M00 [ --

I0

R!!t LOW SPEED AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WINGS OF ASPECT

(m RATIOS 3 AND 4 EQUIPPED WITH HIGH LIFT SYSTEMS

L by

Lynn A. Trobaugh
David G. Lee
Michael J. Hrdris

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMTFD

AVIATION AND SURFACE EFFECTS DEPARTMENT

DTNSRDC/ASED-80/09

May 1980

[ C.F
IA U7
GU21980t OA

:1 A80
 UNCLASSIFIED(i7
SECURITY CLASSIFICArION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Enteredd)
k 79 1
SG
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE C N
READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
ILVT TCCAESION NO. CIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

'" s. TYPE OF REPORT PERIOD COVERED

.. OW •PEEDAMODYNADI• ICCACTERISTICS OF
S:• •ING9 OFrPECT BATI0S•'3 AND 4 •QUIPPED
; • WITHI-•-GIFIFT •!TE•MS 6. PERFORMING ORG:R•EPORT NUME

W-0 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(@)

S Lynn A. /[Link]

L RFORMING PGANII AME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM EL ,mROjECT, TASK

AREA A WORK IT NUMBEERS
David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center Program E oi •
Aviation and Surface Effects Department Task Are WF41421$91
Bethesda, Maryland 20084 Work Un -
1 CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Naval Air Systems Command May 198

AIR 320D ES
Washington, D.C. 20360 97
14 MONITORING AG CY NAME & ADr, iESS(if different from Controlling Office) 15 SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report)

".
if
I/~
/UN-CLASSIFIED 1Sa. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

16 DISTRIBUTION kJ- Tr (of this Report)

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

I8 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side ifneceoeary end Identify by block nimmbir)
Circulation Control Wing Low Aspect Ratio Wings Upper Surface Blowing
Double-Slotted Flaps Powered Lift Systems Wing Tip Fences
• High Lift Systems Semispan Model
Lift Coefficient Trailing Edge Blowing

20 ABSTRACT (Continue on reveres aide It necessary end Identify by block number)

-- •Low speed wind tunnel data show that wings of aspect ratios 3 and 4 can
produce maximum lift coefficients twice that of conventional double-slotted
flap configurations by using powered high lift systems. These high lift
t
•systems, which utilize either the circulation control or upper surface
blowing concepts, were applied to a semispan wing-fuselage model having a
supercritical airfoil section. _.

DD JOAN73 1473 EDITION OF I NOV65 Is OBSOLE- UNCLASSIFIED

DS/N0102-014-6601 f
S. co .
SECURITY CLASSIFI9 ON OF T (when • _3
 j• TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . i.

NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . vi

ABSTRACT ..... ................ . . . . . . . . . . ...... 1

" ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION....... ............. ......... . . 1

INTRODUCTION..... .. . .... . . . . ..................

MODEL AND APPARATUSE. . . . . .S.................. 2

.. WIND) TUNNEL EXPERIMENTS. .. .. ..... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........ ....... ........................ 7

DOUBLE-SLOTTED FLAPS ...... ........................ 7

CIRCULATION CONTROL WING ........ ..................... 7

UPPER SURFACE BLOWING ....... ......... ...................... 9

SUMMARY ...................... .............. 11

CONCLUSIONS ..... ............................. 12

REFERENCES .... .......................... . . .... .. . 15

LIST OF FIGURES
1 - Semispan Wing - Fuselage Model and Groundboard ..... ......... 17

2 - Double-Slotted Flap Configuration ..... ............... .... 18

3 - Circulation Control Wing Configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

S4- Upper Surface Blowing Configuration . . .......... . . 20

5 - Wind Tunnel Model with Double-Slotted Flaps ...... . . . . 21

6 - Wind Tunnel Model with Upper Surface Blowing ...... . . . . 23

1 7 - Wing Tip and Wing Root Fence Configurations . . . . . . . . .. 25

8 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing with Double-Slotted Flaps ............ ... 26

j il iii
 7, -,

Page

9 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing with Double-Slotted Flaps . . ........ 29

10 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in CCW Configuration with

Wing Tip Fence Tnstalled ....... ..... .................... 32

11 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in CCW Configuration without

Wing Tip Fence ....... ......... ......................... 35

12 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in CCW Configuration with

Wing Tip Fence Installed ....... .................... ... 38

13 Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in CCW Configuration without

Wing Tip Fence ....... ......... ........................ 41

14 -Aspect Ratio 3 Wing with Nonround Trailing Edge

in CCW Configuration with Tip Fence Installed ... ......... ... 44

15 - AspecL Ratio 3 Wing with Nonround Trailing Edge

in CCW Configuration without Tip Fence ................. ... 47

16 - Effect of a Nonround Coanda Trailing Edge on an

Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in CCW Configuration ................ ... 50

17 - Effect of a Wing Tip Fence on a CCW Configuration ......... ... 52

18 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB Configuration with

5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct and 40-Degree Flaps ... ........... .... 53

1.9 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB Configuration with

5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct and 60-Degree Flaps .... ............. 56

20 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB Configuration with

5.8 Asoect Ratio Duct and 40-Degree Fla,,s .............. .... 59

21 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB Configuration with

5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct and 60-Degree Flaps .......... . 62

22 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio Wing in USB

Configuration with 40-Degree Flop .................. . . . . 65

23 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB

Configuration with 60-Degree Flaps ..... ............... ... 70

24 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USE

Configuration with 40-Degree Flaps ................. . . . 75

25 -Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB

Configuration with 60-Degree Flaps....... . ......... 80

iv
 t Page

26 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB

Configuration with Zero Flap Angle...... . . . . . . . . . 85

27 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB

Configuration with Zero Flap Angle ...................... 86

28 -Effect of Flap Slots on the Lift of a USB Configuration

with 60-Degree Flaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

29 - Maximum Lift Characteristics of USB Configurations with

5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct ........... . . . ........ 89

4•

U
'

Iv

lr V

__ _ _ _ - - - - ---- -•--- ~ .
 NOTATION

AR Aspect ratio

b Wing span, ft (m)

CD Drag coefficient

CL Lift coefficient

CL Maximum lift coefficient

max

CR Wing root chord, ft (m)

Cm Pitching moment coefficient

Ct Wing tip chord, ft (m)

C Momentum or thrust coefficier"°

c Wing chord, ft (m)

