in presence of on body body to tail alone alone Figure Figure Table 4.13.11 4.13.11 4.21 .96 .11 0. 0700
kh(_ kf(h)
of movabletail
carryover
to tail
(CLc_)he Sh e Sh
CLa
of exposed
panels panels,
referenced sq ft
to
She,
Table Table
3.21 3.21
28.73 32.5
Dynamicpressure
ratio
at the
horizontal
tail
Figure
4.9.
i1
1.00
Summary:
(ACL)Se
= 0.06625
referenced
to
Sh
and
_h 
= 1.0
170
H646
TABLE
4.13.1I
{Continued)
Oh
(c) Effect of tat)deflection cl
,] "C
on
lift,
(CL6tab6tab)
t]L
5, b 1
C
K,
Shc St_
c/Stab,
/Stab)thcoryJ
(/Stab)theory
(C La)h(f)
= (C La)hek
h(f)
Symbol M fll t
C
Description Math _1Airfoil Trailingedge Aspect Taper ratio ratio number M 2 section thickness angle of ratio horizontal tail tail sq ft panels, chord of horizontal semlspan of horizontal semlspan tail (untabbcd), tail, per deg tail outboard edge of tab tail to inboard edge of tab sq ft of horizontal tail, deg tail
%
Ah _k h Sh Sh e Ctab eh 0i
Horizontaltail Area Ratio Distance as Distance as Section of of exposed tab from a fraction from a fraction liftcume chord
root root
17 o
Table Equation
4.
0.
109
el
(el
or)theory (e_,/aJtheory (el Dh 926 r_" :tab Theoretical section effectiveness of tab, f('%h ' _)' per deg Figure 1.13.14 :].4 per rad 0593 per deg 57.3 L '
(cl
a) thco
(C%b) theor,
cl6tn b
(C/6tab) thc(}rv
(e/_)_'
._9
_lce)themT /etub ft_'h' 6to b) From For For For fig'urc 5ta b 6to b 4.13.16: 6,0,7.5: 15: K t= l'ff 1,: t: 0.9 q 1.00
5to b = 2l:
O. _3
c/5
"_
= t !t,c,7____ _ cZftab e /Stab = 0,051S per deg for 5ta b = 14 2 _ / 6tab)theory perdcg for \ (c/5 6ta h ta b /theory _ 6 _, 0 , = 0.0529
K'
7.5
0.0,t39
per
(leg
for
6ta b=
21
H646
171
TABLE
4.13.11 (c)
(Concluded)
Concluded Reference referenced of body sq ft to to tail She alone TabIe Figure Table Table 4.21 4.13.11 3.21 3.21
S_mbot (C L eL)he kh(o CLc e of exposed Ratio Area Area of lift horizontaltail tail
on movable
She
of exposed of horizontal
horizontaltall tail, sq ft
sh
C L c_) h(f) =
CL_
of horizontal Sh e
tail
only
in the presence qh
of the
body
referenced 28.73
to
Sh
and
'_=
1.0
Description
(c_6tab)c"
Section
llft
parameter,
f(Ctab_ \Ch/
(c_6tab)
CL Ratio of finite ce6 and section lift parameter, Figure 4.13.12 I. 075
545
o.,o9
Kh Span factor, f(N,_o,Xh) Figure 4.13. I3 .90
. Kb
(ih
and _= 1.0 q_
= 0. 0231per
(d)
Lift
contribution
of the
horizontal
tail
Mth
tabtoelevator
gear
ratio
of 1.5
CLh(hf)
Lc_)h (h f) (_'b
_'h)
(C L6e)Stab=
6e +CLStab,
(_
of the
calculated
values
of (C Lc _ \ /h(hI) results
, and formats
in parts the 6e
(a), settings to
5e
settings to be in followon
considered analysis
b settings = 1.5
CLh(h
0 =[(C
L C_)h(h{)(a to
referenced
0.0746(o' 0.0746(%
21
I008_ e
172
H646
parameters
Symbol (Ae/4) h Sweep Section Ctab ch (Sh)ta b Area Area of borizontal of horizontal factor maximum accounting accounting of horizontal thickness
of horizontal
Tab
chord
as
ratio
chord front ft planfovm for other deflection 25percentchord than 0.25 than reference tab of and including tab, sq ft
sh
KA
Correction
(_cz
kl k2
)
maX/ba se
other
k3
for
tab
motion
as
a function
of
1.0
Horizontaltail presence
lift
coefficient based on
Table
4.101
0.
926
4.101
14.45
Co)
xLmaxzh(hf)
= (C
/ Lmaxh( he
)]
6tab=O
+(Ae, \ ....
A :
'.0.926
+ 0.765(Ae/ \
maX'ta
5e, deg
@
5tab 1.55e, = deg
k2' figure4.13.22
@
k3
@
k!k2k3 = 3_) X(_X(_)
@
(Ac' l (Ae/maX)base x
_ b max]jm : (_)(_)
@
(C'Lmax) ACLmax 0.765@ = 0.926 based on Sh +(_, =32.5 sq ft h (h f) =
k 1
6 0
fotminmah
H646
173
174
H646
khlf)
!
l o N_

kh (f),
kf(h)
, ./_
kflh)
.L
I
.1
,2
.3
.4
.5 (dr) h bh
.5,
ratios
kh(f)
and
kf(h)
based
on slenderbody
theory
variable
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.Z
1.0 0 2 4 Ah Figure 4.13.12. Tabchord factor (ref. 8). H646 Subsoniespeeds; (eS)c/ ( tab)c / 175 6 8 10
l.O m
Kb Kb I
I I _0 b ! 0
I l I
r/i r/
770
I.0
1.0
.8
.6
K_, /
.4
,//
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Figure 4.13.13. Span factor for inboard flaps (ref. 8). H646
.2
176
1 0 .1 .2 cf Ch
Figure cf4.13.14. eta b.
.3
.4
.5 1).
Theoretical 1.0
lift
effectiveness
of plain
trailingedge
flaps
(ref.
.90 _
__
.__
(cl5tab)theory 6 .80_r
.4
27o:J'/
72_
0 Figure flaps
H64 6
.1
correction
.2
c_f Ch
.3
.4
.5
Empirical cf = Cta b.
for lifteffectiveness
of plain trailingedge
177
1.0
.8_
cf Ch .6 I0 15 20 ,25 30 40 50
.4
.2
20
40 _, deg
60
80
4.13.16. at high
flap
Empirical deflections
correction (revised
of plain
trailingedge
H646
1.O0
.9O
.8O KA 7O
KA "[10.08 .60
COS2_cl4)h]COS314(Acl4)h
.5O 0
I
10 20 30 40 .50 60
4.13.21. Planform correction factor (ref. 1). Trailingedge flaps.
Figure
H646
179
,8
........
7
/
S/plit and plain
10
12
14
16
18
20 at reference
Maximumlift
1).
1.2
0 
/
J 8 .....
/_plit kl
.6
.4r_
.2 /0
Figure 4.13.23.
lo0
......... 4 8
Flapchord
......
12
16
20
24
factor
28
(ref.
32
1).
..4"
.8.6_ k2
i
.4i
" /
_o 2o 30 40 5_ 60
Flap angle, deg Flap angle correction factor (ref. 1).
H646
I I
Figure 180
4.13.24.
.8
/4 ae,_/
.6
.4 0 432 "I .2
/
0 .2 CL h(hf)
,4
,6
//
x /
,oi/
'
/ / \
.8
_ _a
_.
/
\/
\
"
6e'_
f
Qh for at 6e=O
\
CLmax
..._
t
/f
/
/
/
5e= 14
_'"
":
16
12
8" ah %_h,
4 cleg
Calculated e = 1.5;
with
tab
geared
to
181
[] O I
[] O O A 4 O
6e, deg 4
<>
A ,4
14
1
0 4 8 a b deg (a) Lift Figure 4.13.41. characteristics Comparison of the airplane characteristics. lift and pitchingmoment as a function of _. and 12 16
J
20
5 .
windtunnel data obtained from propellero e ealeulated out); center of gravity = 0.10c w. H646
.8
I0
A A A
0 Cm
(>
0_
o
o
[]
.__
_
"<. o
O
__
_ 0 5
o
O
_o
o o
o
O
Windtu_nnel data
.4_
o 0
"",4
.
_
Calculated 0
I
4 Ob, deg
I
8
I
12
Stall
I
16
(b)
H646
4.14
HorizontalTail
Hinge
Moments
and
Stick
Forces
The procedure of reference 1 for determining pitching moments of wings having trailingedge flaps was used to determine the hinge moments of an allmoving surface equipped with a tab or flap. It is based on the method of reference 31 for determining the pitching moments of wings having trailingedge flaps. The method makes use of load distribution theory (ref. 32) for subsonic flow together with twodimensional airfoil data adjusted for the effects of sweep. The method, as developed in reference is limited to subsonic speeds. 4.14.1 HorizontalTail Hinge Moments of an uncambered horizontal Sh, and a unity dynamicpressure tail about ratio, its hinge line, refermay be determined
31,
enced from
equation:
x c)
Chh (f) = (CLh(f))6tab =0 Ch + (ACL)6tab Ch _ m]Sta (4.14.11) whe re CLh(f)) a function is the lift _h coefficient and 5e only, of the with tail alone in the presence on tail of the area presence of tail the of lift body as b
6tab =0 of
Crh = C_b 
6ta b = 0, based
the
equation considers the lift of the stabilizer only, in the to o_ and 5 e. h The lift on the fuselage due to carryover at this time, because it does not enter into
hinge
(CLh(f))6tab:
0 = (CLh(f))
_h
+ (ACL)6e
She
qh
She
qh
+ kh(f)6e]
She Sh
qh q
(4.14.12)
and iX area, 184 ) is the increment of lift CL 5ta b obtained from section 4.13 coefficient due to tab deflection, based on tail
H646
xhinge
 Xac) h 6h to the
is the line
distance in terms
from of tail
the
aerodynamic aerodynamic
center
of the
tail,
with on the
hinge
mean
chord,
measured
aerodynamic  x_/4) 5h h
chord
distance line
from
the of the
quarter tail
chord
of the
tail
mean chord
aero
in terms moment
mean
pitching
of the for
tab
about
chord
of the
tail
chord
(The procedure
obtaining
is discussed
center case,
of pressure
of the
untabbed
tail
is at the
quarterchord
Chh(f)
=[(C
Lh(f))Stab= 0
+(ACm)6tab
(4.14.13)
When the tab is geared to the horizontal tail, on the basis of tail area, is obtained from
the net
tail
lift
in the above
equation,
(6tab l 5e \ 5e ]J
! _h _oO
Applied to the subject airplane, the lift characteristics equations of the tail alone in the linear range in the presence of the body are shown in table 4.14.11 (a). The stall conditions of the horizontal tail alone in the presence of the body are obtained by using the stall conditions ) h(f) for the calculated same as in table ( _CLmax settings or Sh e (_max)h(f) The H646 results for stall conditions are _(_LLmax)h(hf summarized ) Sh 4.14.11(b). The lift 185 (4.14.15) 4.13.21(b). ) h(hf) listed in the in the For table. table 5 e = 0 , The are the stall angle lift coefratio of
is the several
maximum reduced
elevator
by the
to obtain
(CLmax)h(f),
in table
characteristics of the horizontal tail alone in the presence of the body are plotted in 5tab figure 4.14.11 asa function of _h= (_b _h and 5e {with 5e  1.5) for a qh dynamicpressure ratio of  = 1.0.
The quires across of the spanwise cl local is the chord, determination the the determination span of the tail of the pitchingmoment variation unit (radian) location, G, at any one of the tab contribution spanwiseloading deflection, Xcp, spanwise per The unit for G _, stations of the tab,
(") ACm
5tab, G,
re
of the per
across
station of span,
is equal ch
where
at the span
station tail.
is the of _
of the
determinations
followed by calculations, using an integration process, of incremental due to the tab. The following outline is a detailed clarification of the used to determine (1) design function Obtain the (AC_)Stab. spanloading The outline is similar per unit to that of tab presented
pitching procedures
coefficient
section4.2),
Af=tanl/tan_c/4
arrive at the appropriate each set of taper ratio taper ratio of the surface
curves for the flapped surface being considered, interpolate curves for a constant _?f to obtain curves to conform to the being considered. With the desired taper ratio for each curves 77f
to obtain a net set of three with the design parameters Such a set of reduced load
distri
bution
in figure
for a hypothetical
case.
Crossplot the net set of three curves, such ure 4.14.13 (b). (The circles are the crossplot inboard and outboard limits of the flap semispan
as in figure 4.14.13(a), as in figpoints. ) On the crossplot locate the under consideration (Vf = 0.1 and 0.75
in the specific illustration) and crossplot again the spanload distribution curves for these two stations, as in figure 4.14.12(c). The two resulting spanload distribution curves in figure 4.14.13(c) are the operational curves for subsequent analysis to determine the incremental section lift coefficients as a function of span station, _?. (2) from Determine the incremental section lift coefficient as a function of span station
186
H646
(czA)
whe re c 1A ) V is the station (Ch)v bh _distribution 77 is the is the chord of the tail tail incremental
sv.3(oh),
section
lift
coefficient
due
to tab
(flap)
deflection
at
at station
r7
span
of the difference
is the curves
in spanload 77 (fig.
coefficients for
for
the
two bounding
spanload
at station
4.14.13(e),
example) eldtab
(_5)c l is the twodimensional as per section 4.13.1 5_a b 5ta b normal is the streamwise line tab
lifteffectiveness
parameter
obtained
from
(el a) h
deflection
in degrees,
which
is related
to the
deflection
to the hinge
by the
relationship
6_a b = tanl(eos For conventional (3) The tail surfaces, the difference
Ah/
tan
5tab)
/
between location,
6 tab Xcp,
chordwise
centerofpressure
incremental
lift coefficient, due to tab deflection, for stations upon three regions of the semispan, two of which regions, shown by the sketch in figure 4.14.14, Semispan Semispan Semispan of the tab (a) For stations stations stations, included adjacent in the to and tabbed within by the
across the tail semispan are affected by the tab. consist of the following:
section A_ = 0.20 tab, outboard of the of ends of the tab from the ends
not influenced
A T = 0.20
a semispan
station
included
in the
tabbed
portion
of the
semispan,
Xcp_
(Acmf)7?
(cla=0)
H646
(4.14.
lS)
187
where is the increment of lift coefficient at station 7? load line, obtained from c/A =0)
r/ referred to the basic
(4.14.19)
whe re
ClA Ab
from
equation of the
(4.14.16) (Xcp)b chordline type) which loading is the due chordwise to tab center
angle basic
position from
of the
(effective
camber
deflection,
tan and (xcp) b ch Acmf) rl, due percent For tab is obtained
A b = tan from
Ac/4
 _[
_hh
0.25
(4.14.110)
figure
4.14.15.
is the section increment pitchingmoment 7? to tab deflection about the quarterchord point chord line through (XCP)b 6 (A Cmf _
station, constant
deflections
up to approximately
may
be obtained
from
( Acmf ) 7/ =Cmal' "tab 0tab v where, on the basis of Iifting line theory,
(4.14.111)
57"3
_]\_h/_
\Ch
]_?J
per
deg
(4.14.112)
6_ tab
= tan_ ltCS
).
(4.14.113)
For
large
tab
deflections,
emf )
may
be determined
by using
the
empirical
curves
188
H646
of Acmf in figure 4.14.16 (from ref. 1) based on unpoweredmodelwindtunnel data. Figure 4.14.17 compares the empirically determined variation of ACmf versus 5tab(Sf) with liftingline theory as applied to the subject airplane.
(b)
tab,
A_ = 0.20
from
the
ends
of the
(4.14.114)
of tab where
1
(z
part (a), for span K is a factor sections near
o of
is the tab
ratio
of .(ACmf) ? and
cl
A=0
, determined _?
in
stations
corresponding
to the
edge
of the
foil
outboard
of the
tab,/g_.
\rl
/v
mean
(4) For wings with a swept quarter position at each semispan station must aerodynamic chord by
tail
(77  _)

bh/2 Ch
tan
Ac/4
5h
 0.2
(4.14.115)
wh e re 77, aft
is the chord
distance
to the
center tail
at the
station,
as a ratio
of the
aerodynamic aerodynamic
line
the body
center
(5) Obtain
the pitching
moment
due
tab
deflection
from
the
integral
@ Cm)Stab=
0_A'ic
(ch)71lA(Ch)av ) 77
(_h)_
d_
(4.14.116)
H646
189
Tables 4.14.12, 4.14.13, and 4.14.14 summarize the calculations for determining the horizontaltail hinge moments of the subject airplane, based on the foregoing procedures. Figure 4.14.19 shows the variation of the spanwise loading AG coefficient, _, due to the tab deflection, used in the calculations. The basic pertinent parameters and operational forms of the equations are listed in tabIe 4.14.12. Horizontaltail tab characteristics are summarized in table 4.14.13. The results from table 4.14.13 are applied to table 4.14.14 to obtain the hingemoment characteristics for the condition where the tab is geared to the elevator in the ratio of 5tab _e = 1.5. It should be noted that in table 4.14.14 the caIcuIalions involving the non
of the tail lift curve are identified by block outline and are limit of Iinearity was obtained from a coordinated study of in table 4.14.14 with figure 4.14.11. compared with fullscale for 5 e = 4 , 0 , and correlation calculations (due to tab exists with wind5 is c_b, than
tunnel
The calculated hingemoment data in figure 4.14.110. good. At 6 e = 10 between nonlinearity
good and
at high decreasing
discrepancy an earlier
windtunnel
characteristics
deflection)
hinge region
It is possible to arrive at a simple first approximation moment with qb at a constant 5 e for at least the of the (1) Obtain tail hinge the tail moments. hinge moment be assumed The suggested at tail stall empirical for the
of the nonlinear
taiI
may stall,
to be at 50 percent
of the
aerodynamic
(Chh(f))
stall
_ (_max)h
(f)(x hinge
Ch
 Xc/2)
q_hh
(4.14.117)
q_o
For
the
subject
airplane
at
5 e = 14 ,
(C)hh(f ) stall
_ l'107
(6"
94) (1"0)
=0'236
190
H646
4
OO
_h (Xhing e _ x_/2)h
= 32.45 6.94
t from
(ah)stal (2) columns at 6e = 1 = (C_b o_ b Ch)stall corresponding 4.14.14. _5.7 = 1"0 to
figure
4.14.11
Obtain 2 and
1 from subject
of
1 in table
(ah)stal
on the
plot.
For
the
subject
airplane
this
is indicated
by
in figure that,
for
6 e = 14 . due to the tab will be experienced approximately airplane has been stall done onepoint. for
the
this
sweep airplane
a curve
in figure
4.14.110.
Forces control system are obtained from work input is equal to work output: 5e Fstic k = (Hinge moment) 57.3 8stick (4.14.118) the
Control forces on the stick in a reversible following relation based on the principle that
= 5_3.3
hh(f)q_Sha
5stic k
hh(f)
Sh6 h
(4.14.119)
based
on horizontaltail
dimensions
and
_h 
191
7f_
6e
is the
elevator
deflection, deflection
subject
Fstic k = 40.0
_e
Chh(f}_ _
(4.14.120)
based
on
5stick
=26
deg/ft,
Sh=32.5
sq ft,
and
_h2"71
ft
4.14.3
Symbols All lift and moment coefficients aerodynamic chord. are referenced to the horizontaltail area and the
mean A bh
horizontaltail horizontaltail
aspect span,
Chh(f)
hingemoment coefficient fuselage effects on the stall value lift net of Chh(f ) at the tail
(Chh(f)) CL _h(f)
coefficient lift with coefficient the fuselage of the tail angle of the with of the of the effects tail, tail, due to _h' 6 e, and 6ta b ,
ah = a b ah effects and
5 e (with
fuselage
included
(CLmax)h (_max)h(hf)
(f)
value
CLh(f )
lift coefficient of the effects included of lift of lift due due to the
elevator
deflection
192
H646
(CLa)h e
liftcurve slope of the exposed portion of the tail referenced to the effective area of the exposed per deg
panels, panels,
CL6e
elevator
with of
the
tab
geared deg
to the
elevator
to deflect
5ta_b, per 6e
OCL
CL6tab (_C_) 6tab 2bh el = 57.3 (a6)cl ef, etab ch (Ch)av (oh) _h cz el
a
tab
effectiveness,
06_tab , per
and tab, ft
respectively,
used
synonymously
at the
semispan
liftcurve liftcurve
0c l 3a , per of the _c 1
deg tail
horizontal
el 6ta b
section
tab
06ta b , per
coefficient deflection
at semispan
77
increment sectionlift coefficient at semispan station, due to the tab deflection, referred to the constantpercent line chord line through (XCP)b ' the basic loading due to tab deflection
77,
H646
193
C m
II
rate
of change 5ta b
I]
section
5tab
with
quarterchord
constantpercent
through
section increment pitchingmoment coefficient, flap (tab) deflection, about the quarterchord plane normal to the constantpercent chord (Xcp) b
ACmf) n
ACmf
at semispan
station,
7?
of the tab
to the tail
chord
at semispan
station,
_?
