gettrdoc (1).pdf

230
UNCLASSIFIED AD NUMBER ADB212361 NEW LIMITATION CHANGE TO Approved for public release, distribution unlimited FROM Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies and their contractors; Critical Technology; Jan 96. Other requests shall be referred to WLFIGC, Eigth St., Wright-Patterson AFB, OJ r454433. AUTHORITY AFRL Ltr., 14 Sep 99 THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

Upload: dmaju861

Post on 14-Apr-2015

72.425 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Boeing Model-24F fighter

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER

ADB212361

NEW LIMITATION CHANGE

TOApproved for public release, distribution

unlimited

FROMDistribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.agencies and their contractors; CriticalTechnology; Jan 96. Other requests shallbe referred to WLFIGC, Eigth St.,Wright-Patterson AFB, OJ r454433.

AUTHORITY

AFRL Ltr., 14 Sep 99

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

Page 2: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

WL-TR-96-3074

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS (ICE)

E. L. RoetmanS. A. NorthcraftJ. R. Dawdy

Boeing Defense and Space GroupP.O. Box 3999, MIS 4C-61Seattle WA 98124-2499 19960718 099MARCH 1996

FINAL REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1994 - JANUARY 1996

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors,Critical Technology; Jan 1996. Other requests for this document shall bereferred to: WLJFIGC, 2210 Eighth St, Suite 11, WPAFB OH 45433-7521

WARNING - This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms ExportControl Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, asamended, Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401, et seg. Violations of these export laws are subject to severecriminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with the provisions of DOD Dir. 5230.25.(Include this statement with any reproduced portions.)

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents orreconstruction of the document.

FLIGHT DYNAMICS DIRECTORATE : • • - iWRIGHT LABORATORYAIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMANDWRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 45433-7562

Page 3: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

Page 4: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

NOTICE

WHEN GOVERNMENT DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, OR OTHER DATA ARE USED FOR ANYPURPOSE OTHER THAN IN CONNECTION WITH A DEFINITE GOVERNMENT-RELATEDPROCUREMENT, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INCURS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR ANYOBLIGATION WHATSOEVER. THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE FORMULATED OR INANY WAY SUPPLIED THE SAID DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, OR OTHER DATA, IS NOT TO BEREGARDED BY IMPLICATION, OR OTHERWISE IN ANY MANNER CONSTRUED, AS LICENSING THEHOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION; OR AS CONVEYING ANY RIGHTS ORPERMISSION TO MANUFACTURE, USE, OR SELL ANY PATENTED INVENTION THAT MAY IN ANY WAYBE RELATED THERETO.

This technical report has been reviewed and is accepted for publication.

WILLIAM J. GILLARD SIVA S. BANDA, ChiefProjec ngineer Control Dynamics Branch

IICont~eol Dynamics Branch Flight Control Division

DAVID P. LEMASTER, ChiefFlight Control DivisionFlight Dynamics Directorate

If your address has changed, if you wish to be removed from our mailing list, or if the addressee is nolonger employed by your organization, please notify WL/FIGC, 2210 Eighth St. Suite 11, WPAFBOH 45433-7521 to help maintain a current mailing list.

Copies of this report should not be returned unless return is required by security considerations,contractual obligations, or notice on a specific document.

Page 5: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The following notice applies to any unclassified (including originally classifiedand now declassified) technical reports released to "qualified U.S. contractors"under the provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25, Withholding of UnclassifiedTechnical Data From Public Disclosure.

NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY THE DISSEMINATION OF EXPORT-CONTROLLED TECHNICAL DATA

1. Export of information contained herein, which includes, in somecircumstances, release to foreign nationals within the United States, withoutfirst obtaining approval or license from the Department of State for itemscontrolled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), or theDepartment of Commerce for items controlled by the Export AdministrationRegulations (EAR), may constitute a violation of law.

2. Under 22 U.S.C. 2778 the penalty for unlawful export of items or informationcontrolled under the ITAR is up to two years imprisonment, or a fine of $100,000,or both. Under 50 U.S.C., Appendix 2410, the penalty for unlawful export ofitems or information controlled under the EAR is a fine of up to $1,000,000, orfive times the value of the exports, whichever is greater; or for an individual,imprisonment of up to 10 years, or a fine ýf up to $250,000, or both.

3. In accordance with your certification that establishes you as a "qualifiedU.S. Contractor", unauthorized dissemination of this information is prohibitedand may result in disqualification as a qualified U.S. contractor, and may becondidered in determining your eligibility for future contracts with theDepartment of Defense.

4. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for direct patent infringement, orcontributory patent infringement or misuse of technical data.

5. The U.S. Government does not warrant the adequacy, accuracy, currency, orcompleteness of the technical data.

6. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for loss, damage, or injuryresulting from manufacture or use for any purpose of any product, art 4 cle,system, or material involving reliance upon any or all technical data furnishedin response to the request for technical data.

7. If the technical data furnished by the Government will be used for commercialmanufacturing or other profit potential, a license for such use may be necessary.Any payments made in support of the request for data do not include or involveany license rights.

8. A copy of this notice shall be provided with any partial or completereproduction of these data that are provided to qualified U.S. contractors.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE

For classified documents, follow the procedures in DoD 5200.22-M, IndustrialSecurity Manual, Section 11-19 or DoD 5200.1-R, Information Security ProgramRegulation, Chapter IX. For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by anymethod that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of thedocument.

Page 6: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 JeffersonDavis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE .3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDMarch 1996 FINAL 10/22/94 - 01/31/96

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

INNOVATIVE CONTROL EFFECTORS (ICE) C F33615-94-C-3609PE 62201F

6. AUTHOR(S) PR 2403

TA 05E. L. Roetman, S. A. Northcraft, and J. R. Dawdy WU 9D

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Boeing Defense and Space GroupP.O. Box 3999, M/S 4C-61Seattle WA 98124-2499

9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Flight Dynamics DirectorateWright Laboratory WL-TR-96-3074Air Force Materiel CommandWright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7562

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Export Restrictions Apply

12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors;Critical Technology; Jan 1996. Other requests for this document shall be Creferred to WL/FIGC, 2210 Eighth St, Suite 11, Wright-Patterson OH 45433-7521

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report describes a joint U.S. Air Force - U.S. Navy sponsored investigation of innovative aerodynamic controlconcepts for fighter aircraft without vertical tails. Land-based and carrier-based configurations were analyzed todetermine the flying qualities, performance, and aircraft-level integration impacts of the innovative controls. Sixcontrol concepts were evaluated for their potential to provide sufficient lateral-directional control power to a highlymaneuverable tailless fighter. They were: (1) split ailerons; (2) movable chine strakes; (3) seamless leading andtrailing edge flaps; (4) pneumatic forebody devices; (5) wing leading edge blowing; (6) wing mounted yaw vanes.After a preliminary screening, only the first two and a new concept, variable dihedral horizontal tails were chosen forfurther investigation. Detailed evaluations of the three selected controllers against baseline fighter configurationswith vertical tails included low-speed, high-speed, and high AOA flying qualities performance, structural weight andsubsystem integration impacts, signature performance, and carrier suitability impacts. The variable dihedralhorizontal tail was evaluated as the best all-round control effector of those investigated. The split aileron andmovable chine strake were ranked 2nd and 3rd, respectively.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGESTailless Aircraft, Lateral-Directional Control Power, Variable Dihedral Horizontal Tail, 223Split Ailerons, Movable Chine Strakes, Flight Control Effectors, Effector Integration 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED SAR

NISN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18298-102

Page 7: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

FOREWORD

This technical report summarizes research performed by The Boeing Defense &Space Group, Seattle, Washington 98124 on the Innovative Control Effectors (ICE)Study between October 1994 and January 1996 under Air Force Contract F33615-94-C-3609. The ICE study was co-sponsored by Wright Laboratory, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, Ohio and Naval Air Warfare Center of Warminster, Pennsylvania. Mr.William J. Gillard, WL/FIGC and Mr. Steve Hynes, NAWCADWAR were the technicalmonitors for this contract with Mr. Gillard serving as the USAF Program Manager.

The Boeing Defense & Space Group (BD&SG) Program Manager was Dr. Ernest L.Roetman, Chief Aerodynamicist of the Flight Organization. The overall PrincipalInvestigator was Mr. Stephen A. Northcraft. Mr. John R. Dawdy was PrincipalInvestigator for the Aerodynamic Stability and Control Study, Task 2.Other key personnel included:

H. Beaufrere Aerodynamic Stability and ControlD. Gilmore Aerodynamic Stability and ControlJ. Kuta Aerodynamic Stability and ControlA. Meeker Aerodynamic Stability and ControlJ. O'Callaghan Aerodynamic Stability and ControlR. Dailey Flight Control System DevelopmentJ. Montgomery Flight Control System DevelopmentW. Herling Computational Fluid DynamicsT. Lowe Signature AnalysisW. Price Mechanical/Electrical SystemsJ. Ott Cost AnalysisW. Dean Mass PropertiesW. Mannick Mass PropertiesW. Moore Configuration IntegrationW. Bigbee-Hanson PropulsionS. Bockmeyer Graphics

iii

Page 8: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

FOREWORD iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF FIGURES viLIST OF ACRONYMS ixLIST OF SYMBOLS xiSUMMARY 11.0 INTRODUCTION 52.0 TASK 1 - VEHICLE AND EFFECTOR SELECTION 7

2.1 Selection of Baseline Vehicle 72.2 Selection of Study Effectors 92.3 Flight Condition Selection 11

3.0 TASK 2 - EFFECTOR PERFORMANCE STUDY 123.1 Flight Condition Selection and Study Guidelines 133.2 Database Descriptions and Limitations 153.3 Flight Control System Description 193.4 Effector Study Results (including Thrust Vectoring) 303.5 Carrier Suitability Performance 583.6 Summary of Performance Study 80

4.0 TASK 3 - EFFECTOR INTEGRATION STUDY 824.1 Effector Integration Overview 824.2 Actuation Study 874.3 Carrier Suitability Requirements 914.4 Thrust Vectoring Integration 944.5 Radar Cross Section Analysis 994.6 Summary of Integration Results 101

5.0 TASK 4 - RISK ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION PLAN 1025.1 Aerodynamic Performance Risk Assessment 1035.2 Integration Risk Assessment 1055.3 Risk Assessment and Reduction Summary 106

iv

Page 9: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS 108

7.0 REFERENCES 110

APPENDICESA Summary of Candidate Control Effectors 112B Summary of Performance Results 128

C Summary of Signature Data 175D Summary of Analysis of Variable Dihedral Horizontal Tail

Concepts 193E Boeing Model-24F and Wind Tunnel Model 1798 Geometry

Characteristics 208

1,

Page 10: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LIST OF FIGURES

Title page

Figure 1 Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) Program Overview 4Figure 2.1-1 Baseline Test Database 7

Figure 2.1-2 Baseline Aircraft 8Figure 2.2-1 Innovative Control Effector Options 10Figure 2.3-1 Analysis Flight Conditions 11Figure 3.1-1 Performance Study Flight Conditions 13

Figure 3.1-2 Longitudinal and Directional Stability Level for

Model-24F 15Figure 3.2-1 Lift and Pitching Moments with Alpha Limits 17Figure 3.3-1 Flight Control Law Block Diagrams 20Figure 3.3-2 Use of Control Effectors by the Flight Control System 21Figure 3.3-3 Control Effector Limits 22Figure 3.4.1-1 Takeoff and Approach 32Figure 3.4.1-2 Roll Control Effectiveness Landing Approach 33Figure 3.4.1-3 Roll Control Effectiveness Approach-Thrust Vectoring 34Figure 3.4.2-1 Power On Departure Stall 36Figure 3.4.2-2 Departure Stall - Roll Rate Time Constant 37Figure 3.4.2-3 Departure Stall - Roll Performance 38Figure 3.4.2-4 Departure Stall - Lateral-Directional Dynamics 39Figure 3.4.3-1 Air Combat Maneuver Corner Speed 41Figure 3.4.3-2 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight -

Baseline/Rotating Tail 43Figure 3.4.3-3 Maximum Sustained Load Factor at Mid Altitude 44Figure 3.4.3-4 Air Combat Maneuver Corner Speed 45Figure 3.4.4-1 Penetration Speed 46Figures 3.4.4-2 Maximum Sustained Local Factor - Penetration 48Figures 3.4.4-3 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight -

Penetration Speed 49Figure 3.4.5-1 Maximum Sustained Load Factor 51Figure 3.4.5-2 Maximum Sustained Load Factor at High Altitude -

Subsonic 52

vi

Page 11: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title page

Figure 3.4.5-3 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight -Maximum Sustained 53

Figure 3.4.6-1 Supersonic Condition 55Figure 3.4.6-2 Sustained Load Factor at High Altitude - Supersonic

Penetration 56Figure 3.4.6-3 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight -

Supersonic Condition 57Figure 3.5-1 Pop-up Maneuver-RPAS Simulation Results 61Figure 3.5-2 Pop-up Maneuver - Comparison between RPAS and

MEATBALL 62Figure 3.5-3 Wave-off Maneuver-RPAS Simulation Data 63Figure 3.5-4 Wave-off Maneuver - Comparison between RPAS

and MEATBALL 64Figure 3.5-5 Level Flight Longitudinal Acceleration 65Figure 3.5-6 Flight Path Stability-Comparison between RPAS

and MEATBALL 67Figure 3.5-7 Flight Path Stability-RPAS Comparison to Baseline 68Figure 3.5-8 Landing Approach Nose Down Pitch Acceleration -

220 Angle-of-Attack 61Figure 3.5-9 30 Knot at 90 0Crosswind 70Figure 3.5-10 30 Knot at 900 Crosswind - Rotating Tails,Spit Aileron

with Thrust Vectoring 71Figure 3.5-11 Carrier Suitability Roll Rate Summary 73Figure 3.5-12 Dutch Roll Characteristics 74Figure 3.5-13 Vmc with Right Engine Out 75Figure 3.5-14 Catapault Launch 77Figure 3.5-15 Critical Requirements for Carder Takeoff and Approach 78Figure 3.6-1 Flight Condition and Flying Qualities Items 81Figure 4.1-1 Benefits from Removing Vertical Tail 83Figure 4.1.1-1 Chine Strake Installation 83Figure 4.1.2-1 Split Aileron Installation 84

vii

Page 12: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title page

Figure 4.1.3-1 Rotating Horizontal Tail Installation 85Figure 4.1.3-2 Cycles vs. Hinge Moment 86Figure 4.2-1 Electrical and Hydraulic Actuator Candidates 89Figure 4.3-1 Approach Speed 92Figure 4.3-2 Mark 7 Mod 3 Arresting Engine 92Figure 4.3-3 USN Baseline Weight Buildup 93Figure 4.4-1 Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Mounting Concepts 95Figure 4.4-2 Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Concepts 96Figure 4.4-3 Thrust Vectoring Figures-of-Merit 97Figure 4.4-4 Determinant-Attribute Model 98Figure 4.5-1 Signature Comparison 50% 99Figure 4.5-2 Signature Comparison 96% 99Figure 5.0-1 Risk Rating Guide 102Figure 5.1-1 Future Testing 103Figure 5.1-2 Performance Risk Assessment 104Figure 5.2-1 Integration Risk Assessment 105Figure 5.3-1 BMA-S-1768-6A Model 107

viii

Page 13: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LIST OF ACRONYMS

6DOF Six Degrees of Freedom

A/A Air-to-Air

A/G Air-to-Ground

ACM Air Combat Maneuver

ADAPT Data Plotting Program

AGPS Aerodynamic Grid & Panel System

AEOLAS Aeroelastic Prediction Code

AOA Angle-of-Attack

ARBSCAT Signature Prediction Code

BD&SG Boeing Defense & Space Group

BMA Boeing Military Airplanes

BSWT Boeing Supersonic Wind Tunnel

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

EHA Electro Hydraulic Actuator

EMA Electro Mechanical Actuator

FCS Flight Control System

FDWT Flight Design Weight

IA Integrated Actuator

ICE Innovative Control Effectors

IR Infrared Radiation

IRAD Internal Research and Development

JAST Joint Advanced Strike Technology

JAF Joint Strike Fighter

KEHS Equivalent air speed in knots

LaRC Langley Research Center

LE Leading Edge

LO Low Observable

LQR Linear Quadratic Regulator

iX

Page 14: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)

LRU Line Replaceable UnitMAC Mean Aerodynamic CenterMRF Multi-Role FighterNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNAWCADWAR Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, PAPANAIR Panel method potential flow codePIO Pilot Induced OscillationPLTSUM Total Vehicle Signature Budgeting Code

RCAH Pitch Rate Command Altitude HoldRCS Radar Cross Section

RM&S Reliability, Maintainability, and SupportabilityRPAS Rapid Prototype Analysis SystemSCFN Spherical Convergent Flap NozzleSI Structurally IntegratedSISO Single-Input Single-OutputTE Trailing EdgeTV Thrust VectoringTOGW Takeoff Gross WeightUSAF United States Air ForceUSN United States NavyWL Wright LaboratoryXPATCH Ray Trace, Physical Optics Signature Prediction Code

x

Page 15: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

List of Symbols

CL Lift Coefficient

CLo Lift Coefficient at Zero Angle of Attack

CL4 Rate of Change of Lift Coefficient with Respect to Angle of Attack(/degree)

V.• Minimum Control Speed (knots)

VSTALL Stall Speed (knots)

V, Stall Speed (knots)

V. PaVelocity of Approach (knots)

U Forward Velocity in Body Axis x-direction (knots)

V Velocity in Body Axis y-direction (knots)

W Velocity in Body Axis z-direction (knots)

P Roll Rate (radian/sec)

R Yaw Rate (radian/sec)

a Pitch Rate (radian/sec)

Qbar Dynamic Pressure (lbs/Ft2)

nz Load factor for pitch control inputs

Nz Load factor for pitch control inputs

4l Pitch Acceleration (radians/sec 2)

k Break Point Frequency

s Transform Frequency Variable

(X Angle of Attack (degrees)

Angle of Attack for Carrier Approach (degrees)

Side Slip Angle (degrees)

Flight Path Stability (degrees/knot)

A'3y -- Difference in Flight Path Stability Slopes (degrees/knot)

Undamped Natural Frequency of the Dutch Roll Oscillation(radians/sec)

xi

Page 16: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

List of Symbols Contd.

d Damping Ratio of the Dutch Roll Oscillation

Bank Angle (degrees)

rH Dihedral Angle of the Rotating Tail (degrees)

xii

Page 17: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

SUMMARY

This report reviews work performed by the Boeing Company under USAF contract

F33615-94-C-3609 Innovative Control Effectors (ICE). This is a joint Air Force and

Navy program whose purpose is to develop and analyze aerodynamic control devices

applicable to modern tactical aircraft where it is desired to eliminate or at least

severely reduce the size of the vertical tail surfaces for reduced vehicle signature. Theprogram addresses the development of a control device, or set of devices, effective

across the broad flight envelope of tactical aircraft with minimal size, weight, cost andaerodynamic hinge moments. All this to be achieved while maintaining acceptable

vehicle signature properties. Careful attention is to be given to the performance,

signature and integration issues associated with the devices.

This document reports on the activity of the first phase of the two phase ICE program.

Phase I covers initial selection and development of devices along with preliminary

screening analysis for effectiveness. A proposed Phase II will concentrate on the

testing and validation of selected effectors deemed to have the most promise. This

contract was divided into four distinct tasks(1) Selection of a baseline vehicle concept and the identification of a set of

control devices to study.(2) The effector performance study selected three devices for detailed study

and assessed their performance alone and in combination.

(3) The effector integration study task looked at the system impact of the

chosen effectors.(4) The risk reduction study addressed the technical risks associated with

the selected effectors/and proposed future work to reduce the risks of

implementation.

A baseline vehicle concept with which to evaluate control device effectiveness was

required for realistic evaluation. The selected vehicle for this work was a Boeing

advanced tactical aircraft concept, designated the Model-24F, a single engine,

diamond wing, chined forebody configuration with conventional empennage designed

for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions as part of the multirole fighter design

study. The vehicle and the corresponding data base was described in detail in the

body of the report. As this is a joint services program, two baselines were carried, the

Page 18: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

second being a vehicle with proposed adjustments (such as increased wing area, ... )to accommodate Navy specific performance and operational objectives.

The effectors initially chosen for study as offering the best potential for satisfying the

operational requirements were a pneumatic forebody device, a movable chine/strake,wing leading edge blowing, wing mounted yaw vanes, split ailerons and seamlessleading edge and trailing edge which was later replaced with a unique variable

dihedral horizontal tail. A representative set of six flight conditions was chosen forassessing the effectiveness of the concepts.

The performance study was a dominant part of this effort. After initial performancescreening, the number of effectors for detailed analysis was reduced to two concepts,

chine stakes and split ailerons, as having the most promise of satisfying therequirements. In the search for a more promising device the concept of a variabledihedral (rotating) horizontal tail was proposed. These three concepts were thenanalyzed in greater detail. The performance of chine strakes was after further studydeemed below that desired, and their integration into the vehicle posed such difficultythat this concept was not fully studied. The split aileron concept was found to beadequate for marginal control at low angles of attack, but its effectiveness dropped offdramatically at angles of attack above ten degrees. For the more stringent carriersuitability requirements it was not adequate.

The rotating horizontal tail was found to be effective throughout the flight envelope ofinterest including carrier operations. It therefore received the most attention.

Performance studies for the combined effectiveness of the rotating tail and split

ailerons were conducted to determine the gains that might be achieved with integratedmultiple aerodynamic effectors. For completeness, a limited comparison with theinclusion of thrust vectoring was done.

The performance analysis of the control effectiveness was done by defining anappropriate, integrated, modern set of control laws for the baseline configuration andthe control device configurations. The control laws were then combined with theavailable aerodynamic data and subsequently included in full six degree of freedomvehicle simulations to investigate the control device characteristics and the vehicleflying qualities.

2

Page 19: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The feasibility of using any control effector is dependent on how it is to be incorporatedinto the vehicle. Successful incorporation requires the efforts of several technicaldisciplines investigating issues of structure, actuation, weight, signature, cost and the

operational demands.

The integration of chine strakes has many difficulties. The forebody area near thecockpit is critical real estate for radar systems and a sensitive area for signaturecontrol. Since the performance of this device was of limited effectiveness, a completeintegration was not performed.

The integration of the split aileron exposed concerns for the thickness of the outboardwing, the actuation concept and the effects on the radar cross section. These issueswere investigated in some detail.

The rotating horizontal tail shows great promise if it can be reasonably incorporatedinto a vehicle design. Since this is a unique concept without a design history, itrequired additional effort at integration. The developed actuation concept did not havean excessive weight penalty. Within an appropriate design philosophy it seems thatthis is a viable concept worthy of further investigation.

Risk is apparent in incorporating any of the actuator concepts, both in performanceand integration. The risks associated with each selected effector are outlined in thereport. Additional data are needed in each case, but especially for the rotating tailwhich has no significant data base due to its novelty. Additional wind tunnel testingfocused on the data sparsity for application of these concepts will significantly reducethe risk in transitioning the concepts to application.

3

Page 20: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Innovative Control Effectors

Task 1 - Vehicle and Effector Selection

Baseline aircraft selection Assess control

-24 requirements

Define set ofinnovative

.4- control effectors

I- Task 2 - Effector Performance Study

Initial evaluation DwslcansiePreliminary [ Flying qualities

*Wind tunnel data three effectrs control system -1. performanceAnl~lmtod DOF analysis evaluation

Task 3 - Effector Integration Study

Integration trade study for 3 effectors:"* Actuation (hinge moments) * Thrust vectoring *Configuration integration*Weight - Structure *Carrier suitability

"* Signature

Actuation Thrust vectoring RCS

'IIF

Task 4 - Effector Risk Reduction

a" Angle-of-attack~ requirements

Sideslip

"* Identify risk elements rqieet

"* Testing requirements

Figure 1. Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) Program Overview

4

Page 21: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of the Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) program is to develop andanalyze innovative aerodynamic control devices that might be applied to jointadvanced strike aircraft with either nonexistent or reduced size vertical tail surfaces.This contract addresses the continuing need to develop new aerodynamic controleffectors which are effective across a broad flight envelope with minimal integrationimpact while maintaining acceptable vehicle signature properties.

The objective of this contract is to develop a control effector or set of effectors whichwill achieve the goal of reducing or eliminating the vertical tail surfaces whilemaintaining vehicle lethality and improving survivability. The focus of this contract is tostudy the performance and integration issues associated with innovative controleffectors, and develop an effector, or set of effectors, which can be integrated intofuture aircraft and achieve the goals stated above.

The overall ICE effort is divided into two phases. Phase I covers the initialdevelopment and preliminary analysis of the candidate effectors, while Phase II willconcentrate on the testing and validation of the chosen effector concepts.

This contract is focused on the Phase I efforts and is divided into four distinct tasks.The first task is the selection of the baseline vehicle concept and the identification of aset of control effectors for inclusion in this study. The second task, the effectorperformance study, consists of the final selection of a set of three effectors for detailedanalysis and conducting an assessment of the performance characteristics of theseeffectors separately and in combination. This assessment includes detailed 6 degreeof freedom (6DOF) analysis using the Boeing Rapid Prototype Analysis Program(RPAS) to build a preliminary flight control system for the baseline aircraft with theseeffectors. The third task, the effector integration study, addresses a broad range ofintegration issues involving multiple technologies and the impact on the overall systemof each selected effector. The final task addresses the technical risks andrequirements for further development associated with the selected effector concept(s).The purpose of this task is to develop an overall risk reduction scheme and proposetesting and other validation exercises which will reduce the risks associated withintroducing new control effector schemes onto advanced aircraft.

5

Page 22: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

As a joint Air Force and Navy contract, certain aspects of the contract were unique to

each of the services. The selection of the baseline vehicle required carrying twobaseline aircraft to separately assess the aircraft carrier unique operationalrequirements of USN aircraft and reconfiguring the vehicle layout to meet the specific

performance and operational objectives.

6

Page 23: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

2.0 Task 1

2.1 - Selection of Baseline AircraftThe baseline aircraft chosen for this effort was the Boeing developed advancedtactical aircraft designated the Model-24F, which is a single engine, diamond wingconfiguration with a conventional empennage designed for both the air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The wing design is similar to the F-22, with standard controlsurfaces including ailerons, flaperons, horizontal tail, and rudders. Thrust vectoring(TV) is available on the baseline vehicle, resulting in reduced empennage size to takeadvantage of this capability. The reduced vertical fin size results in directionallyunstable aircraft at supersonic speeds, but stability is augmented by sideslip feedbackto the rudders. Extensive wind tunnel data are available for this configuration and aresummarized in Figure 2.1-1. For these tests, two complete wind tunnel models, 12.5%and 5% scale, were constructed and tested at NASA's Langley Research Center andat Boeing-Seattle. These tests resulted in a database ranging in velocity from 0.05 to2.50 Mach. The vehicle characteristics are summarized in Figure 2.1-2, the geometryis described in Appendix E. Flight characteristics of the baseline vehicle are includedin the performance data assembled in Appendix B.

