\ I

. )

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

Proposed Technical Memorandum

LOW-SPEED STATIC STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS

OF TWO HYPERSONIC CRUISE CONFIGURATIONS

By Delma C. Freeman, Jr. and Richard S. Jones

rM

L-7l34

?-07-( ~ . (7 . \

PEN00039

.J

LOW-SPEED STATIC STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS

OF TWO HYPERSONIC CRUISE CONFIGURATIONS

By Delma C. Freeman, Jr. and Richard S. Jones

ABSTRACT

1 A wind-tunnel investigation has been made to determine the low-

2 speed static stability and control characteristics of two hypersonic

3 cruise configurations - a distinct wing-body configuration and a blended

4 wing-body configuration.

STAR Category 02

L-7l34

r

)

LOW-SPEED STATIC STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS

OF TWO HYPERSONIC CRUISE CONFIGURATIONS

By Delma C. Freeman, Jr. and Richard S. Jones

SUMMARY

1 A wind-tunnel investigation has been made to determine the low-

2 speed static stability and control characteristics of two hypersonic

3 cruise configurations - a distinct wing-body configuration and a

4 blended wing-body configuration.

5 The investigation showed that the distinct wing-body configuration

6 in the landing configuration (c.g. 0.51c) was statically longitudinally

7 unstable up to the stall and directionally unstable above about7~

8 angle of attack. The blended wing-body configuration (c.g. 0.37c)

9 was statically longitudinally unstable over most of the test angle-of-

10 attack range and directionally stable up to the stall.

J

r

. ..l

2

INTRODUCTION

1 For the past few years the National Aeronautics and Space

2 Administration has been conducting studies directed toward providing

3 information to help in the development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle.

4 From the results of a preliminary study accounting for the interplay

5 between structures, propulsion, and aerodynamics (refs. l and 2) two

6 hypersonic cruise configurations have evolved. In order to evaluate

7 the aerodynamic characteristics of the two configurations the Langley

8 Research Center has conducted wind-tunnel tests to determine the

9 aerodynamic characteristics throughout the Mach number range (see

10 ref. 3). As part of this general effort the present low-speed wind-

II tunnel investigation has been conducted. The two configurations tested

12 in this investigation are a delta-wing vehicle with a distinct body,

13 wing and horizontal tail; and a blended wing-body with a double-delta

14 planform and elevons for control. The present investigation consisted

15 of static force tests to determine the low-speed longitudinal and lateral

16 stability and control characteristics of the two configurations.

T

3

SYMBOLS

1 The longitudinal data are referred to the stability system of

2 axes and the lateral data are referred to the body system of axes

3 (see fig. 1). The origin of the axes was located to correspond to the

4 center-of-gravity positions shown in figure 2. These center-of-gravity

5 positions (0.5lc distinct-wing body and 0.37cblended-wing body)

6 were specified in the preliminary study (ref. 2) for the landing

7 configuration.

8 In order to facilitate international usage of data presented,

9 dimensional quantities are presented both in the U.S. Customary Units

10 and the International System of Units (SI). The equivalent dimensions

11 were determined in each case by using the conversion factors given

12 in reference 4.

b

-c

q

S

X,Y,Z

wing span, in. (cm)

mean aerodynamic chord, in. (cm)

drag force, lb (N)

lift force, lb (N)

lateral force, lb (N)

ro11ing moment, ft-lb (m-N)

pitching moment, ft-lb (m-N)

yawing moment, ft-lb (m-N)

dynamic pressure, lb/ft2 (N/m2 )

. . 2 ( 2) w~ng area, ~n.· cm

body reference axes

r

4

Xs'Ys,Zs stability reference axes

a. angle of attack, deg

i3 angle of sideslip, deg

0a total aileron deflection, eeL - 0eR' deg

° elevon deflection, positive when trailing edge is down, deg e

eeL left elevon deflection, positive when trailing edge is down, deg

0eR right elevon deflection, positive when trailing edge is

down, deg

OR rudder deflection, positive when trailing edge is deflected

to left, deg

CL lift coefficient, FL/qS

Cz rolling-moment coefficient, MX/qSb

6C Z incremental rolling moment coefficient

Cm pitching moment coefficient, My/qSc

Cn yawing moment coefficient, MZ/qSb

6C incremental yawing-moment coefficient n

oC n = -, per deg

oi3

Cy side-force coefficient, Fy/qS

6Cy incremental side-force coefficient.

r

..