Fstick G G
force,
spanwise
coefficient of symmetry
difference in spanload coefficients for loaddistribution curves at semispan (fig. 4.14.13(b), for example) K a factor for estimating location for untabbed obtained from figure
span
the section centerofpressure section near the ends of the tab, 4.14. t8
Kh(f)
ratio of the lift on the fixed stabilizer, due to angle of attack, in the presence of the fuselage to the stabilizer alone, obtained from figure 4.41
k
Cl o_ 27r ratio of the deflection, stabilizer Mach dynamic freestream number pressure at the horizontal tail, lb/sq ft lb/sq ft lift on the stabilizer, due to the stabilizer in the presence of the fuselage to the alone, obtained from figure 4.13.11
kh(f)
dynamic area,
pressure, sq ft
Sh
horizontaltail
194
H646
Sh e
area of the exposedpanels of the horizontal tail, sq ft thrust coefficient chordwise centerofpressure location, at semispan station, rT, aft of the quarter chord of and as a ratio
of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord from chord the with chordwise location of the aerodynamic center leading edge of the tail mean aerodynamic 5ta b = 0 , in. chordwise chordwise centerofpressure section basic loading location, center ft of pressure, ft
Xach
section basic loading center deflection, from the leading of the tail chord
Ch ]V
centerofpressure location of the lift due to deflection, at semispan station, r/, from the edge of the tail as a ratio of the tail chord from the aerodynamic line of the tab, in. center of the tail to the
(Xhing e  Xac) h
distance, on the tail mean aerodynamic quarterchord and halfchord point, the tab hinge line, in. lateral lateral angle distance distance of attack, angle from to the deg of attack relative to the the tail plane mean
the to
of symmetry, aerodynamic
ft chord, ft
0% (_b)hstal 1
Xbody
axis,
deg
angle of attack corresponding at any one deflected position, of attack ah for of the any one tail, 6e eb  _h, setting,
angle of attack of the tail at the maximum including fuselage effect on the tail and interaction same as effects, (_h)stall) respectively
( (oeCLma
isthe 195
H646
(_h)stal
1 with the
tab
at zero
setting
clbtab cl
M2) 1/2 elevator flap stick tab deflection, same at the normal tab deg as tab grip to the deflection, point, hinge deg section basicloading centerft line, deg 5ta b, deg
normal line,
_h 77
average semispan
downwash station,
the
horizontal
tail,
deg
7?, 77 i o
inboard
and
outboard
end
of the
of the
tail
mean
chord tail
of spanwise
distance
_f
spanwise length of the flap as a ratio of tail semispan sweep of the line, deg sweep sweep (tan Ac/4 /_ ) , deg horizontaltail taper ratio of the of the section
(tab)
from
the
plane
of symmetry
Ab
basicloading
centerofpressure
tail tab
line,
deg
196
H646
4.14.11 TAIL WITH TAB ALONE IN THE PRESENCE OF OF 6tab _ THE = 1.5
GEARED to Sh)
IN RATIO
Ca) Linear
(referenced
C'Lh(f ) = (CLh(f))6tab= _[ \
+ (ACL)Sta She
+ [(C Lakekh
(f)SS__
,r
_+ C L6tab______e /_tab
\'] )j 6e} _h
Symbol (CLq)he Sh e Sh Kh(f) kh(f) 6tab Gearing 6e C L6ta b Lift for effectiveness 6ta b= 6 ,0 of , ratio of tab Liftcurve per deg Area of slope
Magnitude O. 0700
exposed
panels, sq ft of fuselage
sq
ft
Table Table
horizontaltail on tail
to of
tail
Table Table
movable
in presence
fuselage
to elevator tab, 7.5 referenced to S h, per deg: Table Table Table _h 4.13.11(c) 4.13.11(c) 4.13.11(c)
1.5
Summary:
For
6 e =4
, 0 ,
5:
_h(f)
= (0.0665c_
h +0.10136e)
_h
5e = 10: CLh(f) = (0. 0665c% + 0. 10046e) q_ q_h q_
5 e = 14:
C'Lh(f ) = (0.0665c_
h + 0. 09415e)
(referenced
to
I(aC
Lmax)h
(f}] 6tab
=0
deg
e from
h(h 0 , (CLmax)h(f)
.
Sh e " _hh
H646
197
HORIZONTALTAIL parameters
Pertinent
Reference Windtunnel number 997 ITable Table Table i Table chord, ft Table Table Table Figure Figure 3.21 3.21 3.21 3,21 3, 21 3.21 4.51 3.22 3.22 Math O. 083
Magnitude
hh A
%
6h Y5 h Xae h (Xhing e  Xac)h (Xhing e  x5/4) h
Aerodynamic center relative to leading edge of mean aerodynamic chord Distance between aerodynamic center of mean aerodynamic chord and hinge line, in. Distance between quarter chord of mean aerodynamic chord and Sh hinge line, in.
(eh)av
................
2.60
%
Ratio of tab chord to tail chord Figure 3,22 18 ]7  Xac) h ,0361 5h
(Otab'
\Ch (hinge
(Xhing e  x_/4)
h 0361 2Y5 h .441 bh Sweep Sweep of quarterchord of tab hinge line, line deg of horizontal tail, deg Table Figure 3.21 3.22 8,0 0
'_e/4 Ah l (Xep) b Ch
Chordwise to tab
centerofpressure dcficetion
position
of basic
loading
due
Figure
4.14.15
.66
Ab
Seop of.epCChordlino ,
deg . in plane normal t to plane to _/  t. h line, deg J "_ Tab Tab Tab Cl a 27r Cl 5ta b deflection deflection deflection tab hinge in streamwise in plane normal = tanl(cosAh/tanbtab) /cos (Xcp)b= tanl_ Aht tan 8tab_ cos Ab ')
Equation
(4.14.110)
1.8
Equation Equation
(4.14.1_7) (4.14.113)
5 tab _ 6ta b
Table
4.21
((_5)c/
(ez h )
Hcrtzontaltail taper for for ratio spanload spanload deg due to tab deflection distribution distribution = Design Design tan Spanwise parameter parameter _ )'tan Ac4'_
Table
h k
Table
3.21
tt_
),
loading
coefficient
Figure
4, 14.12
See
figure
4.14.19
(cz_), (ezA=0),
For general reference
Incremental
section
lift
Equation
(4.14.16)
See
part
(b)
Equation
(4.14.19)
(ClA)_
? referred
to basic
load
f
CmStabtt
 ST.
line
_._.223_j\tCtab_c ., h
[Q
(4.14.
[12)
0.0110
theory
198
H646
TABLE
4.14.12
(Concluded)
(b)
Increment
section
lift
coefficient
(C/A)71
(4.14.16)
_0.212
r/_h)r/
+t+
(_t/
for
5tab
= 6 ,
7.5
(used
in
analysls)
0,207
t+
h/r/
for
5tab
= 15
(used
in
analysis)
G _ 0. 176(A _) 77
(c)
Chord'_tse
center
of
pressure
(Xcp)r/
at
increment
section
For
semlspan
stations
included
in the
tabbed
= 0.26 /_,U'_
cf where, from figure 4.14.17 (for _hh = 0.18),
6 0.060 t_ aad
tS_ 0.125
,.9. rl = O. 20
(4.14.114)
_h ,'r/
where K is obtained from figure 4.14.18
[ (e,,,:0)r/Jedgooftab
(d)
Chordwtse
center quarter
of
pressure chord bh
of of tail
increment mear_
section aerodynamic
lift
coefficient chord
relative
to
(_h_
=(rlr/)'_h
 T
tanAc/4+_h
0'25
]
_. 14. t15]
0.325
(t/
0.441)+
5]
(e)
Pitching
moment
about
the
aerod3mamic
chord
(_c')<+tab =
(_,,).
2.60(_c_()
_'h ,_
(4.14.116) dr/ r/ (refe and_ ..... =qh d I. O) t Sh = 32"6 sq ft
_0 I..(c/A_)
(f)
Hingemoment
coefficient
of
the
horizontal
tail
Chh(f)
: (CLh(f))0tab:0
(Xhingech
Xae)h
+ (ACL)0tab
(Xhlllgecb_
xff/4)h
+ (ACmX k
?6ta
:o. ..,6, o
:0.0361_LL h(O +(AC__ \
++ ("CL)t+]+,'AC"++
\ / tab (refercncedto IOtab Sh =.q2.5sqfland q_h q : 1.0)
(4,
t4.
l1)
where
CLh(f
Is
obtained
from
figure
4.
N.
II
H646
199
oJ _9
.o O Z
i ,i
e
200
H646
II
i!
H646
201
T_ .....
J _ _. ._"
_ o
202
H646
tl
.8 66 deg 4 .6
.4 CL O.405 .2 
6e=O
w
CLh(f)
.2
_.,
.
,8 \"_'//: _ /
L,m,,o, / ..... /
linearity 5e =0 _ ," _ _,
1. _ .L t
',
//
\, _
", \\,[ //
Z
_J 4 8 in tile presence area,
1.2 20 16 12 8 Z 0 ah =ab  _h, deg Figure 4.14.11. Calculated tab geared lift curves of the horizontal tail 5tab qh 6c 1.5; alone
to elevator.
q_o = 1.0;
reference
203
1.0
.8
0.5
.4
\0.831
.2
.2
.4 77
.6
.8
1.0
32).
204
H646
.81 z_ 
6 _
.._,,._. _l.
_f 00 h 0 .5 1.0 
per rad
0 .8
.6
_,,,._
_f
, per rad
.2
.4 11
.6
,8
1.0
flA k
= 2.0; 4.14.12.
inboard
flaps.
Continued. 205
.6 A_ =o=
"_0:,__.._
0 .6
"
AI_=40'=
'r/f 0
/ _.___
.5 LO
0 .4
A_=60
_
, per rad .2
'Tf1.o0
.2
.4 'r/
RA
.6
.8
1.0
(c) Figure
= 6.0; 4.14.12.
inboard
flaps.
Continued.
206
H646
'

,.00
_ ,e,,ad 0,95 2 I
0 .4
k 0 .5 1.0
,__
A13=50
G 5'
per rad
 
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
(d)
= 10.0; 4.14.12.
inboard
flaps.
Figure
Concluded,
207 H646
.6
I
f
.4 G _, rad .2 \1.0
t
!
=0 r/f 0 (a) General for .2 spanwise specific r#f0.1 .4 load _7 6 .8 curves 1.0 reduced to fiAk ' Aft, and X
distribution )_ = 0. 586;
design.
6
G
.___Actual 0. 195
rad '.24 _ _
)))
.2
.4 r/f
.6
.8
1.0
_
r/f 0.1 L
I
,,ctu.,,,ao.o.n l
J
.4 , rad .2
!
0 (c)
.2
.4
.6
.8 (from
Variation of spanwise loading coefficient extending from Vf = 0.1 to 0, 75, Sketches condition. showing reduction
of spanwise
loading
design
charts H646
to
[I
= :
= : ......
A'q_ 0.2
1.0 0
.8O
.60
.4O /
// / /
Equatior, (4.14.114)
.2
.4 _7
.5
.8
1.0
Figure for
4.14. stations
variation
of chordwise
centerofpressure
location
H646
2O9
.8
.6
>20
(Xcp) b .4 Ch
.2
.4 cf Ch
.6
.8
1.0
Figure ratio
Variation
of sectionbasicloading
center
of pressure
with
flapchord
210
H646
cf
Ch. 10 Zlcmf .2
ratio windtunnel
 From figure
ACmf
.2
/Liftingline theory
.4
10
20
30 6f, deg
40
50
60
10
Comparison of effect of plainflap deflection on section pitching by liftingline theory with empirically determined effects from
figure
4.14.15
for
cf Ch
= 0.18.
H646
211
1.0
.8
.6 K .4
.2
.04
.08 Ay_
.12
.16
.20
for estimation of section centerofpressure end of flaps (ref. 31). Subsonic speeds.
location
for
212
H646
.6
.5
.4
, per rad .3
.2
Figure
4.14.19. tail
of
Variation subject
of spanwise airplane. _A k
loading =4.81;
due ;
to tab
deflection
on
horizontal
X= 0.515.
H646
213
.32
.28
d ,4
.24
.20
,4
,V r/Section 4.14.1 \
\
.16
,4
\
\ A\ \
Chh(f) 12 (referenced to tail area and tail mean aerodynamic chord) .08
Z_ Zl Zl
/1 \ t
'10
"
.O4 0
5<>
<>
___ _u 0 _0 0 0
__0
.04
n [3 n El
._____G_'_o u
n
4o
[]
I
0 4
I
8 %, deg
1
12
I
16
I
20
Comparison
of calculated
and 5tab
windtunnel = 1.5;
hingeat T_ = 0
H646
5.0
PREDICTION
OF
POWERON
AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
The effects of power from propeller operation are generally significant on the stability and control characteristics of an airplane. Unfortunately, because the propeller slipstream usually interacts with the flow around several of the airplane components, a number of separate effects must be accounted for. Although some of the effects have been accounted for by theoretical analysis, many are usually estimated by empirical methods.
Successful analytical methods were developed in reference 33 for estimating propeller forces normal to the thrust axis and the effects of slipstream on wingfuselage characteristics. A successful empirical method was developed in reference 19 for estimating the change in wing lift due to the change in slipstream dynamic pressure on the immersed portion of the wing. Less success has been achieved in providing a general technique to predict the complex changes in flow at the tail. It appears that an empirical technique for predicting power effects on the tail is generally based on experimental data of singleengine airplanes of similar configurations. Attempts to apply the technique to other configurations require some prior knowledge (gained through experience) of the empirical corrections to be applied to the prediction techniques used. One of the more successful investigations to provide a semiempirical the problem of determining the effects of power on the tail contribution of singleengine monoplanes is reported in reference 34. Some effects elevator hinge moments are discussed in reference 35. approach to to the stability of power on
In the following sections, the effects of power on lift, pitching moments, drag, and elevator hinge moments are considered on the basis of methods presented in reference I which are, with some modifications, the methods of reference 19. The method of reference 19, in turn, utilizes the method of reference 33 and refines the method of reference 34. The procedures presented are applied to the subject airplane, sources of discrepancy are identified, and a modification is established for future guidance for similar aircraft. To facilitate the presentation of nomenclature in the discussion of power effects, immersed surface areas and propeller slipstream are defined in figures 51 and 52, respectively. Figure 51(a) provides surface area definitions for a singleengine airplane, and figure 51(b) provides definitions for a twoengine airplane (the subject airplane). These definitions are supplemented by written definitions in section 5.13.
H646
215
5.1 Power Effects on Lift The effects of the propeller on the lift forces acting on the airplane may be divided into two groups, those due to the propeller forces and those due to the propeller slipstream. On this basis the lift of the airplane may be represented by
Propeller forces Propeller slipstream effects
\/
Wing Horizontal tail
/
CL = CLprop off + (ACL)T
\/
\
+ ( ACL h )A6th + _CLh)(Aeh)powe r
where ACL) (ACL)N (ACL)A_ over the T p w is the is the is the of the is the of this lift lift component component in lift immersed in lift of the of the of the due propeller propeller thrust normal vector force, change slipstreams portion of the wing ep, due Np (fig. in dynamic
(5.11)
52) pressure
change wing
portion
change portion
to change in fig
in
resulting
downwash,
shown
is the
change
of the
horizontal
tail
resulting
from
pressure
is the at the
in lift
contribution
of the
horizontal
tail
resulting
to power on lift, the airplane will be considered followed by horizontaltail effects included. This treatment is
In the following discussion of power effects initially on the basis of tailoff lift characteristics, contributions to lift with tailfuselage interaction represented by the equation
_CLwfn)power
/
Direct propeller / force effects CL = [(CLwfn)prop off Propeller \ / stream slip
\
effects \
(5.12)
216
H646
5. I. I
propelleroff, contribution
thrust
n(Tc/.ro,)s o
where n is the number of propellers
Tcs,o
(5.1.11)
T c/prop
= Thrust/propeller
_s w
o_ T vector The following contribution of the propeller normal equation from reference 19: force to the lift is obtained from the is the angle of attack of the thrust axis relative to the freestream velocity
nf(CN ) 5V.3 Sw
P
Olp (Sp/prOP)cos
_T
(5. i. 12)
whe re is the propeller is the inflow propeller factor from figure 5.1.11 at T c = 0, per radian given by
normalforce
parameter
1+0.8
_q
(5.1.13)
from
the
propeller
manufacturer
or ap
(5.1.14) 0.3Rp where 0.3Rp at 0.3Rp H646 (similar ratios have the same connotation) 217 is the ratio of the blade \Rp/0.6Rp width, bp, \RP/0.9Rp to the propeller radius,
is the propeller normalforce derivative given in figure 5.1.12 KN=S 0.7 as a function of blade angle, fl,_ and type of propeller
_p is the local angle of attack of the propeller
0_ u
[(CN_)p]
plane
(fig.
52),
obtained
from
Up = c_T
as
(tw  _)
(5.1.15)
where
_u
upwash
gradient
at the
propeller, o_b + i w
obtained
from
figure
5.1.13
Sp/prop
disk
7rR2
P
The contribution of power to lift due to change in dynamic pressure mersed portion of the wing is obtained from the following equation from
Aqw I/CLw_
(Si/prp)
(5.1.16)
where K 1 is an empirical effects aspect on the wing, ratio, A i, correlation obtained of the from parameter figure portion 5.1.14 of the for additional as a function wing (fig. 51) wing of lift due to the power and
Sw(Tc/prop) 8Rp2
immersed
increase of the
pressure
due
to propeller
slipstream
on the
Sw (T c/prop) = (5.1.17) 7rRp 2 in the and 52, propeller from slipstream (per propeller)
q_o The is obtained, portion of the basis wing, Si, immersed 5109)
on the
of figures
Si/PrP
= (bi/PrP)
ci
(5.1.
lS)
218
H646
=2JRp
2  (z s
Zw )2
(5.1. I9)
z s =Xp(_ with
O_U
b
e u
ep) +z T
(5.1.110)
eu=
and
( wdo)
(5.i. 111)
(5.1.112)
The
de rivative
is given
by
8p a_p  C 1 + C 2 __,(CN_)p
(5.1.113)
where obtained
the
C2
are
obtained
from
figure
5.1.15
and
(CN_)p
is
The propeller
contribution downwash,
to lift
due from
to change
in angle
of attack
resulting
from
is obtained Aq w
(ACL)ep
w
whe re
_D
and and
Si/pro
are
defined
by equations
(5.1.17)
and
(5.1.18),
respec
tively,
Ep = (A_)Si whe re c was defined in equation (5.1.112) also be accounted for. The to occur at discrete angles of because the angle of attack 219 8u i  a_ (5.1.115)
The contribution of power to the maximum lift must preceding contributions of power to lift were considered attack to be added to the poweroff lift curve. However, H646
for stall increases with power, dependingprimarily upon the ratio of immersed wing area to total wing area, an additional increase in power effect occurs at or near maximum lift dueto the increase in stall angle. This is illustrated in the following sketch:
"
C Lwfn
/Y/"
(AC_)P wer t
= (ACL) T + (ACL)Np + (ACL)Aqw + (ACL){p
/ Propeller
(aCLmax)prop off
off
a b
increment following
in maximum empirical
lift equation
due
to the
propeller 1):
power,
ACLmax,
is obtained
(from
ref.
ACLmax
= K (ACL)"
(5.1.116) p owe r
whe re
i
CL)powe angle
is the
increment
in tailoff
lift
due
to power
at propelleroff,
maxi
mumlift
of attack for maximum lift due to power, to total wing area, obtained from a function of the figure 5.1.16 ratio of total
The complete poweron lift curve is constructed of the poweron curve, (b) drawing a horizontal line mum lift coefficient, and (c) translating the nonlinear curve to a tangency with (a) and (b). This construction lift curve but also fixes the poweron stall angle.
by: (a) plotting the linear portion representing the poweron maxipropelleroff portion of the lift not only shapes the poweron
By using the foregoing procedures, the tailoff lift characteristics of the subject airplane were determined and are summarized in tables 5.1.11 to 5.1.14 for three thrust conditions. In tables 5.1.11(c), 5.1.12(a)3, 5.1.12(b), and 5.1.13, in which the power effects are computed as functions of angle of attack, _b, the tables
220
H646
are separated into three parts: The first part provides for the calculation of power effects on lift from _b
= 4 (essentially zero lift) to o_ = 12 . b The results of these calculations for each thrust condition (table 5.1.13, column 7) are plotted as in figure 5.1.17 with the propelleroff, tailoff lift curves superimposed on the plots. These plots constitute the initial phase of construction plots for poweron curves and completion of the calculations. The (_CL)'power table The the With 5.1.14 ACLmax propelleroff poweron second part is an interjected in column ACLmax for due line item used only to obtain to be used power in
condition. to CLmax
each
condition
in figure linear
CLmax
portion
completed
as explained
in this
With the poweron lift curves completed, the stall angle for condition is noted and used to extend the propelleroff, wingalone propelleroff, tailoff lift curves to the poweron stall angles as ure 5.1.18. This figure is now used to provide the information in column 12 of table 5.1.120) and column 6 in table 5.1.13 to plete the third part of the tables. The poweron now in tabular llorizontalTail The due addition tailoff characteristics form ready for the Contribution of power alters to Lift the propelleroff lift contribution as summarized consideration of net
are 5.1.2
5.1.13
of the
horizontal
tail been
particularly troublesome, more so for multiengine than singleengine aircraft because of the variations in size, shape, and position of the nacelles relative to the wing, which appear to provide more variables and interference with flow over the wing than in singleengine installations. The errors in predicting the power effects on the lift contribution of the horizontal tail for normal configurations are not too significant in determining the net lift of an airplane. They are, however, very significant in determining the pitchingmoment characteristics. The powerinduced change in downwash at the tail, (Aq_)power, may be estimated from figure 5.1.21 for singleengine airplanes and from figure 5. t. 22 for multiengine airplanes. These nomographs, developed in reference 19, are presented as functions and H646 airplane of propelleroff geometry downwash involving vdng angle, area, (_h)prop Sw, s off' thrust radius, coefficient, Rp, and T'c/prop, distance 221
propeller
ZhT. _, may be
estimated from the nomograph in figure 5.1.23 with some reservation regarding the T_ = 0 condition. This nomograph, obtained from reference 1, was originally
developed the ordinate, in reference _Aqh. 19 and In the differs from the original the in the zero vertical displacement was alined of original T c/prop with Aq h the zero value of Sw . This is in contrast to the present 8Rp2# T c/prop Sw 8Rp 2 development, value of A_h _o alinement of
4
the
with _o shift
the of the
zero
value
of
. that
is given made
in reference with a
1 for
ordinate.
