ot+NCA

a

1.

t

‘4*

‘1

AERODYNAMIC

FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL NOTE 2762

CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE

TAIL FLYING-BOAT HULLS AND A TRANSVERSE -STEP

WITH EXTENDED AFTERBODY

By John M. Riebe and Rodger L. Naeseth

Lmgley Aeronautical LaboratoryIangley Field, Va.

PLANING-

HULL

Washhgton

August 1952

TECHLIBRARYKAFB,NM s

Illlllllllllllllllllliullliill:tiflb5i7L” s

lG NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

.

J

TECHNICAL NCTE 2762—

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THREW DEEP-STEP PIANING-

TAIL FLYING-BOAT HULIS AND A TRANSVERSE-STEP HULL

WITH EXTWNDED AYT~BODY1

By John M. Riebe and Rodger L. Naeseth

SUMMARY

An investigation was made to determine the aerodynamic characteris-tics in the presence of a wing of three deep-step planing-tail flying-boat hulls which differed only in the amount of step fairing. The hullswere derived by increasing the unfaired-step depth of a planing-tailhull of a previous aeroQmamic investigation to a depth of about 92 per-cent of the hull beam. For the purpose of comptiisonj tests were alsomade of a transverse-step hull with an extended afterbody.

The investigation indicated that the transverse-step hull with. extended afterbody had about the same minimum drag coefficient, 0.0066,

as a conventional hull and an angle-of-attack rage for minimum drag of30 to 50. The hull with a deep unfaired step had a minimum drag coef-

,~ ficient of 0.0057; which was 14 percent less than the transverse-stephull with extended afterbody; the hulls with step fairing had up to44 percent less minimum drag coefficient than the transverse-step hull.Longitudinal and lateral instability vsried little with step fairing .and was about the same as for a conventional

INTRODUCTION

hull.

In view of the requirements for increased range and speed inflying-boat designs, an investigation of the aerodynamic characteristicsof flying-boat hulls as affected by hull dimensions and hull shape has

%upersedes the recently declassified NACA RM L8127 entitled“Aerodynamic Characteristics of Three Deep-Step Planing-Tail Flying-BoatHulls” by JohnM. Riebe and Rodger L. Naeseth, 1948, and NACA RM L6J23aentitled “Aerod-ic Characteristics of Langley Tank Model 203 with.Extended Afterbody” by John M. Riebe and Rodger L. Naeseth, 1946.

x

2 NACA TN 2762

.

been conducted at the Langley Aeronautical IEhoratory of the NationalAdvisory Committee for Aeronautics. The results of one phase of theinvestigation, presented in reference 1, have indicated that substantialdrag reductions canbe obtained for planing-tail flying-boat hulls ifproper step fairings are incorporated in the hull. In the presenti-

—

investigation, exploratory tests were made to determine whether furtherdrag-reductions might be obtained on this type of hull by deepening thestep and thereby r“educingthe skin area.

—..=.

.—

.-.

Results of tests in the Langley tank no. 2 (reference 2) haveindicated”that the three deep-step hulls of the present @estimation -would have satisfactory hydrodynamic characteristics.

Hydrodynamic tests (reference 3) have indicated that an extensionof the sternpost of conventional flying-boat hulls to the aft perpen-dicular generally “resultsin some improvement in landing behavior inrough water. In order to.determine the effect of such a change onthe aerodynamic characteristics of one-of the hulls previously tested(model 203, reference 4) and for the purpose ofcomparisonw iththedeepstep planing-tail hulls, tests of a transverse-step extended-afterbody hull were also made. L—

..-

——.

——

As in the previous aeroi@amic investigations of flying-boat hulls(references 1, 4, and 5), all hull aerodynamiccharacteristics deter- .1:mined include the-effect of-interference of the support wing.