5

dC CYj3 = d'ff-, per deg

it horizontal tail incidence, positive when trailing edge is

down, deg

differential deflection of horizontal tail used for roll

r ,

6

APPARATUS AND MODEL

1 Drawings of the models used in this investigation are presented

2 in figure 2. The distinct wing-body configuration, presented in

3 figure 2(a), consisted of a 65° swept delta planform wing, horizontal

4 and vertical tails and a f~{1g under the fuselage for mounting a

5 turboramjet engine. The model had a conventional rudder for directional

6 control and utilized differential deflection of the all-movable

7 horizontal tail for roll control. The blended wing-body configuration

8 presented in figure 2(c) had a double-de1ta planform with 65° sweep

9 on the rear delta, a fairing for a turboramjet engine under the fuselage,

10 and elevon surfaces for both roll and pitch control. Photographs of

11 the models are presented in figure 3.

12 The static force tests were conducted in a Langley low-speed wind

13 tunnel with a 12-foot octagonal test section.

TESTS

14 Force tests were made to determine the static longitudinal and

15 lateral stability and control characteristics of the.two models. The

16 tests were generally made over an angle-of-attack range from -40 to

17 30°. The lateral force and moment data were measured over a sideslip

18 angle range at fixed angles of attack. The lateral stability derivatives

19

20

21

were determine fran the incremental differences in Cn' CZ' and Cy

measured at ±5° sideslip. The force tests were made at a velocity of , . 6

72.2 ft/sec which corresponds to a Reynolds number per foot of 0.46 x 10 •

r

7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Longitudinal Characteristics

1 Distinct wing-body.- The longitudinal characteristics of the

2 distinct wing-body configuration are presented in figure 4 for the

3 center-of-gravity position of O.51c. These data show that with this

4 center of gravity the configuration was longitudinally unstable up to

5 about the stall (a = 25°). These data also show that the horizontal

6 tail was effective for providing pitch control.

7 Data are presented in figure 5 which show the effect on the

8 longitudinal characteristics of moving the reference center of gravity

9 to a location ~epresenting the cruise configuration (O.31C). These

10 data show that even with the forward center of gravity the model was

11 still unstable from about 5° to 15° angle of attack and the pitching

l2 moment was very non-linear.

13 In an effort to determine the reason for the longitudinal instability

14 of the model, tests were made to determine the contribution of various

15 components to the stability of the model. These data are presented in

16 figure 6 and show that the model had about the same degree of instability

17 with the horizontal tail off or on, indicating that the tail was

18 ineffective. With the wing off the tail showed its expected effectiveness.

19 From these results it appears that the tail is in the wing wake which

20 results in the loss of effectiveness. This conclusion was borne out

21 in some smoke-flow studies which showed the vortex flow from the delta

22 wing acting on the tail.

r

)

8

1 With the ineffectiveness of the horizontal tail apparently caused ,

2 by the position of the tail relative to the wing, additional tests

3 were made to study the effect of varying the vertical position of

4 the horizontal tail (see fig. 2(b». These data are presented in

5 figure 7 and show that a mid-tailor T-tail arrangement resulted in

6 a stable configuration in the low angle-of-attack range. The configu-

7 ration becrune unstable, however, as the angle of attack increased and

8 the tail again moved into the wing wake.