Note that a second baseline aircraft was defined (see Section 4.3) to meet the USNcarrier suitability requirements.

+70

= 121f+30 NASAS R AA-LR +30

a~ 0 f-- lunitav 11 f

+10 Poing-Sea +10

0 ...... . • ................ \0,

-10 -100.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Mach number Mach numberAngle-of-attack requirementsa S•dMIp requirements .C'

Figure 2.1-1. Baseline Test Database

"7

Page 24: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

* Model -24 General- 1998 technology, 2005 IOC• Single crew_ FDWT: mission TOGW - 0.5 internal fuel* Design LF: 9g @ FDWT, GR/TP structure

0 Q-placard: 2,130 psf, M1.2 @ S.LMaximum internal fuel capacity (Ib) 8,690Installed avionics (Ib) 1,598

20'6 Weights* Takeoff gross weight 34,720* FDWT 25,460* Operating weight empty 19,980

Mach, combat/max 0.9 /2.2

Propulsion (Ib)

"" Sea level static A/B, installed (Ib)-31 11 . T/W @ takeoff gross weight"• Nozzle 2-D/C-D, TV

" Inlet Fixed

Geometry- Wing area, ref (sq ft) 465- W/S @ takeoff gross weight (psf) 74.7

5'2*- Wing aspect ratio/taper 2.20 / 0.13- Wing sweep, LEUTE (deg) 47.5 / 17.0• Wing t/c @ (SOB/tip) (%) 4.5 / 3.0

Figure 2.1-2. Baseline Aircraft -Adl

a

Page 25: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

2.2 - Selection of the Study Effectors

The initial list of possible candidates for study during this effort is shown in Figure

2.2-1. From this original list of candidate devices, the following were chosen for further

study:

Pneumatic Forebody Vortex Control

Moveable Chine/Strake

Wing Leading Edge Blowing

Wing Mounted Yaw Vanes

Split Aileron Devices

Seamless Moveable Leading Edges and Trailing Edges

The criterion for selecting these devices was that they exhibit the greatest potential for

meeting the objectives of the study. A secondary criterion was to study devices which

differed in the primary axis of operation, the location on the vehicle, and the flow

physics involved in the effector operation. The above concepts were chosen because

they offered the best potential for meeting the performance enhancement goals of this

contract with minimal impact on integration. A summary of each of the control options

shown in Figure 2.2-1 is included in Appendix A.

Reduction from six to three effectors resulted from further analysis of the six effectors to

more effectively screen them for those that looked to be the most promising effectors.

The baseline vehicle database was reviewed and its flying qualities simulated. The

simulation was adjusted to assess the relative effectiveness of the individual control

element. The down selection was guided by the criteria that the primary focus of the

study was lateral-directional control capacity, that there be possibility for realisticintegration of the control element and that the effectors be distributed around the

vehicle.

We readily agreed to select the moveable chine/strake and split aileron devices. The

choice of the third effector was more difficult, and it was finally resolved by introducing

the concept of variable dihedral all moving tail elements "rotating tail" concept that

became the third effector.

9

Page 26: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Primary

Control effector control Benefits Riskfunction

Porous forebody Yaw and Improves yaw control at moderate Operating phenomena not wellpitch control and high alphas. This yaw control is understood. Supersonic characteristics

used to roll around the velocity unknown. Limited database. Stealthvector. may be poor. Hard to integrate with

radar.Pneumatic fo-rbody vortex Yaw and Improves yaw control at moderate Limited success on chined forebodies.control pitch control and high alphas. This yaw control is Unknown supersonic characteristics.

used to roll around the velocity Signature impact unknown and hard tovector. integrate with radar.

Nose yaw vanes Yaw control Improves yaw control at moderate Stealth may be poor, Integration withand high alphas. This yaw control is radar is difficult.used to roll around the velocityvector.

Vortex flaps, outboard Yaw and Exploits special features of the May not be effective at 1 g or atfraction of wing span pitch control leading edge vortex on highly swept supersonic speeds.

wings.Differential H tail for Yaw and roll Enhance roll capability. Roll around Larger actuator range. Complexmoderate and high alpha control the velocity vector, software. Simultaneous control issues.yaw controlDifferential canard Yaw and roll Enhance roll capability. Roll around High signature levels.deflections for moderate control the velocity vector.and high alpha yaw controlPivoting wing tip fins for Low alpha Exploit flat turns for heading agility. Heavy. Defeats the concept.side force side force Stealth during air-to-ground

maneuvering.Fuselage mounted vanes Low alpha Skid turns for stealth air-to-ground May not be a net stealth improvementside force side force weapon delivery.Differential leading edge Roll control Improves roll control. Roll reversal occurs, consequently needflaps for roll control special software combined with a

thorough database to define thereversal alpha with Mach and flexibilityeffects.

Seamless LEF and TEF L/D and Extrapolation of MAW technology. 4 bar linkages are heavy and complex.hinges stealth Eliminates the seams associatediprFvement with conventionally hinged flaps.Wing tip split panel flaps Paw Vcontro Can be used to replace the rudders. Supersonic characteristics not well

Good alt low alpha. Effective at all known. Defeats stealth if used at 1 g.alphas. Effective for full flightenvelope.

Wing mounted yaw vanes Yaw control Can be used to replace the rudders. Supersonic characteristics not wellmounted like spoilers or Good alt low alpha. Effective at all known. Defeats stealth if used at 1 g.pop up vanes alphas. Effective for full flight

envelope.Speed brake using crossed Speed brake Eliminates a dedicated speed brake May not meet deceleration goals.controls functions panel. Saves empty weight

Improves stealth by deleting seams.Wing leading edge blowing Lift Maintain attached vortex wing flow Weight penalty, interference with

enhancemen to higher angles-of-attack. standard high lift system.t, roll control

Circulation control (wing Lift Increased wing circulation and lift at Weight penalty, integration with trailingtrailing edge blowing) enhancemen given flight condition. edge flaps.

t, roll controlVariable dihedral horizontal Yaw and Remove vertical tails lower RCS Could be heavy, complex interferencetail pitch control with wing - could reduce effectivenessThrust vectoring with Speed brake Eliminates a dedicated speed brake Expensive and heavy, and non-stealthy.inflight thrust reversing functions panel. Saves empty weight Poor IR and RCS.

Improves stealth by deleting seams.Thrust vectoring pitch Pitch control Allows size of the horizontal tail to be Difficult to compensate for operations at

reduced. Excellent low speed or near flight idle. Expensive, heavy,control for takeoff rotation. and non-stealthy. Poor IR.Significantly improves airplane pitchagility.

Thrust vectoring yaw Yaw control Maybe the answer to making a fin- Difficult to compensate for operations atless airplane. Full flight envelope or near flight idle. Expensive, heavy,yaw control. and non-stealthy. Poor IR.

Figure 2.2-1. Innovative Control Effector Options

10

Page 27: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

2.3 Flight Condition SelectionIn evaluating the chosen effectors, a representative set of flight conditions was chosenfor assessing the vehicle performance. These conditions were selected to offer a widerange of operational capability to adequately determine the control characteristics of

each of these effectors. The conditions chosen are summarized in Figure 2.3-1.

60 -

SupersonicPrimary condition

40 -battle zone M =,2.0 -

Maximum sustained40

.... .. ... load factor

Hp (K) Power-on M = 0.9 @ 30, 000 ftdeparturestall stal -- ••--ACM corner speed

......... M = 0.6

20 @ 15,000 ft" • Estimated

Landing Landingbaselineandkeof 1.OG envelopetakeoff 600 KEAS

000.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Mach -A,2

Figure 2.3-1. Analysis Flight Conditions

11

Page 28: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.0 TASK 2 - EFFECTOR PERFORMANCE STUDYThe primary focus of the effector performance study was to evaluate the selected

effectors and determine if Level 1 flying qualities could be achieved for a fighter sizeaircraft without a vertical tail or one of reduced size. No matter how effective a controlsurface is at high angle of attack, if it cannot be used to achieve adequate flyingqualities in the normal flight regime, it may not be a viable option. Consequently thisperformance study will be valuable in the selection of realistic innovative controleffectors. Of course, combinations of effectors may meet specific requirements in someflight regimes if the significance of the requirement will support the weight and cost

penalties. The high angle of attack evaluation was beyond the scope of the current

aerodynamic data base.

Three effectors were used in the performance study:

- Split Ailerons' Chine Strakes- Rotating Tail

The effectors were evaluated individually with the vertical tails removed. Additionally

the baseline Model-24F (with vertical tails and rudders) was evaluated to provide areference performance baseline. Limited evaluation of a combination of Rotating Tail

and Split Ailerons with and without 2 axis thrust vectoring was also conducted. Theperformance study was conducted with an operating flight control system due to theinstability of the configuration about the longitudinal axis, for subsonic speeds, and

directionally with the vertical tails off.

12

Page 29: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.1 Flight Condition Selection and Study GuidelinesThe performance study was conducted at six flight conditions which were selected withWL/FIGC and NAWC concurrence. These conditions are summarized in Figure 3.1-1.

Flight Codto Gross Weight Altitude V.IMach Leading Edge Trailing Edge

Jj,,,, (11),,,,,, Fl___ _aps FlapsTakeoff and 25,000 1,000 132 kta TO/LDG VApproach

PowerOn 1Maximum TransonicDerO S 27,000 15,000 Database Angle Maneuver

of AttackAir Combat TransonicManeuver Comer 27,000 15,000 0.6 ManeuveSpeed Mnue

Penetration TransonicSpeed 27,000 1,000 600 t Cruise

Maximum TransonicSustained Load 27,000 30,000 0.9 Maneuver aFactor

Supersonic SupersonicCondition 27,000 35,000 2.0 Cruise a

Figure 3.1-1 Performance Study Flight Conditions

These flight conditions are also plotted on the flight envelope shown in Figure 2.3-1.

The Boeing Rapid Prototype Aircraft Simulation (RPAS) software tool was used tocompute trims and maneuver time histories at the flight conditions. The performanceof the airplane, with the various effectors, was evaluated against MIL-F-8785C andMIL-STD-1797A. The criteria selected did not include control force requirements

because it was assumed that an artificial "feel" system would be used and could betailored to meet the specifications.

The evaluation was conducted at the aft center of gravity (38% MAC) which wasassumed to be the critical condition. An active flight control system was included for all

of the performance studies due to the instability of the Model-24F. The configurationswere longitudinally unstable at aft center of gravity for subsonic speeds and with thevertical tails removed the vehicle was directionally unstable at all Mach numbers. Thelongitudinal and directional stability levels are shown in Figure 3.1-2.

The evaluation of the rotating tail effector was limited to a single fixed dihedral

configuration in this study in order to reduce the impact on the flight control system.Inclusion of horizontal tail dihedral variation in the control system results in multiple

13

Page 30: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

solutions for trim and control inputs. The weighting functions required for theautomatic selection of dihedral angle must be developed with additional testing and

evaluation of other criteria than aerodynamic forces and moments. For this

performance study the rotating tail effector was fixed at 200 of dihedral on each side.

14

Page 31: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0 IN-5 LL CD

LU -2

A W~

Jp- I-

-Cw4

'I1

ICI

""I CC

000

-

151

Page 32: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.2 Database Description and LimitationsThe Model-24F aerodynamic data base used in the RPAS simulation is based on wind

tunnel test data along with analytical results described below. The wind tunnel test

data included a test in the Langley Unitary Tunnel, conducted in May of 1991, a

Langley 8 ft Transonic test, LaRC 1039 conducted in September 1992, and a

transonic/supersonic test in the Boeing Supersonic Wind Tunnel, BSWT 633conducted in August 1995. The BSWT 633 test included the use of the transonic insert

to allow test at Mach numbers down to 0.4. Analytical studies were conducted usingthe Boeing AEOLAS program which is a code based on a linear potential flow codecalled PANAIR. The AEOLAS program was used to estimate rate derivatives and toassess the impact of configuration changes for which no wind tunnel test data are

available.

The aerodynamic data base covers the Mach range from 0.2 to 2.2 and is structured to

allow the user to select tails on or off and which effectors are operational. Theaerodynamic data are referenced to body station 475 (35% MAC) and the moments

transferred to the user selected center of gravity.

The range of Mach number, angle of attack, and sideslip for each of the tests is shownin Figure 3.1-2. The simulation database limits are -40< (x • 220 and -100 < 13•< +100.

Figure 3.2-1 shows an example of the lift and pitching moment curves with thesimulation database limits. These data are from a test in the Langley 12 ft tunnel

conducted in October of 1991. These data show that the simulation data base is validdown to approximately 1.2 VSTALL. The test data at higher angles of attack from the12 ft test was at very low speed and was not extensive enough to allow for its inclusion

in the aerodynamic database.

The sideslip limits were eliminated for the carrier suitability study and the simulation

was allowed to extrapolate on the database. This was done to allow the carrier

landing crosswind studies to be completed.

The mass model used in the performance study was simplified since the majority of the

study was conducted at one gross weight and center of gravity. No change in inertia'swith weight and center of gravity were programmed. The inertia's in the mass modelwere changed for the carrier suitability portion of the study.

16

Page 33: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

... .......

I-. . . .. . . . ............-...-. -

~ ~ . uct-

0,j-- --- -

cc-

in)

- oz

Cu

...... ..-------

cc fm-- .2i -LM - -. i -

=...... ......

U.

17

Page 34: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

A simplified engine model of the Fl 19 thrust class was also used. Engine dynamicswere approximated using first order lags. The gross thrust and ram drag wereimplemented as a function of Mach number and altitude. This engine model was notdeveloped as part of the ICE contract but was one used for a number of Boeing IRAD

studies over the years.

No landing gear dynamic model was included in the MEATBALL model for the carrierperformance study. A drag increment due to landing gear deployment was included aspart of the aerodynamic model.

18

Page 35: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.3 Flight Control System Description

The evaluation of effectiveness of control elements requires a baseline operational

capability. The as drawn, as tested vehicle, the Model-24F, that we are using in this

study is longitudinally unstable at aft CG in subsonic flight, thereby, requiring a flight

control system definition in enough detail to have a meaningful simulation for

operational flying qualities. A flight control system has been developed for the Model-

24F based on the aerodynamic data base for modeling in the simulation program

RPAS. Figure 3.3-1 illustrates a summary diagram of the flight control law.

The flight control system was optimized, subject to some constraints such as rate and

position limits, for the baseline and the effector configurations to provide the most

realistic simulation. The control laws developed are very integrated, blending all the

available effectors to optimize the total control effectiveness of the overall vehicle.

Figure 3.3-2 presents a summary of the use by the flight controls system of the various

effectors and combinations of effectors.

There are limiting values to effector operations in both the extremes and rates. For

reference, Figure 3.3-3 contains a list of the effector limits assumed for this study.

19

Page 36: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

t'2 X -*, >

N C

00

_ 0,0

0020

Page 37: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

2. 2-2 D0-o 0

0 o-

r> c0 <

0 CL -

o- z *- -8 a

u*i

-wDC

a ~~C22 co

150 _- O= H 5

DO~.-.-

04I

o -- -- --- -- - -- - -- --

oc C4c .'

%* 0 14

.0 -4 4

0

M=0

0 M 3 -0

.x t -A -91.

cc a c b 0 ~ U.~

oc 2 , 2 4) C 75 115=0;: 0 a)o C.0 - -D

c c M0 ozc Z5 z

0 > O)

Fw 0. 0 * .0(0 0

c 0 <

Z- * h ) 0 C.)

-3 cc~.> 3- 00

w UEc 0 ~U

co00 6

210

Page 38: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0 0 C0A 0

_ 0 0 0 4 ) 0) 00 v0cVi I

0 0 00

00 0l

0 a 0 0-0 1--

a,-

0@0 0 0 @@

0 C0cc 0 3:-2 CL4 o CIS~

00am -WV- 0

0 a 8E C

.i 0 -CO U)inc 4c

22

Page 39: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.3.1 Nonlinear Control Mappings

Chine Strakes. Because the aero model data showed the chine strakes having very

low incremental control effectiveness at deflection angles below 28 deg, the nonlinear

control mapping was set up to bias both chine strakes at this nominal value. A singlestrake input signal is mapped into both strakes by commanding differential motionaround this nominal bias value. For example, a strake command of +10 deg ismapped into 18 deg for the left strake and 38 deg for the right. For commands greater

than the bias value, one strake simply goes to its 0 deg limit. An upper limit of 73 degwas also imposed, even though the model permits strake angles up to 118 deg,

because the aero data show a reversal of control effectiveness beyond 73 deg. Bybiasing at the "knee" of the effectiveness curve in this way, the combined controlmoment generated by both strakes becomes an approximately linear function of thecommand. Without this approach, the strake command effectiveness would show anear-deadband effect at low commanded angles, which would be likely to cause limit

cycle behavior in the control system.

.Spiilero These four surfaces are biased at a nominal 5 deg value, in a mannersimilar to the chine strakes. The 5 deg bias value was chosen by examining two-

dimensional maps of the effectiveness of upper and lower split ailerons on both roll

and yaw. They display a "knee" of control effectiveness near this value. Both roll andyaw commands are mapped into the four surfaces through a simple mapping matrix,and summed with the nominal 5 deg bias settings. Hard limits are applied to theresults at the 0 deg and 45 deg deflection limits.

Rotting ail The control law does not directly command tail dihedral angles, becauserealistic servo response time and inertial coupling effects might permit only a slow loop

bandwidth through this feedback path. Instead, only the left and right tail incidenceangles are commanded over a ±30 deg range, with the tail dihedral angles fixed at

the RPAS simulation user's settings, ranging over ±20 deg. Independent pitch andyaw commands from the longitudinal and lateral control laws are mapped into these

two incidence angles. The yaw command is scaled by the reciprocal of the dihedralangle over a 5 to 20 deg dihedral range, to provide approximately constant yaw

control sensitivity allowing for the tail dihedral angles to vary.

23

Page 40: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.3.2 Linear Multivariable Control Law DesignControl Mixer Matrix As the overview diagram of Figure 3.3-1 shows, the control lawgain matrices directly produce only three output commands, which are "pseudo-control" signals commanding certain blends of pitch, roll, and yaw moment. Theseblended signals are mapped into commands to each actuator by an additional controlmixer gain matrix called V, see Figure 3.3-1. For the "linear" control surfaces

(conventional ailerons, rudders, nonrotating horizontal tails, and pitch and yaw thrustvectoring) these outputs of the matrix V are sent directly to the control surface servos.For the "nonlinear" control surfaces (split ailerons, chine strakes, rotating tail incidence

angles) the outputs of V are passed through the nonlinear control mappings describedabove to produce control surface commands.

Using the control mixer matrix V allows the control law to use the least-squares optimalblend of all available control surfaces to produce roll, pitch, and yaw using minimaltotal control surface activity. The matrix V is calculated for each flight condition andfor each configuration set of control surfaces, using linear least squares matrix theory.This allows each surface to be used simultaneously for roll, pitch, and yaw inproportion to its control effectiveness in each axis. For this reason, it increases themaximum vehicle performance when compared against the traditional technique ofassigning ailerons for roll only, rudders for yaw only, etc., in a single-input single-output (SISO) control system.

This technique also differs from a better-known pseudo-control method in which thecolumns of the V matrix attempt to provide pure, decoupled roll, pitch, and yawmoments. That technique, called the pseudo-inverse method, tends to degrade theloop stability margins in vehicles with strong roll-yaw coupling. In contrast, Boeing'smethod preserves the loop stability margins. One side-effect is that the signals labeled"pseudo-roll" and "pseudo-yaw" in the diagram do not actually command pure roll andyaw moments: they command certain optimal blends of moments and forces thatdepend on the vehicle's natural cross-axis coupling.

H-infinity state feedback design. Boeing has developed a set of very efficienttechniques for designing the multivariable feedback and feed forward gain matricesusing H-infinity optimal control theory. These allow the designer to specify the desiredclosed-loop dynamic responses (pole locations and cross-axis decoupling behavior)and to produce a corresponding gain matrix with little or no design iteration. The

24

Page 41: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

design process was repeated for each of six control surface configurations: baseline,split ailerons, chine strakes, rotating tail, split ailerons with rotating tail, and baselinewith split ailerons, rotating tail, and thrust vectoring. For each configuration, a "pointdesign" was produced for each of four flight conditions: takeoff/approach, cornerspeed, penetration speed, and supersonic. The remaining flight conditions werecovered by interpolating these gain matrices versus the reciprocal of dynamicpressure. Each point design consisted of a longitudinal and a lateral gain matrixdesign, for a total of 48 gain matrices. The baseline design was performed under IR&Dfunding, the others under contract.

The efficient H-infinity method allowed all eight gain matrices for each configuration tobe designed in, typically, a single afternoon. Much less trial and error was requiredthan would have been needed for either LQR (linear quadratic regulator) multivariablecontrol or for conventional SISO control law designs.

Implicit integration for anti windup. The control law uses integrating feedback on thethree commanded variables: stability-axis roll rate, sideslip angle, and normalacceleration Nz. (The Nz regulator actually uses a blend of Nz with speedacceleration Udot, as explained below.) Integrating feedback is desirable because itdrives steady-state tracking error to zero. Conventional integrating control laws requirespecial care to properly initialize the integrator states and to prevent them from"winding up" or ramping during control surface saturation. Boeing has developed atechnique called implicit integration that prevents these problems and simplifies theimplementation of integrating control laws. This technique was applied to the ICEcontrol law, eliminating the need for special integrator logic to reinitialize the integratorstates or to freeze them during saturation. The benefit is significant, since integratorlogic can occupy more lines of code than the linear control law gains in conventionalcontrollers.

3.3.3 Longitudinal axis control lawNz-Alpha mapping. The stick command is interpreted as a commanded increment tonormal acceleration Nz in units of g, above what is required to maintain a straight-lineflight path at the current flight path angle gi. In this way, zero stick force will always

command a straight-line flight path when the wings are level. To do this, thecommanded increment Nzstick is summed with cos (y), which is 1 g in level flight.

25

Page 42: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Without this cos(y) compensation, Nz regulators tend to cause mild flight path

instability when attempting to hold a steady climb or descent.

Both the commanded and measured total Nz values are converted into nominallyequivalent values of angle of attack a. This is done using the standard formulasrelating lift coefficient CL, dynamic pressure Qbar, wing area, and weight to Nz. CL isassumed to be a linear function of angle of attack a: CL = CLO + CLax a. Nominalvalues of CL0, CLa, wing area, and weight are used by the control law.

The equivalent commanded and measured values of Alpha, based on the Nz values,

are labeled Alpha Nz cmd and Alpha_Nz in the diagram. The regulator uses theseinstead of using Nz values directly. The reason is to accommodate high-a flightregimes, when CLa changes sign and an Nz regulator could become unstable. At

high-a conditions, the Nz to Alpha mapping can blend the Nz-equivalent Alpha valueswith true Alpha values, so that the control law becomes an Alpha regulator. Doing thiswith a smooth blending function as Alpha approaches stall allows the vehicle to beflown into post-stall conditions with no mode switching by the pilot.

Meanwhile, basing the regulator on Nz in normal flight allows the control law to beself-trimming. While flying post-stall was not required for ICE, this structure wasretained in the controller to permit such use in the future.

Nz-Udot regulator. At landing and approach speeds, it is desirable to slightly modifythe response of a pure Nz regulator. If, for instance, the airplane held Nz firmly at 1.1 gat low airspeeds, Alpha would have to increase rapidly to compensate for the rapidlydropping airspeed as the flight path curved upward. This can cause unexpected stallswith only small values of steady stick force. To prevent this, the landing/approachcontrol law gain matrices were designed to provide a low-frequency "washout"behavior in Nz command tracking. In effect, the quantity being tracked by the regulatoris a blend of Nz with speed acceleration Udot = dU/dt, so that the stick step response isan initial jump in Nz followed by a steady airspeed deceleration while Nz returns to itsstraight-line value of cos(y). The controller structure remains the same as shown in the

diagram: the Udot regulation behavior is provided implicitly by the appropriate

proportional feedback gain terms on U.

26

Page 43: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Command shaping filter. While regulation of Nz is desirable for auto-trim behavior

over a time scale of many seconds, the stick response of a "tight" Nz regulator can

cause undesirable flying qualities on a shorter, transient time scale. Specifically, pilotsexpect the "nose to follow the stick" on a short time scale, meaning that pitch rate, notNz, should be proportional to stick force. A tight Nz regulator would ordinarily cause

high levels of pitch rate overshoot and "bobble tendency." But since a pitch rateregulator is not auto-trimming and causes flight path instability at low airspeeds, weneed to combine the best of both schemes.

We have resolved this problem by inserting a unity-gain lag-lead command shaping

filter in the feed forward path. Airplanes have a natural transmission zero in theirresponse from pitch moment to pitch rate, caused by the effect of CLo• on lift and flight

path as an airplane pitches. The transmission zero frequency is typically near 1 rad/s

for the Model-24F. The shaping filter places a pole at this zero frequency and a zero at"a higher frequency near 4 rad/s. The effect is to make the stick response mimic that of"a pitch rate command attitude hold (RCAH) system on a short time scale, restoring

good flying qualities for pitch acquisition tasks. At the same time, the high-gain Nzregulator provides tight control over Nz and Alpha during aggressive roll maneuvers,

as well as providing auto-trim. Also, the filter still provides a direct (no-lag) gain term

from stick to control surfaces to help prevent pilot-induced oscillation (PIO) from

excessive lag.

3.3.4 Lateral-Directional Axis Control Law.The multivariable control law regulates two variables in the lateral-directional axis: rollrate p and sideslip angle P3. The commands are normally generated by processing

lateral stick force and pedal force through appropriate deadbands and shapingfunctions. For unpiloted simulation studies, the control law can accept p and 13

commands directly. There is no artificial separation of control surfaces into "roll-only"

and "yaw-only" sets as in classical single-input single-output (SISO) design. The

control law gain matrix is free to command all available control surfaces to track bothcommands. Generally the lateral-directional gain matrix maps roll rate, sideslip angle,and yaw rate into two commands to the "pseudo-roll" and "pseudo-yaw" inputs of the

control mixer matrix V, see Figure 3.3-1. The V matrix, designed by the Singular ValueDecomposition technique, then maps these commands into the full set of control

effectors. The control law uses integrating feedback to drive steady-state command

tracking error to zero for both p and 13.