It is surmised
to conform
normally freestream T_ = 0
assumption that the dynamic pressure at the tail in the absence of power effects (propeller off or and positive thrust conditions for which figure
5.1.23
values of dynamicpressure propelleroff conditions, conditions be used. For 6tab of Se the subject the the airplane
the values determined in section 4.9.2 that the values obtained for propelleroff
with
the
tab
geared
to the tail
to deflect of the
in the
ratio may be
 1.5, from
contribution
of the horizontal
airplane
obtained
following
relation:
(5.1.21) CLh(hf) where CLh(h0) # S h, qh/qx, ratio is the =1.0 of 1.0, obtained and 4.9.17; 5.1.22 dynamicpressure ratio at the tail, obtained from 6e; figure downwash downwash 4.13.31 at the increment as a function tail with due of off, lift of the tail referenced to the tail area and a [(_ Lh(hf))Sh,qh/qoo ' = 1.0 Sh qh rop off Aqh ] q_
dynamicpressure C_h = ab (_h)props (AEh)powe _(El_] \q_Ip from 222 figure rop off (eh)prop off' r,
propeller to power,
obtained obtained
is the
propelleroff
4.9.17 H646
is the
_O
powerinduced
increment
in dynamicpressure
ratio
at the
tail,
obtained zero or
from figure 5.1.23. When the increment positive thrust conditions, it is assumed
obtained to be zero
from
the
figure
is negative
for
The effect of the horizontal tail, including elevator (with geared tab) deflections, on the lift of the subject airplane with power on is summarized in column 14 of Calculated downwash characteristics table 5.1.21 as a function of _b' 5e, and T c. are compared with those determined from experimental data (ref. 2) in figure 5.1.24. The downwash and dynamicpressure ratio of the horizontal tail, calculated in columns and 4 and column 11 of table 5.1.21(b), respectively, are shown in figure 5.1.25. The 5, was downwash determined the at the tail determined 2 for each from experimental setting Cm point on, data, versus considered, was equal to _b shown of plot the in figure c_ b by tailon was on the 5.1.23
in reference
power tailoff
as a function
included
At each Cm,
otb tail
to be equal
at which
C m,
the authors of reference 2 considered the downwash, 1 of the correct value at the high angles of attack. of the experimentally of attack for TP = 0 c curves, accurate necessary correlation later. This calculated determined is believed 5e), values downwash, to be within for for t Tc = 0 t T c = 0.
deter
correlation, i T c  0.20
fairly found
At total due
0.44,
the increment
of downwash
to power by 40 percent to achieve of (_b and 5e), as is discussed power had only (fig. 5. i. 25). 5.1.3 a slight effect
on the
Net Characteristics
of the Subject
Airplane column for At total (discussed 16 of table 5.1.21(b)) total T'c = 0, 0.20, t T c = 0.20 in the last and paragraph 0.44, and wind0.44 in
and
effects
It should be noted that the lift contributions onto the body due to the angle of attack
of the tail include taillift carryover of the tail (5 e = 0 ) and elevator de
flection as discussed in sections 4.10(a) and 4.131, respectively. These calculated taillift carryover effects for the tailbody configuration of the subject airplane are considered to be excessive, as shown in section 4.11 and section 4.13.4, and should H646 223
be neglected for this tailbody configuration. Neglect of these carryover effects have an insignificant influence on the lift curves of figure 5.1.31 but not on the pitchingmoment curves (as was shown in section 4.13.4). 5.1.4 A Ai Symbols wing aspect the aspect ratio ratio of the portion of the wing i_nmersed 5 i / prop 5i span of the total portion of the slipstreams of the propellers, bi/prop span of the portion of the stream of one propeller, wing ft wing immersed ft immersed in the
would
in
slipstream
of one propeller,
in the
slip
(bi) e
span of the exposed portions of the wing panels immersed in the propeller slipstream of a singleengine airplane, ft blade factors p, width used obtained of the propeller, ft the propeller downwash,
bp C 1,C 2
5.1.15
CL CLh (hf)
lift net
coefficient lift 5e, coefficient and 5ta b, of the with horizontal tail due to ah, effects
referenced
Sh,
=1.0
coefficient,
referenced
horizontaltail area and a dynamicpressure at the tail equal to 1.0 maximum lift lift lift coefficient at propelleroff conditions
ratio
CLwf n
lift
of the
tailoff
configuration
at powerr
(CLwfn)pro lift
p off + (ACLwfn)powe
tailoff
maximum
coefficient H646
ACLmax (ACL) Np
increment increment
of maximum of lift
lift
due
coefficient normal
of the propeller
( Gower
increment of lift coefficient due to the powerinduced change in dynamic pressure over the portion of the wing immersed in the propeller slipstreams ACL)T increment propeller increment of attack, of the peller of lift coefficient thrust vector of lift coefficient from wing due to the liftcomponent
resulting
increment of horizontaltail coefficient resulting from change in dynamic pressure increment of horizontaltail coefficient resulting from in downwash at the tail increment of tailoff lift
contribution to the lift the powerinduced at the tail contribution to the the powerinduced lift change
(A w n),owor
Cm
coefficient alone
due
to power
liftcurve slope of the wing conditions, per deg pitchingmoment normalforce propeller coefficient derivative disk area,
at propelleroff
propeller
based
on the
(Cri)
root chord of the exposed portion of the immersed in the propeller slipstream engine airplane, ft
H646
225
ct i
of the wing ft
immersed
in the
propeller inflow factor, ratio force coefficient at poweron conditions iT incidence of the axis, deg incidence deg correction correlation power propeller
!
normal(T_ = 0)
thrust
axis
relative
to the
Xbody
iw
of the
wing
relative
to the
Xbody
axis,
K K1
factor
for
maximum
lift
due
wing
KN lh,1 h
distance from the center of gravity and the quarter chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed portion of the wing, respectively, to the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord, ft normal force of a propeller, lb
number freestream
\qL
]prop
off
dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail for and propelleroff conditions, respectively, ratio of the freestream dynamic pressure
poweron as a
Aq h
Aq w
increment of powerinduced dynamic pressure acting on the horizontal tail and the portions of the wing immersed in the propeller slipstream, respectively, as a ratio of the freestream dynamic pressure propeller horizontaltail radius, and ft wing area, respectively, sq ft
%
Sh, Sw S i, Sh i
area of the portions of the wing and horizontal tail, respectively, immersed in the propeller slipstreams (fig. 51(b)), sq ft
226
H646
Shi/prop
area immersed sq ft
in the
slipstream
of
Si/prop
immersed sq ft
in the
slipstream
of one
pro
Sp/prop T , Tc =
sq ft
of the
'
T e/prop V X b , Zb
thrust airspeed, x
coefficient ft/sec
due
to one propeller
axis,
respectively,
of the
Xp, x_
distance from the center of gravity and the quarter chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed portion of the wing, respectively, to the propeller, positive forward, ft distance from the aerodynamic center aerodynamic chord of the immersed wing area to the center of gravity, forward, in. or ft of the mean portion of the positive
Xw
Y5 i
lateral distance from the root chord of the exposed portion of an immersed wing panel on a singleengine airplane to the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed panel, ft distance, parallel to the Zbody axis, from the Xbody axis to the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord, positive down, ft effective distance, parallel to the Zbody axis, from the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord to the centerline of the propeller slipstream, positive down, ft distance, parallel to the Zbody axis, from the thrust axis to the quarter chord of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord, positive down, ft
zh
Zhef f
Zh T
H646
227
Z s
distance, parallel to the Zbody axis, from the Xbody axis to the centerline of the propeller slipstream at the longitudinal station of the quarter chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed portion of the wing, positive down, ft distance, Xbody parallel to the Zbody axis to the thrust axis, axis, from the positive down,
zT
ft
Zw
distance, parallel to the Zbody axis, from the Xbody axis to the quarter chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed portion of the wing, positive down, ft angle airplane deg of attack, angle deg of attack relative to the Xbody axis,
( _C Lmax)prop
off
ab,
at stall
with
the
propellers
off,
Ot
of the propeller plane, wing upwash, deg of the of the thrust wing axis, relative deg
includes
the
to its
chord
line,
angle its
zerolift
line
relative
to
change in angle of attack of the portion immersed in the propeller slipstream propeller, deg
!
propeller
6 e
blade
angle
at 0.75Rp, deg
deg
deflection, deg
deflection,
at the horizontal
tail
due
to
epower
on
at the
horizontal
tail
for
poweron
conditions,
Ep
behind
the
deg
ao_
 Cu DEU
behind
at the
propeller, propeller
aoz
_e
at the
taper ratio of the exposed portion of the wing panel on a singleengine airplane
H646
229
(a)
Contribution
of thrust
/
vector
to lift,
(ACL)
T = n(T c/prop)
sin
ce T
T _/prop
_Sw
Incidence _b + IT' of thrust deg line to reh_renee Xbaxis, (leg
iT
(a)2 T _,/prop o .10 .22 n(Tte/prop) o .20 .44 0 20 44 sin c_b sin a b (AC L) T 1
(b)
Contribution
of propeller
normal ffp
force,
(AC L) Np
(ACL)Np (b)i Symbol llp Sp/prop SVC Propeller Propeller radius, disk area, ft nRp 2,
nf{CN_)p
57.3
Description
Ma grd t ude
prolxqler
Reference wing area for and flight data, sq ft r op) Power 8Rp 2 parameter for
comparison
S w ( T c/p
obtaining
correlation
2.47(T
_/l)rop)
Width
of propeller
blade,
ft
Manufaclurer
at 0.3Rp at .6 Rp at 9 Rp
9(;9

Normalforce
factor,
2(;2k_}P/0.3Rp
+
 t_p
0. GRp
j;/
As 12
selccted on [_ t
group Figure
5.1.
l)eponds
(c%
Propeller normalforce
derivative,
,) IqN _0.7
230
H646
TABLE (b)t Symbol 5i Effeeti_e Distance chord (Concluded) De se ription of immersed forward wing area,
5.1.11
(Conclu(led)
Re fe renee ft point of c i, ft Figure Figure , .............. Table Figure 3.21 5. ]. I3 31 t. 21 51(b) 52
Magnitude 5.50 6, 0
.% x_
..et A o(i 1
of propeller
of quarterchord
........................................................ Aspect Upwash Angle Wing Angle Angle ratio of _ring at propeller (ff wing angle relative to to wing wing chord, (leg (_b + iw, deg
Table Tahle
relative line,
chord, (leg 0u  _
(n'v,"  eye),
(leg
Equation
(5. 1. 15)
1,20_
b _ .78
T_/prop
@
Sw (Tc</prop) figure 8Rp 2 2.47(T_./prop)
@
f, 5. 1. I1 as
13(
in windtunnel of the subject plane, ('leg 11. _ 19.3 21.5 airtest
o
(CN a ) 1 PJKN: figure 80. 7'
(CNr3p = 1.17 0.0936 .1147 1217 (_ (ACL}Np 0. 00554 0.000519(l.2_ .000756(1.2_, .000924(1.2n, for
@
propellers two @(6_ _p cos cos cos cos _'1) _b ceb c_b
1.00 1, 19 1.37
(c)
Summary
of lift
due
to direel
action
of propeller
forces
O
.......... ,
@
......
@
, ...... Table
5. l.ll(b)I Table
5.1.110)2 TabIe (ACL)Np (ACL)T= T_(_) # T c o o. 2 0. 0140 0.44 0. 0309 . 015,t 0 ,0070 0.0140 .0209 (). 0278 .0347 II. 04 16 0.0477 0.0477 .(M_7 .... . 015t 0.0207 .0460 O. 0[;12 .0761 I). 0915 0.1049 0.10.I9 .1072 O. 1091 0
cos
qb
cos@
+0.78
0.000519 0.00207 .000_3 0.001)42 .0016[; O. 00290 ,004 13 0.00535 .006_ 0.00772 0.00_72 0.00_72 ....... .............
0.2 I 0.4_
c 1 0.000756 0.00302 .00121 0.00060 .00242 0, 00422 .00601 0.00779 .0n052 O.0tl2,l 0.01270 0,01270 .o129_ 0.00092l 0.00369 .0014_ 0.00074 .0029_; O. 00511; .00735 0.00952 .01165 0.01371 0.01552 !).01552 .0t5_(; 0.01620 0 0.0021)7 . 000_3 0. 0004 2 . oo 16(; o. 00290 .00413 0. 00535 00(;5t 0. 00772 0.00372 o. 00a72 ....... ............
# T e 0.2 0.01702 . 00_21 0. 00060 . (10942 0. (11 _22 .02691 0. 03559 .04423 o. I}52S t 0, 00040 0. o6o,1o .0616_ 0 44 0.0345!) .01(;ss 0. 00071 .01S:l[; 0.035'.1; .053:15 0. 07072 . 0_0.3 0, 10524 0. 12042 0.12012 .1230(; o. 12560
0.069_ .0349 0 .0349 0.0_9_ .IO45 0.1392 .1736 0.2079 0.23B5 0.23S5 .2t36 0.2187
0.9976 .9994 1.000 .9994 0.9970 .9945 0.9903 .9g, t_ I).97_1 0.971l 0.9711 .9699 0.9686
0 0 0 0 0 0
. 0070
0 0 0 o 0
aS(all angle for t,afm(CLwf_ax prope0et off (u_d only to obtain (CI. x maxt _ po'weron ). bcd Stall angles for tailoff configuration at T c = O, 0.20, 0.44, respectively.
H646
231
(a)
Winglift
increments
due
In dynamic (ACLIA_w
pressure
on
Immersed
portion
Aq w (ACL)Aqw (a)i Symbol (Ct'w)prop off C L Sw of wing = 172.3 alon( sqlt, (The was C L Description curve of figure to 4.2i(a), Sw based fiin stall = nKl q_(CLw)prop off
Si/prop Sw
rereferenced
= 178 sq
figure was
5. I. i7 and
portion portion,
approaching to the
translated,
along
stall angles
conditions.
of propellers wing data, sq radius, perpropeller area ft ft Table 31 for comparison _2th x_tndtunnel and Table 31
Aqw Change wing, in dynamicpressure Sw(T_/prop) ratio on immersed portion of Equation (5. l. 17) Function of (T_,/prop)
rmp2
Sw(Ttc/prop) Power parameter for obtaining correlating functions 2.47(T'/prop)
C 1 C2
for for
down,_ash, dowr,,_sh,
ep ep
of
(T_,/prop)
of (T_/prop) of (T_/prop)
(%;
OC_p C_p Cp
C 1 + C2 (CNc_)p Angle of attack of propeller plane, deg 0_p Propeller downwash behind propeller, Oc u _ Vp, deg
Equation Table
(5. I. 113)
of (T_/prop) . 78
Equation
Tc/prop)
u
at
 _ _i to axis
(_w
_o),
deg ft ft
11(b)i
b + 0.78
x;
zT zs zW
propeller, at propeller,
Cu  p) Xbaxis
(5.1.110) 52
f(_b' . 020
T "./prop)
quarterchord
immersed
wing
Figure
zs
 ZW
to chord
im
Figure
52
f(_l),
Tc/PrP)
bi/prop 5i A i
T'e/'prp)
Kl
Correlation
parameter
for
added
lift
due
to
power
Figure
,J Ic
prop)
Si/Prop
Immersed
wing
area
per
propeller.
(bi/prop)_
i,
sq
ft
Figure
51(a)
5.5(bi/Pr.p)
232
H646
'i
,_,z.,_.,_.,_,z
d ii i fc,l
,,
.... ,__ _
._71= ,
_ _
',
'i

i
'_'i: ....... _
@
,r{." N
"'_. .........
? ' ?'71'7"7177'7,'?1VY,'7
"'_="d
"'d
"
be
.,4,:
_d
,J_'
ddld
._
d"
_g
"d
"'d
"d.:l_l
41.4 ;I
ff,_ ? Z
"'d
"d
"
"'d'd''
"'
, .d
_{
, ,i . .i , .i , .i ,i .a .!
_ I_._
"
"
"W
"'d
"'d
"''"
_'d
I'
',
s:9
Z
I I I
i
n
....
H646
233
5.1. angle
12
of attack
(ACL)cp
 n 
q_]
(CLa)w
prop
off
(Aa)si
St/pro Sw
(b)t
Symbol a Sw Si Ratio Aqw Change in dynamicpressure ratio on immersed wing Table 5.1. I2(a)2 f (T_/prop) .0759 0735 referenced referenced to to Sw Sw = = 172.3 178 sq sq ft ft of immersed wing area per propeller to total area Table 5.1.12(a)3 f(_b' Tc/PrP) Number Reference flight of propellers for comparison with windtunnel and Table 31 Description Reference 2 178 Magnitude
slope
of wing
referenced
to
Sw
178
sq
ft
Table
4.21
Cp 9U Oa
Propeller
do_mwash
behind
propeller,
deg
Table
5. I. 12(a)3
Tc/prp)
Upwash Cp
gradient
at
propeller
Figure
5.1.13
(Aa)si
_u
Equation
(5.1.
t151
(ACL). (b)2
p = O. 123(p
Aqv._ + _)
Sf/prop _,
referenced
to
S w = 178
sq
ft
@
......... Table
@
5.1.12(a)3, column 4 Table
@
5.1.12(a)2, column 7 Aq w 1 +q_o Table
@
5.1.12(a)3, column 10 St/prop (ACL)p Sw / T c/prop 0.22 2.385 2. 385 2,385 2.3_5 2.3_5 2.385 2.385 2. 385 2.385 2.385 2.385 2.3_5 0 0.1834 , 1805 0.17f_2 .1706 0. 1633 .1541 O. l t2_, . 12_g 0.11i0 0.0905 0.0905 ...... ............. 0.10 0.1827 .1801 0.1765 .1721 0.1665 .1598 0. t51S .1423 0.1309 0.1190 o.1190 .1165 0.22 0.1822 .179_ 0.1767 .1728 0.168] .1625 0.1559 .1478 0.1393 0.1302 o. 1302 .1283 0.1264 0 0.00211 .00083 0.00041 .00157 0.00263 .00355 0.00428 .0047.t 0.0OA86 0.00451 0.00451 ......... ................. Table
5.1.12 (b)  1
deg
= 0. , t r c 0,20 0.02910 .0_14_ 0.00561 .02193 0.03713 .0509t 0.06257 .07254 0.07921 0.0_199 0.0_199 .08212
123
(_)(_)(_
/ T c/prop 0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0. . 0936 0374 0. t0 0.7948 . 3179 0.1590 .6358 1.1127 1.5896 2.0665 2. 5434 0.22 1.1554 .4634 0.2317 .9267 1.62l,_ 2.316_ 3.0118 3. 7069 0 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 0[)0
/ T c/prop 0.10 1.6295 1. 6295 1.6295 1.6295 1.6295 1. 6295 1.6295 1 . 62,(15 1.6295 1.6295 1.6295 1.6295
0.44 0.06192 .02444 0.0120 .04700 0.08000 .I1044 0.13774 .16072 0. i7990
12
a13,8 b13.8 c14.1
o.3557
0.4048 0..t048 ......
_14.4
tIStall an_e b,c,dstall
.............
for (CLwfn)max for tail*ff propefler conflgumtmn
5.2,t1_ ............
of (u_d at total o_y ,o obtain (C L _ x max/power rt'_tNely.
_.3_5
on ).
an#_
Tg = 0, 0.20, 0.44,
234
H646
II
pl
,<..,
Z 0
bl
2
r, _ @ + ........
C
_ @ + _& "'+
o ,I oo
"'B
_
" +
"
t
i
rO
II
H646
235
:
O I I
@
il
,.+
I
_
A C_ O0
++
O ,'_ CO
lJ
'+"+
II
+
P ,,:._
,.3
[,
O OCq
,.,
0 ,_ c'xl
i
o l= +:,.< ,m
:m T
.,_.;
,:d
E.,
v I r.<
+ ..,< [..+
+''I_3
+.
_t O C::l
i
_
,....; ,+,'+;
,
_t
_.,_, ,o_''_
r.)
N
I I I l
I I _._
OOC,
236
H'646
DEFI,ECTfON
(a)
Symbol S w S h ZhT llp Zh T Reference llorizontaltall Vertical Propeller distance radius, wing area, area, from ft Description sq sq ft ft thrust axis to
prop off
Reference Table Table 21 3.21 52 .q1 178 :]2.5 . 3.0 80 Magmilude
horizontal
tail,
ft
Figure Table
2%
.p Sw(2 c/Prop} A Rp 2
Parameter
for
determining
(A(h)powe
0.
133
Thrust
aqh
q_
parameter
for
determining
(Aeh)powe
and
, 2.47(T
i c/Prop)
(_h)props
off
Downwash
at
horizontal
tatl
with
propellers
off,
(leg
Figure
4.9.17
Function [Zh T
of
_b
(A(h)powe
Downwash
Increment
at horizontal
fail due
to power,
deg
Figure
CYb  eu Sh 1 Sh i
 ep
Inclination
of
behind sq ft
propeller
Table
(,oIueq
5.
ii
1.12(a}3,
5
Variable 15.26
Figure
51(b)
Parameter S h
for
determining
.470
zs
distance riine at
from ci _station
Xbody of
axis immersed
to
slipstream portion of
Table
5.
l.I2(a)_, 6
Variable
column
zh
as shown distance
axis 5i _
to
horizontal
tail,
Figure
52
1.67
along ares to
a:ds
from
of immersed
Figure
52
i 3.76
Zhef
Vertical
distance
(:h _
to
slipstream
ceuterline,
Figure
52
V a rl able
z;
Zhef f _ za  _ (A(h)po_er [Ceb ] u  zh p  (_h)prop s uff 
zs
 0.241
[o_ b
(u
rp
 (h)props
off
{A, h)powe Aq h
Jrj *
q_
to
Figure
5.
1.23
Shi
(l'
Propelleroff tail as C L of
ratio
at
Figure
9.
l7
Funciion
of
(h I))' S h , _ q _
=1.0
horizontal
Vigure
4.13.31
fl.h.6e)
CLwfn
power
referenced
to
Tabh, column
5.1.13, 7
Variable
H646
237
4_
A_
_Z
238
H646
i, o,i
_4
rT
&o
H646
239
6
,f_: _,f _._ dg _ .. _ ,"
i
e
II
o,+
,,_
_,_i
_i
_
o _ ,_1,o, d" _
d_
_"
d"
d"
d'_"
,t
.....
' d"
_,'
,.,.."
d ,'
_,..:
.4._
2:
_&
dM
,4_j
z
1
_
2 II
g
,_i
_q _
I
'
g
_T
o_
.....
,..}_ o_ o
ii I1 _1 I
.n
_,_
_,
_i
.s
240
H646
/Centerline _ ///_ / Rp \l I I/ /
of propeller In YZplane at wing qua rterchord mean aerodynamic chord of immersed portion of wing ffig. 52)
b i =24Rp
2  (Zs  Zw)2
X _'ie 
ct i (Cri) e
A e ro_na:ei:s eCd t er _ n
I_
I
1 _(b4](i
/
+ 2_,ie._
+ +
,I_
_..__
(Cr i)
e 1
ci=_
2 (Cri)e
immersed area_
__
,..
Singleengine for
sketches
calculation
.w
A w
I,.,...
i,,,
242
H646
11
>
_d
II
_ e"
il
t"
1 N
,d
II
X
II
X
I
t_
II
g
i.
H646
243
2.0
1.8
1.6
1,4

.2

/
1,0
.6
.2
r_
.2
.4
.6
.8
#
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure
5.1.11.
Propeller
inflow
factor
(ref.
33).
244
H646
.5
=80.7
.1
10
20
50
5O
Figure
5.1.12.
Propeller
normalforce
parameter I
1.5
Figure H646
5.1.13.
Upwash
gradient
at plane
of symmetry
for
unswept
wings
(ref.