‘1

COEFFICIENTS AND SYMBOLS

.The results of the tests are presented.as standard NACA coefflciegts

of forces and moments.-——

Rolling-moment, yawing-moment, and pitching-momen&cuefficients are given about the locations (wing 30-percent-chordpoint) shown in figures 1 and 2. Except where noted, the wing area, mean .-aerodynamic chord, and span used in determining the coefficients andReynolds numbers are those of the flying boat described in reference 4.

.—

The data are “referredto the stability axes, which are a system of axeshaving their origin at the center of moments shown in figures 1 and 2and in which the Z-axis is in the plahe of symmetry and perpendicular to ‘the relative wind, the X-axis is in the plane of symetry and perpendicularto the Z-%xis, and the Y-axis is perpendic~ar to the plane of symmetry.The positive directions of the stability axes are shown in figure 3.

The coefficients and symbols are

CL lift coefficient (Lift/qS)

CD drag coefficient (Drag/qS)

defined as follows:

—

.-

.-.-

NACA TN 2762

*

CDV drag coefficient based.

CDA drag coefficient basedof hull (Drag/qA)

c%drag coefficient based

3

()Dragon volume v of hull —qv+3

on maximum cross-sectional area A

on surface area W of hull (Drag/qW)

CYlateral-force coefficient (Y/qS)

c~ rolling-moment coefficient (L/qSb)

cm pitching-moment coefficient (M/qSF)

Cn yawing-moment coefficient (N/qSb)

Lift = -Z

Drag = -X when V = O

x force along X-axis, pounds

●

Y force along Y-axis, pounds

3 z force along Z-axis, pounds

L rolling moment, foot-pounds

M pitching moment, foot-pounds

N yawing moment, foot-pounds

(1 free-stream dynamic pressure, pounds per square foot (pV2/2)

.s whg area of &- scale model of flying boat (1$.264 sq ft)

E wing mean aerodynamic chord of &-scale model of flying

boat (1.377 ft)

.b wing span of &- scale model of flying boat (13.971 ft)

.

v air velocity, feet per second

.—

—

-P mass density of air, slugs per cubic foot

NACA TN 2762

angle.of attack of hull base line, degrees

angle o&yaw, degrees

Reynolds number, based on wing mean aerodynamic chord of

~- scale model-LV

rate of changeattack

rate of change

rate of change

of

of

of

of flying-boat

pitching-moment-<oefficientwith angle of . -.-.=

yawing-moment

lateral-force

fuselage or htil moment factor,based on hull beam and length

coefficient with angle of yaw

coefficient with angle of yaw

equivalent to bC#a, Cmand a measured in radians

rate ofihange of fuselage or hull yawing-moment coefficientwith angle of yaw, yawing moment based on hull volume andmeasured about-reference axis 0;3 hull length from nose

rate of change of yawing-moment coefficient with angle ofsideslip B, yawing moment based -o-nhull side”’area andlength and measured about reference axis 0.3 hull lengthfrom no-seand B in radians

Subscript:

min minimum

MODEL AND APPARATUS

The deep-step.hull lines of Langley tank models 221X, 221G, and 221Ywere drawn by the Langley ~drody~cs Division by increasing the stepof “hull221B of reference 1 from a depth which was 23 percent of thehull beam to a depth 92 percent of the hull beam and by maintaining thesame height at the sternpost. Dimensions of’.thehulls are given infigure 1 and tables I to III; drawings of th~ deep-ste~fairings areshown in figure 4. The transverse-step hull.with exteridedafterbody(Larigleytank model 203 with extended afterbody) was the same as Langleytank model 203 of reference 4 with the exception of sternpost locationand afterbody angle of keel (fig. ~). Dimen%-ionsof the hull are given””in figure 2 and table IV. General proportions for a step fairing for -the transverse-step hull with extended afterbody are given in figure 6.

—

?

““””

—

.—.

—

—.

..-

=

—

—

.

.-

—

5

—

=

.:

—

P_

.-

NACA TN 2762

The test model was the same one used in the investigation ofreference 1; transformation froIuone hull to another was facilitated bycutting the underpart of the model and by replacing interchangeableblocks corresponding to each step-fairing condition. The hull andinterchangeableblocks were of laminated-mahogany construction and werefinished with pigmented varnish.