27

Page 44: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.3.5 Standard Sensor ProcessingAir-referenced and inertial-referenced measurements of angle of attack a, sideslip

angle 13, and body-axis velocities U, V, and W (in the x, y, and z body axes

respectively) are passed through a standard set of first-order complementary filters.The purpose is for the feedback law to use air-referenced measurements at lowfrequencies and inertial-referenced measurements at high frequencies. Each

complementary filter applies a transfer function of k/(s+k) to the air-referenced inputand s/(s+k) to the inertial input, where k is a breakpoint frequency in radians persecond. A typical value of k is 0.3 rad/s. This reduces the system sensitivity to air datanoise. Most control laws use only the a and P3 signals, but U, V, and W are provided

for use in hover-mode control laws for STOVL vehicles.

The estimated angle of attack a from the complementary filter is used to derive

stability-axis rotation rates, velocities, and accelerations from the body-axis valuesreported by the sensors. Standard transformations involving sin(a) and cos(a) are

applied. Also, a stability-axis direction cosine matrix is derived from the body-axismatrix. This can be used when stability-axis Euler angles such as bank angle 0 are

used by the feedback law.

Gravity-compensated values of roll rate p, pitch rate q, and yaw rate r are madeavailable to the control law by calculating the contributions to the rotation rates of thevehicle caused by the acceleration of gravity for the vehicle's current flight path and

inertial speed. These gravity increments are subtracted from the measured rotationrates, and the results can be used by the control law when desired. The benefit of this

is to prevent the control law from "fighting against gravity" during rapid maneuverssuch as rolls. Without gravity compensation, for example, a control law using yaw ratefeedback may produce strong attitude-dependent rudder commands in a sustained rollas it fights gravity's tendency to yaw the vehicle back and forth. This effect is mostpronounced at low speeds.

3.3.6 Automatic Command Limiting.Boeing has developed a powerful real-time optimization method for preventing cross-

axis coupling between pitch, roll, and yaw commands during aggressive maneuvers or

large sudden disturbances that produce control saturation. This technique is distinct

28

Page 45: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

from the implicit integration method used to prevent integrator windup during controlsaturation. The Boeing automatic command limiting method allows penalty weights tobe assigned to each controlled variable (e.g., roll rate, sideslip angle, and Nz) so thatthe controller will allow tracking errors in the lower-priority controlled variables first,rather than incurring tracking errors in all variables at once. For example, withoutcommand limiting, applying a very large roll rate command can cause excessivesideslip angle to develop when the ailerons or rudders are saturated. With commandlimiting, the control system will automatically "back off" from the commanded roll ratejust enough so that tight regulation of sideslip can be maintained. These commandlimits are implicit in the position and rate limits of the control surfaces themselves, andare not arbitrarily imposed. This allows the full maneuver performance envelope of the

vehicle to be realized safely.

29

Page 46: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4 Effector Study Results (including Thrust Vectoring)

Overview

The individual effectors and effector combinations were evaluated at the six flight

conditions previously summarized in Figure 3.1-1. Note that the "best" effector

combination (rotating horizontal tail + split ailerons) was also evaluated with 2-axis

thrust vectoring (TV).

The evaluation criteria are summarized below (Reference: MIL-F-8785C):

Level 1:

Flying qualities clearly adequate for the mission Flight Phase.

Level 2:

Flying qualities adequate to accomplish the mission Flight Phase, but with

some increase in pilot work load or degradation in mission effectiveness,

or both, exists.

Level 3:Flying qualities such that the airplane can be controlled safely, but pilot

work load is excessive or mission effectiveness is inadequate, or both.

Category A Flight Phases can be terminated safely, and Category B and C

Flight Phases can be completed.

Pass:

Meets specification (for sections without Level 1, 2 or 3 requirements)

Fail:

Does not meet specification (for sections without Level 1, 2 or 3

requirements)

Note that where results are inferred for this Phase I study they are indicated in the

Summary Charts with an asterisk.

30

Page 47: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.1 Takeoff and ApproachAnalysis for takeoff and approach stability and control was conducted under the

following conditions:Vehicle gross weight = 25,000 lb.Equivalent velocity ve = 1 32kts

Altitude = 1,000 ft

In total, 10 flying qualities items were addressed with the results summarized in theperformance summary sheet of Figure 3.4.1-1, based on data such as contained inFigures 3.4.1-2 and 3.4.1-3.

In a number of cases the flying qualities evaluation was done by inspection (withoutdetailed evaluation) where a specific effector would have no impact on the result. Forexample, if the Baseline configuration passed the trim requirements (Longitudinalcontrol in unaccelerated flight) the Split Ailerons and Chine Strake configurations wereassumed to pass since the horizontal tail configuration was unchanged. Additionally,without the vertical tails and with limited directional control power these configurationswere assumed to fail for some of the lateral-directional items.

The crosswind evaluation was conducted to the limit of the simulation data base(D=+10o). At 132kts, the 13=100 condition equates to approximately 23kts of 900

crosswind.

The baseline Model-24F configuration includes vertical tails but without thrustvectoring. The baseline vehicle, as tested, meets the Level 1 or pass criteria of theMilitary Specification, MIL-F-8785C, revised above, for 6 of the 10 conditions. It meetsLevel 2 criteria in 2 flying quality items for two longitudinal control in maneuveringflight and turn coordination which failed due to angle of attack limit of the simulationdata base with only a limited load factor capability.

For the split ailerons configuration (without thrust vectoring) the "Level 1" or "pass"criteria are met only for longitudinal control in unaccelerated flight, the "Level 2" criteriaare estimated to be met for Flight Path Stability while for all other qualities theconfiguration fails.

31

Page 48: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The reader can summarize the remaining elements of the summary sheet, Figure3.4.1-1, in a similar fashion. The rotating tail shows the overall best performanceamong the effectors. The reader is to keep in mind that only the baseline configurationhad a vertical tail. For more details, see the data collected in Appendix B.

GW = 25,000 lbs Ve =132 kts Altitude = Sea Level

CONFIGURATIONSREQUIRMENTIS Baseline .. it Chine Rotating- Rotatig RotatingSOURCE noT Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Split Tail+ SplitDESCRIPTION noelV noTV (r H Ailerons Ailerons

200/200) no TV with TVnow

Flight-pah MIL-F-8785CStability § 3.2.1.3SIL-STD-1797A Level 2 Level 2* Level 2* Level 2 Level 2* Level 2*

§ 4.3.1.2Longitudilnal MIL-F-878517control in §3.23.1 pa Po pw Panunalceteerad MIL-STD-1797A Pass Pas*fligh't ý 4.2-7.1Longitudinal MIL-F-8785C;control in §3.2.3.2maneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Fag Fail* FaU* Fall Fail* Fal*§ 4.2.17.2Laterai-dire<•tdi aj MIL--SB5oscillations §L33.1.1Dutch roll MIL-STD-1 797A

§4.1.11.7 Level 1 Fail* Fall* Level 1 Level 1" Level 1S4.6.1.1"nolt mode MIL-F-8 785

§ 3.3.1.2MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fall* Fail* Level I Level 1 Level I*2 4.5.1.1

Spral mode MlL-F-8785CS3.3.1.3

IL-STD-1797A Level Fail* Fail* Level 1* Level I*§ 4.5.1.2um-MCD coorabon MIL-F-8785C

§ 3.3-26 Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall FallMIL-STD-1797A (data base (data base (data base (data base (data base (data base§ 4.5.9.5.1 a limit) a limit) a limit) at limit) a limit) a limit)1 4.6.7.2

Roll control MIL-F-8785Cef-ectiveness 4 7A Level 2 Fall Fall Level 3 Level 3 Level 1

S4.5.&.1

Late al-directional MIL-b-78(;control in cross §3.3.7 Pass Pm3winds MIL-STD-1797A (data base Fail Fall Fall Fall (data base

4.5.6 0 limit) F limit)4.5.8.34.5.9.5.34.6.4

-rin -ar a -pp r a 1 4 .6 .7 .4 kHnI-ra ap~proach in 1IIL-t--8 7B5cross winds §3.3.7.1 Pan PasMIL-STD-1797A (data base Fail Fal Fall Fail (data base

S4.5.8.3 13 limit) Fal limit)l al

4.5.9.5.4 0 limit)4.6.6.1

* Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.1-1 Takeoff and Approach

32

Page 49: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

04i

Uu9

E 2I. Cd-Sl

ce z I - "

-. ~ V ~ j~1 a- ~us

'm J- K ~ - t --J-0

Al - * i I- .j~i i -

H--+0--tca 1

Cd ~ ~i1 M

za-two~-- i-

33----t!~

Page 50: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

E

cvsCl i ±l ~ - I-

. ' "--1-1Ul

V--

"z I I CIl- .. ! /.

:-I. I I i;.•

S f- --A-l.

""- i-I V S.. -JTm U)

S X I I a4..

'<i L, -i I ! 1 i I t I•IN'

inl08 0 10-,

* ~ ~ - -A I--I -I

IN-

0- '34

Page 51: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.2 Power on Departure StallAnalysis for power on departure stall flying qualities was conducted under the

following conditions:Vehicle gross weight = 27,000 lb.

Altitude = 15,000 ft

Maximum database AOA (220) low speed

In total seven (7) flying qualities items were addressed with the results summarized in

the performance summary sheet of Figure 3.4.2-1 with sample data in Figures3.4.2-2, 3.4.2-3 and 3.4.2-4.

Again in this assessment as in others, a number of cases the flying qualities evaluationwas done by inspection (without detailed evaluation) where a specific effector wouldhave no impact on the result. Additionally, without the vertical tails and with limited

directional control power some configurations were assumed to fail for some of thelateral-directional items. The moments that could be generated are just not large

enough.

The baseline Model-24F configuration is with vertical tails but without thrust vectoring.The baseline vehicle, as tested, meets the Level 1 or pass criteria of the Military

Specification, MIL-F-8785C, reviewed above, for five of the seven conditions.

The Level 3 performance in roll control of the baseline is due to the fact that small

amounts of sideslip degrades the available roll control power through the flowinteraction with the canted tail and swept wings.

The baseline fails in longitudinal control in maneuver because of this simulationsoftware, it can hold the speed or altitude only with severe degradation of flight pathangle.

The reader can summarize the remaining elements of the summary sheet, Figure3.4.2-1, in a similar fashion. Again the rotating tail shows the overall best performance

among the effectors. The reader is to keep in mind that only the baseline configuration

had a vertical tail. See the Appendix B for more detailed information.

35

Page 52: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

GW = 27,000 lbs Ve = low Altitude = 15,000 ft

CONFIGURATIONSREQUIRMENTS asine split Chine Rotating Tam it T:a it

SOURCE no TV Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Spl ItDESCRIPTION no TV no TV (rH = Ailerons Ailerons

20-/200) no TV with TVnoTV

L t MIL-F-8785Ccontrol in P3.2.3.1unacclerated MIL-STD-1797A pass pass Pass Pon Ps* Ps*flight §} 4.2.7.1Longi•0nr• MIL-t--b785Ccontrol in § 3.2-3.2 Fall Fallmaneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Fall* Fail* Fall* Fall*

§ 4.2.7.2

Lateral-iectional ML--75Coscillations § 3.3.1.1Dutch roll MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fall* Fail* Level 1 Level 1* Level 1"

§4.1.11.714.6.1.1

Roll mode MIL-F-8785C§ 3.3.1.2MIL-STD-1797A Level I Fail* Fall* Level 2 Level 2 Level 1§ 4.5.1.1

-Spral mocle MILT-873-B75§ 3.3.1.3MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fail* Fall* Level I Level 1* Level 1*ý 4.5.1.2

Turn coordination MIL--8785§3.3.2.6

IL-STD-1797A4.5.9.5.1 Pass Pass Pass Pam Pass Pas*

1;4.6.7.2HROl control MIL-F-87859effectiveness § 3.3.4

MIL-STD-1797A Level 3 Fall Fall Fall Fall Level I_ § 4.5.8.1

* Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.2-1 Power-On Departure Stall

36

Page 53: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

::j anAn AM itioditioý joR NINA A. i i ion oll t: .. ......

.............7. _. .7 .. . ... .. ... .. n. .......... ... ... E.... Half oooo: no %ANNA M IT I i N i i Nil I ........ i I ......... Ell...

all al :if:. a" i ifHE 1: Ad Nil a I I .. ..

n il

... ..o: filllook A PQ i IN I HAWN HONE77 A q iq ..... .... .... .... .... i .... .. ... .... .... no ........ ......

HOHH no l a jýL i i i i i i i EEjEH HEjoii noJEE71 o:Ioo MIR M:

An onion HAtIL HE.AN ANIAN NIP; sy ig

aw HAM ME ANNA HONE 11 No MA ON to ANNA NINE HAHE HEIEHEHIHE an in20 6: M: all :inAs on -- NmA, ve ':No A AWHY RANH iota PAR nown nil Rd HAT! Hill: ii: . .........

A: iHi Ed ANKH NIP i... RAINA RAINA AAjAA appa .... InE HE!EE Halan AN ifo:* ON on In: C.3

MM: my In! navy IiINE .... la'I 1:04 11i ... ujIN -Lý L;o0on;on :.-if Halaii RRIENo i If H: fill! .... .... HE.r ... F... r. . .. F . . F.

7- 1 ̀ '.' i ý i - - -. _7 ----. 7- Ln no HE - o: ....

I W AR !Thai E A 11 took 1 i A NAL= H n. on!: ::: :::: in: -. :::: lon noin: CYN N .... .... .... ....o .... ..ion .-.i A - -.1AN ill i:n: in if... . . . ...LL Wo

.... ... ... ... ... .... ... EH HHjH . inA_?71 ........ ... . . a omit.... .. ...=T7=

wwww ANNA No::... .. ... I ... .

... ... ... ... ... ...if .... ... ..... ... iH ...n.

ino :-S.,on ......... 0 : 15 1-.. . . ....

:oooloo 011.... .. I Ad NA!AA HEIEE if:: ..... I. .... ..

a .A .i I ..

Ali Nali" ANINE ANIAN HTY idol! NINE Risky .. cc.a Ali ... .......-7 ... -4 9 -M.... Hal... .... ....mal lH, HAnA ON KATE plan ni!K!Fpom: !Hlpii0: AN:oo nnion .. .-. -.. ... * i i i i i i I -Hon .... .. ...:if off:: onjonHIER An *E-: ..... ...... t ook :

.. ..A* o im.-- - ... I�` *-i-... .. ..1 fillin: I is' ANN ANNA wWwIAIoooo!::oooioo.... on!!no11.0 ..... ..... S: :::: ion ....

a- ... .. .. HHAim n HEFIE aniHE HEino .... ý7;A ATHH ANN VON invi U) ill 010 M&N-nS PIKE HaIEE .... I .... .........ill RATE Ali it ON:0:1 no AHNIvii Raiall Pill ooidi* 4, HEC, Lu tl I EI .............:in EEjEE HEiHE i .... ....jaAl Hiol!Voioi .... All'i ANNA ANNA Two loili Now Hilli Qv: An

I- i i ý .. :17 .. ....

APHYNATIAN ANIH !all HEIEE HEIEE :EJU SET ON AN ITT:if ANINNINNINNINi 44o:

ilan Hill:::: RIAN o . .... .... v E inTAinnin:

al illidiiHip A 0 !WRIANINNI .... ......... SAT. WAS QUAl ton 11111 IN 1 ii .... .... ....

OMIT= : al ANINNI. ANINE Inn anjEH HEIEH NEson . .... .... ion on on A a ilon lon L

i HE RAN ... 1;olH on;on lon ýoo ::: i AMON TV! RINNIM on -; .,nnnvq:":

in ANNA PENN ;oonniEH HEIEE E'Ejon: A i oinolo MMM.-A. .. .... C*4,v Apply: : in HE if LU oil .... .. if' in P f

co a i fill o; C-i... .... .. ipi Isiv lot Hill RoAll His illL fill

A .. .... ... EDJIMMY .... .. . oIno it if w IHE Halov fill fill Euj ANIAl

1- :oEno A:, i i i i". LC

10 *- H''., . .... .... -! .... ... . - : A

onion onion Pont III on n: H! Kno lis no ....

too1HE da!"n o: ion ::77,oo

No No RQUARINE :o.oo jon i: i: :o. OFNo ANYWAY No HHNHNH o f 111 MIN UPPA Nov Imam EgoIL in: in'.

if * ........ ........ ....

ANINNINNINA HE'nHinninHoHlon SMEM --- %:oE all .......... .:oINA paiNA IsAN t -*

AN ARMS HE MINOR ANNA 010 illy! 1110HAMI H o HE HANK.4 ....... .... I

::: Holin:

oil MIAMI I all III 011"i

E. I! No M Y ROOM no I% Hit.

1: to jon o o i i jo%. ""EH-4. ARIEH HHIEE HHIEH AN14. Napa itij]

E HE in HE NoRN NA!AA o E. 1 :00on!oo on!on _g 1 A mi a i lZ. f

R A IT HT ad oo-*!Al :!,-ao E!

RiýHm . 2aTtl0i doodywHi-* -- i"n 'il ui an uppyl AN.-

o ... ........

T if ... mi ;Ilya into! 1 M is ME till, 111i AMP if:: HE MWEE! .... .... .... ... LaI UOJ = 77't=77Joo...-sooloo nn E: .... :::: 11.%o jawinvil Soo!ooo: ... ... Eng low.. SEEnoi 1 TIP AM".... . .... ... .al HEIEE nninoHill I ....... ...join Aiýss

37

Page 54: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

las las No A A ASAN in .... .... s . .... i i i i las :N.: i a N a a NN : 2: WS SNINNINETATT to No HE... .... .... .... .... ... .... .....No 2: is :::: No a P loo :::: :HE :::: HET PHIJAN Y it in A*J A'H HE E'.P AN AN AN No N Am ATHEN HE HE!" H. .. W . No

N.so No - ME Ey WE PIKEHE AN A:i No R AN PH ... N..:.N :N .... ...AN if. W.. . aa .n

HE ii "" ON No 0% No

:1 T 40110 SON 1111i urn i"IHE HE HE A-INANT ANN M is .... .... .......................li pain; ST No Hypil w"in No AN HH T a Q i by U IN: rý No a N..

.. .... . las i s .... .... ....

ON: : : :::: P. E in HE is11 at of poll! TITS :1 ON up :1 PE!EE PHIPH HEyE! !j E ... .... .N. ý EiPE

NOW ::: : : § .PH " HE ZC'.... .. . A PH HE PH by ANing maij HAKE N:ANIAN!HN HAIL AA'P1:: HHHHE HH AN H111i ..... .. WINH QW! NTH

11 polio ANIAN AN 154 5 5:::::&: HE PH PHIPE ýAi YWHIAN

.... .... Hal.. P P: HE i HE HEFEi HE TH: P HE PH HHHEI10 w: as so an no HE HE P i m: ni ma HE HiL., us alsoC4 P_ S: = pas las A A A A A :mm A 5 0: HE ANIE.

as HE :::: IN, pa

li A HE .... FEE P ..... .... .. .... .... ..... 4 A MEN WHA : 11 ARY .000 poll KAPP in an "N: PIPEin A 'ýIAIAA ANIE-, No .al NE

HyFly q PH so HE PH AE- A. 'APHIPE HPIEN. AN!* HE No AN . ......... ......... .... NNI...

....................... ..... ..... ..... . 13$2 ."Solas infol. AN11

M Y A :Ni ENION.aa 2' PIPE

Z., I E., -- .M. no -0 No Kali A in AN A i i His 1: a : No No

HE a P NaPHiPE Ho .... -HIPE HE E: No

H I as No NoF PHIPE .. Fa: %opy w P.

RNTS 7 .

of ROME THAR !T1111111111A.'. EPiNh HOPE H"HE Ali a i *'A. HE HAJ. P, 1-9.... I .... .... I .... - is: m rs: -ormIlk L i **." _- ý_*&: - L= i __ m.; .... ... ..... -l T 7. -

11 n nurn gum yyy wo: it Hopi = 5 aw u TiONN mon poll :join aN HE ýLL ANiNNINNINNIsai- , '- ... .... .... .... .... .... ....0 a po'HE ANIAN ANUT iT AN tills NaLiii HEI iý lifin jýz 1TIM THT Kim: HAHN]cc an as so HE AE ... .... H:.4 0: Sli iliNivilic 1HAti wHY PUT Elio ýAm A, HAHN TURN 'HIN" -' -A iQ so main:? NOT:: ANIAN AAlAA:'AAlAAý TIE ... ..... ... .... is book took W: .... . N-a : incoo -NIAN AAI.NTN:y.NNN:NUlPE. PHIPE NN.NENN i6a 4 AN=NAN..... ... .... .. .. 0: ::: ::: %: .... __ _N4: iss A 1 mo 01 a .. on!AN HEAN NoNA plos PH .... .. ..in AN A i in:a AN ........ .ETH P W .0 CLOU you 22[Ai HAV-, Twin as to No i

'U' 7 i 77 -.. -_ uJ _J ii ,......... ......... I_ aloi to-

4J 9 2 LOU v ... t ;;.. I - 4ow-C PHIPE :::: las z i -i i PHIPH PHIPE 'HE HE En a Ica-

A! Haiti KY . 00 Ho HE HE ......... ........... ....

HEjEE HEiiiii HA'AN HAINA ANIHE P.7-r"MIEP HE AN :-HE HPIEN ill ...a : a:: mal cu

0 is RYINWHAWN NINE HTS in AN HE poll ON it Hi-JANINNIAN-rn i HE a

impi- HH HAHAST HH HE HE in salso NINE-0-i _.J

ii: N. : E E HE i I NE HE HE PH HE PHIPE Ho P HIM 'LCAC in PH aa HIEPHE a.... .... is waym: : (BA 2 Naup: AW N. No i KHOO A J.0 - C4

.... .... ....414. PH:1 pop; PH A.. TIFTA ý: .. ANIAN ANIAN PHIPH HE PH HEINA. N.-H § aE: No N No ... .... ... "-:a E" ON 20 N: 0 : as NN PH H maP an so m: S h o ... .... .... ... N. ....... HIEP E: .... .... .... PHIPE HE :N'aa U)

- - _N -, -, NoIns :::: NNION LL ......A! THAY WATT ONE AN HE WERE LAJ . ...

RAHR HAKE SO= an OWNs PKIEUR -- an!W -_ '. * * ý* .' ' H cc .. . .... ....

PAR S * Hopi SAN No HE T 'it :Oil HE No PHIPH PET--. HIE HE *n a las... ......... A in .... .i AN AN

NN

W6 Go WRR to No NAME AN U y HH to Hopi HE AN HATH AREA Novo 01

: 0: myra a .. .... .... .... a :::: salso P: :::: :::: Ho :::: Ho Ho aso aZ Sm a AV pump Nas slas a . a as . a N. ::: as Sil

-J SHOP a ON No IT ON IN ON NTH= a- No :AA. No if .... ........ .. . 4. ... T . a qcCC N.: :::: N.. a C. 100 0 am15 ... .... .. a Holy AWAY HAHN EVEN HE A-..'.. a: no HE a 1. _- 'd ......t it: m 1 a iaSa iii:ý- NNý.Na Na2

PH .... 4.C P. PH WEINA Holy smin AN No an HU NT aliaN ETA W:: I A i No N.. Wo0 0 L Hy in NO HHZ HH ON AN AN ON HOPE AN PH PH of PAT! PATH QQ[E E a.... .... .... .... ..... .... ....ANIHN ON HE OR ANNE AHTH OE AN EF

ills .... .... E.. HAPH Hopi Holi .... .. ...1m.wassIons aHE PJANU N asks THE up No 01 H011H ww"H "" my AN W HH No it AN No by AN"- on 14H .... .... as Naa: aws on PH no HE N wa

PH WE HE E a: W A PH PH Aus I.A.l1q, i A Y'"'o - is HH Al HE HE AN HH:Ailqý AN AN HE 91 01 im up it it:........................ 0 UA.... .. ... ... lon as .... ...... L'u AN 10HE N.. PEFEi No :::: LUNo. AN - HE:N . . . i i I ;I w On =&N==%1%= CC UJ AN i t

HINNINAH LU ... .... HE PPIPE 1 0: a -P so A PH it. L4 HH jQ ANa... L NNINE HE I _7 -7 T it AN is toAdENINNiss A ... .... .... ... PH HE is YNE1.... ... i -N i -i TT TEA, -a

4V-PIANSIHSO Rms SO AN Halt. No. Ai NA F! 7.7 - Hii -41n i

38

Page 55: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I:.N IN InN ININ IN IN N N N N :0 N NNN PHP RL..HIE.....

in ANMHM AIoC" PIE .O qME AMR 0,HpiHMzH~

No HAT ... ion,

ina il yH H-HH .i .. ....'1 -- -F

a-NN: I ai.Noi

.... ... .. ;I

HEW .. ....... -y Hi.. ... .. K a I N ::

0f 03PI P P4 H S i J 1 H - -H N N . . ...YH H .Jz. ..

... .. .. : :VIR 0E

;4Lsi U EH1i IIPHP.Hls laAEHV.HR pl

ill HEH0-p olAE.RAEWA IP TEU

"HiE in . .IPM ET

HolomHWo M?39i

Page 56: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.3 Air Combat Maneuver ConditionAnalysis for air combat maneuver stability and control was the most extensive flying

qualities analysis of this project and was conducted for the following conditions:

Vehicle gross weight = 27,000 lb.

Altitude = 15,000 ftMach number = 0.6

In total, 18 flying qualities items were addressed for 5 configurations in addition to the

baseline configuration with the results summarized in the performance summary sheet

of Figure 3.4.3-1, with illustrative data in Figures 3.4.3-2 through 3.4.3-4.

In a number of cases the flying qualities evaluation was again done by inspection(without detailed evaluation) where a specific effector would have no impact on the

result. (See the remarks for earlier sections.)

The majority of the analysis concentrated on the baseline vehicle or the rotating tailconfiguration since the other effectors did not generate the desired control power.

The baseline Model-24F configurations with vertical tails but without thrust vectoring,as tested, meets the Level 1 or pass criteria of the Military Specification, MIL-F-8785C,reviewed above, for 16 of the 18 conditions. It meets Level 2 criteria for one flightquality, short period frequency and acceleration sensitivity, and fails for one quality,longitudinal control in maneuvering flight. Failure to meet this requirement is mainlydue to the way the simulation analysis is performed in the simulation code RPAS. Thesimulation tries to hold the speed and the altitude while trimming at load factor. Thisresults in a solution where the flight path angle is varied. For a high load factor (Nz)very large negative flight path angles result, approaching -900 in limit. See Figure B-1in the Appendix B to the report. This result and its explanation holds true for all

configurations.

The rotating tail meets or exceeds Level 1 for all items except longitudinal control inmaneuvering flight. This failure is again mainly a result of the simulation as discussed

in the previous paragraph.

The simulation tries to hold a constant velocity. The dynamic maneuver where the

speed bleeds off is not a problem. There is plenty of control power.

40

Page 57: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The split ailerons and chine strakes (without vertical tails) fail (by inspection) to meet

the lateral-directional dynamics requirements. They do not generate required control

power for important flying qualities conditions.