C Mean aerodynamic chord, ft (m)

rnMass flow, slugs/sec (Kg/s)

Pd Wing plenum total pressure, lb/in2 (N /m )

PO Free-stream static pressure, ib/in2 (N2/m2

q Free-stream dynamic pressure, lb/in2 (N/m )

R Universal gas constant

S Wing reference area, ft2 (m )

Td Wing plenum total temperature, *R (*K)

V Jet velocity, ft/sec (m/s)

ALE Leading edge sweep angle, deg

Ac/ 4 Quarter-chord sweep angle, deg

vi
 Ate Trailing edge sweep angle, deg

y Ratio of specific heats

6f1 Vane flap deflection angle, deg

S6f2 Aft flap deflection angle, deg

Ivi
I

V.
\
t

vi
61
L
ABSTRACT

Low speed wind tunnel data show that wings of aspect

ratios 3 and 4 can produce maximum lift coefficients twice
that of conventional double-slotted flap configurations by
using powered high lift systems. These high lift systems,
which utilize either the circulation control or upper surface
blowing concepts, were applied to a semispan wing-fuselage
model having a supercritical airfoil section.

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
The experimental high lift aerodynamics work presented in this report
was performed as part of the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development (DTNSRDC) Aerodynamics Block, and was sponsored by the Naval
Air Systems Command (AIR-320D) under Program Element 62241N, Task Area
WF41421091, Work Unit 1600-079.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of the air capable ship envisions at least one aircraft
on each Navy surface combatant, perhaps down to destroyer size. Larger
ships, such as the LPH, LHA, and others presently undefined, would carry a
complement of several aircraft.
Operation of fixed wing aircraft from small ships, such as destroyers
which may have only a relatively small landing platform, implies the
necessity of some type of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability
for these aircraft. When these aircraft operate from larger ships with
enough free deck space to permit a short takeoff or landing (STOL) run,
the STOL mode is preferred as it allows increased aircraft range and
jipayload through greater takeoff gross weights. However, STOL operations
from small ships pose a problem unique to the Navy, namely, wing span
limitations to ensure adequate superstructure clearance. Adequate clearance
considerations for an existing ship such as the LHA, for example, would
limit wing spans to 62 ft (18.9 m).
( Such constraints are at odds with aircraft design practice where good
range and endurance generally dictate the use of large aspect ratio wings.
These large span wings tend to make the airplane incompatible for operations

L
S~1

IS....
.... ! • • ,
from small ships. By constraining wing spans for a given wing loading,
the resulting low aspect ratios create the need for methods of increasing
the effective aspect ratio.
An additional problem which results from reducing the aspect ratio is
that the maximum lift developed by a given lift device is reduced, and for
good STOL performance, high lift is needed. Conventional lift augmentation
systems such as flaps are limited in the maximum lift they can provide.
However, it is possible to generate higher lift by using powered lift
augmentation systems to increase the circulation around the wing ati to
increase the thrust contribution to lift. It should, therefore, be possible
to compensate for the relatively low lift produced by low aspect ratio
wings with conventional lift augmentation systems by the addition of a
powered lift system.
Unfortunately, the quantitative information which is available for
powered high lift systems covers only wings of aspect ratios greater than
6. The notable exceptions are the XFV-12A and the A-6 Circulation Control
Wing research vehicles. In order to address the problems associated with
constraining wing spans, an experimental program has been established to
evaluate the effectiveness of powered high lift systems and wing tip
devices in providing both STOL and cruise/loiter performance enhancement
for low aspect ratio wing aircraft. A more detai±ed description of this
total program effort is provided in Reference 1.
This report presents the results from a series of experimental wind
tunnel programs dealing with two powered high lift concepts applied to
wings of aspect ratios 3 and 4. A conventional double-slotted flap system
represents the state of the art in mechanical (unpowered) high lift systems
and as such is evaluated to establish a baseline configuration. Two powered
lift augmentation concepts - upper surface blowing (USB) and the circulation
control wing (CCW) - are then compared against this baseline configuration.

MODEL AND APPARATUS

A semispan wing-fuselage model was used in this series of wind tunnel
programs. The principal model dimensions are shown in Figure 1. The full-
span double-slotted flap assembly and the CCW configurations are shown in
Figures 2 and 3, respectively. To minimize wing leading edge flow

• -'• .... . ..... ... '•• j • " '-•• - =*• "• .,'j•.•
 separation, a 15-percent chord full-span leading edge droop was employed
with a deflection angle of 40 deg. The wing was configured for aspect
ratios of 3 or 4 by the use of a tip panel to change wing spans.
The basic wing utilizes a 14-percent thick supercritical airfoil
section. When configured for double-slotted flaps, the trailing edge flap
assembly was designed so that in the retracted position the flap assembly
is wholly within the airfoil envelope as would be required on a full scale
wing. The gaps and overlaps for the flap assemblies are detailed in
Figure 2. Flap deflection angles of 40 and 60 deg were used during these
investigations. These angles refer to the angle that the aft flap makes
with the horizontal. The vane or intermediate flap deflection angles are
also presented in Figure 2. The double-slotted flap assembly in the USB
configuration had both gaps filled and faired over with modeling clay to
produce a single, continuous flap surface.
Removing the trailing edge flap assembly from the basic wing and
substituting a round slotted trailing edge assembly having a wing plenum
result in the CCW configuration shown in Figure 3. Details of the Coanda
surface and gap dimensions are also shown in Figure 3.
A schematic of the major components of the USB configuration is
presented in Figure 4. Two 5.5-in. (14.0-cm) diameter tip turbine fans
are tandem mounted to the wing using a pylon assembly. The fan engines are
driven by compressed air which is carried to the engines via internal
piping inside the wing leading edge. Compressed air limitations restrict
fan engine rpm to 70 percent of rated capacity. Consequently, the CP
range for the USB configurations and, to a lesser degree, the CCW configura-

tions are limited. The turning of the engine exhaust air is accomplished
by the extended trailing edge flap acting as a Coanda surface. Three
exhaust ducts, each having a "D" shaped cross section at the exit point,
were fabricated and evaluated separately. The exhaust ducts have the same
exit area but different width-to-height ratios. These dimensions are given
in Figure 4.
Installation of the wind tunnel models in the double-slotted configura-
tion and the USB configuration are presented as Figures 5 and 6, respec-
tively.