9 Blended wing-body.- Presented in figure 8 are the static longi-

10 tudinal stability and control characteristics of the blended wing-body

11 model. The data show that for the landing center of gravity (0.37c) the

12 configuration was statically unstable over the test angle-of-attack

13 range except near 0°. This instability at low speeds is not generally

14 characteristic of delta wings and is apparently associated with the

15 lift of the forward delta of the wing which moves the aerodynamic

16 center forward. This result has been noted in previous tests, for

17

18

19

example the double-delta supersonic transport configuration presented

~~~~ in reference 5. These'data also show that the elevon effectiveness

was about constant up to 20° angle of attack.

- I

1

.~ 9

Lateral Characteristics

1 Distinct wing~body.- The variation of the lateral characteristics

2 with angle of sideslip for the distinct wing-body model at several

3 angles of attack is presented in figure 9. These data indicate a

4 generally linear variation of the coefficient5over the sideslip range

5 tested (13 = ±100).

6 The variation of the lateral derivatives with angle of attack is

7 presented in figure 10 for the complete model and with various components

8 removed. These data show that the model is directionally unstable

9 above about 8° angle of attack and has negative effective dihedral

10 (+Cz13

) near 150 angle of attack. The instability is shown to be caused

11 by the large destabilizing moment of the wing-body combination which ~t ~ overpowers the stabilizing effect of the vertic~l tail. It is interesting 12

13 ~~'t~ote that the wing contributes a large positive increment of direc-.... t~,

14 \~ tional stability up to about 100 angle of attack.

15 The variation of the control effectiveness of the differentially

16 deflected horizontal tail with angle of attack for the distinct wing-

17 body model is presented in figure 11. These data show that the rolling

18 moment produced by the horizontal tail was essentially constant through

19 the stall. Large proverse yawing moments were also produced, however, and

20 the yawing moments were up to twice as large as the rolling moments

21 depending on the amount of tail deflection. The large proverse yawing

22 moments are typical of this type of roll control where the differentially

10

1 deflected surfaces are in close proximity to a center vertical tail

2 and result in a pressure differential across the vertical tail.

3 Presented in figure 12 is the variation of the rudder effectiveness

4 with angle of attack for the distinct wing-body model. These data

5 shaw that rudder effectiveness was maintained over the angle-of-attack

6 range tested and that rudder deflection produced small adverse rolling

7 moments.

8 Blended wing-body.- The variation of the lateral coefficients with

9 angle of sideslip for the blended wing-body model at several angles

10 of attack is presented in figure 13. These data show a generally