The reader can review the remaining elements of the summary sheet, Figure 3.4.3-1,in a similar fashion. The rotating tail shows the overall best performance among the

effectors. The reader is to keep in mind that only the baseline configuration had a

vertical tail. For more details, see the data collected in Appendix B.

GW=27,000 lbs M = 0.6 Altitude = 15,000 ftI CONFIGUHATIONS

DESCRIPTION REQUIRMENS Baseline pl Chine F gotatng RotatingSOURCE no TV Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Split Tal+ Split

no TV no TV (rH = Ailerons Ailerons200/20o) no TV with TV

no TVPhugoid stabilty MIL-F-8785CL3.2a1. 2 Lee* ee

L-STD-1797A Level Level 1* Level I* Level 1"vel level 1§} 4.2. 1.1

I-light-path MIL-F-8785(;Stability § 3.2-1.3 pass Pass "

L-STD-1797A Pass Pass* pus pass*§ 4.3.1.2

Short-penod MIL-F-8785Cftequency and §32-2.1.1 Level2 Levei? Level? LevelI LevellI Levelacceleration MIL-STD-1797Asensitivt§4.-2

Shortpenod MIL-F-8785Cdamping §3.2-2.1.2 Level I L vlI e e Level 1

MIL-STD-1797A Level 1* Level 1"2 4.2-1.2

Longiudna MI L-t-8785C(contro iný 1VI.2.3.1 Pass pass pass PUSS

unaccelerated MIL-STD-1797A PassP pass*fliqlht §} 4.2.7.1

Longit di a MIL-F-8785Gcontrol in 3.2-3.2 Fall Fallmaneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Fall* Fail* Fal l* Fail*

§} 4.2-7.2

Lateral-directonal MIL-F-8785Coscillations §3.3.1.1 LDutch roll MIL-STD-1797A Level Fall* Fail* Level Level 1* Level 1

§4.1.11.7•4.6.1.1Roll mode MIL--8785G

§ 3.3.1.2 Level 1 Level 1LIL-STD-1797A Fail* Fall* l evel 1" Level I*§ 4.5. 1.1

Spiral mode MIL-F-878§ 3.3.1.3 Level 1 Level I

MIL-STD-1797A Fall* Fail* l evel 1" Level 1*§ 4.5.1.2

* Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.3-1a Air Combat Maneuver Comer Speed

41

Page 58: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Coupled roll-spiral MIL-1-8785Coscillation § 3.3.1.4 p nPtMIL-STD-1797A a Fail* FaU* PaP * Pa

§ 4.5.1.3

Roll rate MIL-F-8785Coscillations § 3.3.2.2 L I

MIL-STD-1797A Level Fail* Fail* Level Level 1* Level 1§ 4.5.1.4

Additional ronl rate MIL---8785Crequirements for § 3.3.2.21 Level F Level 1small inputs MIL-STD-1797A Fail* Fall* Level 1" Level 1"ý 4.5.1.4

Bank angle MIL-1-8785Coscillation §-3.3.2-3 Level 1 Level 1

MIL-STD-1797A Fail* Fail* Level 1* Level 1*§ 4.5.1.4

Sideslip MIL-LF-8785Gexcu rsions § 3.3.2 4 e 1L v l1MIL-STD-1797A lel1 Fail* Fail* eelI Level 1" Level 1"•}4.6.2

Additional sidelp MIL-t-8785(;requirements for § 3.3.2.4.1 p pa*small inputs MI L-STD-1 797A Fall5 Fall* Pass Pass§ 4.6.2

Turn coordinabon MIL---8785C§ I3 L-3 . 2- 6 P SP s a aML-STD-1797A Pa P Pass PUS§4.5.9.5.1

Roll control MIL---87853;'e ff c l~ e n e s s § 3 .3 .4L e e 1L e e 2L v l 2L v l 1MIL-STD-1797A Level Level 2 Level 2 Level Level 1* Level 1*

§ 4.5.8.1

Lateraj-directional MIL--8785Ccharacteristics in § 3.3.6 pass Fall Fal Passteady sideslip MIL-STD-1797A Pass Pass

§ 4.5.5§4.6.1.2

* Evaluated by inspection

Figure 3.4.3-1b Air Combat Maneuver Comer Speed

42

Page 59: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4I

-, ~ ~ ~ C -10-~e-UqF a..I ai

CDa

co ca~m.

Z 'Z ~-I4 go_ ]9-I.

_ IIv

494 _ 1 a- i ar Infig to. a

t. -* * 1 * i~ 43

Page 60: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

.. 130

owL

7 779-,- IHm -- r1

oI --- -S6 _0

44- L4- ua

of Ci =

- 14:~ 1. IIt

t1 I *.Ia.

-c-oo- C4--~--

~~ 0gj U -T '

44r

Page 61: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Oto4'o

zu

It I I I I 1 3an 14- Wit p inz on -

I~~ ~ ~ - -i 4 O

= us 9 0 -iIU - -

CDC

4D C -D:

c~a

@i0

COh

-I-k

- 00 to- -i -; 4; zw~ z -w Wi @4 T

I "d 4:0

us ~ I. *' I. ccu Nj U -LoI. -

P* us 0 ILI rsU uIEN = I -0

- -+- --. 4--5

Page 62: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.4 Penetration SpeedThe assessment of the flying qualities for penetration were conducted for low levelflight with the following conditions:

Vehicle gross weight = 27,000 lb.

Altitude - Sea levelEffective velocity ve = 600kts

For this flight regime 7 flying qualities were addressed for the 6 configurations (see

Figure 3.4.4-1). The flying qualities of the baseline vehicle which includes vertical tailsurfaces passes or reaches Level 1 for all but one of the flying qualities assessed. Thelongitudinal control in level flight condition attaining only Level 3. The origin of the

failure for this flying quality is related to the simulation and is consistent with its failurein other conditions. The reader is referred to the previous sections for further

discussion.

For the 5 effector configurations, evaluation on many cases could be again determinedby inspection. Where pass or Level 1 conditions were satisfied at one level, it isassumed to be achieved with additional effectors operative. The chine strakes andsplit ailerons configurations are assumed to fail since the data in Appendix B indicatethat the control power generated by these effectors will not compensate for the lack ofvertical tail control power.

Overall, only 12 of the 42 conditions evaluated failed to achieve pass or Level 1

assessment. The rotating tail being again very effective.

46

Page 63: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

GW = 27,000 lbs Ve = 600 kts Altitude = Sea Level

CONFIGURATIONSDESCRIPTON REQUIRMENTS Baseline t Chine Rotating Rotang Rotatin

SOURCE no TV Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Split Tail+ Splitno TV no TV (TH = Ailerons Ailerons

20'/20-) no TV with TV___ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ no'l"

Longitudnal MIL-F-8785C

control in § 3.2.3.1unacoelerated MIL-STD-1797A p Pa Pa Pass* Passflight § 4.2.7.1Longitiandlr MIL-F-8785Ccontrol in § 32.3.2 e 3 Lejel 3maneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Fail* Fail* Level 3* Level 3*

§ 4.2.7.2La-te-ra-drecdoa I--75oscillations § 3.3.1.1Dutch roll MIL-STD-1797A Level I Fail* Fail* Level 1 Level 1* Level 1

4.1.11.74.6.1.1

Roll mode MIL-F-8785C§3.3.1.2MIL-STD-1797A Level I Fail* Fail* Level 1 Level 1* Level 1"§ 4.5. 1.1

'piral mode MIL-1-8785G§ 3.3.1.3

MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fail* Fail* Level l Level 1 Level 1§ 4.5.1.2

Turn coordination MIL-F-8785C§3.3.26MIL-STD-1797A

4.5.9.5.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass4.6.7.2

Roll control MIL-F-8785Ceffectiveness §3.3.4

MIL-STD-1797A LOW 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1* Level 1*I § 4.5.8.1

• Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.4-1 Penetration Speed

47

Page 64: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-'00

I' C Caa a ~- a~ 4 l C4 - .

IJ i I I I i

40 n j a

-m 1it -C

C4 0i -Cu- -p2-- t Q i 0o

I C;0 I __ 0i *-_

o ~~10 IQ.oL c i A4D ~ ~~t ~--.

- 9L 6LI

5 '--N 48

Page 65: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

_I "

.1W II

" Li'-i _i _J Ii-- --

St ! I, • l At al 24.• I

I I II I i

-,. -' -.='I'1-°- • °"IIoo2

*Cý ZI

I .. *.. CV)

no-. • > At i . I-'

Ji -,Jr -" I

.1= - ,,,i .... - i,, r-. e , i i , ,..

i• .• T I • I i "i .2 € / // ,

to c

i~~ ! b-i i i I i • " , i

-Ii

* - P LI in

,-o 4 9

-_III - I, IE.,,

.. T,,-jm, i ! i i -

I I9.

Page 66: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.5 Maximum Sustained Load FactorThe maximum sustained load factor flying qualities assessment was conducted for the

following conditions:Vehicle gross weight = 27,000 lb.

Altitude = 30,000 ft

Mach number = 0.9

In total, for this flight condition, seven flying qualities items were addressed for fiveconfigurations in addition to the baseline configuration with the results summarized inthe performance summary sheet of Figure 3.4.5-1. Illustrative data are shown inFigures 3.4.5-2 and 3.4.5-3.

The majority of the analysis concentrated on the baseline vehicle or the rotating tailconfiguration since the other effectors did not generate the required control power.The baseline Model-24F configuration with vertical tails but without thrust vectoring, astested, meets the Level 1 or pass criteria of the Military Specification, MIL-F-8785C,reviewed above, for six of the seven conditions and fails for one flight quality item. Thefailure is again due to the simulation. The reader is referred to the discussion inSection 3.4.3.

The rotating tail meets or exceeds Level 1 for all items except longitudinal control inmaneuvering flight. Failure to meet this requirement is again mainly due to the waythe simulation analysis is performed in the simulation code RPAS as discussed in

Section 3.4.3.

The split ailerons and chine strakes (without vertical tails) fail to meet the lateral-directional dynamics requirements. They do not generate required control power forimportant flying qualities conditions.

The reader can summarize the remaining elements of the summary sheet of Figure3.4.5-1, in a similar fashion. The rotating tail shows the overall best performanceamong the effectors. The reader is to keep in mind that only the baseline configurationhad a vertical tail. For more details, see the data collected in Appendix B.

50

Page 67: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

GW = 27,000 lbs M 0.9 Altitude = 30,000 ft

CONFIGURATIONSUL)5UHIP I ION H-QUIHMENTS Basline ,Split Ghine Rotafing Rotatng Hoang

SOURCE no TV Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Split Tail+ Splitno TV no TV (1"H = Ailerons Ailerons

20-/20-) no TV with TV_____ _____ noW _ __

'LonglUdinal MIL-I--8785Ccontrol in § 3.2.3.1 P s a a sP sunacolerated MIL-STD-1797A pass pass*

flig ht § 4.2.7.1Longituinal MIL-F-8785Ccontrol in § 3.2.3.2 Fmaneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Fall Fail* Fail* Fail Fall* Fal*

J4.27.2Laterai-directionai M 85(oscillations § 33.1.1Dutch roll MIL-STD-1797A

§4.1.11.7 Level I Fail* Fail* Level I Level 1 Level 1"S4.6.1.1

Roll mode MIL---8785U§ 3.3.1.2MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fail* Fail* Level 1 Level I* Level 1i24.5.1.11

Spiral mode MIL-F-8785C§ 3.3.1.3MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fail* Fail* Level Level 1" Level I*§} 4.5.1.2

Control ot sideslip MIL-F-8785(in r o lls § 3 .3 .2 -51 3 1 8P a sp sP nMIL-STD-1797A Pass Pass

Ro control4.6.7.1Roll cnlzol MIL-F-8785ueffectiveness § 3.3.4

MIL-STD-1797A Level I Level I Level I Level 1 Level I* Level 1I 4.5.8.1

* Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.5-1 Maximum Sustained Load Factor

51

Page 68: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

w -

cow

C) i la in

4F 4W 7c

C4 4 0

IL Z

C 40 4 co

~~_ 16 -

n 52

Page 69: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

ii7 I Y

-u 7-- -T-

Dg~~~~I _j~1

1

co -]0 -

m co- PI CF) . -

0 0

II' 5 1 I T.-

.1 R9 -mma cc

.7 -'1

-I'P Il

1~~~ Ne'11 !

£~ U 53

Page 70: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.4.6 Supersonic ConditionThe supersonic condition flying qualities assessment was conducted for the following

conditions:Vehicle gross weight = 27,000 lb.

Altitude = 35,000 ft

Mach number = 2.0

In total, for this flight condition seven flying qualities items were addressed for fiveconfigurations in addition to the baseline configuration with the results summarized inthe performance summary sheet of Figure 3.4.6-1 based on data as illustrated inFigures 3.4.6-2 and 3.4.6-3..

The majority of the analysis concentrated on the baseline vehicle or the rotating tailconfiguration since the other effectors did not generate the required control power. Thebaseline Model-24F configurations with vertical tails but without thrust vectoring, astested, meets the Level 1 or pass criteria of the Military Specification, MIL-F-8785C,reviewed above, for six of the seven conditions and meets Level 3 quality for oneflying quality item, longitudinal control in maneuvering flight. The failure is again dueto the simulation and the reader is referred to Section 3.4.3.

The rotating tail meets or exceeds Level 1 for all items except longitudinal control inmaneuvering flight where it attains only Level 3. Failure to meet this requirement isagain mainly due to the way the simulation analysis is performed in the simulationcode RPAS as discussed in Section 3.4.3.

The split ailerons (without vertical tails) fail to meet the lateral-directional dynamicsrequirements as they do not generate the required control power for important flyingquality conditions. The chine strakes are most useful at high angles of attack which isnot part of this flight regime.

The reader can summarize the remaining elements of the summary sheet, Figure3.4.6-1, in a similar fashion. The rotating tail shows the overall best performanceamong the effectors. The reader is to keep in mind that only the baseline configurationhad a vertical tail. For more details, see the data collected in Appendix B.

54

Page 71: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

GW = 27,000 lbs M= 2.0 Altitude = 35,000 ft

CONFIGURATIONSRHQUIHMENT5 99sene Spht Chine Rotating Hotating Rotatr

SOURCE no TV Ailerons Strakes Tail Tail+ Split Tail+ SplitDESCRIPTION no TV no TV ("H = Ailerons Ailerons

20'/20o) no TV with TVnorTV

LongItucrnal MIL-F-8785Ccontrol in § 3.2.3.1unaccelerated MIL-STD-1797A PM pass Pass Pan Pass' Passflight § 4.2.7.1Longitudinl MIL-I--8785Ccontrol in §3.2.3.2maneuvering flight MIL-STD-1797A Level 3 Fail* Fail* Leve 3 Level 3' Level 3'§ 4.2.7.2

Latal--drec o MIL-F-878 Uoscillations §3.3.1.1Dutch roll MIL-STD-1797A

4.1.11.7 Level 1 Fall* Fall Level I Level 1" Level 1l14.6.1.1

'Roll m-ode MIL-F-87='S§ 3.3.1.2

MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fail* Fail* Level 1 Level 1' Level 19 4.5. 1.1Spiral mode MIL-F-87§ 3.3.1.3

MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Fall* Fal* Level 1 Level 1" Level 1",,§ 94.5.1.2urum coordiabon MIL-a-8785o

§ 3.3.2-6ML-STD-1797A§ 4.5.9.5.1 pam pam Pam Pem pam Pass*94.6.7.2

Roll control MIL-F-8785Ceffec~eness § 3.3.4MIL-STD-1797A Level 1 Level I Level I Level 1 Level 1 Leve•l *

§ 4.5.8.1

Evaluated by Inspection

Figure 3.4.6-1 Supersonic Condition

55

Page 72: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-10

4-0

* . . . 4= .9 z

90 40 Cal C C C

*U a0 P- a a -L

-- .J. ... > J . ........ L

o It-~I C

be -A U6S

mu P- T

1' 0

* I fa. fC

U I I + 0 -

~~0 ;

-- ~ -~56'

Page 73: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I 9. I I J

_ _-_ 1

-4~ rccM -.

CID

rl,, t,

kt~ I

I do0 jC

- I57

Page 74: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.5 Carrier Suitability PerformanceThe landing and takeoff carrier suitability assessment of three navalized versions ofModel-24F were done using RPAS, MEATBALL and CAT2 analysis tools. RPAS is aBoeing product that was developed to provide a fully functional 6 degree of freedomsimulation for testing, analysis and real time simulation in minimum time. MEATBALLis a 3 degree of freedom carrier approach performance program designed for the Navyby LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. All the carrier approach criteria studiedwere analyzed using either RPAS or MEATBALL and in some cases both were usedand then compared. RPAS and MEATBALL are not capable of analyzing carrier

launch criteria.

A conceptual design tool called CAT2 was used to estimate carrier launch wind over

deck for the baseline and rotating tails configurations. It simplifies catapult launch bymaking approximations of landing gear and control system effects. The effect of nosewheel pitch off is accounted for and it estimates launch performance with minimuminputs. The same geometry, weights, force and moment coefficient data were supplied

as applicable to each analysis tool.

The three configurations studied were the Navy baseline, a rotating tail version of theNavy baseline and the rotating tail configuration with split ailerons and thrustvectoring. The Navy Model-24F is a scaled-up version of the baseline Air ForceModel-24F. The following table shows the differences between the two aircraft:

Basic Navalized

Model -24F Model -24F

WingArea - ft2 .465 650

MAC - ft 17.408 20.583

Span - ft 311.98 37.82

lxx - slug-ft2 22,000 33,000

lyy - slug-ft2 85,000 175,000

.zz ------ slug._ft2 ....... .. . 101,000 179,000

-Landing Weighjt __ 1b. 25,000 31,950

Normal Approach Speed - kts 1 32 135

Table 3.5-1

58

Page 75: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The same aerodynamic database was used for all three Navy configurations. TheModel-24F aerodynamic coefficient database is a combination of wind tunnel data andpredicted estimates.

Ten landing maneuvers were assessed for all three configurations. Vision over thenose, pop-up, wave-off, longitudinal acceleration and flight path stability wereevaluated using both MEATBALL and RPAS. Pitch control power, cross wind landing,roll performance, minimum control speed with one engine out, dutch roll frequencyand damping for Level 1 flying qualities were all analyzed with RPAS. The criteriaassessment was done using only RPAS for the thrust vectoring model. Theassumptions made for all analyses were as follows:

RPAS MEATBALL

ALTITUDE 600 FT 600 FT

ATMOSPHERE STANDARD DAY TROPICAL DAY

GLIDE SLOPE/MIRROR ANGLE - DEG. -4o 40

PILOT RESPONSE TIME (WAVE-OFF) 0.7 SECONDS 0.7 SECONDS

CG LOCATION 38% MAC 38% MAC

LANDING GEAR DOMW DO

LE FLAPS 300 300

TE FLAPS 300 300

DIHEDRAL - ROTATING TAILS 200/200 200/200

Table 3.5-2

In MEATBALL, each analysis is initiated with the aircraft trimmed at 1.1 times thepower-on stall speed. MEATBALL iterates to find the lowest approach airspeed whichmeets the specific maneuver requirement. There is an option to specify approachspeed in MEATBALL for the pop-up and wave-off maneuvers. Unfortunately, theprogram did not always converge to a solution at the user specified speed. The trimspeed is chosen by the user in RPAS. All RPAS runs were all done at an approachspeed of 135 knots.

59

Page 76: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The pilot must see the carrier stern (waterline) in level flight while intercepting a 4

degree glide path at an altitude of 600 feet to meet the vision over the noserequirement. The nose geometry must be modified from its current pilot view angle of

15 degree to 19.2 degrees to meet this requirement.

The pop-up maneuver requires the aircraft be able to transition 50 feet above the

original glide path within 5 seconds with no throttle movement. Both the baseline andthe rotating tail configurations were analyzed in MEATBALL and RPAS for thismaneuver. Both configurations pass the maneuver but the results between the twoprograms vary slightly because RPAS includes a 6 degree of freedom control system

and a more detailed engine model. Figure 3.5-1 shows the RPAS result and Figure3.5-2 contains the comparison between the MEATBALL and RPAS solutions. The

thrust vectoring configuration was not evaluated for this maneuver or for wave-off.

In a wave-off, the arresting hook point altitude loss can not exceed 30 feet. The

MEATBALL wave-off program terminates when the hook sink and glide slope anglechanges sign. Figure 3.5-3 shows the RPAS results with varying wind over deck andFigure 3.5-4 contains the comparison between the MEATBALL and RPAS solutions atzero wind over deck. The RPAS solution does not meet the requirement for eitherconfiguration at zero knots wind over deck as shown on Figure 3.5-3. However, thewave-off requirement can be obtained with 20 knots wind over deck for bothconfigurations. The MEATBALL result for the baseline just barely meets therequirement and fails badly for the rotating tails as drawn in Figure 3.5-4. The

comparisons between the two analysis tools do not agree for the same reasons listed

under the pop-up maneuver discussion.

A level flight acceleration of 5 ft/s 2 within 2.5 seconds of throttle movement is requiredto meet the longitudinal acceleration criteria. The baseline, the rotating tail and therotating tail with thrust vectoring configurations passed this requirement by a largemargin at an approach speed of 135 knots in the RPAS solution, see Figure 3.5-5.MEATBALL does not provide a time history only a single point result at the end of the2.5 seconds. There is no user specified approach speed capability in MEATBALL for

this maneuver. The program uses the lowest speed at which it can meet therequirement. At an approach speed of 104 knots for the baseline, MEATBALL

assessed a longitudinal acceleration of 12.76 ft/s 2 after 2.5 seconds. The difference in

60

Page 77: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Cal

-1-.

tI u

co wa 34

0 0

.b CA. -

CNI:CL Ll ev c a, V. CNcca

C5

CLC

I n~

C:4 g-3-i ~ 'U- . ~ CDI *~ ~A

E61

Page 78: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-j =j

co -* m ~I- 3-

a

041440

Ez

wt--I- *~'~ T.

- .. - -- - -- 4 - ! .-J

80 -Tw

I IA

o o

~, I 0 62

Page 79: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-I--m -- -c

1d 1us- 4

4-4S

-~ ~ ~ 0 --j.L.~

'I I I -

I- - I- t0 1 1d 1

0

CIS-

am~ Il 691

PIT ()ii E3

7 114 w w''

-i Wi

t

0 63

Page 80: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

r .. U00 ~C2,4 CC

C, 004

tz 4 -C -C -K 0C

z 0 ca

cc - I-o Z. 20

z02 zJU, 0 U

~, I;; Q

en Clz

C#2 _____a. ~ I14

/Z I

L_ L

z b.-.

99

64.