The volumes, surface areas, maximum cross-sectional areas, anQside areas for the hulls are compared in the following table:

HullVolume(CU in.)

203 with extended 13,338afterbody221.E 10,354221G 10,904221J? II,502

4857I

4164 1824217 1824314 182

Sidearea

(sq in.)

~84p

151215681636

The hull was attached to a wing which was mounted horizontally asshown in figure 7. The wing (which was the same as that of references 1,4, and 5) wasset at an angle of incidence of 4° on all models, had a20-inch chord, and was of NACA ~321 airfoil section.

mm

Test Conditions

The tests were made in the Langley 300 MPH 7- by 10-foot tunnel.Test conditions are summarized in the following table:

(lb/~q ft) (m~h)R M

Tests with extended afterbodya

25 100 1.25 X106 0.13170 275 2.95 ● 35

Tests with all hulls

25 100 1.30 X106 0.13100 201 2.50 .26170 274 3.10

● 35%ese tests were made first with just the

transverse-step hull with extended afterbody; sub-sequent tests were made with this hull and the threedeep-step hulls.

—

—

—

NACA TN 2762

Corrections

.

—

“

Blocking corrections have been applied to the wing-alone data andto the wing-and-hull data. The hull drag &s been corrected for

.—

horizontal-buoyancy effects caused by a tunnel static-pressure gradient”. ~

.-

Angles ofiattack have been corrected for structural deflections caused-..

by aerodynamic forces.

Test Procedure

The aerodynamic characteristics of the hulls with interference ofthe support wing were determined by testi~ the wi~.alone and the wing-and-hull combinations under similar conditions. The hull aerodynamiccoefficient were thus determined by subtraction of wing-alone coef-ficients from wing-and-hull coefficients.

Tests were made at several Reynolds numbers. The tests of the .extended-afterbodyhull with and without step fairing were made beforethe tests of the three deep-step hulls and were limited in angle-of-attack range because of structural limitations of the support wing.The subsequent tests with all the models were-made--witha reinforcedwing. As a result of the reinforcement, the”angle-of-attack range wasincreased and the angle of attack for minimum drag was reached aba

Reynolds number of 2.5 x 106 with all the hulls. ‘

In order to minimize possible errors resulting from transition -shift on the wing, the wing transition was fixed at the leading edge bymeans of roughness strips o&carborundum particles of approximately0.008-inch diameter. The particles were applied for a length of8 percent airfoil chord measured along the airfoil contour from theleading edge on both up~er and lower surfaces.

Hull transition for all tests was fixed by a strip of 0.008-inch-diameter Carborundum particles 1/2 inch wide and located at approximately5 percent of’the hull length aftof the bow. All tests were made withthe support setup:Bhown in figure 7.

——

.,>———.-

.

.

—.

.-.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The aerodynamic characteristics of-the deep-step planing-tail hulls—

in pitch are presented in figure 8; aerodynamic characteristics in yaw.

are given in figure 9. The aerodmic characteristics of Ungley tank _—.model 203 with extended afterbody in pitch-e presentkd_Zn f@res 10..and 11, and the aerodynamic characteristics in yaw are presented in

n —

figure 12.—

.-

NACA TN 2762 7

●

Langley tank model 203 with extended afterbody had a minimum dragcoefficient of 0.0066, which is about the same as for a conventional

. hull of the sane over-all-length - beam ratio (reference k)j the angle-of-attack range for minimum drag extended from 3° to 5°. Although theangle of attack for minimum drag was not reached, extrapolation of thedata of figure 11 indicated that incorporating a step fairing whichextended nine times the depth of the step at the keel would result ina reduction of about H percent in minimum drag coefficient.