11 linear variation of the coefficients over the sideslip range tested

12 (~ = ±lOO) up to 15° angle of attack. At higher angles of attack the

15

16

curves not only became non-linear but also changed slope. ~~~.

The variation of the lateral cfiapaete!istics with angle of attack

is presented in figure 14. These data show that the model is directionally ~>

stable up to about the stall (~ =~) although the stability decreases \

17 rather rapidly above 15° angle of attack. The model has positive

18 effective dihedral (-Cz~) over the angle-of-attack range tested and

19 the effective dihedral also decreased at angles of attack above 15°.

20 The variation of the aileron effectiveness with angle of attack is

21 presented in figure 15. These data show that roll control effectiveness

22 is maintained over the test angle-of-attack range and there are generally

.J

11

1 proverse yawing moments generated. The ratio of the yawing moment to

2 rolling moment is much smaller than that for the distinct wing-body

3 configuration. The variation of the rudder effectiveness with angle

4 of attack is presented in figure 16. These data show that the rudder

5 effectiveness is maintained at a relatively constant level over the

6 ang1e-of-attack range. Some adverse rolling moment is generated by

7 rudder deflection.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

8 The results of an investigation to determine the low-speed static

9 stability and control characteristics of models of two hypersonic

10 cruise vehicles may be summarized as follows =-...... -.... --.------.. __ .~ __ '.Y -

II 1. The distinct wing-body configuration was lOngitudinally· ... ··)

12 unstable up to the stall with a center-of-gravity location of 0.51c.

13 2. The blended wing-body configurationjw.as neutrally stable ,~ ~-"'---'--'-"-"--'-"-'-~

14 near zero angle of attack but became increasingly unstable as the '~ -=:-------- ... .. --.... .-.'-' -- - 1

15 angle of attack increased ~ter-of-=-gr~~~~i~~~~-'-"---"/ 16 3. The distinct wing-body and the blended wing-body configurations

17 became directionally unstable at 80 and 23 0 angle of attack, respectively.

18 4. Both configurations had roll control effectiveness over the

19 ang1e-of-attack range tested (~ = 30°). The roll control of the

20 distinct wing-body configuration, however, produced proverse yawing

21 moments that are larger than the rolling moments.

· -

12

REFERENCES

1. Penland, JllnA.; Edwards, Clyde L. W.; Witcof'ski, Robert D.; and

Marcum, Don C., Jr.: Comparative Aerodynamic Study of Two

Hypersonic Cruise Aircraft Configurations Derived From Trade-

Off Studies. NASA TM x-1436, 1967.

2. Jar1ett, F. E.: Performance Potential of Hydrogen Fueled,

Cruise Aircraft. Vo1s. 1-4, Rep. No. GD/C-DCB66-o04/1-4 (Contract

NAS2-3l80), Gen. Dyn., Sept. 30, 1966.

/ 3. Langhams, Richard A.: Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of

Two HYPersonic Cruise Configurations. NASA TM X-1816, 1969.