Page 81: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

U) -ic

z0 0 q

us 0 c~

w .0 0 *

U. w ww 00-j

U U .2 C) aM a E

- -.- xw

an t

~o ~.usC.1

U I

4 ft ODTC' C' .1 z

~~~~ C.)~I +W

I IIu S

+j -K

a- f 65

Page 82: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

approach speed probably accounts for most of the difference between the twoprograms solutions. This requirement was not met using MEATBALL for the rotating

tail configuration.

If an approach is made on the backside of the thrust required curve or on the unstableportion of the flight path stability curve, then A&y/8v must be less than 0.05degrees/knot. It is desirable to land at a speed where 8 y/Sv is not neutral.

LEVEL 1 8 y/Sv < 0.06 deg./kt.LEVEL2 3I/8v < 0.15deg./kt.

LEVEL3 8y/8v < 0.24deg./kt.

This guideline was analyzed in both RPAS and MEATBALL. Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7

contain the flight path stability results for the analyses. MEATBALL gives the minimumapproach speed where the criteria are meet for each level. These points are plottedwith the RPAS curves for the baseline and rotating tails configuration in Figure 3.5-6.Both configurations pass the criteria using either analysis tool. The MEATBALL pointsand the RPAS A y/1v curves for all three configurations are on Figure 3.5-7. Thecomparison of Sy/3v for the baseline, rotating tails and rotating tails plus thrustvectoring are also plotted on Figure 3.5-7. The thrust vectoring configuration doesmeet the requirement and was not analyzed using MEATBALL.

The high angle of attack pitch recovery requirement of q = -0.07 rad/sec2 in 1 second

and the NAVAIR Control Power Guideline that a nose-down pitch acceleration __ 0.2rad/sec2 be obtained within 1 second were analyzed using RPAS. Only the rotatingtail thrust vectoring configuration met both criteria as shown on Figure 3.5-8. Thebaseline and rotating tails configurations fail to meet these criteria.

An aircraft must maintain a steady heading in sideslip for landing in a 90 degree, 30knot cross wind. No more than 75% of maximum roll authority should be used toachieve landing success for this condition. Figure 3.5-9 shows the baselineconfiguration passes this requirement for angles of attack under 15.3 degrees. Therotating tails configuration also meets this requirement but only for angles of attackless than 11.9 degrees which is below the approach angle of attack of 12.7 degrees.The thrust vectoring configuration is able to perform this maneuver for all angles of

attack analyzed. These results are displayed on Figure 3.5-10.

66

Page 83: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0 ~ .------ - ---

zU -I- co.IL

ca i0 U4 2i

-J __

4-..

-. Ix

7-, L 4

_jj-cc K-.

LL, CL 10

uLu

1j -U

_67

Page 84: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

CF I

8--

44 g-C-0u (nWC(

LJ I- I

@)1UU4 -4 -

Wil TT

-TLCV):

IIAmu

0 68

Page 85: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

wa

t) z -A 4Q i I C

I,==

0 C40 -

C , a c

= I0.

IZ

II

i .

UII Si i=•

CIO I d

ZfI.

69c

00@

1A-i 1w.:110

CD -I-!-m

691

Page 86: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I-

cc 4

I -4 -

to -ix .

I I-z -- ----

C)-

.L ......

C I~ A.

0K 1 7H L 1 1

~~1~~70

Page 87: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

UU

M1~~ 4

0U a

7K -44 C4

0930

I-L

44 . 4-

U.:Cu

I--

* aa 71

Page 88: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The expected roll performance for a carrier aircraft is as follows:

300 Bank Angle in 1.1 Second at a app

200 Bank Angle in 1.1 Second at aapp plus 40

100 Bank Angle in 1.1 Second at Maximum Angle of Attack

Roll performance was evaluated using the RPAS tool. The baseline is lacking the roll

power to meet this requirement. The baseline barely passes the 10 degree bankangle requirement at 22 degrees angle of attack and fails the 20 and 30 degreerequirements. Figure 3.5-11 shows the comparison of the baseline, rotating tails and

thrust vectoring configurations time to bank performance. The rotating tailsconfiguration does not meet any of the three criteria. The thrust vectoring model

almost meets the 30 degree criteria and does meet the 20 or 10 degree criteria.

The dutch roll frequency, od, , shall exceed 0.4 radians/second and the minimum

damping, 4 d , should be greater than 1.0 following a yaw disturbance. This

maneuver was done in RPAS at an approach speed of 135 knots with a 3 degree betarelease. None of the three configurations had difficulty meeting the dutch rollfrequency as shown on Figure 3.5-12. The frequencies and damping terms

associated with this plot are as follows:

CONFIGURATION Cond /• eY c'd

Baseline 2.32 0.771Rotating Tails 2.187 0.796RT + TV 2.068 0.723

The minimum control speed, Vmc, must be at least 5 knots below the poweredapproach speed with one engine out. The Model-24F baseline has only one engine.For this analysis, it was assumed Model-24F contained two engines located side byside located in the same inlet as the one engine configuration. Each engine center is19 inches from the aircraft centerline. This analysis was performed using the RPASsimulation. Figure 3.5-13 contains the control surface deflections required to maintain

control with one engine out. There is sufficient control with either the baseline or

rotating tail configurations at 5 knots below the power approach speed of 135 knots.

This concludes the 10 landing maneuvers evaluated for this study.

72

Page 89: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0-0 a. M F-mz azz

wosoW0. -Wf

zJ-f - Z E-OK ~ 00

40Z. z 0 w m

0) :1 I - w zU

c 0 01-402-

ca1- 001

A LU 40~

avi -1.- -

-0- z, tU ---

C4 i

_Ali I

JA. 0 I

A -

00 Lb

C22CD c-

cn a

Ia 00 z0

I i I73

Page 90: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Landing ApproachGW s 31,900 LBS

ALT. x 600 FTV.5 135 KTSCG 38% MAC

14AA'GL___

A GL: _

Baseline-------- Rotating Tall (20120)Rotating Tall with TV

IT1AC~

t ~i* : TIME (,SEC),0 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7.

Figure 3.5- 12 Dutch Roi Characteristcs

74

Page 91: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Fi

Wo

I IXoaC- -L---

CA I-

~ - ~ FieI'. I0=

50I U '-4-i.-z --

~ao I I cc

U. -C C

Tr- L T

1-- -. C. o

i cc

zW -.L*- -0-O - * C

75 --- '

Page 92: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Two takeoff criteria were estimated with the CAT2 program. The first states the aircraftcenter of gravity must not sink more than 10 feet off the bow of the carrier after acatapult launch. The second is the aircraft longitudinal acceleration should be greaterthan 0.065 g at the end of a catapult stroke. Figure 3.5-14 presents the time historyresults obtained from CAT2 analysis tool. The center of gravity does not sink below 10feet off the deck at takeoff gross weight for either configuration. Level acceleration isgreater than 0.065 g at the minimum end airspeed. The speed at launch is 157.4

knots for the baseline and 159.8 knots for the rotating tails configuration.

The original Model-24F was not designed for carrier use nor was it intended to fly

without vertical tails. This study shows that none of the three configurations are

acceptable for carrier operations. All the configurations would require geometricchanges to the nose and cockpit for the vision over the nose criterion. The rotating tail

configuration does meet most of the carrier suitability items evaluated, but, it needsthrust vectoring to meet the pitch down and roll rate requirements. A carrier suitableaircraft can be achieved by further modifying either the baseline or the rotating tails

configurations by resizing the horizontal tails to meet the requirements where theycurrently fail. Resizing the tail surface will reduce the stabilizer deflection required totrim, provide more pitch down capability and increase the yaw and roll controlavailable for roll performance.

Results are summarized in Figure 3.5-15

76

Page 93: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I Ii - I

C)C- -ii ~

CIA. .w

It.4-

I I71

c -1

"I I D

ii C

.-- 4-

z 0 - 3 "

o o U.LL t 4I0 LAS~ -

CC -[ ±77

Page 94: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

p -J

QC c N..U (D C.)

LL.O ca C'J

>* B 0

> CD0 0.

C, -60Q0 r

U, 0 6 0 -0~-C C*C oJ !

o ~ ~ ~ L Co 01).ES ~CCt v >0 0 4 4

C) >t CD.J *

w L a cr "-n ~ M Col CoCo Co D0

~> 000

IL 0 0L LLCL0

Lu Ljwi0 V E0r, 0)

Cco C0 (2 C00 0 0 - 9aV

Z V 00 . -

ca >~ tsCDLL 00

c.i A Lc

q0

0 0 E (

EU coo 0 -

C. I--..2 - . Z- C (

M N (000 CE lla~ ~ 0 COwr sE A cca S ~ trE cc C0

Lu <0 ;ý_ -D<2= 20L-2 -- . - .- o* C0C

0 cy < 0 0ý30*l aooi 3. OAL

5(3 < _ -53iC 0 -

a 79:5 & 2 tmcoo

Lt- 0.i C w

* L-E -0 T ...< CL CL

-l =C CL CL-c M~ (v a-~ ~ o 0 00 2 E E

0-) W r 'm.

w t c 178

Page 95: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Z C C)

Q) -W If -j

a4 . z .. M -0L -J 0

0 -U 0

ILj >( I0 0. [L - Z > r

0 0 0. 0

0) 0L L 0 0: 0a

_j~~ P0ý 00 00 j TL-C -! 01 LL

0 , o0-;q O

I- CL= I . I*C I (A .0 U) C)' qC

CL- J z0 (A Qi M 0-> m .zIL.. CW <J 0C .J > 'cm C -> C? >CL > > 0I

in W~ 00 & 0 ~ 0' . -'

IL ma -l

U..c I. L4oc > > -~4U 4 0 1 4U v jti I wia -c ;;

Z AtS. CLC

> O ILl >.

LL 0

oN < < <

4 .O

>l cc scn

0 - I

(x .2 0) -6 0 C

U 16

.0 002t

LU S & ~ J00 * a 0 . CM

(D .- a

UJ> C (D c . ~ I 0£0 QCO :a :E -2 -)

_ -.0 E~ 0

0 0 C% 16 cm -CD cm

0J o.jE 1E -8 -8 -

U') 79

Page 96: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

3.6 Summary of Performance Study

The three effectors studied were split ailerons, chine strakes, and a rotating tail

concept. The handling qualities of the baseline Model-24F configuration with vertical

tails was evaluated to provide a performance reference. The effectors were then

evaluated individually with the vertical tail removed. Additional configurations made

up of combinations of effectors, the rotating tail together with the split ailerons (vertical

tail removed), the rotating tail together with split ailerons and thrust vectoring (vertical

tail removed) were included in the study.

The performance of the effectors was evaluated against MIL-F-8785C and MIL-STD-

1797A including a total of 56 flight conditions and flying quality items being evaluated

for each configuration. The study was conducted with a flight controls system

optimized for each configuration including the baseline. The same basic concept of

total integrated control assets was used for all configurations. No control force criteriawere evaluated as it is assumed that a tailored artificial feel system will be used.

The study used the Boeing RPAS system using the aerodynamic data base for the

baseline Model-24F appropriately modified to include the effectors to be evaluated.

Trims and time histories were run at the specific flight conditions chosen for the

evaluation. The performance was evaluated with an operational flight control system

as the tailless Model-24F configuration is unstable at aft center of gravity longitudinallyfor subsonic speeds and directionally at all speeds. The aerodynamic data base waslimited in angle of attack to the range -40 to 220 and in sideslip to the range -100 to

+100. Simplified engine and mass models were used. Simplified actuator models

were also used, however, rate and position limiting were included.

The rotating tail evaluation was conducted for a fixed dihedral (FH = 200/200). The

aerodynamic data base allows independent positioning of left and right sides of thetail. The inclusion of horizontal tail dihedral angle as a control variable results in

complications for trim and control inputs requiring more reources to resolve than is

available in this study. Additional wind tunnel testing is required to determine optimalangle settings for various flight conditions.

The rotating tail configuration, the baseline configuration with thrust vectoring, and the

rotating tail with thrust vectoring configuration were evaluated for carrier suitability. To

80

Page 97: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

approximate a potential Navy aircraft the wing area, span, mean aerodynamic chord,weights and inertias of the Model-24F were modified. However, The aerodynamic database coefficient data were not modified nor was the flight control systems modified.The carrier suitability study concentrated on takeoff and approach. The Navyconfiguration was not evaluated for up and away flight conditions. The computer codesMEATBALL, CAT2 and RPAS were used for this evaluation with 13 carrier suitabilityitems investigated. Unfortunately MEATBALL and CAT2 can not handle thrustvectoring. The RPAS program was used to duplicate some MEATBALL calculationsand their comparisons are presented.

The Rotating Tail appears to be a viable concept being nearly as effective as thebaseline Model-24F. The split ailerons and chine strakes are not viable concepts forthis configuration since they produce too little yawing moment. There is just notenough control volume for split ailerons to be effective, and the chine strakes noteffective at nominal angles of attack. Thrust vectoring improves overall performancewhich combined with the rotating tail can produce a tailless configuration withacceptable flying qualities at low thrust levels or with vectoring inoperative.

The findings are summarized in the Figure 3.6-1 below. The lateral-directionaldynamics requirements failed badly for the aileron and the chine strake.

Configuration Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 fail % level 1 oror Pass pass

Baseline-no TV 45 3 3 5* 80%

Split Ailerons-noTV 17 3 0 36 30%

Chine Strakes-no T V 17 3 0 36 30%Rotating Tail (rH=200 /200 )

no TV 43 2 0 8* 77%Rotating Tail + Split

Ailerons no TV 43 2 0 8* 77%Rotating Tail + Split

Ailerons with TV 48 1 0 5* 86%*Majority due to aerodynamic data base limits

Figure 3.6-1 Flight Condition and Flying Qualities Items

81

Page 98: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.0 Task 3- Effector Integration Study

4.1 Effector Integration OverviewThe integration aspects of innovative control effectors can significantly affect theresults of any overall assessment of a given control device. When assessing thefeasibility of a device, the ability of the designer to incorporate innovative controlconcepts into a design without significantly compromising other aspects of the designmust be an achievable goal. Integration technologies may vary in relative importance

for any given effector design, but the main players generally include actuation,structures (load path), weight, signature, cost/affordability, and reliability,maintainability, and supportability (RM&S). Any device with significant shortcomingsin any of the above mentioned areas may present insurmountable problems for the

designer and prevent incorporation into the design. For the devices of interest, themost significant challenge is to integrate the rotating horizontal tail concept so that thepenalties associated with it do not offset any potential benefits. For this reason, muchof the integration task will be focused on this effector.

The primary objective of this contract is to develop control effectors that will facilitate

elimination of the vertical tails. Benefits in weight/range and RCS can be obtained byremoving the vertical tails. Figure 4.1-1 summarizes the benefits of removing thevertical tails completely in terms of RCS and vehicle aerodynamic drag. For the

baseline Model 24F vehicle, removing the vertical tails would provide a net weightimprovement of 645 lbs including the removal of structure, LO treatment, and actuation

systems. Additional benefits can also be obtained in terms of cost and RM&S by areduction in overall part count. These benefits are offset by the addition of control

effectors to the configuration. Using a concept such as the rotating horizontal tail maystill provide a benefit in some technology areas.

4.1.1 Chine Strake IntegrationThe challenges to integrating this concept onto the baseline configuration includeallowances for radar installations, the proximity to the cockpit area, the large angularmotion from retracted to fully deployed positions and the location near the chine line.The problem of location on the forebody is critical to this type of effector because thecloser the device can be deployed to the nose, the more effective it will be.Unfortunately, forward looking radar also covets this position and placing control

82

Page 99: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Vertical tall drag increment Signature.0040

P50 (v) - db

SSector With vertical tail WithoutS.0020

Forward -38.3 -40.5

Side -11.7 -14.2

Aft -22.4 -23.0

00 1.0 2.0 3.0

Mach number -AM

Figure 4. 1- 1. Benefits From Removing Vertical Tail

devices forward of the radar will have significant adverse effects on the performance ofthe radar. Moving the device location back from the nose along the chine line willreduce control effectiveness, and placing them alongside the cockpit will either

displace other equipment best located near the pilot, or increase the volume in thecockpit area, impacting wave drag. The problem with the chine line itself is that oflocating a hinge line that will still place the deployed surface close to the chine andmeet any setback requirements to accommodate signature technology. This devicesignificantly affected the forward sector signature characteristics which aresummarized in Figure 4.5-1. As shown in Figure 4.1.1-1, the location selected for thiseffector compromises the aerodynamic performance in order to accommodate theseintegration concerns. Since the effect on performance in the flight regime studied was

deemed to be significantly below desired capabilities for inclusion in future fighters,this concept was not fully studied beyond this conceptual integration.

-C2

Figure 4.1.1-1. Chine Strake Installation

83

Page 100: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.1.2 Split Aileron IntegrationIn integrating the split ailerons onto the baseline vehicle, the major concerns were thethickness of the outboard wing and the actuation concept. Several actuation conceptswere proposed, including a torque tube extended into the body, rotary actuators, and

the design shown in Figure 4.1.2-1, a bank of linear actuators to deploy the surfaces.The torque tube concept had several potentially fatal flaws. The major problem was

that the response characteristics required for this system to operate correctly wouldhave required stiffening the tube, a sizeable weight penalty, and moving the aft sparforward to accommodate the tube, reducing the size of the spar box and againresulting in a weight penalty. However, this arrangement could be made to fit within

the current wing surface definition. The rotary actuator concept had a serious flaw inthat the hinge moment requirements resulted in an actuator with a diameter that wasover twice that of the wing at the inboard aileron location. The bump fairing that would

be required to accommodate this arrangement would create a significant "deadband"in the actuation of these devices and also increase aerodynamic drag considerably.The design chosen, the linear actuators, still required a significant fairing to providethe necessary clearance for the system. This fairing will reduce the effectiveness ofthis device but not as severely as the rotary concept. An additional 483 lbs. is requiredto integrate this concept onto the baseline vehicle, including allowances for additionalstructure and actuators. This device significantly affected the overall signature of thisvehicle as shown in Figure 4.5-1.

-C-3

Figure 4.1.2-1. Split Aileron Installation

84

Page 101: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.1.3 Rotating Horizontal Tail IntegrationThe rotating horizontal tail also presents significant challenges to the designer tointegrate this concept successfully onto the baseline vehicle. Two integrationconcepts were studied, the first concept included three rotary actuators to pivot theentire horizontal tail, and resulted in a weight increase of 1457 lbs., for a net increase(allowing for removal of the vertical tails) of 812 lbs. For illustrations of the earlyattempts to integrate the rotating tail, see Appendix D, Figure D-10. The secondconcept, shown in Figure 4.1.3-1, included a redesign of the internal pivotingarrangement and a single rotary actuator. This installation concept resulted in a netincrease in vehicle weight of 72 lbs., a significant improvement over the first concept.The primary reason for this weight improvement is in the actuator design philosophy.The structure must still be designed to accept the ultimate design loads, but anactuator can be replaced when it reaches its design cycle life. When sizing a rotaryactuator to take a load, the frequency of occurrence of that load significantly affects theactuator size and therefore weight. For the range of loads anticipated for this design,the sizing chart is presented in Figure 4.1.3-2. If the actuation system is designed tohold the load of 3,000,000 in-lbs for 8000 cycles, the actuators would have to weigh572 lbs/side. If the actuators are sized to hold the design load one time, then theactuators can be reduced in weight to 250 lbs/side. This reduced size actuator couldstill accommodate a load of 1,000,000 in-lbs approximately 20,000 times. Designingto a philosophy allowing for periodic actuator replacement can result in significantweight benefits. For aircraft that have low utilization rates, or are infrequently operatedat the ultimate design load for the actuator, significant benefits can be achieved byinvoking this philosophy. Many advanced fighter designs are using this philosophy toimprove overall system performance. A more detailed analysis of both of theseintegration concepts is included in Appendix D. The signature aspects of this effectorare summarized in Figure 4.5-1.

Ti upper sidn

Rotary hinge Inboard spindle

TI webs actuator bern nsaltoTI Outboard sindbeaing

"TI c lowerupper G'fEp

blade

seals

Gr/Ep HC Forward hinge Rotary hinge

faiing skin Gr/Ep torque tube torque tube Stabilizer T At hinge torquebearin .ube bern

faig knchannel bearing installation actuator tub earing

installation

Stabilizer spindle

Figure 4.1.3-1. Rotating horizontal Tail Installation

85

Page 102: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

CONSTANT ACTUATOR SIZE

_ea ASSUMPTIONS:

:29 9-0998,000 HOURS LIFE9 C" R 114 e-4 .8 g VEHICLE

100000000....

10000000_

100000 -wI -----

p 10000

z

1000

10

0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000STABILIZER ROTATIONAL HINGE MOMENT - IN LBFigure 4. 1.3-2 Cycles vs. Hinge Moment -

86

Page 103: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.2 Actuation StudyThe problems of actuating a device include consideration for the type of powersource(s) available, the range, type, and rate of motion required, and the design load.Understanding the options available will allow the designer to select an actuationscheme which best fits his design. Various types of actuators are described in this

section.

Power Source The form of power supplied to any of these actuators can be electrical,hydraulic, mechanical power-take-off (i.e. shaft from engine) or pneumatic. Present

day fighter aircraft utilize distributed electrical and hydraulic-power systems. Whenrequired, mechanical power is generated at the location needed (i.e. not distributed)

by conversion of power from the electrical or hydraulic systems. Pneumatic powersystems have not found wide use or acceptance as a source of power for actuation offlight control surfaces found on fighter aircraft.

Pneumatic Power Reservoir-type pneumatic systems are usually utilized for "blow

down" systems (e.g., landing gear extension for emergencies) or are utilized forpowering of functions having low or short duration duty-cycle requirements. Hence,the reservoir-type of pneumatic system is not suitable for the duty-cycle requirementsthat are anticipated relative to the subject of ICE.

Bleed-air type pneumatic systems, which utilize bleed air from the engine, were notfound to be acceptable because of reduced performance in the following areas:Engine To maximize engine thrust, present day aircraft designers prefer to

minimize or eliminate the use of bleed air by other systems. Pneumatic

systems utilize a percentage of bleed air from the main enginepowerplant for driving pneumatic systems. Hence, pneumatic systemsrepresent a degradation of engine performance.

R&M Reliability and maintainability are degraded because of high-temperature operation and poor lubricating qualities of bleed air. Thesetwo characteristics work together to produce an erosive, wear-proneenvironment for pneumatic system components. Consequently, electricaland hydraulic systems are more reliable and require less maintenance

than pneumatic systems.Dynamics The dynamic response and stability of pneumatic systems are less than

electrical or hydraulic systems because of the compressibility of air.

87

Page 104: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Hence, flutter requirements anticipated for flight controls would farexceed the capabilities of a pneumatic-driven system.

In summary, pneumatically-powered actuators were considered an unacceptable

alternative to electrically or hydraulically-powered actuators.

Mechanical Power Distributed mechanical power (i.e., shaft) transmitted by the use oftorque shafts and gear-boxes from the main engine powerplant was not considered apractical option for driving the subject ICE. The rationale include:

Packaging The physical envelope required for routing, placement, and operation of

torque-shafts and gearboxes does not provide for physically compactsystem installations or acceptable systems integration within the small

outer mold lines which are characteristic of fighter aircraft.R&M The reliability and maintainability of these systems are less than the

alternative power systems. The degraded R&M is primarily due to thereliability and servicing requirements associated with poorly accessible

components such as torque shafts and couplings utilized in thesemechanical systems.

In summary, mechanically-powered actuators driven by distributed mechanicalsystems are an unacceptable option for the tail mounted ICE application.

Electrical powe Any of the actuators listed in Figure 4.2-1 can be driven by the aircraftelectrical power systems. The required power conversion is accomplished by one ormore electrical motors which drive gearing elements that provide power to theactuator. Electrical actuators can be placed into the following three categories:EHA Electrohydrostatic Actuators consist of a bi-directional, variable speed

electrical motor, constant-displacement hydraulic pump, fluid,accumulator, valves, and a hydraulically powered actuator. Hence, theEHA is an actuator combined with a self contained hydraulic system.This self-contained hydraulic system operates with variable-pressure andvariable-flow to efficiently match the load and rate requirements neededfor moving an actuator to a commanded position.

88

Page 105: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

No. Category Power source Output motion Conversion device

1 Hydraulic Hydraulic Rotary Vane

2 EHA Electrical Rotary Vane

3 Hydraulic Hydraulic Rotary Helically-splined piston

4 EHA Electrical Rotary Helically-splined piston

5 Hydraulic Hydraulic Rotary Recirculating ball6 EHA Electrical Rotary Recirculating ball

7 Mechanical Hydraulic Rotary Motor-driven planetary

8 EMA Electrical Rotary Motor-driven planetary

9 Hydraulic Hydraulic Linear Piston

10 EHA Electrical Linear Piston

11 Mechanical Hydraulic Linear Motor-driven ball-nut

12 EMA Electrical Linear Motor-driven ball-nut

13 Mechanical Hydraulic Linear Motor-driven ball-screw

14 EMA Electrical Linear Motor-driven ball-screw

15 Mechanical Hydraulic Linear Motor-driven roller-screw

16 EMA Electrical Linear Motor-driven roller-screw-W2

Figure 4.2-1. Electrical and Hydraulic Actuator Candidates

EMA Electromechanical Actuators consist of a bi-directional, variable speed

electrical motor, reduction gearing, brakes, clutches, and a mechanically-driven actuator. Hence, the EMA is an actuator and mechanical powersystem in one package.

IA An integrated actuator consists of many components similar to those

found in an EHA. Hence, the IA is an actuator combined with a self-contained hydraulic system. This system utilizes a unidirectional,constant speed motor in conjunction with a constant-pressure, variable-flow pump to generate hydraulic power for the actuator. This constant-pressure, variable flow hydraulic system is very similar in operation to the

conventional hydraulic systems found in present day aircraft.

Only the EHA and EMA were considered as viable electrical actuation candidates for

driving the rotating horizontal tail control effector. Generally, the utilization ofintegrated actuators in lieu of conventional hydraulically powered actuators does notprovide for the significant benefits found by using EHA and EMA technologies. Therationale for excluding IA technology in favor of EHA and EMA technologies are:Weight The EHA and EMA provide a lighter weight solution than the integrated

actuator.

89

Page 106: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Efficiency The EHA and EMA require less energy for positioning a load than an IA.The EHA and EMA output loads and rates provide a better match torequired loads and rates for positioning of a load. Also, the EHA andEMA are on-demand systems as opposed to the continuous operatingintegrated actuator. Hence, the IA requires more energy during

quiescent operation than an EHA or EMA.Thermal The on-demand operation of the EHA and EMA generates less heat than

the continuously operating integrated actuator.Reliability Generally, the EMA is the most reliable of the three electrical actuators.

However, special operating features (e.g., bypass, blowback, locking)

require additional mechanisms such as clutches and brakes.

Consequently, the reliability of the general EMA has been reduced to alevel slightly higher than that of an EHA. Reliability of the EHA issomewhat higher than the IA. However, the IA may require morefrequent servicing for replacement of fluid and seals.

Maintenance The EHA and EMA are each estimated to require less servicing than theintegrated actuator because the more efficient, on-demand functioningresults in less heat generation and less operational time.

Hydraulic Power Any of the actuators listed in Figure 4.2-1 can be driven by theaircraft hydraulic power systems. Some of these actuators directly utilize hydraulicpower for operation and some require the use of a hydraulic motor to convert hydraulicpower into mechanical shaft power. Subsequently, this mechanical power is utilizedfor driving the actuator.

Actuator Summary For the devices proposed in this study, mechanical actuationprovides the best alternative to the aircraft designer. Pneumatic actuation schemessimply cannot provide the response characteristics necessary, and the electrical

devices, while suitable for some applications to control devices, still create significantchallenges to the designer because of electro-magnetic interference and actuator size

constraints.

90

Page 107: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.3 Carrier Suitability RequirementsA separate aircraft was defined for the USN carrier specific requirements. The primary

requirements were: an approach speed goal of 135 knots; achieve the glide slope

transfer or "pop-up" maneuver at this approach speed; and, meet the arresting enginelimitations at "0" wind-over-deck. These design requirements resulted in a significantlylarger aircraft for the USN analysis. Specifically, the baseline aircraft wing area wasresized from 465 ft2 to 650 ft2 to meet the carrier specific design goals. Correspondingchanges to the fuselage and subsystems are described below and indicated in the

weight build up in Figure 4.3-3.

The USN carrier sized aircraft was determined by using the design charts shown inFigures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. As shown in these charts, the required minimum wing area tomeet the design goals is 650 ft2- This size allowed the USN version of the baselinevehicle to meet the approach speed requirement with a 10,000 bring-back payload.The pop-up and arresting engine requirements are also met with this larger vehicle.

In addition to the resizing, several additional requirements in terms of vehicle structuralmodifications were also required to meet the USN specifications, which areconsiderably different from the USAF versions. For example, to achieve a reasonablespotting factor, a wing fold mechanism was incorporated into the design to reduce thefolded span to 25 feet. The single wheel nose gear was replaced by a dual tirearrangement, and the nose gear structure was strengthened to meet the catapult loadsand the higher sink rate loads for landing. The overall airframe structure was alsostrengthened to meet the higher design takeoff and landing loads. In addition to theabove, bladders were added to the fuel tanks and the USAF LO Inflight refueling (IFR)receptacle was replaced by a retractable USN IFR probe. These changes, and theaccompanying weight penalties are summarized in Figure 4.3-3.

91

Page 108: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

(Tropical day)

170 -Baseline

160

150 -1,0 b

Z 40

130

120-3000 w

Referencewing area60

110 Bae(ft 2) 650 25,000

Base USN baseline (650ft2)

Figure 4.3- 1. Approach Speed

30-

20-

0-10-

-Y 0-

46

~-10- o

-20- Reference 1

-30- USN baseline (650ff2)

Figure 4.3-2. Mark 7 Mod 3 Arresting Engine-A

92

Page 109: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

GROUP WEIGHT STATEMENT USAF a WT (USN A WT (USN USNMISSION: AIR-TO-GROUND A/G DESIGN WEIGHT DES WTS & A/GMODEL: 120%SCALE MODEL WEIGHT FEATURES) LD FACTOR) WEIGHT

MRF-24F-GE2 (LOS) (LBS) (LBS) (LBS) (LBS)

WING (AREA - 650 SO. FT.) 2621 425 3046 -93 2953HORIZONTALTAIL 750 750 -9 741VERTICAL TAIL 396 396 396SCD 5838 397 6235 -123 6112MAIN GEAR 1087 274 1361 48 1409NOSEGEAR 211 326 537 8 545ARRESTIG GEAR 0 184 184 8 192AIR INDUCTION 764 764 764ENGINESECTION 201 201 201SPECIAL FEATURE (RAM/RAS) 1256 1256 1256

TOTAL STRUCTURE 13124 1606 14730 -161 14569

ENCGES 4800 4800 4800AMADS 197 197 197

NGINEOCCOTROLS 25 25 25STARTING SYS. (INCL W/APU) 0 0 0

UEL SYSTEM 633 66 699 699

TOTAL PROPfJLSION 5655 66 5721 0 5721

LGHT CONTROLS 727 6 733 733APU 242 242 242INSTRUMNBTS 30 30 30HYDRAULICS & PNEUMATICS 436 14 450 450ELECTRICAL 515 515 515AVIONICS 1598 1598 1598FURNISHINGS & EOUIP 390 390 390AIR CONDITIONING 563 563 563ANTI-ICE 37 37 37IANDLJNG EQ 5 5 5

TOTAL RXE EOU/PBT 4543 20 4563 0 4563

i W49-S'7"MPTY 23322 1692 25014 -161 24853

CREW 200 200 200CRPWEQUIPMENT 15 15 15OIL&TRAPPEDOIL 125 125 125

TRAPPEDFUEL 268 268 268LAIUNCHERSEJECTORS 422 422 422

AKO-OPUL.SEL LOAD 1030 0 1030 0 1030F_ __ND __F_ _ -2 6 -9 .3OPERATWNG WEXT 24360 1690 26050 -170 25880

AG WEAPON 2000 2000 2000A/WEAPONIS 690 690 690FUEL (JP-8) 17900 -1690 16210 1690 17900

GFIOISS WVG9T 44950 0 44950 1520 46470Exi

Figure 4.3-3. USN Baseline Weight Buildup

93

Page 110: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.4 Thrust Vectoring IntegrationThe thrust vectoring study for this contract was focused on the integration and

performance issues, and what gains could be achieved by incorporating thrustvectoring onto the baseline vehicle. The performance results are reported in the

performance Section 3.0 of this report. This section addresses the integration issues.

Airframe-Nozzle Integration Integrating thrust vectoring onto the baseline vehicle wasconsidered by looking at three different concepts. The thrust vectoring nozzle can bemounted directly onto the engine, the nozzle can be mounted directly to the airframe,

or the nozzle can be structurally integrated with the airframe. Figure 4.4-1 illustrateseach of these concepts and includes several figures-of-merit showing the relative

merits of each of the concepts. As shown in the figure, each of these concepts exhibitits own strengths and weaknesses. For the engine mounted concept, reliability shouldbe higher because of the lower part count. However, maintenance on this nozzleconcept will require removal of the entire engine. For the airframe mounted concept,

one advantage is that the nozzle can be removed without removing the engine and theengine can be removed and replaced without removing the nozzle. The structurallyintegrated (SI) nozzle has the advantage of offering potentially lower weight, but at aprice. The SI concept will likely have a higher part count and therefore have lowerreliability than the other concepts and maintainability will be more difficult.

Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Type Comparison. Another factor considered in the thrustvectoring (TV) study was the type of vectoring scheme to be used. Three vectoring

concepts are shown in Figure 4.4-2 that include both yaw and pitch vectoringcapability. The baseline Model 24F vehicle was originally designed with a SphericalConvergent Flap Nozzle (SCFN) that had pitch only thrust vectoring; however, this wasnot considered as part of the baseline aircraft for most of the performance studies

herein.

For purposes of this Phase I ICE study, a brief evaluation of a 2-axis thrust vectoringsystem was assumed in combination with the "best" 2 effectors - namely the splitailerons and the rotating tail. The TV was limited to 30 degrees of vectoring angles,with a rate of 100 degrees/second. All of the above concepts can achieve these

capabilities.

94

Page 111: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Engine mounted Arfrae mounted Integrated

nozzle assembly and empennage sub-assembly and empennage components and empennage

-Stressed skin joint, multipleNozzle side wall fasteners

-4

"* Nozzle is integrally mounted - Nozzle is a line replaceable - Nozzle components areto engine unit (sub-assemble) separatel assembled

on the structure"N Airframer installs engine-nozzle • Airfrarter installs nozzle

assembly sub-assembly n emengoz en assempendage

Nozze sde wll astnozzl

"t Engine manufacturer assembles u Engine manufacturer assemblesand tests the engine and nozzle and tests the engine and nozzle • Propulsion system responsibility

shared between two sources"* Propulsion system responsibility, • Propulsion system responsibility,

one source one source . Direct subsystems/hardware

Direct subsystems/hardwareaccessibility

Installed weight (Ib) Higher Ref May be lighterAft body drag Higher Ref SameInternal performance Sam Ref SameMaintainability (accessibility) Difficult Ref DifficultReliability May be higher Ref LowerSupportability Difficult Ref DifficultManufacturing No interfaces Minimum interfaces Multiple interfaces, difficult tolerancingVulnerability Higher Ref HigherRCS Higher Ref RefIR Higher Ref Ref

Nozzle remove and replace Entire engine (87 min.) Reference (20 min.) I *A9 actuator (79 min.)Reliability Higher Reference LowerMaintainability Difficult Reference DifficultComplexity Lower part count Reference Higher part count

-Nozzle maintenance done at LRU level. A9 actuator most frequent maintenance activity. .cZ

Figure 4.4-1. Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Mounting Concepts

95

Page 112: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

*SCFN nozzle (pitch vectoring only)

A Clam shell nozzle

Static structureand liner

Augmenerduct

AS, spherical (CMC liner)convergentflap, SCF

AAero controlsurfaces (ref)

yoke

Aejector

Spherical convergent flap nozzle

Reveerser Eiveerent

flanpla anddi vectren nozzl

Stati airStaucctuegee

modulConvergent

