l^l\Cf\

L-ll^l
ARE No. L5J05

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WARTIME REPORT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED
Decemter 19^5 as Advance Eestrlcted Eeport L5J05
EFFECTS OF WIKG AHD HACELLE MODIFICATIOHS ON

DRAG AND V^AKE CHARACTERISTICS OF A

BOMBER -TYPE AIRPLANE MODEiL

By Eobert H. Neely, Bichard W. and D. 1111 am Conner

Falrljaiiks,

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Ta.

NACA
WASHINGTON
NACA WARTIME REPORTS
are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were previously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not technically edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.

DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT

Digitized by the Internet Arcliive

in

2011

witli

funding from

University of Florida,

George

A.

Smathers

Libraries with support from

LYRASIS and

the Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/effectsofwingnacOOIang

^n^
-34^3^1^^^
NACA ARR No. L5J05

RESTRICTED

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

ADVANCE RESTRICTED REPORT

EFFECTS OF WING AND NACELLE MODIFICATIONS ON

DRAG AND WAPS CflARACTERISTICS OF A

BOMBER-TYPE

:,IRPLa]\IE

MODEL

By Robert H. Neely, Richard W. Fairbanks and D. Villliam Conner

IT

M M A R Y

An investigation of a model of a large four-engine bomber was conancted in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel to determine the effects of several wing and nacelle inodJ.f ications on drag characteristics and airflow characteristics at the tail. Leading-edge gloves, trailing-edge extensions, and modified nacelle afterbodies were tested Individually and In combination. The effects of the various modifications were determined by force tests, tuft observations, and turbulence surveys in the region of the tail. Tests were made vi/ith fixed, and natural transition on the v;ing and v/ith propellers operating and nro-oellers off. Most of the tests were conducted at a Reynolds nuinber of approximately 2.6 x 10.
The results indicated that application of certain of the modifications provided worth-while improvements in the characteristics of the model. The flow over the wing and flaps was improved, the drag was reduced, and the turbulence in the region of the tail was reduced.

Trailing-edge extensions were the most effective Individual modification in improving the flovv over the vJing with wing flaps neutral, cowl and Intercooler flaps closed. Modified nacelle afterbodies were the most effective individual modification in reducing drag with either fixed or natijral transition on the wing; ho'wever, trailing-edge extensions were slightly more effective v;ith fixed transition. Combinations of either leadlngor trailing-edge extensions and modified afterbodies were more effective than either modification alone. With cowl and intercooler flaps open, trailing-edge extensions with modified afterbodies provided substantial improvement in

RESTRICTED

T.r;

TfH

V^'ith wing flaps deflected, flov; and drag characteristics. enclosing the flap 'behind the inboard nacelle within an extended afterhody or cutting the flaps at the nacelle appeared to be the ir.ost promising methods of iiiiproving the flov/ over the flaps and the tail. Although the results of hot-v'ire-anemorr.eter surveys were not conclusive in rer,rd to buffeting characteristics, the modifications did reo.i.ice the turbvilence at the tall with v;ring flaps both nevLT:ral and deflected. The modifications, as a rule, were favorable to maxirnura lift. Appreciable reductions in longitudinal stability of the ^aodel -.vere caused by addition of leading-edge gloves and tr ailing-edge extensions

INTRODUCTION
Separation of flow over a wing increases the drag and has, in a number of instances, caused tail buffeting because of the irregular nature of the flow at the tail. Several wing and nacelle rncdif ications, designed v;ith a viev; to improving the flov; over tho vving, \;ere tested on a model of a large four- -engine bomber to determine the effects on drag characteristics and air-flo.v characteristics at the tail. Leadin,--edge gloves, wing trailingedge extensions, and modified nacelle afterbodies v/ere tested. The characteristics of the basic and m.odified model were determined by tuft observations, force measurements, and meas-jrements of turbulence and djTiaraic pressure in the vicinity of the tail. Turbulence v.-as measured by means of a hot-wire anemometer. The hot -wire anemometer equipment was furnished by the California Institute of Technology and was operated under the direction of Dr. Kans VJ Liepmann of its staff. The investigation v/as conducted in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel.
.

y M B

L S

The coefficients and symbols used herein are defined

as follovvs;
C-j^

gross lift coefficient

(L/qS)

AC-r

increment of m.aximura lift coefficient

-miax

MCA
Ct>

ARR No. L5JO5

drag coefficient corrected for jet-boundary interference (D/qS)

gross pitching-moment coefficient
(M/qS'c)

Cj^

C-rj^

induced-drag coefficient

[C^ /rrA]
fCj\
-

C-Q

parasite-drag coefficient

G-q.\

AG-n

increment of uarasite-drag coefficient

P

T(,

thrust disk-loading coefficient for one

propeller

^Tg/pV^D^j

Vv

root-mean-square value of the deviations, perpendicular to v/ind axis, of instantaneous local velocity from its mean value

U
q.

mean value of instantaneous local velocity along v;ind axis

local
dynairiic

pressijre at tall
^
(

q a

free-stream dynamic pressure

jpV

?\
j

angle of attack of wing corrected for jetboundary interference

5^

wing-flap deflection m.easured from neutral flap position

Reynolds num'ber
(pVc'/^,)

R
where
L

lift
dj:'ag;

propeller diameter

M
Tq
S

pitching moment about center of gravity

effective thrust of one propeller

wing area (22.219 sq ft)

i|.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

c"

mean aerodynamic chord

geometric aspect ratio

(l.[p'4ii.