1). 245
Ai
1.5
.6 8
K1
1.2 Figure power 246 5.1.14. (ref. 19). tt646 Correlation parameter for additional wing lift due to propeller
1.0 CI .8
f
J
CI or C 2
.6 j
_______
C2
I0
12
14
16
18
20
Sw ffc/prop) 8Rp 2
Figure 5. i. 15.
Factors
for determining
propeller
downwash
(ref.
19),
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
/ / /
/
J J J J I
1.2
.I
.2
.3 Si Sw
.4
.5
.6
Figure H646
5. i. 16.
Correction
factor
for
maximum
lift
due
to power
(ref.
i). 247
,.....4
;
II
O O) 9
,.Q
_o
;
II
,.o
v
_<_
0_.._
_2
"_
Ok_
ZIi I
L. OO
I
,,O
I
xj O
I
OO
LO
IZl
_ cd _o
A
.*.
OO
_
II
248
H646
_0.44 D.20
1.0
Tc
.0.44 0.20
(c "prop Lw
off
o/
4 0
L
4
i
8
l
12
J
16 airplane angles. for wing (Poweron alone
ab, deg Figure 5.1.18. Propelleroff lift characteristics of subject and tailoff conditions with stall extended to poweron stall stall angles obtained from fig. 5.1.17.) H646
249
_.,_ \
"\
1 \ l
I o
i\ \\
\
\
\
\
\ \
"\\
\.\
\\\
o
L i
i
0_,_
_/
I
i
i_l_
i
i
"
"S
ll_l f"
IN i
I ("_1 ......
250
H646
H646
251
Sh__i
1.0 .8 .6 Sh , ,2
I
\
!
:A t
_m
?x
1.6
1.2
.8
Sw(T _:/prop)
8Rp 2
.4
_0
!
2_
I
I _ L
/ J
__ L
..... .8 l_ h __ z ell
1.1/
!
// // /,/ /
77_Z
t l.Z_ /]
q
1.0 7
/
 Rp
1.2
If
L
.9 7
7/'//
.8_ 7 __
7 / / / /
i
i
.7_
.6_ /
Z/l/
zz
_k
1.6
L
..... 2.0
=_ .... _ _L
oi _ i"4/.L L=L
Effect of propeller (ref. 1). power on the
.2_
I
dynamicpressure ratio at the H646
1
1
t
I
12
10 / / / //
J
f t"/ //
f/ i
(_Eh)powe r, deg
4 (AEh)powe r, deg 2
/t d i
/
/I
f J
0
1
,
0
J
4 ab, de9
1
8
[
12
I
16
(ref. 2) settings.
253
Original 12' 
calculation percent
T'c
0
10
0 0.44
j
i_'/
_7 fj
>d'_1
\///
,.,.
/
)
6
J ;t J
7

1.3
i
q_h.h 1.2
4=
1.1
1.0 2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
%, deg
Figure 5.1.25. Variation of calculated downwash and dynamicpressure horizontal tail with airplane angle of attack and total thrust coefficient, windtunnel data for downwash at T_ = 0 and T_  0.44.
254
ratio of including
H646
o0
0 0_0^<3 _ , , o
_+
D
"_o
of> ,_ _
'T"T'
+++ ::
o00
I +o+
"_ t:i:::[
L_:__,
_
o Q 0
I
c
o +l_
I'
I I
H646
g_ I I
255
5.2
Power
Effects
on Pitching
Moments
Power effects of propellers introduce increments of pitching moments due to direct action of the propeller forces offset from the center of gravity and propellerinduced slipstream effects on the wing, nacelles (or body), and the horizontal tail. Although all the increments of lift due to power (section 5. i) contribute to powerinduced increments of pitching moment, several additional contributions must be considered. These additional contributions include the propeller slipstream dynamicpressure The culations, effect on Cmo and nacelle (or body) free moments. as
effects Horizontal Wing Nacelles tail
airplane,
slipstream
considered
in the
following
cal
i
Cm = (Cmwfn) k /propoff +/ACm_ ' ) T +/nCm_ k ] N p +/ACmo_ k
_ /_rx
]A_w+(ACm)wL+(ACm)np +[ACm) h +(i_mh(hf))props off]
(5.21a)
or (ACmwfn)power / \
(5.2lb)
Cm=
(Cmwfn)
prop
off
+ (ACre)T
+( ACre
)Np
+(ACmo)
_w
+ (Acm)WL
+ (ACrn)rip
mwfn 4.8.3
prop
off
T center ) Np
is the
pitching
moment
due
to offset
(distance
zT
in fig.
52)
of thrust
of gravity is the force pitching from is the moment is the net effect on pitching moments due and w + (ACre) _pjdynamic :.pressure slipstream slipstream on nacelle free moments pressure and downto change in wing lift resulting on the effect moment center due to offset (distance Xp in fig. 52) of pro
normal A Cm
)A qw
of propeller
pitching Cm ) wL
propeller wing,
angleofattack
changes
(ACm)wL ) is the
np
of propeller of propeller
h is the horizontal
effect tail
on dynamic
on the
H646
from
(h
prop
off
is the tail
net
pitchingmoment
of
pitchingmoment
increment,
due
is obtained
zT (ACm) T = n (Tc/prop)
CW
(5.22)
where n zT _w The obtained is the is the is the number moment wing of propellers arm of the thrust relative chord (ACm) N, .p due to the propeller normal force is to the center of gravity (fig. 52)
mean
aerodynamic increment,
pitchingmoment from
1 sT (5.23)
due
to the
normal
force
of the
pro
normal
force
relative
to the
center
of
is the zerolift
of attack
of the
thrust increment,
pitchingmoment
at zerolift 1:
(ACmo)A_w=
(5.24)
H646
257
where
w
is the increase in dynamicpressure ratio of the immersed portion of the _ w(W _/prop) wing,
2
Si is the immersed portion of the wing area, n(bi/prop)5 i (fig. 5. l(b))
_i Sw 5w For
mean
chord
immersed
wing
area
(fig.
51(b))
twinengine
iprop
off(Cm)wnprop
off
(Cm)area
not
immersed
(5.25)
off
is the
propeller
off
Cmo
of the
wing
and
nacelles,
obtained
from
Cm
area
not immersed
_(C
Wprop
off
SwSi Sw
ntimmersed
W
(5.26)
For which
a singleengine propelleroff
airplane, Cmo
off
is replaced obtained
is the The
fuselage due
increment, is obtained
(ACm)wL, from
to change
resulting 258
H646
(ACm)wL=fACL)A_w+(ACL) whe re xw center is the of gravity w distance (fig. and from 51) are obtained and from table equations the aerodynamic center
p]XW 6w
(5.2s)
of the
immersed
wing
area
to the
(ACL)A_ respectively,
(ACL)_p
(5.1.16) respectively
and
(5.1.114),
or table
5.1.12(a)3
5.1.12(b)2,
The
pitchingmoment
increment,
(ACm)np
due
to propeller
slipstream
effects
on
nacelle free moments (for twinengine installations) similar to those in section 4.8.1 which considered induced flows with the propeller off. To account to power effects on winginduced flows,
due
(ACm)np
=
36.5
n /
SwSw w
Wn 2
(_p+eU)
+_
q_
/dx (5.29)
= _ n(Ep + _u) /1 36.5Sw5 whe re (ep + e u} obtained A_w is equal q'_o Wn dx is obtained to 7rRp 2 from table 4.8.12 (b) from are propellerinduced (5.1.112) Sw(W _/prop) changes and in flow
dx
inclination respectively,
on the
nacelle
(fig.
52),
equations
(5.1.111),
or table
5.1.12(a)3
For singleengine installations, the effect of power on the free moments fuselage should be accounted for. The procedure is identical to that described power effects on nacelle free moments. The Cmh(hi), net pitchingmoment from lh Cmh(hf)5w CLh(hf) contribution of the horizontal tail for poweron
of the for
conditions,
is obtained
(5.210)
H646
259
where Ih mean is the distance chord lift from the center horizontal of gravity tail tail, 5e' and (fig. based Et h to the 52) on S w, as a function from table of 5.1.21, quarterchord point of the
of the of the
horizontal
_h
= _b 14
off  (AEh)power'
obtained
calculations for the poweron pitchingmoment characteristics are summarized in tables 5.21 to 5.26 as a function of _b, Utab elevator tab geared to the elevator in the ratio of _ = 1.5.
Tables 5.21 to 5.24 account for the pitchingmoment increments due to the direct propeller forces and powerinduced slipstream effects on the wing and nacelles. These increments are summarized and added to the propelleroff, tailoff pitching moments in table 5.25 to provide poweron, tailoff characteristics. These characteristics are added to the poweron horizontaltail contributions in table 5.26 to provide the pitchingmoment characteristics of the complete airplane. The horizontaltail contributions include taillift carryover effects onto the body which, in accordance with the discussion in section 4.13.4, should have been considered negligible because of the tailbody configuration of the subject airplane. The propelleroff, tailoff pitchingmoment characteristics in column 8 of table 5.25 were obtained from figure 5.21, which is basically the propelleroff, tailoff curve of figure 4.8.31 with the stalling portion extended to the stall angle for each power condition considered. This extension procedure is identical to that used in section 5.1.1 to extend the stall regions for CLw and CLwfn in figure 5.1.18. Calculated tailoff available (T c = 0.44) pitchingmoment are plotted and characteristics compared with for the windtunnel largest data thrust condition in figure 5.22.
The tailoff pitchingmoment and lift coefficients in the figure were obtained from tables 5.25 and 5.1.21(b), respectively. In figure 5.22 excellent correlation is evident for the lift characteristics throughout the angleofattack range and for the pitchingmoment characteristics at the low and high angles of attack. For some unknown reason, the windtunnel pitchingmoment data dip at an angle of attack of 3 o to 4 . This dip, although significant in magnitude, does not appear in the tailon windtunnel data (figs. 5.23 and 5.24). If the dip can be charged to erroneous data, and thus discounted, the calculated tailoff pitching moments can be considered to be in good agreement with the tunnel data.
#
tailon with
for
total 5.24.
T c = 0, The
0.20,
and
compared in pitching
and
incremental to be
moments
to elevator
shows
calculated
Cm_ e
larger than windtunnel values for all primarily to the inclusion of a taillift 260
pitchingmoment contributions of the tail. As indicated earlier, particularly in section 4.13.4, the taillift carryover onto the fuselage should have been considered to be similar to zero becauseof the tailbody configuration of the subject airplane and the gapbetween the tail and the fuselage.
t
For generally
T c = 0, good.
the
correlation for
of pitchingmoment
J
slopes the
Cma
and
Cmc L as
is by
However,
T c = 0.20
and
0.44,
correlations,
indicated
the solid lines, deteriorate with increasing Several facts were considered in attempting characteristics the source of the deterioration (1) Tailoff pitching moments, with windtunnel data throughout (2) tunnel Tailon pitching data for all power r, was to be essentially similar moments conditions zero, to zero
power at increasing angles of attack. to locate in the predicted pitchingmoment in correlation with increasing power: in the windtunnel range. data, correlated
well
would have correlated well with windlift, where the downwash due to power, carryover effects onto the body been
(Aeh)powe considered
taillift 4.13.4).
(section
(3) Pitchingmoment increments between constant 5 e curves correlated consistently with windtunnel data through the angleofattack range within the linear region of the taillift characteristics. An error in dynamicpressure ratio as a function of angle of attack would have spread the curves with increasing angle of attack if the pressure ratio had been excessive and would have converged the curves if the pressure ratio had been deficient. (4) An error in downwash in an angular rotation of curves due to power on the Cm as a function plot. of angle of attack would result
On the basis of the preceding facts, it was surmised that the deterioration in slope correlation between calculated and windtunnel pitching moments with increasing power at increasing angles of attack was caused primarily by inaccurate determination of downwash increments due to power, as obtained from figure 5.1.22. The large, wide, fairedintothewing nacelles of the subject airplane are undoubtedly not representative of configurations dealt with in correlating experimental data to arrive at the nomograph of figure 5.1.22 used to obtain (A_h)powe r.
When
the
downwash
increment
due
to power,
(ACh)powe
r,
was
decreased
by
40 percent for all power conditions and the calculations affected by the change were redone, the resulting modified pitchingmoment characteristics showed good slope correlation with windtunnel data. The modified calculated pitchingmoment characteristics are shown in figures 5.23 and 5.24 as dashed lines. The reduction in downwash increment due to power, calculated (A_h)power, tailon lift shown curves in figure with 5.1.25, lift also improved the correlation of the as shown in figure 5.1.26. The stickfixed the windtunnel windtunnel data,
from
cl"aracteristics _f the subject airplane determined m(_d_fied calculat,_d data of figure 5.24 are compared 261
H64 6
in figure 5.25 for the three power conditions. The neutral points, determined by the method i technique of reference 36, showa decrease in static margin with increase in power. Pitchcontrol effectiveness, Cm_e, determined from modified calculated data is compared with that based on windtunnel data in figure 5.26 as a function of thrust coefficient and trim angle of attack. Both calculated (basedon a 40percent decrease in powerinduced downwash)and windtunnelbased values of Cm_e show some increase in effectiveness with increasing power. Throughout the thrust range, the Cm_e based on modified calculated data shows smaller angleofattack effects and larger control effectiveness than reflected in the windtunnel data. Had taillift carryover effects onto the body been omitted from the calculations (as mentioned previously), the calculated Cm_e would have correlated better with the windtunnelbased data. Flightdetermined pitch stability, Cm_, and pitchcontrol effectiveness, Cm_e,
are compared in figure 5.27 with their counterparts determined from the modified calculated and windtunneldetermined pitch data of figure 5.21. At low angles of attack it appears that the modified calculated values of Cmc correlate better with _ flight data than with windtunnel data. It is possible that the slight scatter of the windtunnel data is a factor. Modified calculated values of Cm_e showpoorer correlation with flight data than with windtunnel data. Deletion of the calculated taillift carryover effect onto the body improved the correlation of the calculated Cm_e with flight and windtunnel data (fig. 5.27). The flight values of Cm_e were determined from the initial portion of a pullup or rapidpulse maneuver, as described in reference 37. Flight values of Cm_ were obtained by using the natural frequency determined by the technique of reference 38 in the simple Cm_ expression of reference 37. Flightdetermined CL, _b' and 5e characteristics for trim level flight are shownin figure 5.28 as a function of calibrated airspeed for an altitude of 6000 feet. Included for comparison are the characteristics based on windtunnel and modified calculated data. Close correlation is shownbetween flight, windtunnel, and modified calculated data.
5.2. I Symbols bi span of the total portion of the wing streams of the propellers, ft wing lift span, coefficient ft immersed in the slip
bw CL
262
H646
CLh(hf)
net
lift 6ta b,
coefficient with
of the
tail
due effects
to
_h, included,
6 e,
and
configuration
CLwfn increment
propeller
( Ce)a w
increment of lift coefficient due to the powerinduced in dynamic pressure over the portion of the wing mersed in the propeller slipstreams increment attack, portions of lift resulting of the coefficient from wing due propeller to the in the change propeller
(AC L)cp
in angle _p,
of
downwash,
of the slipstreams
immersed
C m
pitchingmoment
coefficient 8C m
parameter, coefficient
at propelleroff
conditions
of
CLh(hf)
to the of
coefficient pitching
Cm
(Cm)area
Cm)iprop
off
zerolift pitchingmoment coefficient of the wingfuselage or _ingnacelles immersed slipstreams for propelleroff conditions zerolift pitchingmoment propelleroff conditions coefficient of the
(Cm)Wprop
off
_4ng
alone
at
(Cm)wfprop H646
off
of the
wingfuselage 263
Cmo)Wnprop off
Cmo_
zerolift pitchingmoment coefficient at propelleroff conditions 0Cm staticstability pitchcontrol geared parameter, effectiveness, to elevator, per deg 0_ , per aCm _5 e
of the
wing
and
nacelle
Cmse
, with
(AC m,) h
increment of tail contribution to the pitchingmoment coefficient due to the propellerinduced increments dynamic pressure and downwash at the tail increment normal increment effects of pitchingmoment force, Np coefficient due to the coefficient due to the
of
(ACm)Np
propeller
(ACm)np
propeller
(ACm)
coefficient
due
to the
thrust
(ACm)wL
increment of pitchingmoment coefficient due to the net change in the wing lift coefficient resulting from propellerslipstreaminduced dynamic pressure and angleofattack changes on the wing change in the pitchingmoment the propellerslipstreaminduced coefficient of the wing due to change in angle of attack
(ACm)(p
(ACmo)A_
increment of zerolift pitchingmoment coefficient due to the increase in dynamic pressure induced by the propeller slipstreams on the immersed portions of the wing powerinduced the taftoff change in the configuration pitchingmoment coefficient of
ACmwfn)
power
ci
chord of the portion of the wing slipstream (fig. 51), ft wing ft wing, not immersed
immersed
Cnot immersed
in the
CW
aerodynamic
ft of
lh
q oO 264
dynamic
pressure,
lb/sq
ft H646
_h
dynamic pressure dynamic pressure at the tail as a ratio of the freestream
increment of powerinduced dynamic pressure acting on the portions of the wing immersed in the propeller slipstreams as a ratio of the freestream dynamic pressure propeller radius, ft wing immersed in the propeller
Si
S w
area of the portions of the slipstreams, sq ft wing thrust area, of the sq ft propellers, lb
T i T
distance from the aerodynamic center of the mean aerodynamic chord of the immersed portion of the wing area to the center of gravity (fig. 51), positive forward, in. or ft mean width of a nacelle planform Zbody positive segment of Ax the length, Xbody ft
Wn
zT
distance, parallel to the axis to the thrust axis, angle of attack, angle angle deg of attack
_b ah
airplane local
relative
to the
axis, the
deg
of attack equal of
of the ab
horizontal  (eh)prop
elevator deg
to zero, a b, deg
off  (A_h)power'
of the
thrust
axis,
deflection,
respectively, tail
at the horizontal
H646
265
(Aeh)powe r
increment of downwashat the horizontal tail due to power, deg downwashangle behind the propeller, deg upwashangle at the propeller, deg
266
H646
. t
"+ . _++
o+
?'?
m g_
m
?. ++ +"
_" ++ +"
, t t
+ ,
0
t I
+' @l@ ++
P+ ++
2
,+ 0
_<_
_ AI
_+
o B
s_
[.+
e+
t_
H646
267
qw
(_Cm)A_ where w _
si
Sw
_i
6w (Cm)iprop off
(Cm)iprop and
off
(Cm)wnprop
off(Cm)area
not
immersed
not
immersed
=(Cmo)wprop
off
 _w)
2 Sw 6w
(bw
1 n(bi/PrP))
Reference
Magnitude 2
Rp
S w
b
W
_w Si
aerodynamic
Ratio Sw n(bi/prop) ci
of total
immersed
to
reference
wing
area,
sq ft
Table 5.1.12(a)3, column 10 Table 5.1.12(a)3, column 8 Figure 51(b) 4.51 4.61
span, ft wing,
ft
2 x
(col.
8)
Cm)
Wprop
off
off
Table Table
(Cm)_prop A_w
off
of wing
. 0240
change portion
in dynamic:pressure of wing,
ratio
Equation
(5. I. I7)
6.30(T_/prop)
Rp2
Summary:
Cmo)area
not immersed
= 0.
861 b w  2(bi/prop)
(ACmo)A_w=
6.99(T_/prop)_w_Cmo)iprop
off
268
H646
II
F_
Iq
I ,
2
m
F_
_A
'
" d
' _
"' d "d
' d
'
II
' _
' _
d 'd
d_ '
d "d _._..
o _
"
, . .
o
__
o
_._
o
_ _ _"
" _ _. _'
' _
"'_
' _ , I,
o"
n_.,i_1. d" _
i 0
'
_
o ","t. '._.
H646
269
(ACm)wL
= _ACL)A_
+(ACL)ep]
xw _w
(a)I Symbol xw _w Distance to the Wing from center aerodynamic of gravity, De scription center ft chord, due to ft change in dynamic Table 3.21 4.96 f(_b,Tc/prop) of immersed wing area Figure Re ference 51 (b) Magnitude 0. 712
mean
(ACL)Aqw
powerinduced
(ACL)ep
Changedirectionin ingonwingliftdue w
to
powerinduced
change
in flow
Tablecolumn5.1.5 12(b)2,
f(_b'
T c/PrP)
(d_Cm)wL a)2
0.
144
_ACL)A_
w + (ACL)(p]
(9
Table
5.23(a)1
(aCL)ep
J
(ACm)wL
= 0.
144
]
( (_
+ (_))
T_
0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a13.8 b14 1 c14.4 a,b,cstall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2O 0 .0308 0 0602 0874 0. 1124 1348 0. 1533 .1659 0. 1709 .1687 0. 1657 ...... .0623 0.1217 .1775 0.2287 .2763 0.3157 .3481 0.3669 .3762 0.3716 .3658 0 44 0 0 0. 00211 00083 0. 00042 . 00157 0. 00263 . 00355 0. 00428 . 00474 0. 00486 0.20
T c 0.44 0.06192 .02444 0.01201 .04700 0.08000 .11044 0.13774 .16072 0.17990 .19136 0.19293 , . 19437 0 0.000304 .000120 0.000O60 .000226 0.000379 .000511 0.000616 000682 0.000700 .000649 ......... , 0.20 !0.004190
T c 0.44 0.008916 .012490 0.015795 .018792 0.021413 .023884 0.025626 .026983 0.026928 026617 0.025728 024686
0.02910 .01148 0.00561 .02193 0.03713 .05091 0.06287 .07254 0. O7924 .O8199 0. 08212 , ........
.006088 0.007861 .009428 0.010839 .012080 0.013022 .013444 0.013199 .012486 0.012036 ,
270
H646
POWER
(ACm)np (a)1 Dose Number Sw Reference Wing Upwash mean of nacelles _'ing area, sq ft chord, deg downwash ril)tion
Symbol
Magnitude
aerodynamic
at propeIler,
per per
reference reference
_p
Propellerinduced
Aq w Powerinduced immersed Wn2 (iX integral segments of change portion square of Ax in dynamicpressure (and wing) planform Table 4.8.12(e), of 33.55 per nacelle ratio on Equation (5.1.17) 6.30 (T * c/prop) of nacelles of mean length, width eu ft
of nacelle
(ACm)np (a)2
0.
00209
[1 + 6.30(T_/prop)]
(c u + ep)
(!)
Table
(!)
5.1.12(a)3, column 4 .........