4. Mecht1y, E. A.: The International System of pnits - Physical

Constants and Conversion Factors. NASA SP-7012, 19640

5. Freeman, Delma C., Jr.: Low-Subsonic Flight and Force Investigation

of a Supersonic Transport Model With a Double-Delta Wing. NASA

TN D-4179, 19

~. ;'t;W--~A ~~~ S"-k6/J,i/ d;r;,~-/ ~;II;f)1 ,," ---0'1 /;..1.)0

/)-:/;/1 L ,/,-----"

" ,,1', -- ,-,

l

r

/

x \

Xs ..

Wind direction

F ! y/

===---- <­....

. Azimuth reference

Figure 1.- System of axes used in investigation. Longitudinal data are referred to stability system of axes and lateral data are referred to body system of axes. Arrows indicate positive directions of moments, forces, and angles.

! I ! !

.'

_19·75 -­(50.1)'

. \ Station

63.38 (161.4)

1 _--------~~~~-------=======~~::~~~==~ 13.40 - <, - ____ --- (3100 )

Station --.-l 1.7.38

(44.1)

Station B 42.68

.. ~ (108.4) ", ~"',

Station C

46.90 (119. 1)

Station A . Station C

Station B

37.71 k-----(95.78)

Moment Center

.51c

---------.:..---_____ . 65. 88 ---r· (167.3) ) Reference Dimensions

Area 324 in.2 (2090.3 cm2)

Span 24.36 in. (61..87 cm)

Chord 1.7.88 in. (45.42 cm)

(a) Distinct- wing body configuration

Figure 2 • - Three-view drawing of model used in investigation. All dimensions are given in inches with centimeter given in parenthesis.

I

I i

I

il ] . • )

!

:1

I il

1:1' , ,

T-tail

Mid-tail

--

Low tail Original tail position

(b) Distinct wing-body configuration. Vertical positions of horizontal tail tested.

Figure 2. - Continued.

----•. • _________________ ~.::;:,=_:::__=__==__==._. ____ • ______ ._ • ___ •.•.•. _________ ._. _______ ....... _ ••. ______ . __ . ,,_ .. __ . ___ . ____ .. ____ ••.. ___ .... • J .... __ ." •• _ "'''''_ , ....... _ .. _ ...... ___ .. ___ •

Station A 15.28

(38.8)

·.Station B

/.1/.'//

42.33 6

\

station' A ~",.(107.5) ,I

~ station C

Station B \

Moment Center

L -.. ----- .. --. 38.55' l ( )

--_ .. _---97.92

O~3(c

I~ 62.62 ----(159.0) -------

Reference Dimensions

Area 453.2 in.2 (2923.9 cm

2)

Span 27.25 in. (69.2 em)

Chord 20.77 in. (52.8 em)

(c) Blended wing body configuration.

Figure 2.- Concluded.

C

:J

:1

:1 \1 il :1 J 'j .1

1

I •

I

I II

• . ~ .,

1 ., , t.

~ : " ~

:. t .. i , ~ !

NASA L .. 67 .. I'!('\1

)

", .. . :'~.. . . . . '~ ...

, "

. :.'

. ~.:

'.'.,:

'.' . .,',

. (

(a) Distinct wing-body.

",:;- ",

(b) Blended wing-body.

.,: .

· .. ··AZ··· . , . . .;:> .

-~- .... ..... " . "'-:~" .

. /~-

"

Figure 3. - Photograghs of models used In invcstigJtion.

. .'"

.4

.3

. 2

.1

)

, I , .

'1 .,

, I j.

·1

I ... ~J .

\

it, deg

o 10 o 0 <> -Hi l:l. -20

. : . , : : ! .. : . r' '. I \

o - ... --+---~------.;­

f~

.. 1

-.1

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

. 6

. 4

.2

o

-.2 -10

I

\ .. - .

: :: .: . : . I· .... .-- ";::' .:~.: !.:~: :':'~j~'.: :-'-r- : > .'~~-:-'-

I •

. - .. ' 0 . ..---:.:..:..:._;._:..: __ ._..:.1 .. ~ .~ .. -----

. I

hi ·:l \ .•. ;,!' '.,= .... ~.. .~.... . ..... • •.•....••....•...