( 3

2 . . .. . .. .. . - - "-.-
 Because the aspect ratio 4 wing is configured from the aspect ratio 3
wing by adding a tip panel to increase the spin, the taper ratio of the
two wings is slightly different.
The wing-fuselage model was mounted in the wind tunnel test section
such that only the wing was attached to the balance frame. The fuselage
was mounted to a boundary layer splitter plate and was independent of the
balance frame with a small gap existing between wing root and funelage body.
The forces and moments measured by the balance frame are essentially wing
alone data in the presence of a body.
Minor leakage developed through the wing-fuselage gap during testing
of the CCW configuration. This leakage produced severe separation of the
upper surface wing flow near the root area. Rather than attempt to seal
the gap and thereby transmit loads tc the fuselage, a large fence was
installed around the wing close to the fuselage. This wing root fence and
an additional wing tip fence used to explore tip flow are shown in Figure 7.
The circular boundary layer splitter plate, which was 8 ft (2.44 m) in
diameter, also served as a reflection plane for the semispan model. The
plate was mounted to the test section floor with a gap between the ground-
board and tunnel floor to separate the boundary layer. Details of the
splitter plate are shown in Figures 1, 4, and 6.

WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENTS

The investigations were conducted in the 8- by 10-foot north subsonic
2
wind tunnel at DTNSRDC. This wind tunnel is of the single return closed-
circuit type that is capable of continuous operation at atmospheric
pressure. The rectangular shaped test section can achieve dynamic pressures
up to 80 lb/ft2 (3830 N/mi2 ). The majority of the data were recorded at
a dynamic pressure of 20 lb/ft2 (958 N/m2 ), which corresponds to a Reynolds
number of 0.8 x 10 6 /ft (2.6 x 10 6/m)."
For this series of investigations, the semispan model was floor-mounted
in the wind tunnel in a vertical position using a base strut system. This
strut system is located beneath the tunnel floor and transfers the aerody-
namic loads of the model to an external Toledo mechanical lalance system.

4
The Toledo balance measures six component force and moment data for
recording on magnetic tape utilizing a Beckman 210 high speed acquisition
system.
The CCW configuration was examined aver a range of blowing coefficients
(C ) from 0 to 0.60. Final C values were calculated using wind tunnel
data as Coanda slot height varied from actual measurements due to slot
expansion caused by wing plenum pressure. The dashed curves presented in
the figures represent nominal increments of C obtained from crossplotting
the wind tunnel data in order to facilitate comparisons of configurations.
All of the data for the CCW configuration were recorded with the wing root
fence installed. In addition, a wing tip fence was installed on several
configurations to examine its effect on a portion of the data.
The momentum coefficient was calculated from the expression:

SVi
11 qs

where the jet mass flow (;) was measured by a venturimeter located in the
cir supply line, and the jet velocity (V ) was calculated assuming an
isentropic expansion from the wing plenum total conditions to free-stream
static conditions at the wing trailing edge. Under this assumption, the
expression for V is: FR 2

2yRT d 0 -

The expansion to local static conditions at the jet exit would give a
more realistic value of Vj, and expansion to free-stream static pressure
underestimates V However, local exit conditions are function6 of local
geometry, and a comparison of two blown airfoils of unlike trailing
edge geometry but identical mass flows and plenum pressures would yield
unlike values of C . The momentum coefficient based on expansion to free-
of
stream conditions is thus accepted as a more "universal" parameter

blown systems and is consistent with previous DTNSRDC practice.

The USB configuration was examined over a range of thrust coefficients
(C) from 0 to 2.00. Final values of C were obtained using the wind
tunnel conditions and the expression:

5
 1 Tqs

where the thrust T is measured statically and is the rector reaultant of

the forces in the drag and lift directions.
A thrust calibration was performed for each USB configuration used in
these investigations with the model assembled on the balance frame In the
wind tunnel. The thrust calibration -zas then programed into the data
reduction routine. (Unless specifically noted, the 40-deg wing leading
edge droop was retained as part of all the configurations examined.)
All forces and moments were resolved about the mean aerodynamic quarter
chord point and reduced to standard coefficient form in the stability axis
system. Coefficients were calculated besed on measured wind tunnel loads
and wing panel dimensions. Model weight and airline pressure tare correc-
tions were applied to the balance data. The only aerodynamic corrections
applied to the force and moment data consisted of the standard downwash
corrections as outlined in Reference 3; angle of attack and drag coefficient
were the two parameters affected.
Before recording data on both powered high lift concepts, the CCW and
USB configurations were visually checked for the possibility of flow
recirculation problems. Wool tufts were attachad to the test section wall

and groundboard in the vicinity of the model and observed during tunnel
operation at maximum test conditions. No recirculation problems were found.
A static bench test of the three air turbine engine-duct combinations
was also performed to examine the airflow as it exited the duct before
impingement on the trailing edge flaps. A mixture of titanium oxide and
oil was applied to the inside of the ducts to allow visual observations of
the flow patterns. The three ducts have approximately the same exit area
but have increasing aspect ratios B/H. where B is the duct exit width and
H is the height. The ducts have aspect ratios of 2.2, 3.9, and 5.8, with
other major dimensions shown in Figure 4. The genezal flow pattern was
good; however, minor separation and turbulence occurred in the lower corne'rs
with the aspect ratio 5.8 duct exhibiting the most separation.

6
 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
j DOUBLE-SLOTTED FLAPS
Figures 8 aad 9 present the longitudinal aerodynamd.c characteristics
')f the full-span double-olotted flap configurations of the aspect ratio 3
and 4 wingA, respectively. These configurations did not use either the
uring root fence or the wing tip fence at any time. Both aspect ratio 3 and
4 wings begin to show evidence of flow separation for CL values of 1.4 or
greater. This flow separation is indicated by the change in the pitching

moment characteristics of both double-slotted flap configurations. As

pre;iously noted, a portion of the separated flow on this semispan model
* is undoubtedly due to the leakage between the wing-fuselage gap which
promotes spanwise flow in the wing root area. Unfortunately, the root fence
constructed for the ZCW configuration is incompatible with the trailing
edge geometry of both the USB and double-slotted flap configurations.
However, this problem will be addressed in a subsequent wind tunnel program
and repor?-. For this investigation, the maximum lift capability of both
the USB and double-slotted flap configurations was therefore not fully
realized. However, a comparison of the relative merits of the two high
lift approaches is still valid.
With a flap deflection angle 6f2 of 60 deg, the aspect ratio 3 wing
produced a CLmax of 2.12 at an angle of attack a of 26 deg. With a
of 40 deg, a CLmax of 1.87 was obtained at an a of 27 deg, •he aspect
ratio 4 wing produced a CLmax of 2.33 at an a of 26 deg for a 6 f2 of
60 deg. With a 6
f2 of 40 leg, the CLmax obtained was 2.10 at an a of
25 dea.