The hull with the unfaired deep step, model 221E, had a minimumdrag coefficient of 0.0057 which was 14 percent less than the hull withextended afterbody or a conventional hull. Comparison of the dragresults of hull 221E with those of hull 221B of reference 1 indicatesthat increasing the step from a depth 23 percent of the hull beam to92 percent of the hull beam resulted ina drag-coefficient reductionof 12 percent. The hull wtth the fairing which had elements approachingstraight lines, model 221F, had-a midmum drag coefficientof 0.0037;according to reference 5 a streamlined body having approximately thesame length and volume and the same wing interference had about 25 per-cent less minimun drag. The importance of proper step-fairhg designin reducing aerodynamic drag on deep-step planing-tail hulls is shownby the larger value of drag coefficient, 0.0045, for hull 221G with theconcave step fairing. The drag coefficient for.this hull configuration

. was about 32 percent less than the hull with extended afterbody; whereashull 2211’with the fuller fairing was about 44 percent less.

-, Tuft studies of the step psrt of the planing-tail hulls (fig. 13)indicate that the lower drag for the hulls with step fairing resultsfrom the elimination of separation which occurs on the sides of theunfaired deep-step hull.

Minimum drag coefficients based on the volume to the two-thirdspower

()CDV ~n> on maximum cross-sectional area

()CDA mti) and on

(R)surface area C{ min

are presented in table V along”with minimum

drag coefficients based on wing area. These data indicate that hull 2211had the least drag for a unit volume and for unit surface areas.

It should be noted when the results of this paper are compared withthe results of hulls tested alone that subtraction of wing-alone datafrom wing-and-hull data, the method used to determine the hull-and-winginterference data in this paper, results in a lower minimum drag coef-ficient because of negative wing interference drag. This characteristicresults because an appreciable part of the support wing was enclosed by.the hull and shielded from the air stream. Unless this favorable inter-ference effect is considered when comparisons are made with other hull-drag or fuselage-drag data, the drag coefficients tabulated herein,.

(%)especially C may seem abnormally low.

rein’

.-

.-.—

.—

—

-------- .-NAU~ TN 2762

As with the planing-tail hulls of a pievious investigation (refer-ence 1), the angle-of-attack range for minimum drag occurred from about30 to 50.

Longitudinal and lateral instability, as shown by the parameters~Cm/da, bc~a~, and ~Cy/a~ (table V), vsried little with step fairing

and was about the same as for a conventional hull or for a hull withextended afterbody.

In order to compare the results of these tests with results ofinvestigationsmade of other hulls and f~elages, the parameters Kf,

/&nf’ av’, and aC@P, as derived from references 6, 7, and 8, respec-

tively, are also included.in table V. The parameter ~ iS a fuselage

moment factor, in the form of bc~aa based on hull beam and length

where a is in radians. The yawing-moment coefficient Cnf’ ‘n

bcnf’l~y’ is based on volume and is given about a reference sxis 0.3

hull length from the nose. The parameter,.bC@ is based on hull side

area and length, where the yawing moment is also given about a referenceaxis 0.3 hull length from the nose and ~: i? giyen in radians” Insta-bility as given by the parameters &nf’ aj? and bC~@ agreed closely

/with values given in references 7 and 8:

CONCLUSIONS

The results of an investigation to determine the aerodynamic char-acteristics of three deep-step planing-tail flying-boat hulls whichdiffered only in the amount of step fairi%? and) for the PurPose ofcomparison, of a transverse-step hull with.an extenged after~ody”in!+catedthe following conclusions: —,

1. The transverse-step hull with extended afterbody had about thesame minimum drag coefficient, 0.0066, as a conventional hull.

2. The planing-tail.hull with a deep-@aired step had a minimumdrag coefficient of 0.0057, about 14 percent less than the transverse--.step hull with extended afterbody; the hulls ~th steP.fairiti had uPto 44 percent less minimum drag coefficient than thetransverse-stephull.

.

3. The angle-of-attack range for mininum drag was generallybetween 3° and ~“.for all phnlng-tail h@l-s tested” .-

.

.

2G NACA TN 2762 9

.