/ f . . : -:. -- ... lJf!t~-\

. _ ... '11 Ii,~,/·f; /' .'.' .', .. '. : : .'. . . . . )jj .... .... ,.\ .

,/!fl,' .. [ ..... T~"! •••• • • '\ .••.••• '~\\.'." .• 71;£..1" ..

. 1/ '.. I' ." ]l ,1':':'- .. :. ." l.:

. I ,,/ .' .' • ~ , . •• .. . . . . . . , , . • " :

. ~;l~ : . ' ! : " . \ l ! l' :i': ...

, .I-!-' ---'--,' 1--------, ." " ... ~-----~------t----• I I I •• ··, I I

.! ... ! ·1· ,. """'1 . .,.':: I: I . I

:111·.:.·_·.·.i.·.:·I· ..... ,' .. :. >\;:;:I':;::":I':;I':'jl; it' .;'

. : ~ ... L.;':. ..~ j, _ ".: i ... : . I ." :.;: _ ••

o 10 20 30 .4 .3 .2 .1 o -.1 a, deg

Figure j.j... - Longitudinal characteristics of the distinct wing-body model. 6. = oa, 6r = oa.

't

j

C m

\

. 2 :.--

.1

[ . I

; -:-:-r----, ,-T--'-- ~ --r:-- -r~' , ,~r:--- :-nTr-:~- -~; " "7~-T--:' j-------r--- -1------·-: --- .. • :~~ . ':"\ , " , •. I".l f ,,· • I ,L, I '." I

.' Pi . '\1 >:: . r :·1 I' I .. ·

. -.. '1" -: i : 'H •.•. j., ;.: I;!" :_:.-..• -'[ :u ~~LJ-_~. I, ~ ---: ; • .... ---! -r--;-" • - ~-. t- ~-..... .--. .... I.. ..,. r""

," I"" .... , .... 0

I •••.•• : ,

---,::±---~:....----=~------; --- ._-.. - Moment center, % C-

-.1

-.2

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

o -to

O 51 o 37

. !

. i

o 10 20 30 40 .2 .1 -.1

a, deg

Figure S . - Effect of center-at-gravity location on the static longitudinal characteristics ot the distinct wing-body model. it = 00, 6, = ()O, 6 = (lO.

It r

-.2

I

! I

I il i

!' . I

.3 '

.2

.1

o

-.1

-.2

-.3

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2 '

o

-.2

, , ) ,

I ! , ,

\ ,

1

.; ... o Complete configuration o Horizontal tail off -o Horizontal tail on, wing off [:;. Body alone - - CI..<::' .00::.2

'" ,

'-K

··········!1··~ 'c--!l-'. J . r-;,\ ---\ .. -

.. -I ... .. I

-- -... -----,. ---. -- --_ ... ---.----" ~-

--- --J .. -- -:~- .. __ , l __ , '- __ I

C~,' ,Oyc,S'" ,1,

e :~,.. c[ '~IO b)

---- ---- -. - - --<- -< -' ~l_._: -. ~--:-~- -t--'\ .. ~ ,. __ ~~ ___ L __

, .: _,' I - ---1-----: -.:: -. : ~-: -- :~:- '-1~ -:: . -.- _

-: -- /Cl_ ~-: ---~__:' -F .::..::--1-' ------- ; - ; :! . . -,_._- -

: : : ! :: ..: , .. . I··

i I .-, i'

".>:/ ..~ I , - ! - ,i .. ~ A (;

(~v',l t,,,:,~ : ' . I ~:I'1J' ~.

, ,

I ... ..

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

• I_

: (/

'i., I

, 'L~_: c _____ : _: ._.1. I

t· I : I

-10 o 10 20

a, deg

30 .3 .2 .1 o -.1 -.2

Figure (J • - Effect of various components on the longitudinal characteristics of the distinct wing-body model. it = oa, 6i = oa, 6r = oa.

t

.4

.3

C .2 m

.1

-.1

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

-.2 . -10

r

I; ~

o 10

a, deg

20

• : ,-- ~ • T •.• ~ , r .. "

i I

. i

.4 .3

\

o Tail off o Original tail location <> Low tail· L:. Mid tail to. T tail

.2 .1 o

Figure r . - Effect of vertical location of the horizontal tail on the longitudinal characteristics of the distinct wing-body model. it = (lO, 6. = oaJ 6 = (lO.

It r

r "-'" I I ~

-.1

r

C m

I' ~ '_ I