CIRCULATION CONTROL WING

Figures 10 and 11 present similar I'ngitudinal data for the aspecC
ratio 4 wing in the CCW configuration vith and without the wing tip fence
iinstalled, The addition of a tip fence is employed in an effort to
reduce the tip vortex and to prevent separation of the Coanda surface near
the tip. The wing root fence is utilized on all CCW configurations. The
dashed
l[ curves shown are the interpolated values of C whbl-h are used for
comparison purposes with the other configurations. Values of C are

7
presented in 0.05 increments from 0 to 0.20. The aerodynamic characteristics
are presented for the aspect ratio 3 wing with the tip fence installed in
Figure 12, and Figure 13 presents the wing with no tip fence.
For the aspect ratio 4 wing, increasing C produces an increase in
Sfor any angle of attack below stall up to a C value of about 0.18. For
C greater than 0.18, CLmax decreases somewhat. The angle of attack to
stall does not vary appreciably with an increase in C , except at a C of
0.26 where it drops 6 deg. In Figure 10a, for example, with a C of 0.175,
a CLmax of 3.35 occurs at an a of 21.6 deg. When C is increased to 0.255,
CLmax is 3.30 and occurs at an a of only 15.8 deg. A similar trend is
displayed in Figure lla for the aspect ratio 4 wing without the tip fence
installed. Examination of the CM-CL plots shows the pitching moment rapidly
becoming more positive at stall. This would tend to indicate flow separa-
tion at the wing trailing edge and flow visualization using wool tufts
confirmed this. The trailing edge Coanda surface separates at the wing tip
as the stall angle of attack is approached and progresses inboard as the
angle of attack is increased further. Stall angle of attack is generally
reduced and Cmax increases with the addition of a tip fence.
Results for the aspect ratio 3 wing in the CCW configuration are
shown in Figures 12 and 13 with and without the wing tip fence installed.
The aspect ratio 3 wing exhibits similar trends displayed by the aspect
ratio 4 wing. The CLmax increases with C until a C of 0.20 is reached.
A higher value of C produces a lower CLmax and a significantly lower stall
angle. This is shown in Figure 13a where a C of 0.285 produces a sudden
stall at an a of 12 deg due to detachment of the flow from the Coanda

surface.
The aspect ratio 3 CCW wing was found to have a noncircular trailing
edge after model fabrication. While the Coanda surface did not have sharp
steps or surface discontinuities, it did have a varying radius of curvature.
To determine the sensitivity of the CCW performance to this type of
irregularity, wind tunnel data were obtained on this configuration before
the Co'nda surface was reworked. These data are presented in Figures 14
and 15 for the aspect ratio 3 wing with and without the tip fence installed.
Figure 16 summarizes the effect of the noncircular Coanda surface on the
lift characteristics. The aerodynamic characteristics of the aspect ratio

8
 3 wing show evidence of trailing edge separation. This separation occurs
I"
~ over the C range at approxiwately lO-deg angle of attack and is evident
from the change in thM slope of the CL--a curve and from the break in the
CM-CL curve. Visual observations of wool tufta attached to the Coanda
surface verified the separation of the flow. The angle of stall again
"decreases with increasing C. The flow separation begins at the wing tip
and progresses inboard as C and/or a is increased. For C valLes greater
than about 0.20, a relatively abrupt change in pitching moment occurs with

little or no change in CL, indicating a sudden change in the shape of the

chordwise pressure distribution curve with no change of volume under the
wing pressure distribution envelope. As expected, the CCW configuration
with the nonround Coanda trailing edge produces lower lift over the range
of a and C investigated as compared to the round Coanda surface. The
addition of a tip fence to the configurations generally lowers the angle
of stall for the nonround Coanda trailing edge as compared to the round

V Coanda surface; however, this addition may also result in a higher lift
.coefficient than that of the round Coanda trailing edge depending on the

value of a and C
Figure 17 is a crossplot of all of the CCW data showing the effect of
a wing tip fence on CLma of both the aspect ratio 3 and 4 wings. For the
aspect ratio 4 wing, there is an increase in CLmay resulting from the

[the addition of a tip fence.

range of values of C
This increase is about 10 percent and occurs over
inveqtigated. The same percentage increase in

CLmax occurs with the addition of a tip fence on the aspect ratio 3 wiug;
however, little or no effect occurs at the low end of the C range. Flow

[ visualization shows that the tip fence delays jet d:tachment from the
Coanda surface at the wing tin. Flow entrairment by the jet produces a

strong inboard spanwise flow at the wing tip which tends to detach the
flow. Englar 4 ' 5
noted similar flow characteristics with other CCW configu-
rations. The addition of an endplate (wing tip fence) helps prevent span-
wise tip flow and the resulting flow detachment from the Coanda surface.