-lii vectoring, Controlcorngnozl

Fluidic vnectoiong, PhtnControl logi op

Figure 4.4-2. Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Concepts

96

Page 113: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Thrust Vectoring Integration Evaluation In evaluating the concepts, several figures-of-merit were taken in account. Figure 4.4-3 shows the weight, cost, and range factorperformance of the various concepts. These values are for airframe mounted nozzleconcepts. In addition to the above, the relative merits of the four candidateconfigurations are summarized in Figure 4.4-4. These attributes have all beennormalized so that the pitch only thrust vectoring concept was assigned a value of 1.0for each of the technologies. Using a weighting factor for each of the attributes, andsumming the indices, a relative preference and ranking was established for the fourconcepts. Each of these nozzle concepts has its own merits. The SCFN (pitch only) isthe lightest and least complex, offering advantages in several areas. All of the pitchand yaw vectoring concept have a significant edge in maneuvering capability over thepitch only concept. As shown, the SCFN (pitch only) concept is preferred, with theClamshell concept the preferred pitch and yaw vectoring concept. As shown in thefigure, the clamshell concept has advantages over the other two-axis concepts in

several areas.

Thrust vectoring concept

SC FN SC FN Triangular clamshellpitch only pitch and yaw fluidic

Nozzle weight 1,186 1,253 1,730 1,270

Figures-of-merit Life-cycle cost ($1,000) 12,000 12,500 12,300 12,200

Range factor 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000-Ad5

Figure 4.4-3. Thrust Vectoring Figures-of-Merit

The integration issue discussed here are for completeness only. Integration of thrustvectoring into the vehicle was not part of this study.

97

Page 114: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Concept attributes (figures of merit) Concept Concept Concept

Performance Maneuver Signature RMS Cost Vulnerability Risk preferenc preference rankindex index index index index index index (l)d (M)e

SCFN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.19 1pitch only I

SCFN 1 1.33 0.8 0.97 0.74 0.67 0.67 0.85 0.13 2pitch and yaw

Triangular 1 1.33 0.4 0.92 0.64 0.33 0.33 0.64 0.11 3fluidic

Clamshell 1 1.33 1.0 0.97 0.74 1 0.67 0.92 0.15 1-

Imorance 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.30 0.05 0.10

Variability 0 0.17 0.28 0.03 0.15 0.32 0.27(V)b

Determinance 0 0.02 0.04 0 0.05 0.02 0.03(D)c I I I I

a. The attribute importance weights must add up to 1.b. The variability is measured by the standard deviation of the numbers in each column.c. The determinance is found by multiplying each importance weight by the correspondingstandard deviation. A determinance score of 0 indicates a nondeterminant attributer,and the greater the determinance score, the more determinant the attribute.

d. Concept preference according to the importance weights is found by multiplyingeach concept's attribute scores by the corresponding importance weights.e. Concept preference according to the determinance scores is found by multiplying eachconcept's attribute scores by the corresponding determinance scores.

-Ad6

Figure 4.4-4. Determinant-Attribute Model

98

Page 115: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.5 Radar Cross Section AnalysisThe Radar Cross Section (RCS) characteristics of the Model-24F configuration have

been estimated using high fidelity computational electromagnetic methods. These

characteristics have been calculated for several configurations, elevations,frequencies and polarization for the full range of azimuths. Since the main focus of this

study was to determine the RCS characteristics of the control effectors, major RCScontributors such as the propulsion system were not included in the computationalmodeling. The results of this study are summarized in Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 and

included in Appendix C.

50% probability sector, 9.0 GHz, 0 elevationForward sector Aft sector Side sector

-30 to +30 150 to 210 60 to 120

H-POL V-POL H-POL V-POL H-POL V-POL

Baseline -37.0 -30.0 -22.0 -22.4 -10.3 -11.7

No vertical tails -40.4 -40.5 -23.0 -23.0 -11.7 -14.2

No verticals, horizontal -38.6 -39.3 -21.7 -22.9 -11.4 -13.3tails @ +200 dihedral II

No verticals -36.1 -36.5 -21.3 -22.3 -12.1 -13.9strakes depfoyed

No verticals, split -32.3 -26.8 -9.0 -13.1 -8.9 -6.8ailerons deployed

Figure 4.5-1. Signature Comparison - 50%

96% probability sector, 9.0 GHz, 0 elevation

Forward sector Aft sector Side sector-30 to +30 150 to 210 60 to 120

H-POL V-POL H-POL V-POL H-POL V-POL

Baseline -31.5 -31.6 4.7 3.7 -1.1 -1.6

No vertical tails -31.5 -34.1 -1.0 -1.5 4.0 1.2

No verticals, horizontal -31.1 -33.4 4.8 3.4 4.2 1.0tails @ +200 dihedral I I

No verticals -20.3 -22.9 -1.0 -1.5 4.0 1.0strakes deployed

No verticals, split 10.8 12.3 8.4 9.5 7.0 15.6ailerons deployed

-Ad7

Figure 4.5-2. Signature Comparison - 96%

99

Page 116: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

The computational analysis was performed using the ARBSCAT code to estimate theprimary scattering components. This code uses equivalent current sources with inputfor RCS treatment based on measured data. The analysis shown here is for untreatedconfigurations. The code can also make corrections for edge radii and wedge anglefor an accurate representation of the total vehicle signature. Additional RCScontributions such as multi-bounce and cavities were analyzed using a 3-D ray trace,physical optics code, XPATCH. For the data shown, the effects of traveling waveshave been ignored. However, contributors that affect the trade study, such as strake

deployment doors and the trailing edge control surface gaps have been accounted for.The study was performed by analyzing each component separately and then adding

the pieces using the RCS budgeting code PLTSUM to obtain the total vehicle

signature.

The results of the RCS study are summarized in Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2. The data arepresented for 0 degrees elevation, 9.0 GHz, both polarization's, for the five study

configurations listed below:1) Baseline configuration

2) Baseline with vertical tails removed3) (2) with Horizontal Tails @ 20 degrees dihedral4) (2) with nose strakes deployed5) (2) with Split Ailerons deployed @ 45 degrees

Additional analysis for +30 and -30 degrees elevation, 2.0 and 16.0 GHz are includedin Appendix C.

100

Page 117: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.6 Summary of Integration Results

Incorporating a control effector into an existing design can have significant adverse

consequences. Most tactical aircraft do not have the volume available to easily

integrate additional systems onto the airframe without degrading performance in other

areas. Accommodating innovative devices early in the vehicle design process can

preclude integration concerns and result in acceptable design compromises. The

devices investigated during this effort may offer significant advantages to future aircraft

designers if the devices are included early enough in the design process to preclude

many of the problems noted in the previous sections. A quick look summary is

included in table 4.6-1.

Summary Table

Split Aileron Chine Strake Rotating Tall

A Weight 483 lbs 72 IbsA Signature

Front 3.7 V 8.1 H 4V 4.31H 13.7 V 8.1 HSide 7.4 V 2.8 H .3 V .4 H 7.4 V 2.8 HAft 9.9V 14H .7V 1.7H 9.9V 14 H

Structural Integration Moderate Extensive Extensive

Actuation Significant Fairing Moderate Difficulty Complicated

Reliability Proven Proven Technology similar toother concepts

Subsystem Trades Radar Operation/ Weight/ReplacementEffector Location Schedule

Table 4.6-1

101

Page 118: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

5.0 Task 4 - Risk Assessment and Reduction Plan

Based on the results of the performance and integration efforts, a risk reduction plan

has been proposed to minimize the risk of trasitioning any of these concepts to an

advanced development project. The major risk elements identified for each of the

effector concepts were aerodynamic performance, the integration aspects and the

signature contributions for each device. This section evaluates the performance and

integration risks associated with these effectors and proposes additional efforts which

could reduce the risk in incorporating these devices onto future aircraft. The risk

assessment summaries in Figures 5.1-2 and 5.2-1 are based on the risk rating guide

shown in Figure 5.0-1.

Factors In probability of failure

Probability Attributeof failurelevel Maturity factor Complexity factor Dependency (availability) factor

Low Existing Simple design Independent of existing system, facility, orsubcontractor

Minor Minor redesign Minor increase Schedule dependent on existing system rfacility,in complexity or subcontractor. Less than 1 month delivery

slip.

Moderate Major change Moderate increase Performance/SUpo rtability dependent onfeasible in complexity existing system.facdity, or subcontractor.

1-3 nonths delivery slip.

Significant Technology Significant increase Schedule dependent on new system scheduleavailable, in complexity facility, or subcontractor. Greater than 3 monthscomplex design delivery slip.

High Some research Extremely complex Performanceltupportabilit dependent on ne wcomplete, never system, facility, or subconractor. Delivery slipdone before precludes use at 100.

Factors In consequence of failure

Impact level Technical factor Supportability factor Cost factor Schedule factor

Low Minimal or no Minimal or no Budget estimates Negligible impact on program.consequences consequences not exceeded Slig.h change compensafed by

available scnedule slack.

Minor Small reduction Small reduction Cost estimates exceed Minor slip in schedule (less thanin technical in supportability budget by 1 to 5 1 month). Some adjustment inperformance performance percent milestones required.

Moderate Some reduction Some reduction Cost estimates Small slip in schedulein technical in supportability increased by 5 to 20 (1 to 3 months)performance performance percent

Significant Significant Significant Cost estimates Development scheduledegradation degradation in increased by 20 to 50 slip in excess of 3 monthsin fechnical supportability percentperformance performance

High Technical goals Supportability Cost estimates Large schedule slip thatcannot be gOalS cannot increased in excess affects segmentachievedbe achieved of 50 percent ___

Fgure 5.0-1. Risk Rating Guide

102

Page 119: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

5.1 Aerodynamic Performance Risk AssessmentThe performance risks are associated with the limited test database associated witheach of these effectors, and the interaction with the airframe the device is intended tobe installed on. Expanding the knowledge database for each of these effectors willsignificantly enhance the possibility of success in including any of these designs on

future fighter concepts. The greatest potential for exploration is in the low speed highangle-of-attack region. Figure 5.1-1 shows the current configuration test database andthe region of proposed testing that should enhance the understanding of thesedevices. Of particular interest is the post-stall flight region, where improvements incontrol technology could provide future aircraft with advantages in air combat.

The performance risk assessment for each of the final study effectors is summarized inFigure 5.1-2. For each of the selected devices the risk rating reflects the concernsinherent in the device. For the forebody nose strake, the geometry of the forebody cansignificantly affect the performance of the device. The ability to locate the device closeto the nose will directly affect the resulting vehicle capability. The split ailerons, whileposing little risk, have significant disadvantages that may pose problems whenincorporated onto future aircraft. For low aspect ratio vehicles, performance of these

devices at low speed could fall well below requirements. The rotating horizontal tailshave not been explored throughout the entire flight envelope, and may need to belarger than originally anticipated in order to achieve the acceptable results throughoutthe entire flight envelope.

SNASA-LaRCI

+70+ Regin of interestI

=lgin of interest i-- it 112It Rgoso

+200

== ffNASA4.•c

5 +10 omg-Sea +

4C 0 : m,o lO-10A 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 010 ;7 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.

Mach number Mach number

Angle-cf-attack requirements Sidealip requirements -G7

Figure 5.1-1. Future Testing

103

Page 120: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Probability Consequenceof failure of failure Comments

Nose strake Moderate Significant Need to better define high angle-of-attack performance.Interaction effects need to be understood, concept forebodyconfiguration dependent.

Split aileron Low Minor Control capability fairly well defined. Concept operating onthe B-2. Short span limits capability.

Rotating tail Minor Significant "V" tail concepts have been tested before. Current estimationbasis is CFD, however.

Figure 5.1-2. Performance Risk Assessment

104

Page 121: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

5.2 Integration Risk Assessment

The integration risk Summary is shown in Figure 5.2-1. Because of the nature of each

of the selected effectors, the integration risks vary considerably. For the forebody nose

strake, placement of the device and accompanying systems could compromise the

effectiveness of the antennas which are normally installed in the forebody.

Accommodating the antennas could degrade the performance of the device to the

point that it is not useful. For the split ailerons, on fighter aircraft the wing thickness

outboard poses a significant challenge. Integrating actuators into the outboard wing

will probably require a fairing which will adversely affect the drag and thereby the

performance of the vehicle. Other installation concepts may also compromise the

overall vehicle design by either thickening the wing or reducing the spar box chord.

For the rotating horizontal tails, weight and balance could be a consideration, and the

proximity to the wing trailing edge could also adversely affect performance.

Probability Consequenceof failure of failure Comments

Nose strake Minor Moderate Resizing of actuators could be limited by volume constraints.Interference with radar could be problem.

Split aileron Minor Minor Actuator size is a problem. Fairing likely required. Vehiclemoments not well defined.

Rotating tail Moderate Moderate Hinge moments not well defined. Smaller actuator wouldhelp the integration problems.

-"d10

Figure 5.2-1. Integration Risk Assessment

105

Page 122: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

5.3 Risk Assessment and Reduction SummaryAdditional wind tunnel testing of these effector concepts will reduce the risk in

transitioning them to advanced development projects. Additional integrationinvestigation on a more detailed level of these concepts will also reduce the risk in

proposing these effectors as devices on future fighter aircraft. The Boeing model BMA-

S-1798-6A shown in Figure 5.3-1 is a 5% scale model of the baseline configurationand accomplishing the additional proposed testing would significantly enhance thedatabase for these effectors and reduce the risks inherent in incorporating thesedevices onto future aircraft. A description of this model is included in Appendix E.

106

Page 123: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

107

Page 124: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

6.0 - Concluding RemarksThe ICE contract has provided a focus for development and assessment of innovativecontrols technology that will be relevant to future fighter aircraft studies. Theperformance and integration efforts undertaken during this study have demonstratedthat these devices have the potential for eliminating the vertical tails from futureconfigurations.

The aerodynamic effectors chosen for this study have provided some insight into the

performance enhancement capabilities of these devices and their potential forintegration into the vehicle flight control system. By the judicious selection of a suite of

control devices, and an advanced design control system, the full potential of innovativedevices may be exploited.

The integration study has provided additional insight into the challenges associatedwith incorporating these candidate devices onto future fighter aircraft. Theeffectiveness of the devices are certainly configuration dependent and must becarefully integrated to achieve desired control power.

An effector such as the rotating tail may buy its way onto a vehicle only with sufficientintegration design effort. The design philosophy will effect the relative weight costthereby impacting the trade-off with other devices.

Retrofit to existing vehicles seems unlikely to have benefit, but incorporation into thedesign of new vehicles at an early stage offers serious potential. The trade-off

between the agility of the vehicle and the observable requirements will be dependenton many factors such as weapon agility and operational strategies for future aircraft.

Aircraft for the Navy have stringent requirements that are best evaluated with a vehicledesigned initially for carrier operations, but the estimates made by some scaling andaerodynamic data modifications as done here give reasonable indications ofeffectiveness. (Control lows)

Clearly thrust vectoring has a great potential for reducing or eliminating the vehicle tail(it is proven technology). Additional operational experience will give more design

guidance and confidence.

108

Page 125: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Further exploration is required to provide confidence for application of new control

approaches on weapons systems. The data bases need to be extended through wind

tunnel testing of models, and computational methods for stability and control

assessment must be matured.

109

Page 126: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

7.0 REFERENCES

1. "Low Speed Wind Tunnel Investigation of a Porous Forebody and Nose Strakesfor Yaw Control of a Multirole Fighter Aircraft", S. P Fears, NASA CR4685,August 1995.

2. "High AOA Stability and Control Concepts for Supercruise Fighters," Boalbey,Ely, and Hahne. Report on Cooperative study by McDonnell Aircraft Co. andNASA LaRC (undated-1990?).

3. Unpublished Boeing Aerodynamic Test Data, BTWT 235 and BRWT 241, 1989.

4. "Advanced Fighter Tested for Low-Speed Aerodynamics With Vortex Flaps," G.Gatlin, Vortex Flow Aerodynamics Volume Ill, NASA CP2417, October 8-10,1985.

5. "AFTI-F-1 11 Mission Adaptive Wing, Wind Tunnel Analysis Report, Test Entry,NARC 449-1-12 and NARC 449-1-11 T," Boeing D365-10074-1, February, 1983.

6. "An Investigation of a Close-Coupled Canard.as a Direct Side-Force Generatoron a Fighter Model at Mach Numbers from 0.40 to 0.90," Re and Capone, NASATN D-8510, July, 1977.

7. Unpublished Boeing Data, D. Nelson, WSU Wind Tunnel Test, December, 1994.

8. Unpublished Boeing Data, G. Letsinger, BRWT 211 and 198, October, 1986.

9. Unpublished Boeing Data, Merker, February, 1990.

10. "Development of a Mission Adaptive Wing System for a Tactical Aircraft," W.Gilbert, AIAA-80-1886, August, 1980.

11. "Wind Tunnel Test Report, Boeing Model BMAC-T-1 549," Boeing D1 80-30190-1,S. Northcraft, January, 1987.

12. "Controlled Vortex Flows Over Forebodies and Wings", Roberts, et al,.HighAngle of Attack Vol 1, NASA CP 3149, Oct.-Nov. 1990.

13. "Subsonic Wind Tunnel Investigation of the High Lift Capability of a CirculationControl Wing on a 1/5 scale T-2C Aircraft Model." R. Englar, NSR&D Center TNAC-299," May, 1973.

110

Page 127: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

14. "Low Speed Investigation of Chined Forebody Strakes and Mechanical ControlEffectors," M. Alexander, WL-TR-94-3120, September, 1994.

15. "Nozzle IPD Study," FAPIP Final Review, Contract No. F33657-90-D-0032, E.O'Neill and D. Kirkbride, February, 1992.

16. "ACWFT Summary Technical Report," O'Neill, et al, WL-TR-95-3002, December,1994.

111

Page 128: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

APPENDIX A

Summary of Candidate Control Effectors

This appendix contains descriptions, diagrams, and summary data for a number

of candidate control effectors.

Figure A-1 Porous forebody

Figure A-2 Pneumatic forebody vortex control

Figure A-3 Nose yaw vanes

Figure A-4 Vortex flaps, differential

Figure A-5 Differential horizontal tail

Figure A-6 Differential canard deflections

Figure A-7 Pivoting wing tip fins

Figure A-8 Pivoting fins

Figure A-9 Differential leading edge flaps

Figure A-1 0 Seamless TEF and LEF

Figure A-1 1 Wing tip split panel flaps

Figure A-12 Wing leading edge blowing

Figure A-13 Circulation control (wing trailing edge blowing)

Figure A-14 Moving Chine/Strake

Figure A-15 Aftbody flap (upper and lower)

112

Page 129: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Porous Forebody

Primary control functionYaw and pitch control.

BenefitsImproves yaw control at moderate and high alphas. This control is used to rollaround the velocity vector.

RisksOperating phenomena not well understood. Supersonic characteristics areunknown. Limited database. Stealth may be poor and this concept may bedifficult to integrate with radar.

-NASA Langley 12 foot tunnel 0.07 am control

= 48, 3= 0, Xp =100%, p = 6-12 0.06 0 69 NoneC) 79 VG3 Strake C

0.05 _ 113 VG6 StrakaA 196 op =6-12 Porous

0.04 78 SR =30' Rudder

Cn 0.03

0.02 -

0.01

0

-0.01 ---5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75

Alpha

x 0* NASA generic . Boeing -24F modelmodel 0.3 12 ASVC modulation

S=3" strake modulation 11 I0.10 0.06 10 Note:

0.05 __\_ I_\_Porosity Initiated at

,0 a• °°= // 0-0.050.0250

-0.10 5

-0.150 lo45

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 10 11 12

X (in) Porosity termination clock position

Reference: "Low Speed Wind Tunnel Investigation...",NASA CR4685, August, 1995.

Figure A-1 Porous Forebody

113

Page 130: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Pneumatic Forebody Vortex Control

Primary control functionYaw and pitch control.

BenefitsImproves yaw control at moderate and high alphas. This yaw control is used toroll around the velocity vector.

Limited success on chined forebodies. Unknown supersonic characteristics.Signature impact unknown and hard to integrate with radar.

Right Front and Right Aft Blowing

Blowing Coemlcient--"0-- CA t= 0.004 -Effect of blowing momentum

0.08 & 9 Ca& 0.012 coefficient on yaw controlAC n . l-: -- C11 = 0.020

0.04 Outward Blowing A Cu = 0.034-0 C' a 0.041

404

40.0

-. 12 - -0---0 $ 16 24 32 40 48 S6 64 0.12 Outward Upward Downward

Angle of Attack - deg Right Front and Right Aft Blowing

AC 0.080.0n CAL= 0.0 48

-Effect of blowingdirection

0.00 C0.12-0.04

Blowing LocationC= 0.024 -0-- Right Front .0.08AC 0.06 A. Right Aft

0.04 U..Aft 0 a 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

0.00 AAngle of Attack - deg

404"-Effect of blowing

"-Co8s location. Outward Blowing

-0.12 -

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Angle of Attack - deg

Reference: "High AOA Stability and Control Concepts for Supercruise Fighters",Boalbey, Ely, and Hahne.

Fgue A-2 Pneumatc Forebody Vortex Contrl

114

Page 131: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Nose Yaw Vanes

Pdmary control functionYaw and pitch control.

BenefitsImproves yaw control at moderate and high angles-of-attack. This control isused to roll around the velocity vector.

RisksStealth may be poor, integration with radar is difficult.

.06 - Strake off

A A-A U .04 -

• .02

-10 10 20 -40 50 60-.02 - Run 121

.06 X8 - quadra lateral

~04

.02

-10 10 20 30 40 50 60-.02 0a Run 124

.06 X12 - low AR vented

c .02-%

-10 10 20 30 40 50 60-.02

Slotting the vane improves post stall control power

Reference: Unpublished Boeing Aerodynamic Test Data,BTWT 235 and BRWT 241, 1989.

Figure A-3 Nose Yaw Vanes

115

Page 132: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Vortex Flaps. Split Inboard/Outboard, Symmetric/Asymmetric

Primary control functionAll axis - using combinations of inboard/outboard, symmetric and asymmetric.

BenefitsExploits features of leading edge vortex on swept wings.

RisksMay not be effective at low angles-of-attack or supersonic region.

vortex fim 7".-Sn sloted

vrakv, edge flaps

o0 0 BaselineCM -. 1 D I nbord vertex flaps on 1 .15o

Cm 0X OIutnxrd vortex flaps on 1 -45o45,,. irnbord and oulboard vortex

:Sb A-3 flaps on 0 -450Secvn A-A .L50

L.25

CL.75.5o - ------

.1 0 "5 10 15202530 0 .1.2 .3 A 5.6 3.8.9 00o a, deg CDDm~ 0 Baselinede D

CM -.2 13 1:• onlrd and outboard vortex flaps on 6 450-.20 1 nboard and outboard vortex flaps on i-45

-.3 A Inboard and outboard vortex flaps on -135

1.50L.25

CL LOO

30.25- - - --

-5 0 5 1015202530 0.1 2.3 .4..5 6.7 J.98 .0a.deg CO

Reference: "Advanced Fighter Tested for Low-Speed Aerodynamics With Vortex Flaps",G. Gatlin, Vortex Flow Aerodynamics Conference, October 8-10, 1985.

Figure A-4 Vortex Flaps, Differental

116

Page 133: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Differential Horizontal Taill

Primary control functionYaw and roll control.

BenefitsEnhances roll capability, roll around the velocity vector.

Large actuator range required. Complex control software problem.

I* 4W. T offRNC

.0004.:Ni-e

Reference: "AFTI-F-l 11 Mission Adaptive Wing.." F3361 5-78-C-3027,February, 1983.

Figjre A-5 Differential Horizontal Tail

117

Page 134: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Differential Canard Deflections for Yaw Control

Primary control functionYaw and roll control.

BenefitsEnhances yaw capability, yaw and roll around the velocity vector.

RisksSignature levels are higher.

C.

-.. - -- -

-7,4

(a 1. 10 S.

Refeenc: -A I -" o a Cloe-oue C

Read7a.eNS TNu D-5 0,Juy,197

:•:-!!-~ ~~ ..... Fere in..le...t ; ;;" :-:""'••• ' -4 -2 Co 2 t ., • : ,: .. • •

•Effect of differential canard-panel deflectionon model lateral aerodynamic coefficients

Reference: "An Investigation of a Close-Coupled Canard...",Re and Capone, NASA TN D-851 0, July, 1977.

fgure A-6 Dfffererdial Canard Defiections

118

Page 135: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Pivoting Wing Tip Fins For Side Force

Primary control functionSide force.

BenefitsExploit flat turns for heading and alignment agility.

RisksHeavy, defeats concept.

plm Undeflectede STAR,. 50

7 is

STA8001

7 - STO3

T.~ STASOCI

--- STAG 0 36tI~

data~ -4- so

Refernce: npubishedBoeig Dat, D. elso, WSUWindTuneet

December 1994.

R~vjo A7 Pvo~n~ vig7ip Fki119...ST80

Page 136: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Pivoting Fins for Side Force

Primary control functionSide force.

BenefitsExploit flat turns for heading agility.

Rigk%Heavy, defeats the concept (case shown is for a deflected pair of rudders - sideforce is shown).

c~j Yawing

(WB) 4 V60

=00

.=50 . A

RollingAN-@mnoment

.1 o " " Pw .n Fin.s.

120

Page 137: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Differential Leading Edge Flap

Primary control functionRoll control.

BenefitsImproves roll control.

RiisksNot very effective for highly swept configurations; roll reversal occurs atangles-of-attack approaching stall, requiring a complete database ofcharacteristics to define reversal effects.

RUN SETAC LELO LELI LERI LEROR-UN51 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

0 ---- RUN130 0. 60. 60. -60.' -80.

A --------.

6.0

Leading 0-60. -40 -20. 20. 0 o

edge -. APH

devices

.-40 .-

.2M A' ,T;;:;:

-6 -40 -20 20 4. 0ALPH4A

Refeence Unpublished::ý. Boein DaaMeke,.ebua.,190

Ffur lapsfeeta LaigEdeRp121. .. .

Page 138: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Seamless TEF and LEF Hlnaes

Primary control functionL/D and stealth improvements.

BenefitsExtrapolation of maw technology. Eliminates the seams associated withconventionally hinged flaps.

4 bar linkages are heavy and complex.

MLC

LOADDISTIR.

BENDING O

INCREASED MANEUVER -J33g

2 71T-L I NTALLOWANCE

- LOAD RELIEF U2.4ax1O

- 2 3- 4 I

*Maneuver load control benefits

Reference: "Development of a Mission Adaptive Wing System..."W. Gilbert, AlAA-80-1 886, August, 1980.

Figure A- 10 Seamless TEE and LEF

122

Page 139: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Wing TID Split Panel Flaps

Primary control functionYaw control.

BenefitsCan be used to reduce/replace rudders or vertical fins. Good at all alphas.Effective throughout the entire flight envelope.

Supersonic characteristics not well known. Defeats stealth benefits whendeployed.

Planform view of split elevon • Split elevons

'Yawing moment coefficient

Baseline .002

Beta (deg)

-~.002

SplitS,/ 20/20LHS only

Cy -.006 -

Reference: "Wind Tunnel Test Report, Boeing Model BMAC-T-1549",D1 80-30190-1, S. Northcraft, January, 1987.

Figure A-11 Wing rTp split Pawl Flaps

123

Page 140: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Wing Leading Edae BlowinG

Primary control functionLift enhancement and roll control.

BenefitsMaintain attached vortex flow at high angles-of-attack.RisksWeight/system sizing penalties, interference with high-lift system.

SROLLING MOMENT

DELAYED VORTEXSEPARATION

BOWING

ýPLENUM

(= 50 DEG)cl nBOWING ON THE RIGHT SIOC

6" ¢ =0 DEG

C w 0.02

o I I

. *o *= 20 DEG

tic. C 0.012

I> 0

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10%C Iw

* Rolling moments produced by differential blowing on a delta wing -as a function of blowing coefficient

Reference: "Controlled Vortex Flows Over Forebodies and Wings",

Roberts, et. al., 1990.

Figure A- 12 Wing Leading Edge Bklwing

124

Page 141: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Circulation Control (Wing Trailing Edge Blowing)

Primary control functionLift enhancement and roll control.

BenefitsIncreases wing circulation and lift at a given flight condition.

RisksWeight penalty, integration with trailing edge flaps.

CC

Cc A.LZ '•,t! Tt1ITT, D• U3 '.i4

Af Cil M f

3 .0 3 . 1 3 .0 -O M

0.4" a .

oAl2.

2. S *.ON

.r -o R o.• o1n

0. 0." -Se -n -0' - -0e -ecs ilO£

Figure 20 ffect of Blowing on Longitudinal Characteristics of Configuration 9(a f -450, an-30% d - 10% Fences. Tail-Off)

0

Reference: "Subsonic Wind Tunnel Investigation.."

R. Englar, May, 1973.

Figure A- 13 Ciroulation Control (Wrng Trailing Edge Blowing)

125

Page 142: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Moving Chine/Strake

Primary control functionPitch and yaw.

BenefitsImprove yaw and pitch control at moderate to high angles-of-attack.

RisksStealth may be poor.

Asymmetric full length deflectionsv(>~ -Ow 630*

0.04 7&-3 8Left Chine Deflected

O.03

Roll and yaw -100 ACI~c0

0.02Pitch 0.01

4 0.00-0.01

.0.02

-0.030.1

Symmetric Chine Deflections -0.04

0.• 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 640.1 f2Angle of Attack - deg

-0.2 .01a

-0.3 Left Chie DeflectedChine Positions Deflected AC 0.08

A 2&3 0.04p*.--- 3&4-. A 1, 2,3, & 4 0.00

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 S6 64 4004Angle of Attack - deg

408A-Chin, deflection position com parison 412oV

-0.12 • • " " • •

0 8 16 24 32 40 4 S 56 64

Angle of Attack - deg

b)

- Lateral-directional control powerof asymmetric chine deflections

Reference: "High AOA Stability and Control Concepts for Supercruise Fighters",Boalbey, Ely, and Hahne.

Rgue A- 14 MAM in Chine/Strae

126

Page 143: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Aftbody FIaD (U~per and Lower)

Primary control functionPitch control.

BenefitsEnhances pitch capability.

RisksSignature, weight, volume required.

02

Body FlapTails off.,- ........ ......

o o. ..... . . . . . ........-- .- ..... ........ -. .-........

Baeln

-0.15 i **- -------- ~- *-* ~ ---

-10 0 10 20 30 40

Anghe-of-Attack (dog)

0.12 - Body Flapi

0.1 Tails OfB"n0.0.40

* 0.06 7

S 0.02 - ---- :7---- ------ o

0.04

.0.02

-0.04

-0.12

-10 0 1Q 20 30 40

Angl.-of-Attack (dog)

Body flap, 5 = +0.40

Reference: "Low Speed Investigation .. .", M. Alexander, WL-TR-94-31 20,September, 1994.

Rgure A- 15 Afdbody' Flap (Upper and Lower)

127

Page 144: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

APPENDIX B

Summary of Performance Results:

This appendix contains a summary of the information used to evaluate the candidate effectorsfrom a stability and flight control performance standpoint:

Figure B-1 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight-Maximum Sustained Load Factor

Figure B-2 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight-Penetration Speed

Figure B-3 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight-Supersonic Condition

Figure B-4 Wave-Off Maneuver

Figure B-5 Air Combat Maneuver Corner Speed

Figure B-6 Maximum Sustained Load Factor

Figure B-7 Wave-Off Maneuver-Simulation Comparison

Figure B-8 Pop-Up Maneuver

Figure B-9 90 Degree - 30 Knot Crosswind

Figure B-10 Catapult Launch

Figure B-11 Flight Path Stability

Figure B- 12 Carrier Suitability Roll Rate Summary

Figure B-13 Flight Path Stability

Figure B-14 90 Degree - 30 Knot Crosswind-Thrust Vectoring

Figure B-15 Dutch Roll Characterics

Figure B-16 Maximum Yawing Moment Coefficient Due to Controls

Figure B- 17 Maximum Rolling Moment Coefficient Due to Controls

Figure B-18 Vt with Right Engine Out

Figure B-19 Pop-Up Maneuver-Simulation Comparison

Figure B-20 Level Flight Longitudinal Acceleration

Figure B-21 Roll Control Effectiveness Landing Approach

Figure B-22 Roll Control Effectiveness Landing Approach-Thrust Vectoring

Figure B-23 Roll Rate Oscillations

Figure B-24 30 Degree Bank Control Surface Response-Ailerons, Strakes

Figure B-25 30 Degree Bank Control Surface Response-Rotating Tail

Figure B-26 30 Degree Bank Vehicle Response--Rotating Tail

Figure B-27 30 Degree Bank vehicle Response - Ailerons, Strakes

Figure B-28 2-g Coordinated Turn Entry Control Surface Response

Figure B-29 2-g Coordinated Turn Energy Vehicle Response-Rotating Tail

128

Page 145: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Figure B-30 2-g Coordinated Turn Entry Vehicle Response-Ailerons, Strakes

Figure B-31 Longitudinal and Directional Stability Levels

Figure B-32 Longitudinal Control in Maneuvering Flight

Figure B-33 Maximum Sustained Load Factor at Mid Altitude

Figure B-34 Maximum Sustained Load Factor at High Altitude-Subsonic

Figure B-35 Maximum Sustained Load Factor at High Altitude-Supersonic Penetration

Figure B-36 Maximum Sustained Load Factor-Penetration

Figure B-37 Dutch Roll Characteristics

Figure B-38 Low Speed Lift and Pitching Moment Coefficients

Figure B-39 Level Flight Longitudinal Acceleration

Figure B-40 Landing Approach Nose Down Pitch Acceleration

Figure B-41 Carrier Suitability Roll Rate Summary

Figure B-42 Sideslip Angle Capture

Figure B-43 Departure Stall-Roll Rate Time Constant

Figure B-44 Departure Stall-Roll Performance

Figure B-45 Power on Departure Stall-Lateral-Directional Dynamics

129

Page 146: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

r~., .0T T-

E- 1-o -1,

If- I I T

40- I C

Q *; I.- "t r

.00

o+ -

51-o

-tt - a- - -4

M' Ch i -II T

130

Page 147: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

~-. -. D

IV II

40 i ID I CI I ITJ-F-C -s- is w~VKW

40 I q u

~~A-Z

400

I- 0..,

-LAS

C3 t :w!_____ __ - 7- - C1-1

* I lU I II ir~j -I- _131

Page 148: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I."j M..

If1

I iII !mi in

4D czCt C1 cQ

C4 CL CL C1

U.Q

.10000-

7 a

mc Q

- ell

-f- -. ~-132

Page 149: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-I- Li I. I.

So -3 -- C41

I I

Oi ID 4:1

C4 .0 an 4 IL

us =OR1 z z-ý-u

I I I

w7 LU. .

0If-

C,3

4D 0-~ -- 1

z I b- P- I 1-C r- 4 -J 16 z .I

'.N~~ T. W6_4

~) I IEU133

Page 150: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

it1U t'h----T 4--1(0 I -,--...

= us

o - 1 -NJ ~rus

0a 90 I-

=1i -s- z I

- -W j U. 2L . & l

0 1. w Cl M l U. UCMa0

Iii s.-D-I..L .. a

wl E wo

U) 7~V '--l

INj

IW I.- cc m I- cc

-I- in+ j. -+

I.. us T L0zl

Iwo-I -?ca- -j 4

-- - S-134..

Page 151: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

lu

aa L

lall-- w-

C ~C-

hI t, 1 7

ID v .--- ka 4

u - 135

Page 152: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0C)ZEN ooaCOC

ZZ

go - -&- ILI .LX

0~ FA

I- In- 2i* cccccc a

id ~soon 0 M

V- I0z

S IM

i44

1-

I if

a- - -±-u

-r~~~~ -- 0 if1 C

Z 4- -1 -K ~ --- 31 ~

j II -i- -i. V- 4136

Page 153: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

.................................

li -0-- 4

io b ~~

iiJ c IC e C- --

LL. wI. IW

I N I4 -I.

I T j IS

CL0fit ~ -4-1

I i i - -M.* a-4--

n 0I-: - + 1-c a--- -e0 . CO u'O.

17 r ij Iz I( 1 0

em.,

ca

137

Page 154: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

w CP

I I

-al

;j J

Trw co-'-

ma o CA -4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t F-' 1 *.--I --

- -Ig-r - --

-cc-

-I138

Page 155: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I 1I I II

4- A .

LU i us-

C 4 CC CC 4.

.1 Z

>I I I I

-0--1 ~ -41 CA t1 oS O *-- I I', -L A

9-4 -4--iU

U.~~~1 -. c 1-u

0 -1L bei

00 Us --OC KL139? 1

Page 156: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I I - I

IL. D

0W C

U. '0 W7

C)-- 12-

I1

o- Li_ I I L I.-

m X 'J -- Y z

l* I

Il i 7 - L

4-~~~t o* 3 t -1-- Lto L J..J.I~~

I I

z C0 t-3

I _

V-

OK~I

140

Page 157: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

az a.F ZMA~ ~~ I- 4 4 -e

0cZ'- 0 uQCL1 2 4w40o

~~ iiU, -4 0 z 0 39

0- ku z U

I- I.-

UL a Ni.

I~u j I I- 4c I-j j

- u cc 44 1ý ) 1- ccfC'

Ig dI I.-

L.-~ a - ~- -- 4

-y et4~ ~ I III I

0 0 l i *ui 0C

C* lo

14 i;o.r1

* I II-I- -- -co

Au4 - - - I

co 54CD4 I_ _ - ~ A I

C',,

141

Page 158: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

T t 1

44 149

0L 0 41 - --4 -

z )E.41 Oj I

H.- ~ r -H7

0 11

aa I L..I'

I~u -01iI

41 .

4 UMAa

I +DCobI WK Kj2 HU :i 1

w #A-- 4- C'

l . II

I- I 3 I I 142

Page 159: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

1 ' .t

-jIi -A I I i_

-~~ rrI L

~1I III-. 7- -7 wi

to- Q)z wJI 1 4

- 4.

-J'

40

-- U-A I'D ~ ~

U.f

u~ w w~ T --.1 ~ ~ 19 U C d - c

C4! ~SI. _ _ I

' -Us, I _ I Ili,

I- Z s - ~ 4143

Page 160: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-v I-

- fd ~WIN--Wto 1~ 1 1

0.0

CAC~

two -

(I, S ~ ~ .146

-- 1 T1~

2ic.001 III V_

INJ

144

Page 161: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I-o ii i i !i ' l Li'IIUo-. -Kii• i~ , iir•=_-Il

I,|Z, -

CL Lj .1 usf

*,, I,- I I .

_. a . Z - -. - i - I ... " ,.

•z.22

-. 0 1 1 *-- 1 .- i % i \ i0 ca

- ! l o

z I .

t•u.

co 0co4, 0lz

01--ý'45

C! Ct w t C! 4

=u U I I.- I-

8aa l~

I145

Page 162: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

IMP

%-- t l2

0 t II _

w Cm 431C!. 4!.

Ilk-L-JWsa

Inl 0

40- - 4

CI 39IiUm

* C~ .f ~us

Citi I~ S 1Iti 00

-i I loo

Z. C3 -D CD

.j Wi U.

146

Page 163: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

co a1 I Ji

0--I

ca c

NI)i

z-K~ -

-l C31 Im Ii R~I --- -u

cc

~a 0 ~-

LA-

~14

Page 164: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4.j

40

a ai 0

2 .P

c aJ

cf))

0 LL.CL * *~

V- - = --

-- v I

q I !H

I- U. - C~ Col.-~~~4 49 ) ~C

A~- -t-- -I 148

Page 165: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

P- C-

0 cw

au0 00 CC-. C.

tu E

U. ul usto

us- 0 1

ww 11, Iin 3 0

ILIM 'U *

CL Al I I~.us r_-

wZ I.- -IN

a .ca

A in

in.C.

o o

Tc a,

-I.-

C) 1

14

Page 166: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

E

-F- -VZ -.V. -C-3 2. L4..