• 3

.2

.1

o

-.1

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

o

-.2

-.4 -10

./ .... :;:,. .: - -:. ... :.-~-

o 10

a, deg

20 30

.. I '-'" - -I' I

I i

.3 ,

.2

\ .

6e, deg

o 10 o 0 o -10 fj. -20

: .1

Cm

'\ (., \

\

\

0

\ I, '.-

I r T o

Figure g . - longitudinal characteristics of the blended wing-body model. 6a

= ()O, 6r

= O?

-.1

en

\

a, deg

-.6 o 0 o 5 <> 10 A 15

.3 " ~ 20 D 30

.2

.1

0

G i I -.1 ... __ I- ~

-.k ~ , : -.~~ I

- - . ---

i , !

-.2

-.3

i .05

f?f:o,-~"" T ~ " _ _~ '--, ""- -' o D-~;:.,.~_,. ~ :

-.05 . ,.­. ,' . -_ ....... _-_. ---'-10 -5 o

f3, deg

. ! .. .' .

5 10

Figure '1 . - lateral characteristics or the distinct wing-body model. It = oa, 6, = oa, 6 = oa.

't r

o

-.04

.005 '.

o

-.005 .

-.010

-.015

-.020

-.025 .

-.030

.002

Cz ~

0

i -.002

0

, ," : i

I·

. I

o Complete configuration o Vertical tail off <> Vertical and horizontal tails\ off f:::. Wing off (1-1/) \..- 0 tJ / ~ Body alone ,

r' .... -~-- ~-. - -j ..

. I ..

t I I'

i : ~ . . : ~ .

.. I , I· • , .

, ! . ,

. i

I

. , .. I . I •• i " ; ". i" I I

~ L.~_L;~ :.,:': Ji ': :lLJ~LjL:::::~::_:~~!'j~:.~ ~:::::"j-_ .. '-__ 'L~~~ 5 W B W ~ ~

a, deg

Figure 10. - Effect of various components of the distinct wing-body model lateral stability. it = 00, b. = 00, fir = 00.

It

hoC n

)

o . I :: : .. ':.: . i I • ; •. ; • : : ' i . ;' . i ' . i

-.2 . : . I····· i ' ... :.: .:: .. 1 :.:: :

. 02

.01

o

.01

o

r · .• . .• ..-. t L J', !" • I , ... :.. • .•. 1 I I ", .j., • . . . ' . . : I : . ~ . : ... : ,. '._~.:... ~::.b-~-:L:..::.-:_ ... -.-.---.-----.-~---------,..-. 0 -10 ... , .. ':

.. : i : .. : :j .. :j . : .. , r 0 -20 :.: . -1-: j . : ; -: .! ' : m~·~~~tCClm; i •. ·1< Ii:: ....... .

[1~_~ :_:! . __ . i ._~~~ .. _._ . .:...~--:-.-' '--""r--~

'-----.-;8 8 " I;. :.;.Ll . i ! : : . ! I i

--:-: j . . -p' --.-!-:--'-I~" ·t---,-".--'-f-I

- T. . - . I I I - r •• r- • ~ I .. I - .

---.- - - --- -' ---- -- - ~-

1·:·1: . : : i : : .. ! ,

: L. ! ., ...~:":!:.. . . i . .. '::: ;::; . .. .... ...... ... -.+.-~ ···H,: .1- ·.·~·,:--:l- .. ··.~.~ •• l ;;: ,. -., ... -.. . .. I

_ .• _. __ ., ~ __ ,' . ____ . ______ : __________ : ___ . _________ .l __ ._ .•.• ____ _

-[!j : ~r_---_;Gj---.-----.-_G ... _._. __ .... {;]---­

.-----0 ... ---.-' ---'0~-'·-~··----0 I

I . ;

I'

o 5 10 15 20 a, deg

-Q--(;')

.~

y.

25 30

Figure 11 . - Roll control effectiveness of the distinct wing-body model. 0=00 A=OO r ' ~ .

-.2

.03

.02

.01

o I

. I

.. I

o

-.01 '0 5 10 15 20 25 30

a, deg

Figure 1. d • - Rudder control effectiveness of the distinct wing-body model. o. = 0°, p = 0°. It

C n

ii :: I r , ' I, " .. , t

-. 2 ~

.10

o '. 'I ,-'" I,

__ ~: L _LJ:_j~.J_;~.~~ .. -~-:J~~. [Jc::_=-_ -. -i----.

· ::.: I : : : :-:::: i :., :: I··J .:.:.1 .. ---+.--4-' _. -_j a, deg

[' . . :;: II 0 0 .. -....... .:- 11 0 5 I .::., . I .. i.: <> 10 I. '.'! . I

.- ... -.• --.. -.......-... -~ 1:1 15 ! :. ~ 20

: ! D 30

.05

i ' :.: I i