UPPER SURFACE BLOWING

The longitudinal characteristics for the aspect ratio 3 wing in the

USB configuration are presented in Figures 18 and 19. The data show that

I
a CLmax of 4.20 was obtained for a Sf2 of 60 deg, while a 42 of 40 deg
produced a CLmax of 3.86. Both CLmax values were obtained at a thrust
coefficient C of approximately 1.60. In the stall region near CLmax,
there is an abrupt change in the pitching moment to a more positive value
similar to the condition present for the CCW configuratioi - although not
as abrupt at the [Link] value of C . The aspect ratio 4 wing data presentec
in Figures 20 and 1 show a CLmax of 4.31 for a cf2 of 60 deg and a CLmar
of 4.05 for a 6f2 of 40 deg. These values of maximum lift coefficient
were recorded for C values in the range of 1.40. Contrary to the trends
observed for the CCT and at least for the range of C values investigated
for the USB configurations, CLmax continues to increase with C., and the
angle of attack for otall remains approximately the same - even increasing
in some cases.
The lift characteristics for the remainder of the USB configurations
are presented in Figures 22 through 25. The three duct designs for the
tip turbine engines in the USB configurations generally confirm the trends
6,7
reported by Phelps et al. (The overall geometry of the exhaust ducts
shown in Figure 4 are based on the data of these references.) The aspect
ratio 5.8 duct having the largest roof and spread angles tends to flatten
and spread the exhaust jet sheet over the trailing edge flap to cover a
greater part of the flap and produce better turning of the flow. This was
confirmed from data obtained during static thrust calibrations in the wind
tunnel where flow turning angles were calculated for each engine duct-flap
configuration. As expected, the lift data show the aspect ratio 5.8 duct
consistently produces the highest CLmax, with the aspect ratio 2.2 duct
consistently producing the lowest CLmax. As the exit area of the three
duct designs are approximately the same, increasing the duct wddth-to-height
exit ratio (aspect ratio) likewise produces an increase in the root and
spread angles. The duct designs all used "D" shaped exit cross sections
with well rounded corners to minimize the creation of external vortices.
The lift data of Figures 22 through 25 show that as duct aspect ratio
increases and spreads out the jet sheet over the trailing edge flap, CLmax
generally increases and the angle of attack for stall decreases.

10
 For all USB configurations at the lower values of C,, Lhe addition of
a tip fence increases C max.
8 However, at the higher values of C, only the

60-deg flap configuration is affected by the tip fence, where the addition
reduces Ca.
Figures 26 and 27 present the lift characteristics of the aspect ratio
3 and 4 wing in the USB configuration with a "clean" trailing edge, i.e.,
no flap deflection. A significant difference in the lift capability
between the two aspect ratios exists only at the highest C investigated.
The effect of using a slotted flap system as opposed to the single
continuous flap surface for USB configurations is shown in Figure 28.
Modeling clay used to form a single continuous flap system was removed to
create a double-slotted flap configuration. The aspect ratio 3 wing with
the double-slotted flap reached a CLma of 3.06. By using the continuous
flap surface, a Cimax of 3.58 was obtained for the same value of C.. For
the aspect ratio 4 wing, the corresponding values of CLmax were 3.24 and
4.00. These configurations had uing tip fences installed and used a 60-deg
flap deflection. The continuous flap surface stalls at a lower angle of
attack; however, for the same value of C., a greater static flow turning
is produced with a resulting higher CLmax.
I A
summary of the CLmax data for the USB configurations with the 5.8
aspect ratio duct is presented in Figure 29. Additional increases in
could be expected with an increase in C beyond the maximum value
investigated in this program. For both aspect ratio 3 and 4 wings,
increasing the flap deflection angle from 40 to 60 deg does not increase
about 1.20.
CLmax an appreciable amount, except at C values greater than

Analysis of the data from these investigations indicates the

following:
1. Full-span double-slotted flaps using a 60-deg deflection produce
a CLmax of 2.12 with an aspect ratio 3 wing and a CLmax of 2.33 for an
aspect ratio 4 wing. Both aspect ratio wings experience a reduction in
CLmax of approximately 10 percent for a flap setting of 40 deg.

I 11
 2. In a CCW configuration, the aspect ratio 3 wing produces a CLmax
of 2.6, while the aspect ratio 4 wing reaches a CLmax of 3.0. Although
lift coefficient increases with C., values of C greater than 0.20 produce
little or no additional improvements in lift.
3. For a CCW configuration, the stall angle of attack decreases with
an increase ii, C•. In the stall area, a sudden change in the pressure
distributica produces a relatively large change in the pitching moment with
little or no change in the lift.
4. The Coanda surface of a CCW is highly sensitive to irregularities
in surface curvature which cause jet detachment at low values of C and
k, low angles of attack. The addition of a wing tip fence reduces spanwise
flow, which results in increased CLmax due to reduced flow detachment.
5. The USB configuration with an aspect ratio 3 wing produces a
CLma of 3.86 and 4.20 for flap deflections of 40 and 60 deg, respectively.
The corresponding values of CLma for the aspect ratio 4 wing are 4.05 and
4.31. Lift coefficient increases with C up to a value of 1.6, the maximum
value of C obtained during this investigation.
6. For the USB configurations, the stall angle of attack remains
approximately the same with increases in C and in some cases increases
slightly. Similar to the CCW case, there is a sudden but even larger
change in the pitching moment characteristics occurring at high values
of C with little or no change in lift coefficient.
7. In the USB configurations, a continuous flap surface - though
stalling at lower angles of attack - produces significantly higher velues
of CLmax than the slotted flap surfaces at the same flap angle.
8. The addition of wing tip fences on USB configurations does not
produce as consistent a beneficial effect as is the case in the CCW
configurations.

CONCLUSIONS
Wind tunnel results indicate that V/STOL configurations employing low
aspect ratio wings can produce up to twice the lift coefficient available
from conventional double-slotted flap configurations when powered lift
augmentation is utilized. The effective aspect ratio of these wings is
increased through additional circulation gained from Coanda trailing edge

12
 blowing or upper surface wing blowing using engine exhaust air. In the
tl case of the upper surface blowing technique, additional lift is achieved
through rotation of the engine thrust vector from a horizontal to more of
S! a vertical direction by proper design of the engine exhaust duct.
The stall characteristics of power-augmented low aspect ratio wings
tend to be rather sudden and abrupt, indicating leading edge flow separation.
The addition of a tip fence reduces tip spanwise flow in the case of the
trailing edge Coanda blowing wing and results in higher maximum lift
coefficients. However, for the upper surface blowing, little or no benef .-
cial effects occur with a tip fence addition as the lift augmenting high

I energy airflow is concentrated near the wing midspan as opposed to the

tip-to-root distribution of the trailing edge Coanda blowing.

r1

j t.

" ~13
 REFERENCES
1. Nichols, J.H. Jr., "Development of High Lift Devices for
Application to Advanced Navy Aircraft," David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D
Center Report DTNSRDC-80/058 (Apr 1980).

2. Kidd, M. A., "Subeonic Wind Tunnel Facilities," Naval Ship

Research and Development Center Report 3782 (Jan 1972).

3. Pope, A. and j.J. Harper, "Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing,"

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 337-342 (1966).

4. Englar, R.J., "Circulation Control for High Lift and Drag

Generation on STOL Airccaft," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 5,
pp. 457-463 (1975).

5. Englar, R.J. et al., "STOL Potential of the Circulation Control

Wing for High Performance Aircraft," Journal oi Aircraft, Vol. 5, No.
3,
pp. 175-181 (1978).