4. Longitudinal and lateral instability was the same for allplaning-tail hulls and was about the same as for the transverse-step

. hull with extended afterbody or for a conventional hull.

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory

1.

2.

3.

.4.

-,

5.

6.

7*

8.

National Advisory Committee for AeronauticsLangley Field, Vs., October 6, 1947

REFERENCES

Yates, Campbell.C., and Riebe, JohnM.: Aerodynamic Characteristicsof Three Planing-Tail Flying-Boat Hulls. NACA TN ~306, 1947.

Suydam, Henry B.: Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Low-Drag,Planing-Tail Flying-Boat Hull. NACA TN 2481, 1952. (SupersedesNACARM L7I1O.)

Kapryan, Walter J., and Clement, Eugene P.: Effect of Increase inAfterbody Length on the Hydrodynamic Qualities of a Flying-BoatHull of High Length-Beam Ratio. NACA TN 1853, 19k9.

Yates, Campbell C., and Riebe, JohnM.: Effect of Length-Beam Ratioon the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Flying-Boat Hulls. NACATN 1305, 1947.

Riebe, JohnM., and Naesethj Rodger L.: Aerodynamic Characteristicsof a Refined Deep-Step Planing-Tail Flying-Boat Hull with VariousForebody and Afterbody Shapes. NACATN 2489, 1952. (SupersedesNACARM 18F01.)

Gilruth, R. R., and White, M. D.: Analysis and Prediction ofLongitudinal Stability of Airplanes. NACA Rep. 711, 1941.

Pass, H. R.: Analysis of Wind-Tunnel Data on Directional Stabilityand Control. NACA TN 775, 1940.

Imlay, Frederick H.: The Estimation of the Rate of Change of YawingMoment with Sideslip. NAC!ATN 636, 1938.

—

I-J0

mkfhta d W-brmdtba d bottmof hull !?0,buttockof

Line 0?,**&on

ba9eline

E-

Irdhd

—

.in

—

3 h.

—

6.724.*3.302.U

1 -%1.18101.0910314XI

$.in

—

6 .m4.38

2*la

1-3.9a.9.9?

1

10,3(

8.3f

6 .TI4.%3.@2.%1A!1.d

MI .s 1AU* 1 .3!lo.-% 1 .lf10.* .’2

m m 0

m

10

10

10

10

10

900

II

I

‘*

I .30

!.%.&i

.92

R:2.36.36

—

8Jk

6J29

3 mf!.1%

1g

.59

.ss

.55

I.&L42

L.&LA6L.33L.33L.33

~

o .Zg0 .3eOal9.33

9 JJE

9 a8 lo.ell3.1.01

u-wu .36U .x

%u++u .59

:%J

Mae3.2.1o32.3.212.k?3Q.12

I

I

,

.

armmwumxum5mm. m30

[. ~-: ill id!.q

— —

(ml

Ihm

mm

line

—

~ -35.4

3.7l.ea.f.0

000000

0

0

3.66 .b

H

9.7Oa0.3

~ .5~ .70.91.Q1A?1A1.6l.qsaZ.1

—

— —

m

bow

—

EEEli!w w.

i-

lim

—L I- 5 i-

T3h

.7!2&

-10 3.f4A e.k.52 l.&m 1.M@’ 1.33a 1.33.@ 1.33.@ b@

.m 7 ..%

.37 8.31

T—

.62

.&

.@

.s9

.B

—9 11

I I I I I I — —

0

.30 e.30

.L% 3.C6

.83 3 .e6

.32 b.31!