O~\" -.05 ~ ___ [i:-J.<-~:Ai--- .. ,·

1:--- -J~--'~·I··· .... ~:·;:~-~' ----:~~~--l----·-.----1U_\

!. t·,", .. t I ',_-'- :'-'-'- '-'~'r -- -. r-~·~--~ ,,------- . _,,__._~_ .._ .. __ ....... L...:..- I .~ . I

-.10

· .'. I' ~ . . . I . . i .

_~_~_. L~. _i~L ____ . ____ ~~~_ ~. ~.: __ :_ · ... I • : :, ... : I" . : : : . , .. t. I·': ...... i ... I., I

_.~._. ____ .L. _~_~~ ____ ~~_ ~ __ L._ :_ ~ .. ~ ____ ~ __ -- _ . ____ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~~_ . . , .. ,.... ···1 . I. : .. i • ; • T i _, ~ ~ '. .': ~ t . • ; . , .

.10

. 05

o .. _-- ---. ------- "-- - -.-...... - ... -. -._-,

. I . _ ••

. . I

. .. I. . / ~ ____ ~ ___ "~i_'_"_! ____ '~;_"_'~ __

-.05 . -10 -5 10 o 5 ~, deg

Figure i ~. - Lateral characteristics of the blended wing-body model. 6 = 00 6 = 00 6 = 00. e 'a 'r

r

-.005

o

-.002

-.004

-.006

I; . 1 .

. i -:- - :--:-;- ,,- : .. I I' I I' ~ ,

. 1 . j-' • i

--'---~ -:.- ~ --+-..--- -_._ ........ . f

•• -. t I '

'":-- ;":: , . ,

, ______ .;.... __ . ___ t ___ ~ ,_,~_

I ' , , , j , , , • ,- i I:'

I ii: : i : :; : :;. I' , : i ~ j ,:': : ::;-~::1 ' : ;,: 1

-,,-,; ,', I -, , ,: ,Ii ...... - • t : ! .' . i .

_ ... I: ;" I ";':' l ~', > .. [ .~; j, 1-i:

(~ .• ! li:1 ~, I-J--I:j-:---.. ~. '.' : ". .. ; - ---~ ---- 1-'----" ----,--: ~--

• i j 1:·1 !. ,

I

i'

. ,

i i " . , I

I, .. ,.'! · T'A C-.. ~.--, . . I .--. --- ; . ,~:--l--~~-:- --~-

, ______ , ____ L __ '_; ___ ' L_~ __ '_L~~_:: LiLL~ o 5 10 15 20 25

a, deg

Figu re 14. - Static lateral stability derivatives of the blended wing-body model.

oe=O, oa=O, or::O.

o

-.1

.02

o

-.01

. 03

. 02

.01

o

. : I

o 5

. .

I·· .

I

i - . , ,

1 •• _. __ •••. ___ .

. 1

. ,

I I , .

, .. ; . j .::: .... ····l:-·-·~ .

- : i . -_. __ ... - -----'---

o o

I· . I i .. I

6a• deg I-I -10 ~.: .-. ,I -20 , . I

,_._... ! .j ..... :-- r·-·~: .- :--:--: I ;.- .. , .:~! . :::: -:::: I

r--.- ----=---:-:----:---. 8~'-_-_---...:...-~-·'---·--·--~T--:--- -... _.---

-: -,1· :; i; -r": i ... ~. ; _ r ~ ...

1-----0-·-- .:~:~- !~.-

.::~~.-

10 15 a, deg

i"

20

-.~ I .- -~. :.: --:;.~

25 30

Figure J.. J. - Aileron effectiveness of the blended wing-body model. 0=00 0 =00 A=OO e 'r ,I-" •

· __ ._ l . -. . - [ _(

'~':-:-(-:.:-<~ . t~ .~. '~_~.~ · . 1-' ---. - .. - - .[-- .- .. - .. ---

. I - . I· . . -~- t . - --.. - - - t - - ~ --

- - I .. - - - t -- - - --

- - . . ___ L .... 1._·_-___ .~

. -'-j

.... ······1· -- ~ - - -... 1.._

I !

: .:~ i 1"'/

. r·· ..... ," j · ~~j: :-~:

01 Q)

"'C

r-t

"--[' - ....

00 r-f N

I I

00

i 1

1----+--·1-... ---1·---,--- ._-

.r-t o

... -=-~~l __ - __ ...

..... _ .. -+- -.--. . _____ J

.. ----1---i

.. :'':l~,-=-:: - -. '---i- - .... __ .

... _j ..... _. ----t- -

r-t o

01 ~ep r-f "'C

t:'-

0 r-f

. ep

"'C o E >.

"'C o .0

I 01 C .~

"'C ep

"'C C ep

.0 ep .c ...... -o II') II') ep c ep > ...... u ep --

g; II

cQ..

Q) ~' (5 Lo II ...... c ro oc.o U LoO epO

:g II :::J ep O::c.o

Q) Lo

:::s .!:2;l LJ..

J