6. Phelps, A.E.,III, and W.C. Sleeman, Jr., "Upper-Surface-Blowing

Flow-Turning Performance," National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
SP-406, pp. 29-43 (1976).

7. Phelps, A.E.J III, et al., "Summary of Low-Speed Aerodynamic

Characteristics of Upper-Surface-Blown Jet-Flap Configurations," National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, SP-406, pp. 63-87 (1976).

15

I
 NOMINAL CHORD SWEEP (dog)
ASETRTOTIP ROOT L.E. T.E. SEMISPAN
38.40 in. 18.34 in. 28 0 1.91 ft
'21.34 cmn) (46.58 an) __ __ (0.582 m)
4 _6A2 in. 18.3 In. 25.8 0 -2.12 ft
(16.31 on) (46.58 can) (0.646 m)

AR =4

AR =3

ROOT FENCE\

TUNNEL FLOOR -SD IW8f 48 )DA

7.0 in.(17.78 cm) DIA.

750i.(9. n

TOP VIEW

Figure 1-Semispan Wing -Fuselage Model and Groundboard

17

-12 v 111
 N

4 44
C, 0
'.4

coD

CLu

4c C14

&0$41

-44

(4.4

18

p~.p - 11,-
T7-orM --ý

44

ca
$4

60

$4

0
0

CLC

$4

U.

19.
 J CC

LU I-- ( - - -

zz
o ca
*UEj C2 LU
U.
023j C
o z Lu

1L N 4 o

a - - a

LLIm w c U $qN con

$4

o 0o

4-4
$4

U 00

LLu

cci

20
221
r}
 4-4
'.4

E-4

3k

W,
H

*i-4

23
 dip da m ,,W d, mm

0.2

-' -~1.52 C
WING TIP PLATE

1 2 (5.06 em)
in.

FENCE HEIGHT

WING ROOT PLATE

Figure 7 -Wing Tip and WJng Root Fence Configtrations

'')
0

00

V4

Cco

00

coC

$4
bo

26
44.
14'.4

44.

?o

U)DO

27.
0)0

:1k
0 00

4-I1
m 44

r) co

; CD

28a
 Im

0
N (

0)

05 a)

C0 41

44 cd
bo0

44

NNt.

00
0d

1$ S

14

C! N e

29
 CM

4 N1
00

0)

0 00
 - . -- -Pt

Ud

Cd

0) CD 3

.744

310
 Figure 10 -Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in CCW Configuration
with Wing Tip Fence Installed

3.2

2.9
00

1.60

1.2

0.89

0.0

0 4 8 12 i6 20 24 2
a (d")

Figure 10a -Lift Characteristics

32
 Figure 10 (Continued)

--0.2 --

! -OA. -

-0.8 -0
*0.0o

A 0.175
-1.0 9 0.225
TIP FENCE INSTALLED

- 0.4 0.8 1.2 1 .6 CLC 2.0 2.4 2.8 32• 3.4

Figure lob - Pitching Moment Characteristics

U-

' 33

Is_ __

:2,
 Figure 10 (Continued)

3.2

2.1

2.4
-

• C• 0.20
2.0

CMu 0.15 , /

I 1.6

2~.4
I

1 .2 -c
Y

0.8 - 0.093
•0.175
0 .255
TIP FENCE INSTALLED

00.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

"-JA;n 12 1.6
CO

Figure 10c -Drag Pola:"•

34

f
 I" Figure 11 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in CCW Configuration without Wing Tip Fence
I 3.2

2
2 -

2.4 -

! u 1.6

2.00

"do.a
0.8 0.1

A 0.17
A0.4 90.2

4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32
a (do%)

Figure lla - Lift Characteristics

il 35 J
 Figure 11 (Continued)

-0.4

-0.6 CA
0
- .0.06
-0.8 -~~ 00.10
0.17
l 4" •
• o.x

-1 .0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.0 3.2
CL

Figure lib -Pitching Moment Characteristics

36
 Figure 11 (Continued)

3.2

2.8 -

•l- \ °-'°
LO \

kC,,-0.20
0 1.6 -
"C; -0.15

1.2 CA
00
S0.05
0.10
0.6 0.170
90.26

OA

0 0.2 OA 0.6 OA 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Co

Figure l1c - Drag Polar

L37
 414

4.4i

'.4

4-4

0
4
-V. 4

414

P4-

4) C
 ~14

t 0

co

UOR 0

40

44J

.I 0I

0 a 10

V z, L ,

? 'f 'f? CooR. 'T "

-I C .,
39,,,

I- -
j1~sgU

@00
•: 39
 I~c d M

V44

0 c
ri $4

-4

$44 C%

40
b'

0
z'

y41 I

00

I ~. *U*44

0 I0

41r
V14

.91

1-4a
:3)
V4.
0~ -

4. A b

44

424
 14

'-4IL

VV

43Z
 -77177771-111.11l""!ylF

E44J In V4

00o

o41

en 0

*1*44
rz44

4J 44

u r.
 40 0

rZr4

0 a)

00

- UH

~Z4 W I

45-

1-1
® R0
,
 IL 0

0 o

I S I , ! ,I I I

J-

46h
)a
pq*
CO;

V44

E-40
U

C, $

0E-4 $4

bo
-H 0

44.

oqJ a Ct
N N

47-
 EWAN

44.

41.

0n0
r:
48
- H

0c
0

(U

Pr4

44.
 *14

III I I0

0 14

C~U)

'-4

w 0 0

'iP4

rz49

~~mgN
00
NO
I 10

0
.w0t 0

0$4. $

0 bI 1

co c-
04.
'4-4 -
~z14

60
$H

*r4 V

\s
 0A

NU4

ob

14

00 U

UI 44~Z
H

00

@ H H
P4-

~ 51
3.6

WITH TIP FENCE

3.2
//PLAIN WINGTI

/ AR =4

2.8 -sdw`T TI/a

A-3 PLAIN WING TIP
2.4

1.6

1.2

0.8

OA

I I I -iI
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 6.24 0.28
C

Figure 17 - Effect of a Wing Tip Fence on a CCW Configuration

52
 Figure 18 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB Configuration
with 5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct and 40-Degree Flaps
40C

CO'

Q) 0.32
S1.08
1.00

-j&200
.oo r

1.50.
/+

1.00 - - -

0.50

0.00
.10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 18a- Lift Chara%.teristics

I
53

egr
 Figure 18 (Continued)
0.20

-0.00_
Co'
03 0.05
0D 0.32
1.08
-0.20 •. 1.60

40.80.