(9
Table (ACm)n
5.24(a)1 p =
deg
(e u + ep)
= @
+@,
deg
T_
0.20 0. 00270s .002446 0. 0021_4 001922 ! 0. 001650 .00139s 0.44 0,005777 .004306 0.0028,'34 .001363 0.000109 .001580 0.003051 .000906 . 004522 0.0059_1 .000210 0.0002_3 .007530 0.007609 .007688
0 . 4 0.8 I.2 l.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.7 0.44, 0
0.0936 . 0374
0. 0830
angles at T_ = O, 0.20,
respectively.
H646
271
J
0
r,J [.,
[,,
El
272
H646
Z 0
gg
H646
273
0 _ 0 0
II II
X Q) 0 _._
II
II II
_._o
_ m
_
=
_o
._
._._
P_
2_
._ L_ r....4
N
0
o_
1 go
? _o gS L_
0 I I
q_J
\
0 _ I 0 I 0 I 0 0
_'_ ?_
,'4
E c.)
_._
g'_ ,,
274
H646
0 Cmwf n .2 1.8
O\
ioob
0
\
o 1.6
o o
o o o
1.4
/
o
1.2
1.0
CLwf n .8
o
.6
.4
.2
0 4
I
0 4 %,
I
8 deg
and
!
i
12
I
16
I
20 0
)I
.2 Cm wfn
Figure
5.22.
Comparison
of calculated
windtunneldetermined
tailoff
lift
and
pitchingmoment
characteristics
at
T c = 0.44
and
center
of gravity
= 0.10
c w.
H646
275
i _i
_1/
, I/ ,/ I/ / o II 9 P /
o V_
P/
"_1'_,_ L/
I_
?,'
o
T
L_
01 o 0
">a 0
b_/io , ._1",//
O_ _ _ o'_ <_ _ o a
?% l,':X/ ;;
P,
Y=
N=
_ _
_0
__
_ ,
o,_,_
,o
0 Oo
u_
/
'
_o
o_
o
" * I I I I
,i
E H646
276
1I6_6
,.,,,,,,
Tc=0
reduced 40 percent)
287 j
24ffJ
Jf
20f f
Tc =0.20 16 28
24Neutral point, percent mean aerodynamic chord 20" 16 0 Figure 5.25. calculated 278 Comparison windturmel T_ = 0.44
1
.2
I
.4 CL characteristics characteristics.
I
.6 determined Center
1
.8
1
1.0 from modified of gratuity = 0.10 H646
and
of neutralpoint pitchingmoment
c w.
I o
0
'1
Jl I iI
0
rI
o 0
I
tO0
Y
o
w C C
ooO_
0
I'
g,
,I
t
0 ""_
> o
O0 0
% _
m m
J 0 0 ! I I !
>
go
E
0
H646
279
.12
O O
O8
P
Tc .O4
O
Flight Wind tunnel Ca Icu lat ed, (_E h)power reduced 40 percent)
. O1
0
. 03
1
DO
m
. 02
Cm_e,
tail to body: 6 8
I0
12
effectiveness, of attack.
a function
of angle
H646
Tc
0 0 (_)00 0 0 O0 0 (_)0 (_ 0 O0 0 0 0
CL
ab, deg
4 4
5e, deg
0
O
zl 70
80
90
O0
110 V c, knots
CL, (_b, and windtunnel Cw"
120
130
140
150
Figure flight
5.28. conditions
6e and
as
level of
calibrated
airspeed.
= 0.12
H646
281
5.3
Power
Effects
on Drag
The net drag change of the airplane due to propeller power results from: (1) the component of propeller thrust parallel to the Xstability axis; (2) the change in slipstream dynamic pressure on the profile drag of those portions of the aircraft immersed in the propeller slipstream; (3) the change in induced drag due to the lift component of the direct propeller forces and the change in angle of attack of the immersed portions of the wing; and (4) the change in cooling drag due to the powerinduced change in dynamic pressure acting on the immersed cooling system. For the subject airplane, well as a portion of the wing summarized by the following where the propeller slipstream and the horizontal tail, the drag expression: immerses with power the nacelle on can be as
r,
change
in drag
due
to power \
change
in zerolift drag \
+(ACDo)h
+ (AC"'Do)n
+ ACDi
+ (ACD)cooling
system]
(5.31)
whe re CDprop section n(T vector, 4.12) c/prop) a positive is the is the cos a: T is the is equal in profile in induced is the component of total drag thrust parallel to the velocity off is the propelleroff drag of the complete airplane (obtained from
ACDo ACDi
cooling
drag
coefficient,
to power
effects
on the
wing,
is accounted
282
H646
(c
of the square
\D/wprop
off'
hprop
off
are
the
propelleroff determined
zerolift from
drag
wing and horizontal tail, respectively, foot of the respective areas 'D) o nprop is the interference immersed propelleroff effects wing area zerolift included per
equation
off
drag and
coefficient
with
referenced obtained
wing
propeller,
section
and
figure Shi/prop
51(b} is the immersed horizontaltail area per propeller, obtained from fig
ure
51(b)
ACw
CLo
nacelle, Aqh
is the increment
in dynamicpressure
ratio,
due
to power,
at the wing
and
obtained
from
equation
is the increment
in dynamicpressure
4oo
tail, obtained The fication equation from section 5.1.2 ACDi, of the wing due to propeller slipstream modi
drag
increment,
t[(CDi) I
power off
on
(5.33)
where,
from
reference
19,
on a per
propeller
basis
_CDi L_
) w /prop] J power
(c5
l] w prop off
2[
_2Aw( 1 + 180CLwpropof
]
+
Kf
AC
L)Np/prp
"l_l 2
1\2Rp/\

cL
,,#
/]
(5.34)
and
H646
Wprop
(C") Di Wprop off off is equal is the 5.1.18 is the on a per p lift to of the if'(1 _rAw wing stall alone angles C Lwprop similar to figure having lift
+ 5152} , obtained
from
section
4.12.4
with
no power
effects,
from
plots
extended per
to poweron propeller,
of thrust
obtained
equa
propeller lift
is the
normal
force
per
propeller,
equation
(5.1.12)
on a per
C_
 CLwprop
off +(ACL)T/PrP
+(ACL)Np/prp
(5.35)
Aw, b w
are
the
wing
aspect
ratio
and
span,
respectively,
obtained
from
table
3.21
Rp
is the
propeller drag
propeller
downwash
angle
averaged
over
the entire
wing,
equal
to
(5.36)
where 8ep is obtained from equation (5.1.113) and figure 5. i. 15 O_p is obtained p _T is the propeller angle of attack relative to the free stream from figure 5.32 or figure 5.33
The
change
in drag
coefficient
of the
cooling
system,
(ACD)cooling
system'
due
to
284
H646
w
(ACD)cooling where system (CDcling system)prop off _
(5.37)
(CDcling
system)prop
off
is the
contribution
of the from
cooling figure
system 4.12.71
to the
drag cooling
for the
increase
in dynamic pressure,
pressure obtained
behind from
due to power,
as a
dynamic
(5.1.17) are
Calculations for poweron netdrag characteristics of the subject airplane J summarized in tables 5.31 to 5.34 as functions of ozb and T c. Table 5.31 summarizes the drag increments to power. Table on net drag. The calculated 2) in figures with drag 5.34),
zerolift increments of drag due to power, table 5.32 the induced due to power, and table 5.33 the change in coolingsystem drag due 5.34 summarizes all the power effects on drag and lists the power
ref.
results, compared with windtunnel show good correlation at T_ = 0 at the higher were angles from of attack. the
When
ACDi,
omitted significantly.
calculations
(after
improved
It is surmised that the large, interfere with the powerinduced consequently, affect the magnitude As in the case of the powerinduced
wide, builtin nacelles of the subject airplane slipstream in the immersed area of the wing and, of the powerinduced increments of induced drag. downwash at the tail, (ACh)power, discussed airplane data to to arrive in is at
section 5.2, it appears that the nacellewing configuration of the subject not representative of the configurations used in correlating experimental arrive at the empirical relations used in calculations, in this instance, the empirical equation for ACDi.
5.3. 1 Symbols
A w
wing wing
aspect span,
ratio ft
drag
H646
285
poweron drag coefficient of the airplane airplane drag coefficient, propellers off increment of airplane drag coefficient due to the cooling system increment of airplane drag coefficient due to power
off) 2 (1 + 5152)
power
on
induced drag due to one increment induced propelleroff tail and areas
coefficient propeller,
with
power
effects,
ACD i
of drag drag
coefficient
to power
effects
on
(CD)hprop
off <CD)wprop
off
(CDo)nprop ff o
AC Do (ACDo)h, (A_o) n' (ACDo)w
propelleroff zerolift drag coefficient of the two nacelles of the subject airplane with nacellewing interference effects included, referenced to the wing area increment of zerolift drag coefficient due to power (including wing,
Cf CL CLwprop
//
of a fiat airplane
ptate
of an isolated
wing,
propellers
off
CL
= C Lwprop
increment (ACL)Np/prop
of lift
coefficient
due
to the
normal
force
of
one propeller increment of lift one propeller coefficient due to the lift component of
(ACL)T/prop
286
H646
K k 1
propeller surface
drag roughness
reference length used in obtaining the Reynolds number of a lifting surface and skinfriction coefficient, Cf, of a flat plate, mean aerodynamic chord of surface, in. Reynolds number freestream number of propellers dynamic pressure, lb/sq ft
NRe
n
_qh
,
_qw
change in dynamic pressure on an immersed'portion of the horizontal tail and wing, respectively, as a ratio of the freestream dynamic pressure propeller radius, ft and horizontaltail slipstream of one area, respectively, propeller, sq ft
Rp Si/prop, Shi/prop
S w
T t
T c =_
of propellers,
lb
T c/prop t
C
of one
propeller
c_b
of attack
relative
to the
Xbody
axis,
of attack
of the for
thrust
axis,
deg
correction factor the quarterchord the propelleroff and horizontal effective entire
E
the taper ratio and sweep angle of line, respectively, in calculating induced drag coefficient of the wing
ratio
of
do,_wash the
angle, propeller
ep H646
_p,
of the
propeller
slipstream
behind
287
rate
of change the
of the
propeller angle
downwash
angle,
Cp,
with (A e h ) power
propeller
angle
288
H646
"1
INCREMENTS
Shl/prop Sw
A_ h q_
__ +(CD)nprop off
Aqw __
Magnitude Symbol Description Number Reference of propellers wing area, sq ft Table 3I Reference Wi n g 2 178 2 Horizontal tail 2 Nacelles
L
(St/prop) Sw Shi/prop
wing as
area ratio
per of Sw
I. I2(a)3, 10 5I
Column
lO
of
Table Table
4.12.12 3.21
_0.25 59.50
matte
fl_sh ............
/
k NRe
...................................... Reynolds sea level number = _2 at (0.65 63.4 mph, 106} of flat Windtunnel conditions Figure 4.12.11 test
2.38 3.22
I05 106
1.30 1.75
105 106
C l t c (CD)Wprop off
coefficient
3.65
x 10 3
4.08
10 3
ratio
of
surface
Table
4.1I
15
.08
(CD)hp
rop
off
2cf[1+2(12o( ;] )+
Propelle roff ccofflclent referenced zero li R d rag of both nacelles to op) Sw 178 sq ft
Equation
(4.12.11)
,00993 of wing
per
sq
ft
. 00951 of
per
sq
horizontal
_nprop
off
Table
4.12.3l(c)
.........................
A_____W
Aq h
Sw(T
tc/pr
(5.1.17)
6.30(To/Prop)
............
6.30(T
_/prop)
q_
in at
tatI
 ...........
Column reference
of
.,t S .... IT: ACD i/pro :0.125CI_P_T _w z c/prop)+ A0. 000__/
Negligible 052(Tc/prop}
+ 0. _
_ [0.12_
O. 052_T_./prop)
(b) O,
......... Table
(_)
5.1.12(a}3, column 10 ACDo: Table
@
5.31(a)
St/prop eCb, deg Sw T_/prop 0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a13.8 h14.1 e14.4 0.1834 .1805 0.1762 .1706 O. 1633 .1541 0.142_ . 1288 0. 1110 .0905 0.10 0.1827" .I_01 0.1765 ,172i 0.1665 .1598 0.1518 .1423 0, 1309 .1190 1165 0.22 0:1R22 ,1798 0,1767 .1728 0.1681 ,1625 0.1559 .1478 0.1393 .1302 0.1283 .1264 T = O, 0.20.0.44, rcspecfivdy. _
[0. (T
125(_ _/prop)
+ 0.
052]_
i T c/prop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.007484 .007451 0.007406 .007351 0.007281 .007198 0.007098 0 0 0 0. .000979 006836 .006688 006656 0. 0. 0.22 0.016450 .016384 0.016299 .916192 0.016063 .015909 01572_ .015504 015271 .015020 014968 .014916
0.
0.
0.
........
a'b'csud[
H646
289
ACDi
= (CDt_" ]Wprop
offn
ff_2(l[\ I (C Lwprp C_
]\
+ 180
CLwpropTr2Awe off)+
Kf_ bw
7_C L)
T/PrP
I_"/Z +(_CL)NP/prp)I
2 I
(a) Symbol n ce T Number Angle peller b W A w Wing Wing Propeller Drag CDprop ACDo off Zerolift power drag increment due to of span, aspect of of Description propellers of deg + ft ratio radius, airplane ft with propeller off Table Table Table 3.21 3.21 31 36.0 7.5 3.0 thrust axis and proReference 2 Same as c_b Magnitude
attack plane,
Table 4, column
12.8I, 9
of
of
reference
_Lwprop
off_ ;vA w
(1
+ 8152)
Table
(CDl)wprop ff o
Lift C Lwprop off Lift (AC L)T/prop +(ACL) Np/prop
of
wing
alone
with
Figure
5.1.18
of
direct
propeller
eL"
CLwprop (ACL)
+(ACL)T/PrP /prop
8Cp Rate Sap eAveraged ep wing span propeller as a ratio dog.wash of propeller over with of change propeller of propeller angle of downwash attack
5.1, 6 5,
12(a)2,
33
behind
propeller,
Sw(T
%2
_/prp)_
/
See Equation (5..26) pa.rt (b) of table
:+(+'+p <_T '_ _p \0_p! f/Sw(T Propeller drag factor, \ c_/prp)_ RP 2 ]
Figure
5..2I
{b)
o
T e Te z/prp Sw(T
"c/prop) Rp 2
o
Figure Rp b W
5.31 Table 5. K
5.33 Equation
(5.36)
Total
0 1.978 4.350
0.
_b a b ab
290
H646
_ _
_l_ _
__
.
4
ca
I1
"k
I I
I n
"'_
,..j
fi,
t_ ,.a m
D_
:c
..... '.7,' _
,g .,_ ...,_
_N
_._._.:
!
I
@
+
,'d"
_"
o
d," _
go
" _
o
" _
=,o
" _ "
z_ g g gg
1_ _ + X
_ . , . .i
...... ....
o . . .
,i
_," ,
" _
'
" _
"i
m_
ao
,:,a
_
_a
1
;
g
H646
291
_jx
z_
I
_i _e.
,"_
"'c_
"
"
"
c_
_7 @ __
oo _o oo_o o _
@!
"'_ "'_ ' c_._ ,4.4 oo oo o o
.,_
.4 i
,,_
.,_
.,_
,,_
Z_
Z ,.q
x _ oo o o_ o ooioo o _ o o
i
i t
_l_
_4
,4
_1_ ,,
0
x
g
n _'c_ "'_, "'_; "': '
ii / /
!
I
ff
i i
,,P
292
H646
,,@@ _@
II
,+
ol
"'d
"d
"'d
"
"'d
"
@
"ld
_I_
+'_ "'d
'_'_ _
' d "d
_
'
I
i
@
4'
+
+!
+ r,
,_
"
'Id
"
,_
'
"
+
_ _+, _ ,d _ ,.4,:
tl
,'+"
.+
r..+
+, + ......
d . z. d dd . d ,
,+I
(ACD)eooling
system
_ (CDeooling
system)pro
p off _
ud e
wing radius,
Equation
(5. I. 17)
6.30(T
c/prop)
Summary:
(ACD)
eooiing
system.,
= 6
30(Tc/prop)
_^1._ _C D cvA.,s
system)
prop
off
Figure
4.12.71
(5.37)
system
6.30(T_/prop)
/
T _c/prop 0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 i0 12 a13. b14. c14.4 _ ] 0. 00200 .00340 0. 00333 .00280 0. 00224 .00185 0.00166 ,00310 :_0. 00740 _. 0090 _0. 0090 (assumed) (assumed) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0.10 0.630 .630 0.630 ,630 0.630 .630 0.630 .630 0.630 .630
Tc 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0. 00126 .00214 0.00210 ,00176 0.00141 .00117 0.00105 .00195 0. 00466 _.00567 0.44
i
1.386 1. 386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1. 386 1.386 1.386 1.386 [ 1. 386 t. 386
0. 00277 .00471 0. 00462 .00388 0.00310 .00256 0. 00230 .00430 0. 01026 _,01247 _0.01247 _. 01247
0. 630
_. 0090
 _0.00567 ...........
294
H646
CDpower
on
= CDprop
off
 n(T_/prop)
cos
ce T + ACDo
+ ACDi
+(ACD)cooling
system
Table column
@
4.12.81, I0
5.32 16 column
(5.31)
CDpower
on =
@+@+@_+
I= 2(T_/prop)
T_ 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13.8 0. 9976 .9994 1.0000 .9994 0.9976 9945 0.9903 .9848 0.9781 .9711 0.0320 .0327 0.0345 .0408 0.0526 .0697 0.0914 .1203 0.1586 .1840
/ = 0, Tc/pro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p = 0, n = 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_ropelIers) _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0320 .9327 0.0345 .0408 0.0526 .0697 0.0914 .1203 0.1586 .1840
T / _ 0.20, c 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13.8 14.1 0. 9976 .9994 1.0000 .9994 O.9976 .9945 0.9903 .9848 0.9781 .9711 0.9699 0.0320 .0327 0.0345 .0408 0.0526 .0697 0.0914 .1203 0.1586 . 1840 ...... 0.1995 .1999 0.2000 .1999 0.1995 .1989 0.1981 .1970 0.1956 .1942 0. 1939
T_/prop
= 0. 10, 0.0075 .0075 0.0074 .0074 0.0073 .0072 0.0071 .0070 0.0068 .0067 0.0067
n = 2
_ropellers) 0 _0 _0 .0008 0.0024 .0048 0.0079 .0118 0.0164 .0207 0.0214 0.0013 .0021 0.0021 .0018 0.0014 .0012 0.0011 .0020 0.0047 .0057 0.0057 ....... 0.1587 .1576 0.1560 .1491 0.1358 .1160 0.0907 .0559 0.0091 .0229
0.44, 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13.8 14.1 14.4 0.9976 .9994 1.0000 .9994 0.9976 .9945 O.9903 .9848 0.9781 .9711 0.9699 .9686
T_/prop
= 0.22,
n = 2
propellers)
0.0320 .0327 0.0345 .0408 0.0526 .0697 0.0914 .1203 0.1586 .1840 ....... .......
0.4389 .4397 0.4400 .4397 0.4389 .4376 0.4357 .4333 0.4304 .4273 0.4268 .4262
0.0164 .0164 0.0163 .0162 0.0161 .0159 0.0157 .0155 0.0153 .0150 0.0150 .0149 .0001
0.0028 .0047 0.0046 .0039 0.0031 .0026 0.0023 .0043 0.0103 .0125 0.0125 .0125
0.3877 .3858 0.3846 .3766 0.3605 .3363 0.3Ot6 .2607 0.2009 .15_I ....... .......
H646
295
10
20 30 t SwCrc/prop) Rp2
4O
50
Figure
5.31. 1.0
Propeller
drag
factor
(from
ref.
1, based
on ref.
19).
Rp
0.5
10
20 30 Sw(T_;/prop) Rp2
40
50
Figure 296
5.32.
Average
propeller
do,an_wash
(from
ref.
1, based
on ref.
19). HG46
Ce_
C_ C%
t'xJ
C_
_o o
C_
%
,rI
,..I
OO
_3"
xJ
H646
297
.32
.24
16
/ /
Tc=
O8
//
/ )
/o
CD
 08
J/
T c =0.20
0 C_#
.16
/
/ / 0 / //
. 24
.32 i //
O
.40
0
Figure CD 298 5.34. with Comparison _b at different
Zl
of calculated power
8 ma, deg
and 5 e = 0 .
12
16
variation
20
of
windtunneldetermined
conditions.
H646
.32
.24
.16
.O8
/,
/
#.
CD . 08 Tc=0.20
{9
.16
/
. 24
S
f
/ /
O 0
.32 T_ =0.44
m
0
CI
.40
Jl
.48 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 CL
Figure CD 5.35. with CL Comparison at different of calculated power and windtunneldetermined 6 e = 0 . variation of
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
conditions.
H646
299
5.4
Power
Effects
on HorizontalTail
Hinge
Moments
and
Stick
Forces
The procedures for determining the horizontaltail hinge moments for poweron conditions are essentially identical to those used in section 4.14 for propelleroff conditions. Quantities affected by power include the tail lift, as a result of powerinduced changes in downwash and dynamic pressure at the tail, and the section increment pitchingmoment coefficient for larger tab deflections. The effect effect of power on the on the section lift of the tail was accounted for in section coefficient, 5.1.2. The
of power defined
(4.14.112) empirical
(ACmf)_?,
of (Aemf)_ following
? in figure equation
should
flections
in lieu
on liftingline
/_Ctab_ h
Ft ]11 kl
(Ctab_
(5.41)
(4.14.113)
because a significant amount of thrust will increase the dynamic pressure on of the horizontal tail immersed in the propeller slipstream, the added energy will tend to maintain full tab effectiveness to higher tab deflections than for conditions. Thus, for significant poweron thrust conditions, it is sugequation (5.41) be used in place of figure 4.14.16 to determine (Acmf)_
q
for tab deflections up to about 21 . Beyond this magnitude of tab deflection, the effectiveness of the tab may be approximated by empirically extending the results of the liftingline theory on a trend of decreasing effectiveness tending to parallel the 1 propelleroff experimental curves. For T c = 0, the propelleroff curves of figures 4.14.16 hinge and 4.14.17 moments are should the still same. characteristics of the horizontal 5.41 and 5.42. The magnitudes (A __Cmf_ ) and , used in columns which 5 and be used; that is, the Tc = 0 and propelleroff
calculated
tail
for the poweron hingemoment airplane are summarized in tables pitchingmoment obtained from coefficient, (5.41)
of the
increment were
7 of table to
equations
(4.14.113)
reduced
(Acmf)r
/ = 0.01105ta
(5.42)
300
H646
of supporting
configuration
data
in table
4.14.12(a).
tunnel
5.41 shows the correlation / for total T c = 0, 0.20, and the same
J
of the 0.44.
calculated hinge moments with windThe calculated hinge moments for conditions. the results The obtained calculated when hinge using the
Tg = 0 are moments
as those T c = 0.20
for total
originally determined tail lift coefficients as well as the results obtained when using the lift coefficients based on a 40percent reduction in powerinduced downwash discussed in section 5.2. The calculated hinge moments based on the modified powerinduced downwash at the tail show better correlation with windtunnel data than do the original results. data 0.44, At total at 6e = 4 T c = 0.20,
/
the
results at
and
windtunnel / T c = 0 and
however,
be an error
tunnel
data.