~~~~~ 1111 - ,ii F4 L'-

cc +g W -J !

__ __ U)

o~ a -

I 'I i au7

a DC20CD _i i~!t--i

"If4

-so-

0- 1.1

915

Page 167: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

E

Iii i] 7! I R

- -j

4-e40-cop~~1

-r c 11

40

151

Page 168: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0 c

zt

ccc

I J

-I-I- Ui l

o -t-i- -.-- 4-152

Page 169: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-U, I I I"I - - - -I"-:A•zi EI V 1

o 4

C-4~

= ,, I i t ; '-i t - \ i t ! Z L1., i ] I "• L I• ' .4I•., IT q-,- - I i ! I i 2 ! • , i , , , , 1L 1 Io

mi.J0o i.i i UI

"- I Il6 I - c'

" U.,IL aIL, c,, - , , I I t I i I .il t ! I4 .L t I - I ! I / l•

, I! I I . !,

B-' MA _ _ '-

C I I ' :II I I I I• . -,, -f I II - " ',

CO %

o T3 - I U)

- F- - --- - - )

I I , lo. I I. I

WIi I i I -I I 1I

4 5 3. _- w a_• _,ft 0Ul I - I -,,,-,,,

153

Page 170: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

4'4

C-4-

C L U

* L. C K * -

*e aQ c

0

-a cc aL

:1 0 I- fr CLJ0 sNý I.-I&. -Wa LusC

m ~ L u 4 l

-- I _ * IS

-1-JV- _1L4ot

2. --t--75

j P. I

C2d W6 III lji i

C-4w I - V

I. la a 0 aj~~L US M.i , lua-

mL~lu 4a

154

Page 171: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0o

CDI

cmC~D4C2~

cm I aa i

a U a

ul0)I u j w

- le. -0 Wa 0 *M 9

z 0 u -j - am- JIzi

K z a 011 asuIn a9 a a. a2 a - a W~~~~~~9 444 9 I ~ # .

U mMA-dema

4mm

~~IT T -E

IF -

NI j AM-

0 a I- Ia In~~2 1mc a ac b .-

___~4 -I-I-I 8- -

___ I _ __ - -V-i"-*155 -

Page 172: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

o I 4.

.~Co.

C I~

III0 0u

aA G 7 - a m a

z.

-.

caicc-em

im

cmc

w a- I f T r -

04.

-J j - a _ us

ulw 84 '

=~S OW -V1 ~ 3 Iwo i

z I-ia

_ -~- -f- ---156

Page 173: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Ti I*1 - - - C2d ~ -

I Cu _K

w a i i .(0 ma

I-I MZ -I

*0 0 1 0 Ai UC2c

wc - Cu a A .

16. doa I-

CD~

*00 A

Al I I~~ AhI 'iti

-V I

lca - C _m

:z ::LzlzcmF~ - N{~j I H~-~C in'L 10 W; - --V -- I l

.W MO It au uaw P I-

U.~~ ~ ~ : .IU0Ma. IZUIMw -9 a0w

157

Page 174: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C.,M

I I

Ito-

-a- cr -0-i-t_ __ -n

C;L C; C. 4.C ; C

U~I A -

C -eL

CD- -lCD (1)

CD C

t~z~z VID.~L L. .. L>

-a-*1 -*--- -a

<Li..,Z- -I ~-~.i--~- .-

: 40-i

m C -1- -CI-

V.-~ ~~~ I.ii- a f--- 4

~z -

~~1a158

Page 175: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

CC

Cf).- - r

T7J9

T I z~~zI-1 -h-acc um__ _

ma - ; C; C C; _ _ _ '.4:C 4 ; 2

29 -a ua . a 0.z : us -j '4 -1 a-J Z 0of.usa

C2

CD

-It t

I I 1 73

S 1 I I -

30 o- "" '0

.0 Z..

_z I. aUi

4t9 z~ i 4~: a a a a a - - a1a9

Page 176: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-j M

I.- I .j

-0--a-u-

c~orn

I -

ca C4 qj

c cc

44-

1~ 1 1:1 ii Ii~~160.

Page 177: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

i L-- --I- -'I- -t-- -

-- -- i- -I-, • i---

oD co a -

-4. - - -.. 2 i--i - - iLA -i -i- -

C ft 9L i"

*1- [ ., ' __ _ _ F ...

__,!---- I

C; 0

._ _$ 1 1 .- u1-= p%

" I i I - .

.MLP.

* -m-

00

0 ,- " 0J" •-L

-- 41

_ I -~.161

Page 178: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

a u

z 0

C; C; C;4 ; 4 ;

. . ..I .. .l .4 ...i ~ b. cc i i I I iI C;

w I 3

-~ 4

ai2 I I 1CD

i C

-F * -

C; CallC ,

~-*- 1-I--~ -. J- 4 I *I C -

0=a*

C.- 0 cC

NA -F-l--~1~ -- -3Z

-4~~ & b'

049* a,~s

I I I~~~. IW6 I I I I

162

Page 179: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

w-cc

-J al4 -

I I2I Ica

.00

AI I b C .

'D- am - -A -.

a~ a0 CJ

CA I CLa

0 C?

L4C'm -~ -----a

10- -

-A IL _ E

f163

Page 180: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

ku -;

-Ifm

c C; 0

-- =

9 CD a0 -4M

T -1 1 1 1 LC1

Ccj

Id- -4. -

-. 3C _4

ca 00ee - z 12I~iI -~as

C;. 0; 43-c

~ ~ L0a

*~. to'0 c~0.~~- 0.I

-C.164

Page 181: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

a,

J0 &z0W

CC

C;

k % 2.9.i ILCDa

Oct Co f:r %~2 -

CM W b - 01-rC-----------------

o 0 -8 G~ ca

4,

0 I

.0 - -. j,---T- - -1

0 0

al-aCLoCL ~I IL u

165

Page 182: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

1 I.N i,., !"I--,,0

0L I

-0 t I ,'-u -• 4- i r .I. // ,- I

I CT ,I

It I~I

U~u A 4 -3 -u

il a jz

4 L166

Page 183: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I __

I~~~c a tZ w~

A ol .+

I z

T zA

c I-

-I

167-

Page 184: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

I0 • 111u• c. a1-d.

S,-* a. O-3••. I - s O a

Z *

~i CM 4. mo -.

-. - -

to 1.O Wus I-. a0 1

I" -- Ia 0 0 I

I n I c I Io I ,- Sr

* .. C 0" ca-,- niWU w - jj

o i -- -**,I

z 0. '. O31

j E I 0

0 E3 I 1 "o + t i • i I

- - !--*1

I0 -I-

U. ] -1-*-' I *'

_ ..- : -: : "

ob uus I I I __

• ---

g•)o on! I

OC I.-0 I I

-W T -4

O0 Q W

-j- .1c

168

Page 185: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0z

a-m :!~

C- zzL

.- j =U 0uz I-

.1-

I.- sZ

- ý 0 04MA -J I

j I w4

-a z

-ZI

C -4-i I -.--

cm-1 ~--

4-ZYu

Ta:

C) F * .- 'a -C4--

CO LC

I 0

16

Page 186: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

L0-a

CwZ - -o4CM9:,- 3: J 0

a ~ , a.~ 0MW

OJ -a a4L I 4 -0 (D

3: -K 0 4 PIC -u0 cc

z 0z

Ou a

0 11- m jIP c

CL

0 In cc I -I.4 : t * C

i'! I -C

-I- 2- s

CO 7--2 ,

-IC3 .- i-i PIK'

- j I

.A

i ITOI i- i

PC-

73

1~ '3 -4 -

1700

Page 187: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

AIR COMBAT MANEUVER CORNER POINTGW a 27,000 LBS

ALT. a 15,000 FTMACH x 0.6

CG @ 31% MAC

S111DE LIP IANGLL4• I

w•_Ge~i 5. 7,

I Basel ine-------- Rotat Ing Tail 1(20/120)t1

Tj I-ME --

! -•... i irh s-•I-i

a'.. 1 ,

!2•L 1 i i I

i i I i:-- I '.t -

Figure B-42 Sideslip Angle Capture

171

Page 188: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

.... ....

.... .........

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

....... .... ... ::

.... ......... ...0 ::::i:::T ::: .... .... .... .... .... .... .... : ..... ........

. ......... .... .... .... .... ....

U) ... .... .... .... .... .....