-1.00'

.1.20-

-1.40 -
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
CL

Figure 18b - Pitching Moment Characteristics

54

'~- . . ........
- - ---- i
---.. i J ll I I i l i l lI B tk i a im~
 Figure 18 (Continued)
4.0

1;
3Mw

0 0.06,N

2.50

(D • Fi:ure 18c - Drag Polar

Figur 18

ICCD

,'•55
Figure 19 - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in USB Configuration with 5.8 Aspect
Ratio Duct and 60-Degree Flaps
4.50 ___ ___
U] 0..o
0.32
~1.00
0 1.62
4.00__ _ _ _

3.W

AA

0.50-

O.r•,
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 19a- Lift Characteristics

56
 Figure 19 (Continued)
0.__ _ _ _ _

GICA
(!) 0.32

S1.62
0.00_____ ______

-.0.20

.0.40____

~.0.90

.1.00-

-1.20-

-1.401
0.00 1.00 2.0040 ,b&b

Figure 19b -Pitching Moment Characteristics

:57
 Figure 19 (Continued)

4.50_ _

W0 0.05

0 0.32
A 1.00

S1.62
3.W0

3U00

z-I2.

1.00I

-0.40 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.0 LO0

CD

Figure 19c - Drag Polar

58
lA

"6 A' - I 1T i
 Figure 20 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB Configuration
with 5.*8 Aspect Ratio Duct and 40-Degree Flaps
4.00

MD 0.05
()0.28

~1.36
3.00 ____

-I2.500

1.00-

0.001
-10.00 0.00 10:00 20.'00 30.00 40:00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 20a -Lift Characteristics

59

' '
; . !!1F1R

77 -~5.
 Figure 20 (Continued)
0.20
!..

0.00 CF
U0.0x

:' •A O.N

-.0.20

.44&

A 0.6

-0.A

-1.400
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00
CL

Figure 20b - Pitching Moment Characteristics

60
 Figure 20 (Continued)
400,

GA O.U
S1,35
A
&.00

00

1.50-

1.00

I, 0o.,

"" -0.40 0.100 6w000 1.20 1.0

CD

Figure 20c - Drag Polar

61
!_
L • . . . ..... ....... .. .
 Figure 21 - Aspect Ratio 4 Wing in USB Configuration with 5.8 Aspect
Ratio Duct and 60-Degree Flaps

4.500
CI

0 o..
(D0.21
A 1.00
_ _
3A O5 0 - -

&00.

-J2.50-

Z.00-

1.50. _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1.00_

° 10-
[Link] 10.0 2000 30.0 4000 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 21a - Lift Characteristics

62
 PRP ,l

Figure 21 (Continued)

0.20 -o

W0.05

A 1.00

j1 ~~~~~0.00 - ____________ _____

5460

.1.00 ______

.1.20-

0.60 1.60 2.00 &.004,0SO&6

I. CL
Figure 21b -Pitching Moment Characteristics

63
 icJ
Figure 21 (Continued)

4.00-

3.006
&00-

- ~ ~ ~ ~
2.00
-
-.150
zoo- _ _ __ __

1.00-

0.50
0.40 0.00 0.40 0.60 1.20 1.60 2.00
CD

Figure 21c - Drag Polar

64

SNi- 4
 Figure 22 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio Wing in
USB Configuration with 40-Degree Flap

4.00

0 0.22
A 0.5

.1200.

t 1.50.

1.00.J

0.50.

0.00 10.00 20.00 30*040:00 50.00

.10.00ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 22a -Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct

65
"(H"
 Figure 22 (Continued)

4.00-

Cl'

3.00
_____ _ __ __ _____

2.50

FU -J2.00 __ _ _ _ __ __ __
kJ

1.00 1

J oo- ,

0.50

0.00 1______
.10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 22b - Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct

66
 Figure 22 (Continued)

4.00---

&2.00.

CD0.21
A0.50

1.50

4 /
1.00

50.0

-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 400 0.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 22c - Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

67

I ~~~
+ _+•-"• ~~I..
. . . . . .. . . . . --: ++. -, - t . ..
 Figure 22 (Continued)

M 0.05
Q) 0.33
A 1.10
*•1.56
aoo

2.50

-'2.00

1.50 L

1.00. -

-10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEOGREES

Figure 22d - Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

68
A4.
I. 4 Figure 22 (Continued)

• 2.5o-

1.00--
o0.3
0.0.05
-\

0.00

-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 22e - Aspect Ratio 5.8 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

09
 Figure 23 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in
USB Configuration with 60-Degree Flaps

4h00-

00.34
S1.14

2.00-

Z.50.

2.00-

1.50.

0.50-_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

0.000to 10.00 20.00 30.00 'O0 0.0

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 23a -Aspect Ratio 2.2 Dt~ct

70
 Figure 23 (Continued)

&SO
M) 0.06
()0.32
S1.10
01.57

2J01

*A 2.00-

1.500

1.00-

000. 0 ~ 0 C002 0. 0 3 .004 0.00 50 .00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Fi~gura 23b - Mpect Ratio 3.9 Duct

71

R'
 Figure 23 (Continued)

4.00 ......

3.50-
300.05
o 0.35
A 1.14

3&00

2.10 ...

A2.00M _ _ _ _

1.50-

1.00-

0.50--

"0.001
10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 23c - Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

72

I: A•
 Figure 23 (Continued)

2.50
56
M 0.05
0 0.32
& 1.10
0 1.45

2.50

d2.O0

1.50-

"1.00-

0.50.

.10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30,00 40.00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure '23d - Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

73

, I.•
 Figure 23 (Continued)

4UO

CF
M 0.05
0 0.34
A 1.04
350 , 1.53

[ ~~~2.00- 14 _________

/ /_-_-
1.50 ._

1.00 -
/

-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 23et- Aspect Ratio 5.8 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

74
 Figure 24 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 4
Wing in USB Configuration with 40-Degree Flaps
L ~4.00 I

3.M0
* ~C,
G3l o.o5
00.19
A 0.46
&0. o.79

2.50 ____

1.00,

+ ,. fP"•A
0.50-

ALPHA IN DEGREES4005.0

Figure 24a -Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct

75

I- MI&
 Figure 24 (Continued)

4.00-

~0.21
A1.01
* 1.42
II
!d zoo.