Figure 5.42 shows the correlation of flightdetermined stick forces with the stick forces based on calculated and windtunnel stability and control trim characteristics for 1g flight over a calibrated velocity range of 70 knots to 146 knots at 6000 feet altitude. Calculated stick forces as well as calculated angle of attack and elevator deflection show reasonably good correlation with the flight data. The stick forces were obtained by using the following relation derived in section 4.14.1 for the subject airplane:
Fstic
k = 40 Chh(f)_
(4.14.120)
5.4.1
All lift and moment coefficients are referenced mean aerodynamic chord unless noted otherwise. bh Chh(f) horizontaltail span, ft
hingemoment coefficient of the horizontal effects on the tail included airplane net lift 5ta b, lift coefficient of the referred horizontal included coefficient, aerodynamic to the tail wing due
tail
with
fuselage
CL CLh(f)
effects
(AC_n)6ta
of tail pitchingmoment chord of the tail mean deflection tail chord, ft station,
about chord,
the due
to
at semispan
77, ft 301
increment
sectionlift station,
due to the
tab deflection,
at semispan
at
Acmf
)7/
section increment pitchingmoment coefficient due to the tab (flap) deflection, at semispan station, 77, about the quarterchord point in the plane normal to the constantpercentchord basic loading line of the tab deflection tab tail wing stick chord, mean mean force, ft aerodynamic aerodynamic lb chord, chord, ft ft
Ctab eh
cw
Fstick
difference in spanload coefficients for two bounding load distribution curves at semispan station, (fig. 4.14.13(b), for example) K a factor for estimating the location for the tmtabbed dynamic pressure respectively, horizontaltail thrust calibrated coefficient airspeed, knots section section centerofpressure near the ends tail and in the
span
of the free
tab stream,
qh' q_o
Sh Tc Vc
chordwise centerofpressure location, at semispan V, aft of the quarter chord of and as a ratio of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic chord chordwise centerofpressure tab deflection, at semispan edge of the tail as a ratio lateral airplane angle elevator distance angle of attack from of attack of the tail deg the location station, of the tail
station,
Ch
Y ab ah 6e 302
of the lift due to the V, from the leading chord at the station ff axis, line, deg deg
deflection,
H646
5tab
normal
line, basic
(Ah)
power
change semispan
in downwash station,
tail
due
to power,
deg
2y
bh of the inboard and the outboard end of the semispan station tab, respectively increment span sweep deg sweep of the
_i' 770
A_
spanwise
distance
as a ratio
of the
tail
semi
Ab
of the
section
basic
loading
centerofpressure
line,
Ahl
of the
tab
hingeline,
deg
H646
303
_9
3O4
H646
d "d
"d
"d
"d
"
i ++0
rj "El _ "C_
g+
._
S
0
L)
"6
i
g
' d
I d "L d lid
I n d
"
__
+ ++__+@ _ x
"d
"'d
"'d
"
.+,,
o ,gl ,_ ":'
_ _
e _.
,,+ II
,"
_m_
'
', I d
"'d
"'d
''d
'
2
@~=
_, oo oo _o oo
,,,,+ ,,,,+
@+
II
"+
,o
_ a +oi..+.I _oi., + I+ o
o oo oo gg gg _
_
__: N
+p,_
, ,
H646
305
II
@
+
@
11
306
H646
_z
._._
0
+
ii
H646
307
I I I I
>
308
H646
.2
P
Tc 0
CL
................
JI
"Ooooo__oo.:o<>_b__o
12( 8
'
I
0
0
4
.O4
I J ....
Ch h (f)
.
0
04
00 " _"_
80
90
100
llO
120
130
140
150
Vc, knots
Figure 5.42. in level flight speed. H646 Altitude Comparison with those = 6000 of calculated obtained from ft; center hingemoment windtunnel = 0.12 and Cw" 309 and stickforce flight data as characteristics a function of air
of gravity
6.0
DYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
The preceding considerations dealt with the static characteristics of general aviation airplanes. Since longitudinal dynamic characteristics are associated with the aerodynamic forces and pitching moments caused by the pitch velocity, q, and normal linear acceleration, w (considered in the form of _), it is essential that aerodynamic parameters accounting for the effects of these two variables be determined. Consideration dynamic of the derivatives derivatives is given CLq, to the Although CLq insight will in the CL_, the following Cmq, discussions and Cm_ and and to the tothe are and CL_ determination appropriate generally of the application oscillatory taken a is deterto be
shortperiod
be applied its
into
influence.
for completeness. determining the dynamic derivatives are based on conditions and are thus not frequency dependent. prevail for the highaspectratio wings normally the methods are applicable over the linear lift
The methods to be presented for theories which assume attachedflow Fortunately, attachedflow conditions used on general aviation aircraft and range of the subject airplane. It is assumed 4, negligibly throughout influence
and
the following discussions that the dynamic motions, the effects of power on lift and pitching moments. data, but with the availability are referenced to a center
In the absence of appropriate windtunnel priate flight data, all calculated characteristics of 0.12 Cw to conform to the flight data.
of approof gravity
310
H646
6.1
Lift
Due to Dynamic
Motions
6.1.1
CLq nacelles, expression and horizontal tail due to in which the Individual terms
The lift contributions of the wing, fuselage, pitch rate can be summarized by the following are referenced to the wing area:
to pitch rate can be obtained from the the mutual wingfuselage interference
_/Swe\/Cwe\ (6.1.12)
where,
on the
basis
of reference
39,
I3)
In the
equations are are wingbody area obtained slope interference and the from of the mean section exposed factors, obtained from chord section of the 4.5 portion
the wing
exposed
of the
wing, CL_)w e
of the
wing
per
radian,
obtained from
section 4.2 x
ewe
Xac
ewe
Xcg (6.1.14)
ew e
Xac
is the
ew e
distance
to the aerodynamic
center
of the exposed
wing
panel
from
the
as a fraction
of the
exposed
panel
mean
aerodynamic
chord,
obtained
is the
distance
to the
center
of gravity
of the
airplane
from
the
leading
edge 311
H646
and as a fraction of the exposedpanel mean aerodynamic chord (b) The lift contributions of the fuselage andnacelles, (CLq)f +(CLq) n, due to pitch rate are not as explicitly accountedfor as for the wing. No explicit method is available for obtaining body or nacelle dynamic derivatives for general planforms. The following method, usedherein, is the method of reference 1 which considers the ( C L o_)B 'and body contribution to CLq to be a product of the body liftcurve slope,
the expression from and by for the ratio of slenderbody 40. The fuselage chord derivatives, and nacelles referred \CL_]slenderbody contribution to the to center theory CLq, based
aerodynamic
and
of gravity,
(CLq)f
+ (CLq)
n .....2(CLot)f(1
Xmf_ lf]
/f Cw +2(CLtx)
n (i
Xmn_ lnj
/n Cw
(6.1.15)
where
(CL_)f, obtained
are 4.3
the
slopes
of the
and
on the
the
distances of the
of gravity the
obtained and
I f, ln table 4.31
lengths
of the
respectively,
obtained
from
(c)
The
lift
contributions
of the
horizontal
tail,
(CLq)h(hf),
due
to pitch
rate
are
obtained from the following derivation which takes into account the action effects on the liftcurve slope of the horizontal tail. Because rate will result in a change in tail angle of attack, in radians, of
(A_) h _ q/h V
(6.1.16)
where
Ih
is the
distance
from
the
center chord
of gravity
to the
quarter
chord
of the
horizontaltail
mean
aerodynamic
(aCah(hO)q = 27.3
= 7.3(CL )h(h
q/h) T
(6.1.17)
312
H646
where with
as
(CLa)h(hf) tailfuselage
is the interaction
elevatorfixed effects
slope and
of the
horizontal from
tail, equation
in degrees, (4.102)
is obtained
(CLtx)h(hf)
=[Kh(f)
+ Kf(h)](CLo_)he
q_l
Sw she
(6.1.19)
present tail
application slope,
of the based
equation on the
(CLoz) '
n
is the e obtained
value 4.21,
liftcurve is the
panels, tail,
qh
poweron dynamicpressure at the as obtained
was applied to the subject airplane is reiterated: For the geometric the lift carryover from the tail
as tailto the
fuselage (represented by Kf(h)) may be insignificant on the fuselage and the air gap between the tail and Kf(h) that be considered of the (d) subject to be airplane. the preceding methods to the similar to zero
because of the location of the tail the fuselage. It is suggested that configurations similar to
for tailfuselage
By applying
subject
airplane,
the
lift
due
to pitch
rate, CLq, was calculated and is presented in table 6.1.11 as a function of angle of attack and power condition on the basis of original downwash calculations. The results are plotted in figure 6.1.11. Included in the figure are the results of calculations which included a 40percent decrease in powerinduced downwash on the tail. No experimental data were available for comparison. Because of the inclusion of the lift carryover from the tail to the fuselage, which is undoubtedly small or nil in accordance with the preceding larger cautionary than it should remarks, be. CL_ the calculated CLq is, in all likelihood, about 10 percent 6.1.2
The wing, fuselage, nacelles, and horizontaltail contributions to the lift due to vertical acceleration, a, are summarized by the following expression in which the individual terms are referenced to the wing area:
CL_= H646
(CL(_)w
+ (CLo_)f
+(CL(_)
n +(
Lol)h(hf )
(6.1.21)
313
the vertical
_,
explicit expressions for the subsonic wings. Because the wing contribution the omission of the wing contribution CL_. of the fuselage and nacelles, (CL(_)f
contributions
+(CL_)
n,
due
to
4, are accounted for by the following at in a manner synonymous to the derivation (section chord, If (CL_)f + (CL(_)n = 2 (CLol)f Cw 6.1. l(b)). Referenced to the
approximate equation, of the equation for body area and the wing
CLq
wing
The tion
individual (6.1.15)
terms
in the
equation
have
the
same
definitions
as the
terms
in equa
(c)
The
lift
contribution
of the
horizontal
taft,
(CL_)h(hf),
due
to vertical
acceler
ation, _, is based on the concept of the "lag of the downwash. " The downwash at the tail does not respond instantaneously to changes in wing angle of attack. Because the trailing vortex is convected with the airstream, a change in circulation at the wing is not felt as a change in downwash at the tail until a time, At =_,lh has elapsed ...... (lh is
the distance from the center of gravity to the tail). and, therefore, the lag in change in angle of attack, is accounted for by aeh (A(_)h = A_ h = Dc (_At)b The correction obtained from to the taillift coefficient to account
(6.1.24)
from
Comparison 314
of this
equation
with
the
equation
for
(CLq)h(hf)
(eq.
(6.1.18))
shows H646
1
i
i
Thus
is obtained
from
equation
(6.1.18)
is the
rate
of change
of tail of
with power
airplane condition
angle being
of attack, analyzed
obtained
5.1.24
as a function
(d) By applying the preceding methods to the subject airplane, the lift due to the vertical acceleration was calculated and is presented in table 6.1.21 as a function of angle of attack and power condition on the basis of original downwash calculations. The results are plotted in figure 6.1.21. Included are the results of calculations which included a 40percent decrease in powerinduced downwash at the tail. No experimental data were available for comparison. 6.1.3 Symbols All lift coefficients otherwise. and their derivatives are referenced to the wing area unless
noted CL
lift lift
coefficient coefficient interaction of the effects horizontal included tail with the tailfuselage
CLh(hO
(AC Lh (hi')) q' (AC Lh (hi')) 0C L CLq, CL_= a_ w 2V and OCL ._ _Cw 2V
pitch
rate
and
fuselage
to
CLq
and
CL_,
respec
horizontal tailfuselage
tail
to
CLq
and
CL_ , effects
with rad
interaction
nacelles
to
CLq
and
CL_,
respec
CLq)we H646
exposed
wing
panels
to
CLq,
per
rad
315
CLq)w(wf)
contribution interaction
of the effects
wing
to
CLq
with for,
accounted
(C_Latslender_body
ratio
of
CLq theory,
and used
CL a
of a body form
from
slender
theory
body
in the
to obtain
(CLq)f per
of a body, of the
fuselage
(CLa)he (CLa)h(hf)
liftcurve slope of the exposed horizontaltail panels, referenced to the area of the exposed panels, per deg liftcurve slope of the horizontal interaction effects included, liftcurve to the tail with deg tailfuselage
per
slope of the exposed wing area of the exposed panels, to CL_, per rad
referenced
(CL&) w
C m
wing
contribution
coefficient
Cmq=
Cm =
38 w
2V
CW
of the wing, in. when used ft when used in derivatives of the exposed wing panels,
in
ew
in.
Kh(O'Kf(h)
ratio of the lift on the horizontal tail in the presence of the fuselage and the lift carryover from the tail onto the fuselage, respectively, to the lift on the tail alone ratio of the lift on the wing in the presence of the fuselage and the lift carryover from the wing onto the fuselage, respectively, to the lift on the wing alone
K w (f), Kf(w)
316
H646
/f,/n lh
length
of the
fuselage
and nacelle,
distance from the center of gravity to the of the horizontaltail mean aerodynamic pitch rate, rad/sec horizontal lb/sq ft tail
q qh,
and the
free
Sh e ' Sw
tail
and the
t At
Xac
m
time,
increment
ew
to the aerodynamic center of the exposed wing from the leading edge of the wing as a fraction exposed panel mean aerodynamic chord
Xcg Cw
distance to the center of gravity of the airplane from the leading edge of the wing as a fraction of the complete wing mean aerodynamic chord and the exposed panel mean aerodynamic chord, respectively Xcg Cw e distance from respectively, airspeed, airplane time change change r change deg rate ft/sec angle of attack of relative ab, 0a b _, _t of the tail, tail to the rad/sec horizontal rad due to power, rad or tail, rad Xbody axis, deg the nose of the to the airplane fuselage center and nacelle, of gravity,
Xac Cw e Cw e
Xmf, Xmn V _b
in.
&
(Aa) h A h (Aeh)powe
of change angle
downwash downwash
H646
317
8ch 8_b rate of change of the downwash angle of attack at the tail with airplane
318
H646
Contribution
(CLq)w(wf)
ewe
Symbol
Description Ratio Ratio Exposed Reference Mean Mean of liR on wing in presence carryover panels area, area, sq ft chord chord of exposed of complete wing wing, panels, in. in. on sq ft of fuselage fuselage to to wing wing alone alone Table Table Table Table Table
Kw(O
Kf(w)
S_e
Sw _w e cW
aerodynamic aerodynamic
Table
of gravity
of
the
airplane chord
from as
leading a fraction
edge of the
of
Flight
data
0.12
Xcg
_w e
airplane
from
125
exposedpanel mean aerodynamic fraction of mean aerodynamic exposed panel center edge and as of exposed a fraction chord
Xac Aerodynamic Cwe leading mean Xac wing panels from of exposedpanel
Table
4.51
249
x
Cwe
aerodynamic Xeg
Equation
(6.1.14)
.124
_we
LtRcurve to
_we
slope per rad of exposed wing panels referenced Table 4.21 1.28
(CL )we
SWe,
Symbol
Description Reference Wing mean wing area, sq ft chord, based sq ft, based sq ft, per per on in. on potential tad potential tad center center of gravity of gravity flow only, flow only,
Sw
cW
( L4
Table
4.31
.089
Xmf Xm n
of fuselage
to flight to flight
Figure Figure
3,21 3.21
100.33 60. 14
airplane, in. from nose of nacelles airplane, length, length, in. in. in.
If
l n
Fuselage Nacelle
Figure Figure
4.35(a) 4.35{b)
290 106
Summary:
(CLq)f
+ (CLq)n
= 0.9087
per
vad
H646
319
TABLE
6.1.11
(Concluded)
(c)
Contribution
of horizontal
tail,
(CLq)h(hf)
(C%)h(h_= 114.6_h
Symbol Description Reference Wing mean wing area, sq ft chord, in. tail,
('4(h,
Reference Table Table 31 3.21 4.101(a) Magnitude 178 59.5
s_ Cw
(CLce)h(hi) _h
aerodynamic slope
referenced
to
Table
o.0136 '
\q_/ Table as 172.75 per 5.1.21(b), column 11
sq
Dynamicpressure
ratio
at
the
tail
with
power
on
l h
Distance gravity
per_d
(d)
Lift
due
to
pitch
rate,
CLq
()
q_
_h
_ _b' deg = 4. CLq 049 + 4.53 (_)
T"
0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a13.8 b14.1 c14.4 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .......... TcI : O, 0.20, 0.20 1.0868 1.1028 1.1167 1, 1222 1. 1333 1. 1389 1. 1444 1.1417 1.1361 1. 1278 1.1222 0.44 1.2027 1.2108 1.2216 1.2324 1. 2432 1.2541 1. 2622 1.2676 1.2757 1.2811 1.2811 1.2784 0.44 0 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 8.579 .....
T_
0.20 8.972 9.045 9.108 9.133 9.183 9.208 9.233 9.221 9.196 9.158 9.133 0.44 9.497 9.534 9.583 9.632 9.681 9.730 9.767 9.791 9.828 9.852 9.852 9.840
........... respectivdy.
power conditions,
320
H646
[ Flight
(a)
Contribution
of wing,
(CL_)w
In accordance
with
discussion
in
section
6.1.2(a),
(C L_)w
_0
(b)
Contributions
of
fuselage
and
nacelles, If
(CL_)f
+(CL_) In
(CL_)f
+(CL(_)n
= 2(CL_)f
_w
+ 2(CL_)n
Symbol Sw
_W
Description Reference Wing mean wing area, sq ft chord, based sq in. on ft, on potential per potential rad flow flow
S w = 178 based
of nacelles
Table
6.1.1
 1 (b)
089
length, length,
Figure Figure
4.350) 4.35(b)
290 106
Summary:
(CL_)f
+ (CL_)n
= 1.497
per
rad
(c)
Contribution
of horizontal
tail, 0eh
(CL_)h(hf)
(CL&)h(hO=
(CLq)h(hf)
Symbol
S W
Description Reference wing area, to sq ft CLq with per radian tailfuselage interaction
_h

(CLq)h(hf) Oe h
6.1.11(c)
downwash
at tail
with
c_b
Figure
5, 1.25
f (Ceb,
T_)
O0_ b
qh q_
Dynamicpressure
ratio
at tail
with
power
on
f (c%,
Tc)
Summary:,
(CL'_h(hf) c_/
: 4"53_'_3'_b \qj
per
rad
H646
321
TABLE
6.1.21
(Concluded)
(d)
Lift
due
to vertical
acceleration,
CL_
CL_
= (CL_)w
+ (CL&)f
+(CL_)n
+(CL_)h(hf}
= 0 + 1.497
+4.53 _h
.Oa b Oeh
0
5.1.25 0e h 0or b
0
........ CL_ =
_b'
deg Tc 0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a13.8 b14.1 14.4 1.0 I. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 _0.20 1. 0868 i. 1028 1. 1167 1. 1222 1. 1333 1. 1389 1. 1444 1.1417 1. 1361 1. 1278 1. 1222 ...... 0.44 1. 2027 1.2108 1.2216 1. 2324 1. 2432 1.2541 1.2622 1. 2676 1.2757 1.2811 1.2811 1. 2784 0 0.20
0.475 0.475 .475 0.475 .475 0.470 .450 0.425 .405 ..... .....
0.785 0.775 .760 0.730 .680 O. 640 .600 0.530 .475 0.470
0.915 0.920 .905 0.865 .810 O. 740 .670 0.589 .500 0.470 .450
6.516 6.588 6.549 6. 368 6.099 5. 728 5. 344 4. 901 4.399 4 .225 4. 103
respectively.
322
H646
i ]
 (_h)power
9.8
/ /
f J
T_ =0.44 9.6
9.4
9.2
P
T c =0.20
% \
g.o
8.8
8.6 T_ =0
8.4 z 0 4 8 12 16
.deg
Figure 6.1.11. of attack and Variation of calculated power conditions. lift due to pitching moment, CLq, with angle
H646
323
6.0
,..,.,
5.5
\
, 5.2
\\
CI_,
4.4 \
4.0
\ \
\ \
T =O
3.6
3.2 0 Figure with 324 6.1.21. Variation angle of attack and of calculated power. 4 %, lift due deg to vertical acceleration, 8 12 16 CL_ ,
H646
6.2
Pitching
Moments
Due to Dynamic
Motions
6.2.1
Pitching
Moments
Cmq
= (Cmq) w(wf)
+ (Cmq)
f +(Cmq)
n + (Cmq) h(hf)
(6.2.11)
(a) effects,
The
contribution pitching
of the moments
wing, due
including to pitch
the rate,
mutual Cmq,
interference for by
to the
in which (eq.
the
individual For
terms, lowspeed
with
the
exception
of
(Cmq)w
e,
were
defined is
(6.1.12)).
incompressible
(M_0.2), in reference
obtained from the following equation, which in reference 41 by the inclusion of the factor
modified
(6.2.13)
section aspect
slope, exposed
in degrees,, portion
from
section
4.2 from
is the
obtained
is the of the
distance
from panel
the mean
aerodynamic aerodynamic
center chord
to the
center
of gravity
as a
fraction
exposed
The factor k is empirical, having been obtained by correlating equation (6.2.13) with dynamic model data (ref. 41). For an aspect ratio between 1 and 6, k was determined to be of the order of 0.7. No experimental data were obtained in reference 41 for higher aspect ratios; however, for very high aspect ratios, k approaches 1.0. Reference 1 suggests that for aspect ratios of about 10 or 12, k should be approximately 0.9. Although no experimental data are available to show how k should vary for intermediate aspect ratios, reference 1 suggests that a smooth fairing be used. H646 325
For subsonic speedsinvolving compressibility effects, (Cmq)we is obtained by applying an approximate compressibility correction factor, derived in reference 42, to the results of equation (6.2.13). Thus
= IAweB2_
+ 6 cos
Ac/4
(6.2.14)
3B3t
(6.2. I5)
is the
sweepback
of the
wing
quarterchord of the
line fuselage are and not nacelles explicitly due to pitch accounted for.
pitchingmoment + (Cmq)n
contributions
(Cmq)f
, as for lift
due to pitch
rate,
The contributions of the fuselage and nacelles were obtained on the basis of equation (6.2.16), from reference 1, which was derived in a manner synonymous to the derivation of equation (6.1.15) using slenderbody theory. Referred to body base area, Sb, body length, lB, and a selected center of rotation (the center of gravity of the airplane),
1 ZB/
(Cmq)BSblB=2157"3(Cm_sbl where (Xm) B plane
r
(6.216)
XmB_ VB lB ] SblB
(1
is the
distance
from
the
nose
of the
body
to the
center
of gravity
of the
air
(Xc) B
is the
distance
from
the 3Cm
nose
of the
body
to the
centroid to
of the Sb/B
body
volume
(Cmo_)BSb/B
DO_b
of the
body
referenced
can 326
subject
airplane
is essentially
zero,
equation
(6.2.16)
H646
(Cmq)
(6.2.17)
BSblB
"3(Cmz)BSbB] /
\lB
lB ]
(Cmq)B c w,
and
(Cm_)B
to the
wing
area,
S w,
and the
wing
mean
aero
(6.2.18)
Considering
that
(Cm_)B,
when
obtained
from
equation
(4.71)
and
applied
to the
fuselage and nacelle components edge of the wing mean aerodynamic requires that
(Cm_)B
(Cm_)B/e
(6.2. i9)
Hence,
relative
to the
center
of gravity
of the
airplane,
Applied tribution
specifically of the
to the
fuselage
of the is obtained
subject from
airplane,
the
net
con
fuselage
and nacelles
(Cmq)fn=
2(57.3)
(c mc_)f/e
.. +_L_)f
+2(57.3)
Cm_}n/e+(CLr_)n__wjt_.