... .... .... .... .... ....... .... ......

.............. .... .........

CL > 7:-El

U. ... .... ............. ......... .... .... ....

.... .... ....... .... .......... . .... ....uj

. . ... LLI.... .... .. ..... .... .... .. .... ......... .... :::: ::: 0.... ......... .....

........ ........ U.j:::: ..... .... . ............. .... UJ CY

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... U )46 .... .... ........ .... .... .... .... .... ; .... ' 1:: 1:::: ! ...... ...... ......... .........

.... .... .... ....El .... .... .. ..FL .. .... .... Lu

........ ..... .... .... .... .... .. ....... ........ ... '77LAJ .... ..... i.... ............. ... .... .... .... ....

.... .... .... .... .... ... 0......... ......... ......... ... .......... .... ..... ......... ......... .... .... ....

'c .... .... ui

.... :::: ::::!:::: ::: * !:::: *::: j:::: :::: j:::: Ca.... .... ....CL

.... ......... ...... .... .... ..... ... .... .:::. ***&!dbým .... : .... ....

CO) ... ......... .....:::: :::: :::: * ... ;'- :::: :::::, LLJ

In F ýii !:* iii.... .... .... .... ..... ......... Cc... .... .... .... .... : .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

... ......... .... .... .... . ............ ...... ... .... .... .... ........ .... ....

7:7... ........ .......

.0 UJ .... .... M.... .... .... ...... ... ... -4

... ... .... . ....... .....0 .... .... ....40 .... .... .W . 0ji: .............. .... .. .... .... .... ....

.... ......... .... i.,.... ..... ...j.... j.:::.... ......... ....

Co ... ...... ......... . 2. ... .... .. ..... .... 1 .... .... .... ....... .

.... ......... .... .... ....

.. ......... .... . . .... .... ... ......... ..... ...... .... .... ......... ......

LU ... ... ... .LU......... .... 40 .. ....

.... .... .... ... .... ........ ... ....Z

....... ... th...... .... .. .. .... LLJ.... .... .... .... ......

.. ......... .... .... .... C,CL _j Z:.... .... ....

........ .... .... .... ...

... .... .... .... .... ...... .... .... ... .... ... .... .... . ... .... .... .... ....... .... .... .... : ..- :::i:::: :.. : ...

... .... ... ..........

....... .... .... .... .... ... ......

....... ... .. ......... ........ .... .... lw:cx:... .... .... .... .... .

... .... .... ....C, .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ....

... ......... ..... ........ ......... ... .... .

W.:: i::......... ..... .... .... .... .......C LUUJ .... ......kc .... ......... .... .... ......... . :7 1-:-

.... .... .....co 0

... ... .

7M7

.iEFiT.

172

Page 189: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

::::l:::T::: :::T::T::T:::

.... .... . . ... ... :::l:::T :: :... .... ... ...ji:i: ::::!:::: :: :: . .... .... .... .... ::::

... .... .... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... ....... .... .... ........ ... .... .... .... ....... .........

cc C, .... ... .... ......... .... .... .... ... .... ..:: I :: 14 : .... ..

... ......... .... .... :::: :::: ::::I:::: :::: :::: :::. .... .... ....0 Lu is .:.::: :::: .... .... .... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....ul 0, 7

j IL ... .... .... . .... ..lu .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. ... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ........... ... .... .... ....

.. .... .... LL U,WA .... ......... .. .... .... ... .... .......

US .... .... 02:;:: :::: ::;: ::::: ::: I:::: Lu . - , ***

.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .. ...... .... ....Lu

.. .... ......... ...... ......... .. .... .... .... ........ ......... ...........1.= ..... .... .......... +-j :::: 1 0...... .. .... .... .. .... .... ....LU... .... ... p lil

C5 oc a .. .. .. ... .... ! .... .... .... . ... ... .... .... . .... .... .... .... .........

z I.. a) 77 .... .... ... .... ........ .... .... ... ..... 40 IL ::: :::: i:::: "" - , !:::: :..: ::::::::: :::: . .. ......... .... ....... ... . .. .... .... .... ....

.4 lu -1mc M. ... .... .... ........ ....0 ........ .. ....... .. ..... .... .. .... .... .... I .... .... .... .... ....

.... .... caILw lu .... .... ....

.. .. .... .... .... .. ... .... .tu ... .... .... ... .... -j LLJz 1 0 ... ...

. .. .... .........lu2--a CL . .... .. z

z uj uj c U,LU ... .... .... .. P4

:W; u J ........ ..LU -i . ... ...

A ... ...

LU .. .... .... .... ... ...cs .. ......... ... . UJ......... ... ...... ... ...a. C.) 0

lu W -C H .. .... ....... .... .... .... .... ....

us

. .... .... ......... ... .... .... .... .... ... ...

......... .. ... ... ..

.... ... .. ... ... ..

.... ... ... ... .. ..

.... ... ... ... .. ..-K T .. .. .. .... ... .......... .. .... ............. ... ..

M Lb.... .... .... ......... .. .... .... ....... .... .... .. ... .... ........ .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ... .... ... to

.... .... ....... 10 ... .... ... .... .....LU

.... .... .... .... .... :::: ::!: ::::!:::: ::::1 ::: :::: ý'j -j.... .... .... .... .... ... .... ....... .... .... . 4c....

...... ... .. .

....

to .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .. ........ .... .... .... := r= =.... ... ........ ... .......

... .... .... .... ....... ... ... ... ..... . :I:: .. .... .. ........ .... .... .... .... .... .. ....... ... ... ... .... ...

su r ... . ..... .... ... .... .. ... .... ....HE ....

z U. 48 ......UJ

-i lu Co ..... .... .. ...U. LU ..... .... .. .. .... .... .... ....w . .. .... ---- ---- ---- --- - -uj : ý .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .. ..... .... LLJ .. ....IL . .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .

4r-... .... .... cc .... .... .... .... .... .... .......

LU .... .... .... .... ....- f - .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .....

.... .... ...... .... .... ........ .... ..

.... ........... ......... : ::]:::: .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ....94 .... .... .... ....... .... U. T.., Fl".. .... .... . ... .... .... .. .... .... ....be LU

..... .... .... M LULU -i0 .... .... .... :..j 0 LU

Z LU Z 1.- 0 z 0 .... 7=.. .... .... .... .... .... cc . .... .... .... :::6*:::: :::: . -- C 4c .... .... .... .......

......... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .. ....

173

Page 190: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

.... .... ....

. .... .... ....j:::: ..... ..7rýý` 7 ........

--- .... ......... ...... . ... ......... .... .... .... .... .... .... ...

.... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ..

co .. .... ...... .... ... ... .... .... ... .. ....

2 ........ .... ...C 40- :40.1 zW. a AL .... .... ...

.... ... ... .........ri 49 ... .... : 1::::: .... ... .... ....

la .... .... ... ... .... ... XLL. .. .... . ..

.... ... ... LLJ... ......... .... .... ....

U- lu 0 Cý ... .... ... ......ui.... ......... .. .... ....... .... .... .... ME.. .... .... .... ......... .... ....W-; W LL-771 7c,.. .... ......... ... .... .o f z ... . -..- 7

.......... ......... .... us..... .... .............. .... .... ....

... .... .... .....j a Z I .... .... .... .... .... .. cram j:::: ::ILU.... ...... .... .... .... .... .......... ..... .... .... ....1ý- z .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....0 ... ... .... .... .... .... ....

.... .... .... .o U. ... ...... .... .... .... .. .... cu... .... .... .... .::: ::::!:::: ::::;, ---, Luat .... ........... .... .......... .... .... .... .... .... .... : .... ....

LL.... .. _j LUMA ... .... .....

)-.4 0 CL co .... .... .... ..UJ cc LLJ .... .... :: .... .... ....LU UJ LU-a -j L'i cwrliiii

... .... . ca uj w ... .... c LU .... .....-h UA 0 -1 ...... 0

.. .... ....... .... .... ........... a 0 Lu :!:::: ::::!::::...... .........uj ..... .... .... .... ... re Lu ;L -- - -

(A - z o .... ......... .. ....

L-Mi .... .... .... .... . .... ........ ... ....

.... .... .... ............. ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... .........ic IL .... .... ... .... .... .. .... .... .... ... .... ..

Z W4

... .... . .... .... . .... ....a z 0 .... .... ....uj .5 0 cr

.... .... .... ........ .. ..... .... .... .... .... .... ....

a ui -j 0.... .. ......... .... .... .... .... .... . .... .... .. ....

.... .... .... .... ........ .... .... ....

... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... I- Lu .... ... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... .... ....LU -C -j

.... .... .... . ::?T Lu

......... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. ... .... .... .. LL. .... ....LL. U-

.... .... .... .. - :P ui0 Ac ::: ::;: _5 cc......... .... . ......

-j ... .... ....z T.- 7 .1

Ln

... ....... .... .... ... ....... .... ...... : .. ... LLJus ed .. ......... .... ....

... .... ....

.. .... .... ....

... ....

... .... ....

.. .... ....

UA 0 1 ::: CL

.... .... .... .... ..... ..... _j ........ .... ....... .... .... ... LL)U. .... ....

.... :::Z::; S?.... .... .ý-. WL.... .... .... .....j us M.... .... .... .... ........ I .... .... .... ........ . ..... ;:::::

... .... .... .... .... .... ....... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. ... .... .... ....... .... .... .... .... ...

lu ý ::: :::: :.,:: ::::I:::: :: :::: :::: :::-. :::: ... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ........ .. .... .... .... ... .... .... ..... ::: 1 :::: 1::::, :::: 1: , , , - - * " -. i i I ; .. .. , I i i: i I -. i. - ..: ..:: .... .... .... .... .... ....... ... .... .... .... .::: :::: 1:::: ý :: .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ....

ul LU -.41 .. .... .... ....... .... .... : :-j - - -q -i . ca... ... .. LL . .... .... ........ ... .... .... ....

L ... ... . LU LLJ........ .... ... ... L'i ... .... i w LU ..... ....

.... ........ .... .. ........ .... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... .. ... .... .... ... LU .j-i CD Lu

...... .... .... .... .... .... .... . ... .... .... .... z o .... .........c C)

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... go . .... .... .... .... ....

... .... .... .... .... .... .. .... <C <C C&LI IF, .. ....

174

Page 191: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

APPENDIX C

Summary of Signature Data

Configurations are summarized as:1 ) Baseline2) Baseline with vertical tails removed3) 2) with horizontal tails @ 20 degrees dihedral4) 2) with nose strakes deployed5) 2) with split ailerons deployed @ 45 degrees

Figure Config. Frequency Elevation- Ghz ~degrees

2 9 16 -30 0 +30C.1 1 X XC.2 2 X XC.3 3 X XC.4 4 X XC.5 5 X XC.6 1 X XC.7 2 X XC.8 3 X XC.9 1 X XC.10 2 X XC.l1 3 X XC.12 1 X XC.13 2 X XC.14 3 X XC.15 1 X XC.16 2 X XC.17 3 X X

All figures include both horizontal and vertical polarization.

175

Page 192: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C;0

Cý) C!J ý C!

0

0

0 0o

00

4-)4

0 04

C4 00

ONN

"0 LoNC)

C;r

Cý 1-4

cq -

-0

00

0

00

176

Page 193: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C7) 4-CJNf

004

0 C

--4C

0

In

00

0 0

(4-4

CD4

oO C 4 4cl04' - -

CD [T

o c'r-r-4C1-4 N

C! 4RC' C

0ss

0co

In;

0 Ic0

177

Page 194: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C0C 'I

r~l

C~ o o C:

0 4 ( (N 1O

C"J a 0 C

00

0 0;

Nc

8' C,

ii: IC) Ik I

'-4 1-0 - N c

UC!C

0 D C

C in

oc

a4 0l c

178

Page 195: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

CY CN

In1 r- 4 0-

C;C

C0 C 00C

-4c -I c

0 - N Y

0 0D

C;

00

-4-

00L(N

8~ C;

MC C* CDC

0 0

Lfl

04 n 1- 1 *l

m cv ) CDCD C

0

000co

Page 196: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

12 N 1 -4

r~C CCC

0 C) CD

C:) 0:

0- 0

r-44

U) 0

ON

8LI C;O0~

r-4

CD cm

0- 0

m cm -4

LOC

C;

0 C) C

0 0ý I

- C;

180

a4'

Page 197: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

00

cD c n oc12 N0

o.;

0 N 0)C

C;6C.4 M N riC

N- C

-II

0 C0

00Cr) ;

Ic c

4-4->

000D 0000

04j 13

0 181

Page 198: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0O0 N n :" z

r4)J

~o C:) :) c

0 LC) CC

00C

o ; 0

'-4

00

00

4-44

C) KJ

cm 0

a4

0ý0

CD 0

04 N

n 1 .1 c(P;1862 4I

Page 199: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

00

'LO . . .r-.

0 O0 CD C

CD 0

coo

0 c0-r-4

4J C;

o1 ;C4-)j

V)) Ul 4C1

C'Y) (\ -4

ci))

0

,4

0183

Page 200: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0

00 N

0 o0 C

0 C

w (V 0-4 (V

00

V) to

0 C0

44-

cm 00

a4 c

CJ 0; 0

aM,

Page 201: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Q C Cý LC

124

C0

0M

C)0C)C-4()(N - :

oL

4--4

00

00

Lý44

8 0D

Nr c'; 'J

04 185 r,-

Page 202: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C)00 00 -

CN;

0ý 0 D

ý4J (N -1 C:

0p

ii: I~Ja)

,4

r@0

LO 186 C

Page 203: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0oC l

11cJj

0l C) 0

0

o 0o

-4

00

0

0'

4-4 N

8' N

C) cl CD r r- L

C; CF Cý 0 0ý C

C~o CL C

C: O0)M0

0n

r:04 , Ci , 1C:) 11 an

0;

N- 0 Y

-V ('4

C; 18

Page 204: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0

00 00 -iO

Si C!) N ,l

000

0 L

C;4

0

0

00-r-i

00c.

-4

4 4 C; C',

0~~~ C;rýC

(N7

Ev00a0

rl0

C).

CD -D4C-44 M0q C

N- ~ Y

C) 188!

Page 205: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

000

"i rC'i '0 *\3

0

00-m

00

4J~

4-4 >

C;9

000

8 4sL~j r0

CD cl LO ( N In

M : 0 ý06Xcli-a4

0r02 0r)Ll 7

ri) C) lJ

r-4 0N c

r 9 C9

Page 206: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

000 C)0

0; 0 ) ý

04

0 0 :Ni oN

00 r 00 '

000

4-)4

0 .4

040

0 0 0 .4

CN 0

CD CD 0 CONN

Page 207: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

00

NC

0 0 )C6 ;C;c

14

0 0

0 -

0 0;

N0C;

44 EliLfLC-p 5 OLOLý.6.

C~) CDJ l CDo ;C ;C

ý4 C) .0 r' C

o-- 0N C

In44

* 91 Nv

Page 208: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

ýo C) kc 00164 )

rn I I

I00

m -4

C0 0 CD

'cD C,~L

0 co

r- 00

-4 0

~19M

Page 209: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

APPENDIX D

Summary of Analysis of Variable Dihedral Horizontal Tail Concept

This appendix contains a summary of the information used to integrate thevariable dihedral horizontal tail. Included in the integration effort are the weight,structures and actuation sizing trades. The following figures are included:

Figure D-1 Weight Buildup and Concept Comparison

Figure D-2 Aft Configuration Features Comparison

Figure D-3 Body Boom Weight - Fixed Spindle (baseline)

Figure D-4 Body Boom Arrangement for Fixed Spindle

Figure D-5 Horizontal Stabilizer Spindle Weight Comparison

Figure D-6 Horizontal Stabilizer Spindle Sizing

Figure D-7 Horizontal Stabilizer Spindle Loads Comparison

Figure D-8 Horizontal Stabilizer Spindle Sizing Comparison

Figure D-9 Fixed Spindle Mid Boom

Figure D-10 Body Boom Arrangement for Variable Dihedral

Figure D-1 1 Body Boom Arr. for Var. Dihedral - Concept 2

Figure D-12 Rotary Hinge Torque Tube Arrangement

Figure D-13 Curtiss-Wright Power Hinge Sizing Chart

Figure D-14 Activation Cycles vs. Design Hinge Moment

193

Page 210: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0 ~ 0 CD6LL-)(=c 00(a

0 0L0 N N co O 00 46 6i 66 6

.04

20>

1? ~ ~ 0 0 D C t mC46j 6~ c6 6~ ci C ci

co -t LO 1mma) cUL

frI >

04 c

CD) 0- C) C)C ) )C )- D&W0 06 . 9ic ; c; 6 0 ;6C :co) CC) C)L ) U ) oI

2 () c rt) i-Wc)

C/)Z~ .0 .- NC

Cz i- *ci 0 <0 Vr- On aN C6 4_iT-o 0) co/) _ V

>~~U =UC) C -C

194 c

Page 211: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

-3-Nfl~d3LN30 -- - - - - - - - - 1--7 - - - - - -

lSflVHX3 NtON3

N

cn N

uI 0

lO~~~~ld3 1Vd3HO ZSV8YASNlV1N

LNLMJ DNLA-

00

- Nnbl8~.N30 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -

ZL

isnVIAOV 3NUN

0 0m

u19

Page 212: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C) 0-

I-~ 00 0 L oz 000CM

on 0 022

VZ 60)~~ oooo cco

Qcn C /() < QC cccCcc ca:= ct CNMCMjCMjNCMCM CMjCMjcMi c

U. CMjCMjCMjCM CMj CMjCM CMI L.LC~ LLLL LL LL ~ U 2LLLL

F- I-- < <

(Dcc Ou n ICT ~o co L Oo )C OC o0-

z cq)

o con0 6C_ 0

< 00! -D mUJ 0

LU ZO 0w LL, <Z < ,

~ LU I-cc ) L LU C-

o U LULL

LLJ >> 0 Z-196

Page 213: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C

C C

CL

EL 0

C/)

x

LL

Li m c0 02 l

00

0) S

CD CW (0 CDIII--/

cc

-- aweli tf7" B~S

0 IToL z

00

0 C~~ur0 C/)

U I-

19

Page 214: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

wU Cl) WL eC: a l)~

~0~Zco

Z aa: CUm 'iC0U F_ _ .7. F 1

CL U-. - - -

- 00 00u,0u

0V - __ .)__ __ __ _ w 4-C'4 r ) t

~CuLO 0C~ qT 0 J-

C/,U

N C. C Tr-0cm . Tr t.C D aCM C.) W C-) v N to Clu

Z Bý . C4'I

-U Cu -Ca a aoaoo0

CD 0 s co( _ r- ) cC2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _p - (

Cn- ~jNC vC ~

0i CiC 90LN<

> 0 C 0 0-N oq IT CDN W

wLU % nx .~.

02Z 11u5Z I--N

400 w 00 4 'cE 000uf~l IIU ~O02 a

12198

Page 215: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

o 0o

Qn ca C

LLU

0

o 0 Cu

0 cn

C-~U)

0-. U 0a. LU LU

CL C 6.J Lo

EL Y U0i

cn~

cc C co C3-0 00.8C-

0 - - -~ N' N

V- e - c -rý I-- c ui L

N Z N

0 c0NE 05

2:00E L 0 Uo 0 InO~sO0 oLL ~.--.. US -0 P~ w w

I- ~ - &-LU o 2-

e w -

W -- zW w M >.o Z 0 0O.w u a

2 < @uj a 199

Page 216: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C,

. . . . . . . .. ..-. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . ... ..

us w

ow 0 Sn

... .... ....-... ... .... ..

~cn ... ....... ..... . ...

..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .

... .. .. .. ....... .. ..... ...... .. ...

n)a ae~ aIO 18 a e

CD CD CD' 04 -s 'n q i 6~0

CD W2 91 NI CD INC3~ CDWLLf a1 NI 0 NVOI~.W

CL CL C tC L L, L Cw C.) c- - In *w c M -((fl 81N ENw n3 v tin8 I- a o i o

X--- - ci

.. ......... ........ ..4...........

aa M> aa a

04) CC .... ..... ..... .........S .. .. ... . ..._1- xI~S~vwn91hvHavd

LU200

Page 217: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Wwq~wcm1

z Z ,I0 CLi o z

-) CIO

0 Ij

z aU I I -

zn -j i I J

_j1 a < -= I,

CLI Il

Il m ili ..LL I 6

life SOS~~fi ll

I-~ rII zIz Iji IZ

o 0IINi I

201

Page 218: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C

C4 0

LU

0

N . CN

C4 C.

'0 z-ta

CD

I.-If

o r -re

00 Le)I

Of co

(0 0 -s = X Xi

C13 0 f

S Xo CL 4xWj Co 0

rc > ClJU-t

LZU UJra -

0 ~ (+ x0I

Qi UJU~x +~*

Lu~ cicr

-

Q -0 tJ

LU 0. 0. L

202

Page 219: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0

LLC

OLUBJ:1 99 tsL

I-t

o 0o

r 0

0W J .99 U. a CM I= ~~ m Cr

CL r_ Ej6 - a o N

- -

E 203

Page 220: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

CL-

00

C))0 ~ vd09 sc

00

0 cmIS

0W~ 601 a NZ

O*W9JA 089 Ins

E0

00

C Z

CL 0

I.M

*WDJ~~~ EC SS > j- cc a________

= to0 Z*

*C)0 0 0 0 0

241

Page 221: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

C,m

L..-

W 16G- - -

!N

0

cr.

205

Page 222: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

DATA PER CURTISS-WRIGHT POWER HINGE DESIGNERS' HDBK

TOOTH STRESS CYCLES PER TORQUE CAPACITY PERREVOLUTION RUNNING INCH

1,000. _ .. 1,000,000...........

....................... .......

U) Q. ........ ..... 1 ,0 0. .. .. .

OUTSIDE00D.AMETE.. . INCHES 100. 10,000. DI TE 'TCES 10

100. 0. E5 100,000.

00

o10. 100% 1. 0.0000

NUMBERDOFDTAOETESTRESSCYCES -N.OUTSIDE DIAMETER - INCHES

ROAYACTUATOR LEN TH TO ACTUATOR STIFFNES PERDIAETRVLMIATO RUNNING INCH

l 1000 ........................10 ,000 000..... .. .

1.080% ._ _ ....

10 10 1 107 1000

Lu 60%206

Page 223: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

LU 0LL0

o 0J

Cn 0 -

LU,

zz c!Z

00wU 0

*z.(n~

I-ý 0

u..m CU>d

. ............... ....0nu0=

LU ,N _ _ap"

q.. LC.

C.)C0

z ALA.

Wil 1 0:1 0 A I A I0liI l

0D Q CD 0

STIOAO NOUVALOAU3' 310 aSefN

207

Page 224: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

APPENDIX E

Boeing Model-24F and Wind Tunnel Model 1798Geometry Characteristics

This appendix contains the geometry characteristics of the Boeing Model-24F vehicle and ofthe associated Wind Tunnel Model 1798 in the following figures:

Figure E-1 Boeing Model-24F Full Scale Geometry

Figure E-2 3-Viewing Drawing - Model 1798

Figure E-3 Wing Planform Geometry - Model 1798

Figure E-4 Horizontal Tail Geometry - Model 1798

Figure E-5 Vertical Tail Geometry - Model 1798

208

Page 225: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

wccv

r- cJo COONT00 rLe -N-O C'O OD LO 1 ~ N-C t D

co ~coH LO CD N- LO)

.O LfMCCJ ) C) CO U- -

o0 (05jc 60 ) oc oU)T

C4CU.

0~ LO C

z Lo LO LL OD -ý-z

~Cfv,0 yc6 N- c6 LO

Lij

0/

LW WL Z Ico LLI LL

LLJ H\ ILCLC L ~ C LLU )oL&0 U .- U- LU c 0z LLWL

--LC, L

wccc1 c H H 0OF- a: -0O

0LuzýZ .' uOwE(r>

209

Page 226: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

0

IL4

0 _ _,

c

CN

210

Page 227: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

WING PLANFORM GEOMETRY

W1 AND W1.l1MODEL 1798

0.05 Scale Model of Configuration -24F

C0

PLAN VIEW

MS 16.2 A 42

SWF = 1.1625 ft2b = 19.17 in.MAC = 10.44 In.

.AR = 2.2

1" = -91L AE = 47.21

MS 19.0701 1/4 MAC Location: MS 22.706BL 3.57WL 6.758

W 20.706

3.5 Leading Edge Flap

4 MS 23.7535% MAC 9

0;

I MS 26.6602

Trailing Edge FlapS~ AileronI ••MS 28.0102

MS 28.9143

S;• MS 29.7627

-MS 30.9015 q

MS 31.62 0 -oU,ic'd

NOTE: DIMENSIONS GIVEN IN MODEL SCALE INCHES

Figure E-3 Wing Planform Geometry - Model 1798

211

Page 228: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

HORIZONTAL TAIL GEOMETRYHI

MODEL 1798

0.05 Scale Model of Configuration -24F

TRUE VIEW

9 Pivot Locatlion MS 34.935

SL 2.35 S REF = 0.0844 ft.2 each

WL 6.942 bTrue = 3.916 in. eachAR = 2.52MAC = 3.357 in.r = 001/4MAC Location MS 34.874

Both horizontal tails pivot around an axis BL 3.984

swept 60 from the pivot point. WL 6.942

•,, ~ 4.641 '

2.684

-BL 2.35

M-AC 3.916

47.5*

NOTE: DIMENSIONS GIVEN IN MODEL SCALE INCHES,,6

F-ure E-4 Hotizontal Tail Geometry -Model 1798

212

Page 229: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

VERTICAL TAIL GEOMETRYVI

MODEL 1798

0.05 Scale Model of Configuration -24F

TRUE VIEW

620 S REF = 0.0912 ft.2 eachb True = 3.8485 in.AR = 1.1275MAC = 3.694r =620

3 -- 14 MAC Location MS 31.75BL 2.336WL 9.278

MS 32.738

S 2.841 BL 3.308WL 11. 105

_ 3.8485

I BL 1.501

4.428

7

rQ-

NOTE: DIMENSIONS GIVEN IN MODEL SCALE INCHES

Figure E-5 Vertical Tail Geometty - Model 1798213

Page 230: GetTRDoc (1).pdf

Sep 15 99 11:02a p.2

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEAIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

WRIGHT.PATfERSOtN AIR FORCE BASE OHIO 45433

MEMORANDUM FOPR Defense Technical Information Center/OMU8725 John J. Kingman Rd, Suite 0944Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

FROM: Det 1 AFRL/WSTBldg 640 Rm 602331 12th StreetWright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7950

SUBJECT: Notice of Changes in Technical Report(s) (. Yet,)

Please change subject report(s) as follows:

e4zk2ý, A-% $gX

1ý/-fA oe -• ! l .: "

9,7x•-P 17l

/STJNF and Technical EditingSTechniical Inf onmation Division