35.

0,60-

1.50-

1.00.A
44

0.00
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40..
ALPHA IN DEGREES
Figure 24b - Aspet. Ratio 3.9 Duct

76
I

Figure 24 (Continued)

4.00

0.05
•) 0.19
AL 0.45
_ _
&0.0.79

U6.

-J 2.00-

1.50-

1.00.

0.50.

0.001 4 -_____ _____ -4____

.10.00 0~.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 24c - Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

77

! WPM
 Figure 24 (Continued)

0 0.05
0 0.29
A 0.97

3.50 ___ 1.39

3.00.

ZJ250-_____

2.00-

1.00-_ _ _

0.50
.10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00
14.0
3U.00400
00
.0
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 24d Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

78
 _ _ _
Figure 24 (Continued)
_ _

45 P

1..14

1.00.

0100
.10.00 y0.60 10.00 200100 00 0.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 24e -Aspect Ratio~ 5.8 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

79
 Figure 25 - "iftCharacteristics of Aspect Ratio 4
Wing in USB Configuration with 60-,Degree Flaps

COs

(D0.32
A 1.0
3.00

1.50-7__

1.00-

0.09-10 .00 0.00 10.,00 20.00 3D.00 40 .00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 25a - Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct

80
 Figure 25 (Continued)

4.00- ____

2.50.

0 030
A 1.00
& 00 1.41 ,,
&O0,

2.50-

-'2.00 /
1.50 f,

1.00,

0.50.

• ~OLO0
00-10.00
00 10.00 20:00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 25b - Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct

81

i4
 Figure 25 (Continued)

3.00.

2.50

1.00-

0.00
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00600
ALPHA IN DEGREES

Figure 25c -Aspect Ratio 2.2 Duct with Tip Fence Installed

82
*- Figure 25 (Continued)

450 J-__-
S•3~0."S
0.3
0,131

1.0

1.00.- _ _

0. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 w0.00

ALPHA IN DGOREES

Figure 25d Aspect Ratio 3.9 Duct with Tip ience Inatalled

83
 Figure 21 (Conti'u~ad)
4.50 _ _ _ __ .

S0.06
J0.86
0 1.42
4.00 --- ___ _

&.00

J_ LIM__ _ _ __

1.50-

1.00 _ _ _

0.01_ __
. 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30040.00 50.00
ALPHA IN IDEGREEG

Figure 25e -Aspect Ratio 5.8 Duct with Tip Fenice installed

84
-I__ _

ITIP __

FENC-
INSTALLED
tSPECT
_ __ __1 __

I4ATIO 5.8
DUCT

00.3
G3 0.73
0.30

1.00-

-40.q#0 0.00 10.012 20.00 30.0040O 50..o0

AVLhA IN DKGRE!S

Figure 26 - J~ Charactertmicas of Aspect Ratio 3 Wing in !JSB

ConfiguratJior wi~ii Zer~o Flstp Angle
 -Uj

TIP FENCE
INSTALLED
ASPECT
RATIO 5.8
DUCT

CF
G olm
0 030
A& 0.70

01.23

2,00 .

ZOO.

zoo."
0.50 _ __- -.

-10.00 aimO
0,00 AL, 4*.I0IN DEGREES
-AU44 403010 50.00

Figure 27 - Lift Characteristics of Aspect katio 4 Wing in USB

ConfiguTation with Zero Flap Angle

86

44
 Figure 28 - Effect of Flap Slots on the Lift of a TTSB Configuration
with 60-Degree Flaps

. SLOTTED
( 0.76 FLAP
SA 1.3
4- 0.60 CONTINUOUS
r.5_ X 1.30 FLAP

&.00-
x\ --

A'2.50-

ISO-

1.00,

.10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

ALPHA IN DEGREES
Fig'ire 28a - Aspect Ratio 3 Wing with Tip Fences and 5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct

87
VN

Figure 28 (Continued)

4.600

w o.
SISLOTTED

+- 0.w0 CONTINUOUS x
Milx i.o FLAP ______

AI 2.50

2.13-

1.00- -ll

0.50 ; 0:90 0: 30.0000

o
ALIPHA IN MORIEN

Figure 28b -Aspect Ratio 4 Wing with. Tip Fences smd 5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct

88
 mil
I.

Figure 29 Maximum Lift Characteristics of USB

Configurations wit.h 5.8 Aspect Ratio Duct
1.6 II I

1''
4.8--

4.0-

3.2 - do 3

2.4

/.

0.8

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

CAs
Figure 29a - With Wing Tip Fence

89

MlL
 Figure 29 (Continued)
5.6

4.8

0-00-600i ASPECT

4.0-- RATIO 3}

3.2

-I

2.4

1.6

0.8

, I !, , I
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
CPA

Figure 29b - Without Wing Tip Fence

90

-~~~ - -- Mf
i

'4
' DTNSRDC ISSUES THREE TYPES OF REPORTS

1•,_,i1. DTNSRDC REPORTS, A FORMAL SERIES, CONTAIN INFORMATION OF PERMANENT TECH-

NICAL VALUE. THEY CA•RRY A CONSECUTIVE NUMERICAL IDENTI•FICATION REGARDLESS OF
•" THEIR CLASSIFICATION OR THE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT.

• 2. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS, A SEMIFORMAL SERIES, CONTAIN INFORMATION OF A PRELIM-

i INARY, TEMPORARY, OR PROPRIETARY NATURE OR OF LIMITED INTEREST OR SIGNIFICANCE.

THEY CARRY A DEPARTMENTAL ALPHANUMERICAL IDENTIFICATION.

•., 3. TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AN INFORMAL SERIES, CONTAIN TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

•! OF LIMITED USE AND INTEREST. THEY ARE PRIMARILY WORKING PAPERS INTENDED FOR IN-
-1 l~i TERNAL USE. THEY CARRY AN IDENTIFYING NUMBER WHICH INDICATES THEIR TYPE AND THE
NUMERICAL CODE OF THE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT. ANY DISTRIBUTION• OUTSIDE DTNSRDC
,• MUST BE AF"PROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ON A CASE-BY CASE
~BASIS.

-i'
•
[Link]

1.A DTSRDC
FRMALSERIE,
EPORT, [Link]"F PERANENTTECH