_ogl/on
where
(Cmo_)f I eand of the wing mean only the potential Xcg to the is the
are
obtained
from
section
4.7
relative
to the
leading
edge
of approximation,
aerodynamic
chord
center
of gravity
airplane
H646
327
and
of gravity distance
obtained of the
Xcf volume,
is the in.,
fuselage
fuselage
dx (6.2.112)
Xc n volume,
of the
nacelle
to the
centroid
of the
nacelle
/0nsx x dx
Xcn =
12v
of the effects lh horizontal included, tail due to pitch for
(6.2.113)
(c)
The
contribution interaction
rate, by
__(Cmq_h{hf)'
is accounted
(CLq)
h(hf)
and the
lh
are
defined
in section to the
6.1.1(c). subject and are airplane, presented the pitching in table 6.2.11
preceding Cmq,
methods were
rate,
calculated
as a function of angle of attack and power condition on the basis of the original downwash calculations. The results are plotted in figure 6.2.11. Included are the results of calculations which included a 40percent decrease in powerinduced downwash at the tail. No experimental data were available for comparison. 6.2.2 Pitching Moment Due to Vertical Acceleration, Cm_ and horizontal tail to the pitching in terms of reference wing
The contributions of the wing, fuselage, nacelles, moments due to vertical acceleration can be summarized area and wing mean aerodynamic chord by
Cm_t: 328
(Cm_t)w(wf)
+(Cm_)f
+(Cm(_)n
+ (Cm_)h(hf)
(6.2.21) H646
(a) The pitchingmoment contribution of the wing dueto vertical acceleration, (Cm_)w(wf), with wingfuselage interactions included, would normally be accountedfor by an equation identical to equation (6.2.12) except for the substitution of (Cm_e)We for (Cmq)we. However, in the subsonic region, with the exception of triangular wing planforms, no explicit expression for (Cm_)we is available In the absenceof suitable procedural information, (Cm_)w(wf) is assumed to be zero. This assumption is acceptable as an approximation because, as pointed out in reference 1, tests indicate that this contribution for conventional configurations in subsonic flow is small (b) The pitchingmoment
acceleration, which was (Cm_)f arrived to l B, and + (Cm_)n, contributions are of the fuselage and nacelles of the of the base area, of the due to vertical following equation Sb, equation, for body accounted for by the use to the derivation to body center
synonymous l(b)).
contribution length,
Referenced (the
and body
a selected
of rotation
of gravity
airplane),
1B
lB] (6.2.22)
xm_B___ Sb/B t VB lB ]
k'
Because particularly express tion the base area, subject and for Sb, is essentially airplane, the zero preceding of Sw and in most general can (as was
.l
aviation be readily done and aircraft, modified and to
equation _w
(Cm_)B With
in terms the
in equa(Cma)B, which
(6.2.16)
(Cmq)B.
modification
accomplished
was obtained in section 4.7 about the leading edge of the mean aerodynamic transferred to the center of gravity (eq. (6.2.19)), the following format which, exeept for sign, is identical to equation (6.2.110):
chord, is arrived
at
Cw /
_mB l
G.2.23)
equa
(C m _)f + (Cm_)n
=  (Cmq)f
 (Cmq)n
(6.2.24)
This result is interesting, inasmuch as, under certain conditions, transient oscillations where both quantities appear in the working H646
result indicates that the two quantities cancel each other. (c) The pitchingmoment contribution of the horizontal tail due to vertical acceleration, (Cm_)h(hf), with the tailfuselage interaction effects included, is accounted for by
lh (ma)h(hf)
from lh
Cw
(cL )h
(6,1.26), aEh
(6.2.25)
or,
upon
substittition
for
(CL(_)h(hf)
equation
_w
(CLq)h0_0
0% results in
(6.2.26)
(6.2.114)
(Cm_)h(hf)
where
: (Cmq)h(hf) (6.1.26).
0_
(6.2.27)
is as defined
for
equation
(d) By applying the preceding methods to the subject airplane, the pitching moments due to the vertical acceleration were calculated and are presented in table 6.2.21 as a function of angle of attack and power condition. The results plotted in figure 6.2.21. No experimental data were available for comparison. 6.2.3 Pitching Moments Due to Pitch Rate and Vertical Acceleration in ShortPeriod
are
Transient
(cmq
Although simple to obtain purpo se s. In flighttest Cmq and Cmq and Cm_ have values been calculated as individual quantities quantities, for it is not experimental of these individual comparison
investigations,
it is generally quantities.
not practical
to attempt
to determine
Cmc _ as individual
To do so requires
a wellconditioned
maneuver and very accurate instrumentation. In this respect, an accurate determination of _ is generally not feasible and proper conditioning of a maneuver is difficult. As a result of these problems, flight test utilizes a controlfixed, shortperiod transient response maneuver to obtain a combined pitchdamping derivative, Cmq + Cm_.
In controlfixed, shortpe_od transient response maneuvers, the pitch rate, q, and the vertical acceleration, a, are approximately in phase and are similar in magnitude. As a result, for this maneuver, the pitching moments due to pitch rate, q, and vertical acceleration, 4, may be represented by the single combined derivative 330 H646
Cmq + Cm_
as obtained from
acre
Figure 6.2.31
mq 2V +
flightdetermined
q%
(Cmq + Cm3) V
and calculated
.qcw
Cmq + Cm_
(6.2.31)
compares
as a
function of angle of attack and flight power condition. The flightdetermined values were obtained by using the flightdetermined damping ratio and frequency of oscillatory transient response, obtained by the methods of reference 38 and equation (143) in reference 37. The calculated values are based on the conditions where the powerinduced scatter downwash at the tail, (Aeh) power of flightdetermined the calculated show reasonably be noted that Cmq values good the + Cm_, obtained from larger heavily negative damped values transient than the flight responses, values but reflect somewhat correlation. values of , was reduced 40 percent. Considering the
It should
calculated
Cmq
+ Cm_
include
the
taillift
carryover effects onto the fuselage. As indicated in sections 4.134 and 5.2, all evidence indicates that the taillift carryover onto the fuselage should have been considered to be similar to zero for the tailfuselage configuration of the subject airplane. Had this been done in the present instance, the tail contribution would have been have This 6.2.4
Aw e
11 percent
less
and
the
calculated
values
of
Cmq
+ Cm_
would shown.
aspect 1/2
ratio
of the
exposed
portion
of the
wing
B 2 = (1  M 2 cos 2 Ac/4) CL (CL_)B lift coefficient slope of the body, referenced to the wing area,
applied
specifically
to the
fuselage
and
the
respectively and 3C L _, OqC'w 2V per of the rad horizontal tailfuselage tail to CL_ and CLq, effects respectively, referenced to the
CL_
,CLq
(CL_)h(ho'(CLq)h(hO
contribution
with tad
interaction
331
C m
AC m
Cmq)f
contribution
to
Cmq flow
(Cmq)we conditions,
at incompressible respectively
compressible
OCm Cm_O_b , per deg Cma of the wing body area, body about per about chord, the deg the leading edge to the of the wing wing area, mean per center of gravity, referenced
(eme_) B
to the
Cm_)BI
referenced
body
about
the
center Sb/B
referenced
Cm(_)BSbl
to the (C
volume
parameter, specifically
(Cmo_)fl
e' (Cmot)n/e
to the
fuselage
and
nacelles,
0C m Cm(_, Cmq
respectively,
about
the
center
of
area, and
per Cmq,
rad respectively
(Cm_)B'
(Cmq)
contribution (Cm_)BSb/B' (Cmq)BSb /B referenced lB (Cm_)B to the (Cm &)h (hf)' (Cmq) h(h f) and
of the to the
body body
to
Cm_ area,
and
base
(Cmq)
B'
respectively,
applied
specifically
fuselage of the for H646 horizontal tailfuselage tail to Cm_ and Cmq, effects
with
interaction
332
(Cm_)B to the
and nacelle
(Cmq)B s
, respectively,
applied
specifically
( m )wo (%)We
of the
exposed
wing to the
panels area
to
Cm_
and
Cmq,
referenced
of the
exposed
mean aerodynamic chord of the wing, in. when used ratio of dimensions, ft when used in derivatives
aw e
in
mean Kf(w)
aerodynamic
chord
of the
exposed
wing
panels,
in.
Kw(f),
ratio of the lift on the wing in the presence of the fuselage and the lift carryover from the wing onto the fuselage, respectively, to the lift on the wing alone a factor equation model used for data of the body, in. (ft when to the used fuselage with and Sb the in SblB) inequation I(Cmq) L (6.2.13)  weJ M_0.2 to modify to correlate the theoretical with dynamic
lB lf, ln
length lB
applied
specifically _
nacelles,
chord
M q
fih
ratio of the freestream Sb Sb/B body product wing area base dynamic pressure at the dynamic pressure area, of the area, of the sq ft body base area and body length, cuft horizontal tail to the
Sw
Sw e
H646
Sx
Tc t
X I
of the body sq ft
at distance
from
the
the
in.
nose
of the
body
to the
crosssectional
Xc B
the
nose
of body
to the
eentroid
of the
body
Xcf,Xcn
specifically in.
to the
fuselage
and
nacelle,
respectively, Xcg
Xm B
from the nose of the body of the airplane, in. specifically in. to the
to the
center
of
Xmf, Xm n
applied
fuselage
and
nacelles,
respectively,
x
ew e
distance from the wing aerodynamic center to the center of gravity of the airplane as a fraction of the exposed panel mean aerodynamic chord, positive forward, in. airspeed, volume VB ft/sec of the body, cu ft to the fuselage and nacelle,
V VB V f, Vn
applied
specifically
eh (AEh)power
downwash
angle
at the
horizontal angle
tail, at the
Ac/4
line,
deg
334
H646
6.2. TO
of gravity
(a)
Contribution
of _4ng,
(Cmq)w(wf) We We 2
(Cmq)wo where
Symbol Section clce Aw e A c/4 Aspect Sweepback ratio liftcurve
2 cos o/4 l
De sc ription slope, per portion deg of wing line,
1._
_2
: + 4\ We +6eo,,,oty+ [
Refe fence Table "Fable 4.11 3.21 3.2  1 Magnitude 0.095 6.9 2.5
of exposed of wing
quarterchord
deg
Table
i
CW e
of the of the as
center exposed
aerodynamic aerodynamic
Table
6.1.11(a)
.124
a fraction
(6.2. I3)
0. 757
of lift
on
wing
in
presence
of body on body sq ft to
to wing
wing alone
alone
aerodynamic aerodynamic
of exposed of complete
wing wing,
panels, In.
In.
Table Table
(Cmq)f+(Cmq)n=2(57.3_[(Cmc_)fl_+(CLc_)f_(_cfx_2(57_3)[ICma)nle_CLc_)_cwj\cw\ cW / cw
c__])
Magnitude Symbol Description Reference Mean ,_lng area, sq ft chord about potential slope sq ft, leading flow of body per deg of the edge only, based _'lng, of wing referenced on potential in. mean to flow aerodynamic Sw only; 178 sq ft to Table 4.31 .00212 .00155 chord, Reference Table Table Table 31 3.21 4.71 178 59.5 0. 00216 per dog Fuselage 178 59.5 0. 00147 per deg Nacelles
Sw
_w
aerodynamic
( Cm a)B/e
(eL)
Xc_..gg _w Xc B
Liftcurve Sw = 178
referenced
of gravity from the leading chord as ratio of the mean of body to centroid of body
wing
FI ight
data
0.12
O. 12
147.7 32.4
Xm B
Distance plane,
from in.
nose
of body
to the
center
of gravity
of the
air
Figure
3.21
100.33
60.14
Summary:
_"_j(Cm_f
+ X_/(Cmo_n = 0.2200.088=
0. 132
per
rad
H646
335
TABLE
6.2.11
(Concluded)
(e)
Contribution
of horizontal lh
tail,
(Cmq)h(hf)
Symbol
Magnitude
Sw cw
th
(CLq)h(hf)
of change per
Table
6.1.11(c)
_CL q5 w
o_V
_h Dynamicpressure ratio at taft W_th power on Table 6.1.11(d), column 2 As per table column 2 6.1.11(d),
Summary:
(Cmq)h(hf)
:13,152(qq_h)
per
rad
(d)
Pitching
moment
due
to pitch
rate,
Cmq
Cmq
=(Cmq)w(wf
) +(Cmq)f
+(Cmq)
n +(Cmq)h(hl)
Table _h
6.1.11(d), column 2
= 0.611
 13,152(_)
/
W_
0 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a13.8 b14.1 14.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .......... 0.20 1.0868 1,1028 1.1167 1.1222 1.1333 1.1389 1.1344 1.1417 1.1361 1.1278 1.1222 0.44 1.2027 1.2108 1.2216 1.2324 1.2432 1.2541 1.2622 1,2676 1.2757 1.2811 1.2811 ].2784 0 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13, 76 13.76 13.76 13.76 13.76 ....... .............
T c 0.20 14.90 15.12 15.30 15.37 15.52 15.60 15.66 15.63 15.55 15.44 15.37 0.44 16.43 16.54 16.68 16.82 16.96 17.10 17.21 17.28 17.39 17,46 17.46 17.42
336
H646
TABLE
6.2.2
PITCHING
MObIENT [Flight
DUE center
TO
VERTICAL of gravity
Cm_
(a)
Contribution
of
_dng,
(Cm_)w(w
In
accordance
with
discussion
in
section
6.2.2(a),
(Cm;)_(wO :o
(b) Contributions of fuselage and nacelles, (Cm_,) f +
(Cm_k
Since,
in
accordance
with
equation
(6.2.24},
(Cm_)f
+(Cm_)n
= [(Cmq)f
+ (Cmq)n]
then,
from
table
6.2.
11(b)
(Cma)f
+(Cm_)n
= 0,132
per
rad
(c)
Contribution
of
horizontal
tail,
(Cm&)h(h
Since,
in
accordance
with
equation
(6.2.27), ae h
(0mz)_ =(Om_)h(h,
then, on the basis of the calculated value of
(cmq )h(h0
_b
tn table6.2.11(c),
( Cm
_h(hf)
13.
152k__J
_j
(d) Pitching
a%
moments due to vertical acceleration, Cm_
Cm_
=(Cm_)w(wf)
+(Cm_)f
+(Cm_)n
+(CmS)h(hi
:0 0
= 0. 132 
13
/_h\ o_h
13.152//
\_j
@
Table 6.1.21(d), column 2
,_,
0( h
O_b,
deg
q_ / F c 0 0.20 1. 086_ 0.44 1.2027 1.2108 1.2216 I. 232; 1.2432 1.2541 1.2622 1.2676 1.2757 1.2811 1.2811 1,2784 / T c = 0, 0.20, 0.475 O. 475 ,475 0.475 ,475 0.470 .450 0.425 .405 ..... ......... 0
T e 0.20 0.44 0
T_
0.20 O. 44
1.0 1.0 1.0 I. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ..........
0.785 O. 775 .760 0.730 .680 0.640 .600 0.530 .475 0.470
0.915 "0_ '920 ,905 0.865 .810 0.740 .670 0.589 .500 0,470 .450
6.38 6.38 6.38 6.38 6.38 6.31 6.05 5.72 5.46 ...... ............
ll.52 ll.51 ll.35 11.01 10.32 9,76 9,14 8.05 7.18 7.07
14.70 14.91 14.80 14.28 13,49 12.42 11.30 10,01 8.56 8.05 7.70
angles
for
0.44
power
conditions,
respectively.
H646
337
8
15
0 Figure Cmq, 6.2. with I1. angle Variation of attack 0 of calcuIated and _ 4 power.
%, deg
16 rate,
moment of gravity
= 0.12
(,_h)power
J
J
_,)d,
J
15 20 4 Figure Cm&,
338
12
16 acceleration,
Variation of attack
H646
.2
Tc
.1
0
OOCb
O0 0 0
10
o%
T_ =0
2O
0
o
0 4 Ob, deg
c
8 12 15
of calculated shortperiod
Cmq
+ Cm_
with
flightdetermined Center of
pulse
maneuvers.
339
ShortPeriod
Transient
Oscillation
Characteristics transient oscillations, the airplane V. It is thus considered to be by the following smallperturbation
controlfixed longitudinal shortperiod to be oscillating at a constant velocity, to two degrees of freedom represented
W(Aan) Moment
=mV(AqA_
c LoAa
+CLqA
q_ 5w
+CL_A__
5w)
qS w
(6.31)
IyAq
maA_
+ CmqAq
+ Cm_A_
qSwc w
(6.32)
where,
for
present
purposes,
all
derivatives
and
motions
are
in radians. and
the
with respect to time and substituting for A_ following result (after removing negligible
A_ + _
Lo_
(Cmq
+ Cm
A_
A_=
(6.33)
where
m
is the is the
mass moment
density
of the
(W), Yaxis,
slugs slugft 2
Iy
of inertia equal
_" is a time
parameter
Je
is the
relative mass
aircraft
density, air,
density
of the feet/second
airspeed, equation
(6.33)
is a secondorder
differential
equation
of the
form
+ 2 _ ahA(_ + wn2Aa
= 0
(6.34)
340
H646
(Cm
and damping ratio
Cn CL .
(6.35)
wn
 2TW n
[c m w' /]
Lo_ 2Iy (Cmq + Cm_ be obtained from characteristics are timetodamptoonehalf
(6.36)
The
damped
natural
frequency
can
(6.37)
When the shortperiod transient oscillatory in terms of period of damped oscillations and
the
to be expressed amplitude,
p = _27r _n d and
(6.38)
T1/2
The T1/2 weight culated was preceding relations of the The the were subject derivatives applied airplane characteristics of 3380 data pounds.
O. 693
(6.39)
to the
calculation
P a nominal
and
based Ae h show
on calpower' good
in which 40 percent.
at the T1/2
horizontal characteristics
reduced
flight data in figure 6.31. The consistency of the flight data points exercised in applying the technique of reference 38 to the flight time involved damping ratios of the order of 0.7. a typical calculated equations flight time history used in the analysis. timehistories based on flightdetermined (6.31) and (6.3,2) to which CL_eA6 e The figure and caland
also
culated
derivatives
Cm_eA6 e, respectively, were added. The A6 e input shown in figure in both calculated time histories. The calculated time histories were computerized solution of the standard linearized equations of motion. 6.3.1 Symbols load factor and perturbed respectively, g units value of the
an, Aa n
load
factor,
H646
341
CL CLo_=
CL& = OO_b 0C L _
OtC w
lift
coefficient
referenced
to the
wing
area
, per , per
rad rad
2V 8C L , 2V 0CL CL6e _ee with the and elevator accounted tab geared for, per to move tad to the wing wing area with the
CLq
per
rad
elevator
C m
Cm_
= Oab _C m
' per
rad
Cm& = O_ 2V
, per
rad
Cmq
per
rad
0Cm Cm_ e 05 e with the and elevator accounted chord tab geared per to move rad ft with the
elevator
CW
for,
mean
aerodynamic
g Iy
gravitational mass moment axis (pitch airplane period pitch mass, of the rate,
acceleration,
about
the
Ybody
P q
transient
oscillations,
sec
342
H646
freestream
dynamic
pressure,
lb/sq
ft rate, respectively,
q, Aq
and perturbed value of pitch unless indicated otherwise and perturbed rad/sec z unless
Sw
T c T1/2
J
wing thrust
area,
sq ft
time for the shortperiod half amplitude, sec time, airspeed, calibrated airplane airplane unless perturbed perturbed perturbed sec ft/sec airspeed, weight, lb knots
t V Vc W o_, o_ b
angle of attack relative indicated otherwise value value value of ab, rad time rate
to the
Xbody
axis,
rad
ArT
of change of a b,
of
ab,
rad/sec 2 deflec
rad/sec
5 e, A5 e
deflection respectively,
(Aeh)powe
horizontal
transient
oscillation
Pc P
T
density, air,
density parameter,
of the
ft
m pVSw
_n
shortperiod
transient
COn d
H646
343
I I I
I Q
r/l
0 0
]
I
o.
Iq D
0 I
I I I
0 0
I I I
II
I I
0
!
,I
I
t,
_o
I
u C..) c_
Iq)
_'! I 1 I
O @
_
LL
II
_U_ I
II
I_
$
0
d_
I
!"