.61 *.61

$ :::

.W 4:925

.% 4.925& 4.93,m 4.925

4.925

4.925

7.9 6.3

5 .y3 6.9‘2.% b.ola e.+.92 1.2

3 1:

:$ .$

.36 :T

.36 .T1.07 3.3

9.43 4A

243 k.k

5_15 6.?T .36 8.8.79 9 29.59 W

m.so u-a

‘ii?’79

79

.8ag

.@35.65.33

.33

,32!62

.77-lo

1m.m IS.M

m.m U.LY.3m.m wagm.m UMh20.m 13*m.lxl 1>.39‘m.w U.mm.m V*m.co 16*20.03 16.yJm.cll 16$2

g: yj

m:ca U.*20.m lgtim.ca 39.69m.m w.m

i

.35 8.31

.% 9.36

.W:3

M.u

$7 a.*

2.m

.&

!&3

— —

I ,iII

k’

—

n

LIDiu

—

~ IL.-vei-Mne Chim

tie abovema bene

be I.im

mrttotb(I!&)

w,

—4

=?=10 u718‘a , 3.

3Q-17 2.91 .D 2.6

1.73 2.{

n 1.:

4

6 9—

IJ.a4.7ha3J:12

=+

Ito man

~J3 5*

—

~.%..&

..8(

..&

~-u; .2

!.X.64

I~ .9

8.3

6 .Pk.%3 .’A

;;

I&l.k

1.31.3J

a

0

u.%

n.*

U .9)

u

u?

12.os

Mae

IQJJ3

12.12

12J2

I.$!&?

Llao 3-ILK!

3.4 .!3 II .90 10

I .72 12.6s lo?I .36 1.3.% 10lB .41 14.@ 103g.142 14.* la19.&J U.a Inlg.m ti.%1 sx? .99 15 m omno 15 .ca 020.WI 15.cd2Q.CO lYJXI23.W U.(9aJ.cO 15.M

‘m.w 15.a3

1 20.00 15.*‘xi.oo 15 J19ZO.rm 15.1420.CCI 15 s20.CO 1s .929.00 u .57m.co 15.%‘a.w 3.6.13

2W.LW

20.m 1’7.2J.w 18.31m.m la.@

m.w 19.*2J.C?3 19.69m.w 1.9.W

I.46.E6

4.64.M3.@3.3:

.3.3.

2A

!.q

47.30/ .loI .%5

..92?

.9.86

.75.&

A3I .lTI.a

I@

I J38

?J51

? .15L.@L.22

.76

.31

.3n

Iw

1 I ,

11

1, % .1 * *

,

atatia

2U1.2r

MA

MmtHlma

ta

F.P.

,

51V

mF2E03Fm IAuJlm TAmnxrKG 203uIm Bxmmm mwm2JmY

M@ c

hull atCenti

line

11.m

14.2g

M .P17.3618 Allg.12lgalg .Ea

V$.99m.mmmmmm.mfo.mmoommmmmoomoom.mm.mm.m

moom.mm .mmamaom.ma.mmoomm

L@&.

nara(*)

In

101010

In

10

:

00000

4 ,

lb

—

7.%

3.32.%la

.%‘.xM.36.36.36.36

.*

.36

—

ein

—

8.39

6 .Y6J1.012.49

1.*l.ok

.@

.73

.73

.?3

.T3

.73

.?3

—

$in

—

4&::3

1 -w1.531.23

1 -?31.23

la1.23

1.’=3

4 in.

.

3 .E9i? .421.021.46

L .33~ .331.33

1.331.33

1.33

*

.

.

i“

MdJ31

203 withextended

afterbody

m

2EIG

221F

%ill

).0066

.005’(

.(X)45

.0037

%)*

o a31

.032

.02++

.Olg

0.095

.082

.065

.053

%)*

0.0036

.0036

.0028

.0023

1 1 I

&m ()%z- ‘f w .20

lam 1 JO 0.0011

my) 1 .I.O 4001-O

,/

.ooW 1 JO .0010

*

II ii I

0:02’7

.0?3

.026

.0Z6

)‘%3,F _2c

-0.098

-.(238

-.090

-*W

‘&y

)w U=@

o Q050

.ooh8

Q050

.0050

* . , ,

Cl—*

II

&-’-

Center of mom*m& ‘

—c—.—.————— -

‘Figure 1.- Lines of bmgley tank models 221.E, 221G, and 221F. T

G

I

\ 1/

&7se fine Buse 1;+

●

Typal sec& TyP&/ sect&

fbw ~ drera!?ouy

Maximum beam, ‘S8S”

Center of mmmnts

J I

K R

Fi@e 2.- Ltie6 of Langley tank model 203 with

:

extended

Taft.erbody.

I

3GNACA TN 2762

Y

,

.

.

.

17

I

M,

Figure 3.- System of stability axes. Positive values of forces , moments,and angles are indicated by arrows.

.—

.—

.———

18 NACA TN 2762

.

.

4

.

-.

-- 22(G

221F

Figure 4.- Langley tank models 221E, 221G, and 221J?tested in V-

Langley 300 MPH 7- by 10-foot tunnel.

.—

.

, , . “

. ,

——. — )iUl! 203Hull i?03 w)d? revised

after-body

.~ —

. m“

Figure 5.- Revis iozw to Langley tanlc model 203

I

afterbody.

I

,, I

20 NACA m 2762.—

.

.

Forebody

Rime sw$%e tied h

.’

f

‘~.

II

/

t

Figure 6.- General details of step fairingextended afterbody. Bottom

fbr.transverse-stephull withview of hull.

— .--i --

—-z. .

—

.

?

..-

——

-—

.-

.-

.

-.

—

.

.

. , . ,

Figure 7.- Langley tank model 221.F mounted

7- by 10-foot tunnel.

.-

1 ill

In Langley 300 MPH

*

NF

22 .— NACA TN 2762

.

Figure

,04

0

:04

‘,08

,(?2

.0/

8 /2-12 -8 -4 0 4

A n~le of utt~c~ u-, deg

8.- Aerodynamic characteristics in pit-ch of Langley tank models221E, 221G, and 2211’.

. ——

.

.

—.

s

.

.

—

NACA TN 2762—

23.—

-Q

.

.

e

0 ----

:040

-.08

.0’

0 .

0’a P @-@-f?*~

-.2

-/2-8 -4 Q+ 8/z

AD7A of uttac~ a-, de9

(b) R % 3.1 X 106.w

Figure 8.- Concluded.

—

—

24

c

Figure 9.-

.2

./

o ‘

-J

,0/

o ---@

;0/

.02

.0/

o

:0/---

-4 0 # 8 /2 /6 20 “Aq/e ofyuw, ‘~, deg ‘-’ ““ ‘-- .“

-..— _

=3= “- “-Aerodynamic characteristics in yaw of Langley tank models 221E,

221G, and 221 F-- a = 20; R x1,3 X-106..

4G

b

●

NACA TN 2762-

--

Figure 10.- Aerodynamic characteristics in pitch of Langley tank model 203with extended afterbody without step fairing.

26 NACA TN 2762

.

.(74

o

:04

-+?

Q?

,0/

““o

.2

0

-7

.

—

.

—. —

-8 -4 0 48.

Ang/’e of ahck, C, deg

Figure 11,- Aerodynamic characteristics in pitchwith extended afterbody with and without step

/2 .—

.

of Langley tank model 203

fairing. R =2.95 x 106. .

.

.

NACA TN 2762 27

/47??/8 of yav, p, U&y

Figure 12. - Aerodynamic characteristics in yaw of Langley tank model 203

with extended afterbody without step fairing. a = 2°; R ~ 1.3 X 106.

28 — .— NACA TN 2762

(a) Langley tank model 221X. “a= 2°.

.

— ._++-—_-,— —-”-—.

6.,+~ =..-

..—

(h) Langley tank model.221G.”a= 20.”

. —-------

.

—.,.-–.—

w,~y.-au.

(C) L=wley tank model 221 F”--a = 4°.

.

—

=w=”-Figure l= Tuft st-udiesof Langley-tank

Tests were made with models mounted”

.- —models 22@ 221G, and 22~. “-on .+Lnglestrut support.

.-

NACA-Langley -8-21-5z-100d ‘--

.

—-9 .._

.—

.-—

-..