_g
I
o
o_
ffl
//
!
o 0
_,)o_
o_
g_
rt
344
H646
an, g
2F o
120 80 _
___ I
 ....... I
_ ll
40
J\
q, deg/sec 0 2 40
_,,_
80 120 16
q, deg/sec
A
7
8 4 a, deg 0 4 0 1
2 t, _ec
_tetermined = 0.126 w.
time
histories
of airplane
345
6.4 WindupTurn Characteristics In considering the calculation of the windupturn characteristics (expressed as the variation of elevator displacement and stick force as a function of load factor), the airplane is normally assumed to be maneuvering at constant weight, center of gravity, altitude, and velocity. In addition, the maneuver is considered to be performed in steps rather than as a steadily tightening turn, thereby eliminating pitching acceleration, q, and vertical acceleration, _, from consideration. As a result of these constraints, the windup turn is represented by the following two equations when the maneuver is initiated from trim level flight: CL
(6.41) + CLStab(Stab)o Sw\ _
00
= CL_(a
b  _o)
+ CLq
2V + CL_eSe
Cm = Cm o + Cme_(_b
 ao)
+ Cmq
2V qCw
+ CmSeSe
CLStab(Stab)
Cw
_w_] (6.42)
w
and, from reference 43,
(6.44)
CL_ e geared
and
Cm_ e elevator
are
including based
the
effect area
of the
tab
to the
on wing when
5 e = 0 ,
based
area, distance
from
of gravity figure
to the 3.22
quarterchord
point
of the
tail
chord,
obtained
from
With Load Factor and 5etri m with load factor, an, equa
crtrim transposed
tions
(6.41)
to the
following
format:
346
H646
CLCLq
2V
(ACLtab)o=CLa(Olbao)
+CI__e5 e
(6.4.11)
Cmq qcw2V(ACmtab)o : Cmo + Cmo_(_bThe righthand side of equations moment equations, respectively, sented by the lift curves ures 5.23 and 5.24. The equivalent Cm obtain lefthand is used versus C_trim of figure (6.4.11) and (6.4.12) with trim tab at zero 5.1.31 and the
O_o) + Cm_e5 e
(6.4.12)
pitchingmoment
lefthand side of equations net static lift and pitching CL and plots 5etri (figs. m. 5.1.31 The
from
of intersection versus CL
quantities to obtain
(6.4.11) CL
on the
on the
plot.
CL
_e
_e
F f0
/
tab/o
//
In applying this procedure, of the being the representative power condition H646
_b _trim
Cm
1/i
Cmq _
T
Cmtab)o
curves
on the
Cm
versus
CL
plot
are
to be
centerofgravity condition being analyzed. Also, analyzed is between two plotted power conditions,
347
obtained condition.
for
the
two bracketing
power
conditions
and
interpolated
for
remains the problem (the lefthand side of the for dynamic selected windup
net _trim
and velocity
be known,
load
is also setting
increments and
(ACLtab)o
(ACmtab)o.
determination
of these
quantities
explained
by tracing
(a) The calculations to be performed are for altitude, velocity, weight, and loadfactor conditions of actual flight data for the purpose of comparing the degree of correlation between calculated and flight characteristics. In the absence of flight data, the velocity, weight, and altitude would be considered to be constant. (b) Table 6.4.11(a) lists pertinent known and required parameters. conditions for the and lift coefficients analysis. in
(c) In table 6.4.11(b) columns 1 to 4 list the stipulated Columns 5 and 7 list the corresponding calculated pitch rates accordance with equations (6.44) and (6.43), respectively. (d) figure (e) equal Using 5.35 Using for CL determined coefficient total first Tc
l
7,
obtain
the
first
estimate
of total
T c
from
columns of
7 and O_trim
8,
and
Cm fig
to be
to zero,
obtain and
and
5.24.
Figure
be oriented
to the
center
of gravity
being
total and
T_
and
atrim figures
from 6.1.11,
columns 6.2.11,
8 and and
9,
obtain
the
first
estimate
of
q_h_hfrom Clio
5.1.25,
respectively.
static
(g) The results of the first lift and pitching moments the first iterated 15 and values columns
approximations are now used to obtain equivalent net (columns 14 and 16, respectively) which are now used of total 17 to 21. T_, atrim, 5etrim, CLq, Cmq, and
to obtain qh ,
in columns
(h) 348
The
iteration
procedure
is repeated,
as indicated
in table
6.4.11(b),
until H646
satisfactory The
is achieved. of total
be
obtained
based on calculated characteristics, are Also shown in the figure are the predicted obtained by using the foregoing procedure. and Stick Forces derived by With Load Factor in section
compared variations,
of Hinge Moments
plane
4.14.1.
For
the
subject
air
Fstic The hinge moment ratio of the of 1.0 __ Chh(f ) = CLh(f) where CLh(f ) of ah, 5 e, is the and net 5ta b is the due pitching to tab moment deflection where lift coefficient horizontal were
k = 40 Chh(f ) q_ tail shown, referenced in section  x_/4)h + 6h (ACm)Stab to the 4.14.1, ,, tail area, Sh,
(4.14.120) and a by
dynamicpressure
to be represented
_Xhinge
(4.14.13)
of the
tail
in the
presence
of the
body
as
a function
about
the
quarterchord
point
of the
tail
mean
chord subject
airplane
the
tab
was
geared
to the
elevator
in the
ratio
of
was
also
used included,
as a trim can
tab,
the
above to
equation
(4.14.13),
with
ratio
be modified
+ CL6tab(_tab)]
(Xhinge
Chx_/4)h
+ C/m6tabL\_e/Ff6tab_
5 e + (6tab)o]
} __h q_
(6, 4.21)
where (6tab) 5tab o is the is the trim setting of the gearing tab when 5e = 0
tabelevator
ratio
H646
349
quarter from
chord table
of the 3.22
horizontaltail or
obtained
horizontaltail
mean
aerodynamic
chord,
obtained
from
table
3.21
q(_)
\ loo/
is the
dynamicpressure
ratio
at the
horizontal
tail,
obtained
from
fig
ure
5.1.25 CLfta b from is the lift effectiveness (4.13.12) of the or table tab, based on horizontaltail area, Sh,
obtained
equation
is the pitchingmoment
effectiveness
chord, based on tail area, obtained for 5ta b = 6 , 7.5 , 15  (ACm) 6tab 5tab
table
4.14.13,
(6.4.22)
CmSta
is the of
net
lift he,
of the
horizontal setting
tail
of
(_h,
the trim
0 when obtained
referenced 4.14.11
to tail for
dynamicpressure of 1.5
of 1.0,
figure
tabelevator
ratio
of attack from
of the horizontal
tail,
required
to determine
(_h(f))(htab)=
0,
C_h = _trim
eh + (Ac_h)q
(6.4.23)
whe
re
airplane 6.4.11(b)
angle
of attack
in the
turn
for the
load
factor,
a n,
considered,
downwash and
at the total
horizontal
t
tail,
obtained
from
figure
5.1.25
as a
_trim
increment
350
H646
q/h (Aah)q =
where l h is the aerodynamic distance chord from the from center figure of gravity 3.22 of hinge moment and stick force to the subject airplane. The The predicted hinge moments 6.4.21. Also shown in the data. to the quarter chord of the tail mean 57.3 _ (6.4.24)
obtained
The procedure for obtaining the predicted variation as a function of load factor in a windup turn was applied summary calculations are presented in table 6.4.21. and stick forces are compared with flight data in figure figure are the predicted variations based on windtunnel 6.4.3 Symbols load factor, g units
an
Chh(f)
hingemoment coefficient of the horizontal effects on the tail included, referenced aerodynamic chord of the tail lift coefficient of airplane when lift o coefficient to
CL (ACLtab)o
referenced
n
to the trim setting of [ \/ _th \Sh CL6tab(6tab)o[__.}{}, \ w/\ q_o/ _h, 6 e, to the setting and tail 6ta b, area tab equal to with
due
CLh(f)
net
lift
coefficient effects
of the
liftcurve , referenced
area,
per
deg
area,
elevator, referenced to the wing equal to 1.0, per deg OCL _ , with to the the dynamicpressure area,
dynamic
equal
referenced
horizontaltail
H646
351
Cm
pitchingmoment
coefficient at zero lift to the area with the elevator and mean aero
Cm o
airplane pitchingmoment coefficient and tab at zero setting, referenced dynamic chord of the wing
increment of pitchingmoment coefficient about the quarterchord point of the tail mean aerodynamic chord due to the tab deflection, referenced to the area and the mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail increment of the airplane trim setting of the tab and
Cm_
ACmtab)o
mean
aerodynamic
wing 0C m
Cmq
pitchstability parameter, 0_b' referenced to mean aerodynamic chord of the wing, per deg 0Cm pitchdamplng parameter, , referenced to the q_w 2V mean aerodynamic chord of the OCm wing, per rad
area Cm6 e
and
airplane pitchcontrol effectiveness, _, with the elevator tab geared to move with the elevator, referenced to the area and mean aerodynamic chord of the wing, per deg b pitchingmoment effectiveness of the tab about the quarterchord point of the tail mean aerodynamic chord, referenced to the area and mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail, per deg tail wing stick mean mean force, aerodynamic aerodynamic lb of gravity, altitude, ft of gravity to the chord, ft quarter chord of the ft/sec 2 chord, chord, in. ft
CmSta
_h _w Fstick g hp lh
acceleration pressure
distance from the center tail mean aerodynamic pitching pitching dynamic rate, rad/sec
acceleration, pressure
352
freestream
")o
dynamic
lb/sq wing,
ft respectively, sq ft
S h, SW Tc t V W (Xhing e  x_/4) h
]
on the tail mean point to the hinge angle of attack of the ah due
chord,
from
the quarter
o_ b ah (AO_h) q
O_ o
Xbody
axls,
deg deg
of attack of angle
of attack load
at zero a n,
deg
at constant
factor,
in the
turn,
deg
deflection, setting
downwash increment
Flight
Research
National
Aeronautics Calif.,
Edwards,
1971.
H646
353
TABLE _rINDUPTURN VARIATION (a) Symbol .......... hp V _ W an T_ c Airplane Pressure True center altitude, airspeed, if/see dynamicpressure weight, factor, thrust lb ratio, De sc ripti of gravity ft OF C_trim
6.4.
Pertinent on
parameters Re ferene Flight Flight Flight lb/sq ff Flight Flight Flight data data data data data data 5.35 e M agni 0.12 6000 Flight Flight Flight Flight See "Description" Table 3.21 3.21 4.13.11(c) 178 4.96 0.0279 per deg data data data data Ow tude
Figure
cw
CLSta b
Wing
mean
aerodynamic
Table Table
of tab, 32.5
_atab'
based
on horizontal
(5tab)o lh _h
Trim
Distance chord
from the center of gravity to the quarter of the taft mean aerodynamic chord, ft ratio at horizontal tail
Dynamicpressure
Figure
5.1.25
f(T_,
_t rim)
Sh/ h
(ACLtab) o CLbtab(btab) S\q2/, referenced to Sw (ACmtab) o Airplane (5tab) anW CL pitchingmoment lh =  (AC Ltab ) o c,_, increment due to
and
0.0102C_h
and
. 0296_) q_
Equation
(6.43)
_Sw
DC L C Lq ^ qCw , per rad Figure 6.1.1t f(C_trim, T_,)
_TgaCm
, per Cmq _qcw 2V rad Figure 6.2.11 f(Cetrim, "1"1c)
g V (an
_ 1) an
, rad/sec
Equation
(6.44)
f(v, an)
CL
versus CL plot
c_b (fig.
plot
(fig.
5. 1.31) to net
5.24)rotated
of
gravity
using qc_,
equivalent (ACLtab,
\
(C L CLq
/
o)On
the
lift
curve versus
and
_Cmq_ plot,
on section
the 6.4.1
Cm
cL
354
H646
_'_ _
(_) _
r_ _ ,,__ _ , ....
@ _Z j=_ _
@i_
#####i
iiiii i i i I i
_7
.@_
i ra"_ i I i
_26
_7
@ _.
II r...1
o=
7 ,#
F..q_ ,1
_T_ =
,N
II o
c'_
.
II o
o_
....
S@
+ c_ ....
_
t I ,'4
N_NN
?1. _ >
? , ? ,
'_.1 _
'_'
"6
io
o. o:;
It o
_.
H o
_o
_ " o o
_ ,2 _...
_o ,_I _, >
1
2
_ <1 N ,._
o
. . o
,'I ,_!_
!
_ ....
H646
355
TAB VARIATION OF HINGE MOMENTS AND (a) Symbol .......... hp an V _ q Airplane Pressure Load factor, center altitude, g units ft/secdynamic rad/sec thrust angle angle coefficient of attack in turn, ratio in turn, deg at tail deg pressure, ft/sec of gravity tt Description STICK
LE
Pertinent
parameters Reference Flight Flight ) t Selected columns Column Column Column Column Column 5 28 25 26 29 Table 6.4.11(b) data data flight 1, 2, data, and 0.126 6000 table 3 6.4.11(b), Magnitude w
T_
trim etrim
_h
Dynamicpressure Sh _h (5tab) 6tab Tabelevator gearing ratio Section 3 1.5 o Horizontaltail Horizontaltail Trim setting of area, mean tab sq ft chord, deg in. Table Table Flight 3.21 3.2 data  1 32.5 32.45 2.0
aerodynamic when 5 e = 0 ,
(Xhing lh
e  x_/4)
line
and
tail
chord, quarter
in.
Table Table
4.14.12(a) 6.4.11(a)
1.17 14.40
of gravity
c_h _h
C_trim Downwash
e h + 57.3
_,
Equation Figure
(6.4.23) 5.1.25
at horizontal
lift
coefficient of = 0, qh,
tail
only /6t
in presence _) 6 e = 1.55 sq ft
of body e, trim
Figure
4.14.11
f(crh,
6e)
function setting
referenced
CLsta
Lift
effectiveness Sh=32.5 sq ft
of tab,
_,
referenced
to
Table
6.4.11(a)
O. 0279
per
deg
C_6ta
Pitching mean
effectiveness aerodynamic
of tab chord,
about A (
quarter
chord
of tail
Table column
4.14.13, 14
For
T_
_ Cm)Stab t_a b
C I mSta average
, per
deg
5ta b = 6.0 to 7.5 Table 5.41, column 14 For T_ = 0.20: 0.0104 value to for 7,5
CmStab average
Chh(f
) =t[(C"Lh(f))(Stab)o=0
+ 0.0558]
0.0361+
CmStab(1.55
e +2)l
_h
356
H646
'_ +
I
_,
i
8
_
_
@ _. @l@i
d _d _3 7
_ _. _. _2_. ?_,_,
+ oo _l.l. i .
#
i_ ,, t i_" 'R II
d_###
I:1
.o
"S
m
I I
!
II
g,
+
I
I ! r.9
_@
oooo
o o II 44 o
i A O III
+
,_
r_
# d
@:
d
+
I
I i
e
4!
_v
"S
"o
oo00
.i_
_.)
oi_ o o
_ I I" I I
r_
e
8
_oo0,
@J
dd_d_ d
I
I _' I* I" I" I"
H646
357
.4
T_
0 12 Flight Wind tunnel m__ Calculated (Z_.h)power reduced 40 percent
%,
deg
4
ae. eg 0 ........ d
4 .04
Chh(f)
.04 40
0 Fstick, Ib ,10
8O t.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
an, g unRs Figure 6.4.21. Comparison a windup turn with those Altitude of calculated hingemoment and stickforce characteristics obtained from v_ndtmmel and flight data as a hmction of of gravity = 0.12 _w; V = 220 ft/sec. H646
REFERENCES
1.
Stability Air
Datcom. Air Force Flight Dynamics Oct. 1960 (rev. Aug. 1968). : FullScale Characteristics WindTunnel of a Light
Lab.,
2.
Fink, Marvin P. ; and Freeman, Delma C., Jr. Investigation of Static Longitudinal and Lateral Engine Airplane. NASA TN D4983, 1969. Abbott, Airfoil Ira H. ; yon Doenhoff, Albert E. ; and Data. NACA Rep. 824, 1945. Hamilton Reynolds
Twin
3.
Stivers,
Louis
S.,
Jr.
: Summary
of
4.
Loftin, Lawrence K., Jr. ; and Smith, of 15 NACA Airfoil Sections at Seven 9.0X 106 . NACA TN 1945, 1949. Stack, John; and yon Doenhoff, Albert Speeds. NACA Rep. 492, 1934. Gault, istics
5.
E. :
Tests
of 16 Related
Airfoils
at High
6.
Donald E. : A Correlation of LowSpeed, AirfoilSection With Reynolds Number and Airfoil Geometry. NACA John; and Harper, Speeds for Wings
Stalling CharacterTN 3963, 1957. Span Loading at Rep. 921, 1948. Lift IncreFlow.
7.
Charles W. : Theoretical Symmetric Having Arbitrary Plan Form. NACA Edward C. : A Method at Low Angles of Attack
8.
John G. ; and Polhamus, Due to Flap Deflection TN 3911, 1957. Abe; and Katzoff, NACA Rep. 688,
9.
Characteristics
of Horizontal
Tail
10.
Hopkins, Edward J. : A Semtempirical of Bodies of Revolution at Low Mach Pitts, William C. ; Nielsen, Pressure of WingBodyTail Speeds. NACA Rep. 1307, Etkin, Multhopp, Silverstein, and Wake Bernard: Dynamics
for
Moment
11.
Center of Supersonic
Wiley
Inc., 1036,
c. 1959, 1942.
p.
479.
H. : Aerodynamics
Fuselage.
Abe; and Katzoff, S. : Design Charts for Predicting Downwash Angles Characteristics Behind Plain and Flapped Wings. NACA Rep. 648, 1939. Jr. : Prediction of Downwash NACA TN 3346, 1955. Behind
15.
DeYoung, John; and Barling, Walter H., SweptWing Airplanes at Subsonic Speed.
H646
359
of Downwash at Various Angles of Attack for Aeron. Eng. Rev., vol. 15, no. 8, Aug. 1956, pp. 2227, H. : The Rolling Behind Wings. Up of the J. Aeron. Trailing Sci., Vortex vol. 18,
61.
17.
Spreiter, John R. ; and Sacks, Alvin Sheet and Its Effect on the Downwash no. 1, Jan. 1951, pp. 2132, 72. Silverstein, Abe; Katzoff, Behind Plain and Flapped Anon. : USAF Control Lab., Hoggard, Untapered 1948. Stability and Aug. 1956. S. ; and Airfoils. Control
W. Rep.
and
Wake
Flight
21.
Lange, Roy H. ; and Fink, Marvin P. : Studies of the Flow Field Behind Scale 47.5 Sweptback Wing Having CircularArc Airfoil Sections and with DroopedNose and Plain Flaps. NACA RM L51L12, 1952.
a Large Equipped
22.
Johnson, Ben H., Jr. ; and Rollins, Frances W. : Investigation of a Thin Wing of Aspect Ratio 4 in the Ames 12Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel. V  Static Longitudinal Stability and Control Throughout the Subsonic Speed Range of a Semispan Model of a Supersonic Airplane. NACA RM A9101, 1949. Foster, Gerald V. ; and Griner, Roland F. : LowSpeed Longitudinal and Wake Airflow Characteristics at a Reynolds Number of 5.5 106"_of a CircularArc Sweptback Wing With a Fuselage and a Horizontal Tail at Various Vertical Positions. NACA RM L51C30, 1951. Bandettini, PartialSpan FuselageTail
23.
52
24.
Angelo; and Selan, Ralph: The Effects of HorizontalTail Height and a LeadingEdge Extension on the Static Longitudinal Stability of a WingCombination Having a Sweptback Wing. NACA RM A53J07, 1954. Sidewash, and Wake of 6.8 X 106 With
25.
Furlong, G. Chester; and Bollech, Thomas V. : Downwash, Surveys Behind a 42 Sweptback Wing at a Reynolds Number and Without a Simulated Ground. NACA RM L8G22, 1948.
26.
Woods, Robert L. ; and Spooner, Stanley H. : Effects of HighLift and StallControl Devices, Fuselage, and Horizontal Tail on a Wing Swept Back 42 at the Leading Edge and Having Symmetrical CircularArc Airfoil Sections at a Reynolds Number of 6.9 X 106. NACA RM L9B11, 1949. Hoerner, Midland Sighard F. : Park, N. J.), FluidDynamic 1965. Drag. Pub. by the author (148 Busteed Dr.,
27. 28.
Benepe, David B. ; Kouri, Bobby G. ; and Webb, J. Bert: Aerodynamic istics of NonStraightTaper Wings. Tech. Rep. AFFDLTR6673, Flight Dynamics Laboratory, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Oct.
360
H646
29. Frost, Richard C. ; and Rutherford, Robbie. SubsonicWing SpanEfficiency. AIAA J., vol. 1, no. 4, April 1963, pp. 931933. 30. Furlong, G. Chester; and McHugh, James G. :
LowSpeed NACA Rep. Longitudinal 1339, 1957. Characteristics A Summary and Analysis of Swept Wings at High Reynolds of the Number.
31.
DeYoung, John: Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading Due to Flap Deflection Wings of Arbitrary Plan Form at Subsonic Speeds. NACA Rep. 1071, 1952. Ribner, NACA Herbert WR L25, S. : Notes on the 1944. (Formerly Propeller NACA and Slipstream ARR L4112a.) in Relation
for
to Stability.
Well, Joseph; and Sleeman, William Operation on the Static Longitudinal With Flaps Retracted. NACA Rep.
C., Jr. : Prediction of the Effects Stability of SingleEngine Tractor 941, 1949.
of Propeller Monoplanes
35.
Pass, H. R. : WindTunnel Study of the Effects of Propeller Operation and Flap Deflection on the Pitching Moments and Elevator Hinge Moments of a SingleEngine PursuitType Airplane. NACA WR L411, 1942. (Formerly NACA ARR. Schuldenfrei, Point From RB 3120. ) Marvin: Some Notes on the Determination of the StickFixed Neutral WindTunnel Data. NACA WR L344, 1943. (Formerly NACA
36.
37.
Wolowicz, Chester H. : Considerations Derivatives and Dynamic Characteristics Part 1, 1966. Neal, T. Method. Peter: Frequency J. Aircraft, vol.
MaximumSlope
for
Low
Sacks, Alvin H. : Aerodynamic Forces, Moments, Slender Bodies of General Cross Section. NACA MaeLachlan, Robert; and Fisher, Speeds of the Pitching Derivatives 1948. Fisher, Lewis R. : Approximate the Subsonic Stability Derivatives Seckel, Press Edward: Stability and Inc., c. 1964, p. 95.
for
at Low RM L8Gi9,
42. 43.
for the Effects of Compressibility Wings. NACA TN 1854, 1949. and Helicopters. Academic
on
of Airplanes
H646
 2
361