ft)

A b

= 12.8

wing span (16.875 f t

'

V
p

velocity in free stream

mass density of air

coefficient of viscosity

MODEL
The general arrangement of the model is shown in figures 1 and 2. The model was of wood and metal conPertinent struction and was finished with lacqiier. dimensions are given in table I.

had Davis airfoil sections, 22.9 percent thick at the root and 9*3 percent thick at the tip. The maximum camber was approximately 3 .k percent of the chord at the root section and l,k- percent at the tip. The location of the maximum camber was constant across the span at 3i'5 percent of the local chord. The geometric aspect ratio of the wing was 12.8 and the taper ratio was 3.077;1.
The
v.'ing

The horizontal tall had no movable elevator. vertical tall was off dijiring all the tests.

The

The installation of the cowl flaps and intercooler exit flaps is shown in figure 5 for their deflected positions. The cov/1 flaps extended from the top of the cowling to a point slightly below the nacelle center line, The intercooler cooling-air exits were located on the upper surface of the wing.
STAIIDARD COKFIGURATION

The standard nacelle afterbodies (afterbody 1) are shovm in figures 3 and with wing flaps neutral. No part of the nacelle afterbody is on the upper surface of
I4.

MCA
the

AER No. L5JO5

The extreme end of the '.Ing near the trailing edge. standard afterhodies was attached to the lov\/er siirface of the wing flaps and deflected with the flaps, as shown in figure 5. The wing flaps were of the Fowler type and Ordinates consisted of inhoard and outboard sections. for the inboard section are given in table II. At the inboard nacelle, the nose of the flap was 2.14. percent v/ing chord ahead of and 2.9 percent wing chord below the trailing edge of the wing.

MODIFICATIONS
In an attempt to delay separation of air flov; on the wing in the cruise condition, the original Y\ring chord was extended in order to reduce the peak pressiares and adverse pressure gradients. Leading-edge gloves (figs. 6 and 7) were built to NACA ok-series ordinates modified to fair into the original Davis airfoil section. The gloves extended the v/ing chord 10 percent between the fuselage and the inboard nacelle and tapered to the original leading edge at the outboard nacelle. Because these gloves were added to the original wing, a perfect contour could not be formed where the gloves faired into the vifing.

The trailing-edge extension was a thin metal strip attached to the flaps and deflected down 11 from the lower surface of the flaps. The extensions were deflected down 1 to 2 from the wing chord lines. The Installation of the extensions is shown in figure 7 Extensions of two different spans and three different chords v/ere tested. Extensions attached only to the inboard flaps are designated 0.5 span, aiid extensions attached to both inboard and outboard flaps are designated 0.6 span. The chords v.'ere 1, 2y-, and 3 inches. Unless otherwise specified, 1 the term "trailing-edge extensions" designates the 1 -inchchord extensions attached to both the inboard and outboard flaps
'

The installation of the various modified nacelle afterbodies with wing flaps neutral. is illustrated in figures 8 to 10. Drawings of the modified nacelle afterbodies are given in fig-ures 11 to IJ Afterbodies 2 and 5j shown in figure 8, wer'e attached to the inboard nacelles only and differed mainly from the standard afterbody in that they had a fairing on the upper surface
.

MCA
of the v;ing.
14( .

ARR

IIo.

L5J05

fi"S Aftarbody 9 ^^^'^ 12} vvas a beaverfa:'rlng on the upper s-^jrface tail afterbody Vv'ith a sma].l of the wing. Afterbody ^, shown in figures 10 and IJ, was faired on the upper siu:'face of the wing forward to the intercooler air exit. The lowei^ part was extended in order to obtain a better afterbody shape.

The installatior. of the deflected flaps v;ith inboard nacelle afterbodies k and 5 -S shown in figures 1I4. and 15, respectively. With afterbodies if, tests v/ere made with the flaps cut out below the afterbody as shown in figure llj. and also -.vith the flaps not cut and extending below the afterbody. Inboard afterbodies 5 enveloped the center part of the deflected flaps, and the flap-nacelle j''jncture was faired with plasticine as shown in figure 15 The tips of the modified afterbodies did not deflect with the flaps. A double slotted, or vaned, flap (fig. 16) v;as tested in an attempt to improve the air flow over the flap. The outside contour and the installation of the flap and vane combination were the same as for the original Fowler flap. The ordinates for the double slotted flap are given in table II.

APPARATUS AMD TESTS

Tests of the model v;ere made for two basic conditions:
(1)

Cruise condition - wing flaps neutral, cowl and intercooler flaps closed

(2)

Landing condition - wing flaps deflected i|C, landing gear down, cowl and intercooler flaps closed

For the cruise condition, a fev^' tests were also made to determ.ine characteristics v^ith cowl and intercooler flaps open.

For the cruise condition, tests were made v.'ith the model in the standard configuration and with leading-edge gloves, traillng-edge e-:tensions, and modified nacelle afterbodies. For the landing condition, tests were made with the model in the standard configuration and with modified inboard afterbodies and modified inboard fla^s.

MCA

ARR No. L5JO5

'A'hen

The cov/l flaps in the open position v^ere deflected 10. the intercooler flaps v/ere opened, the exit gap was increased 7/1^ inch, which corresponds to the maxiraum deflection of the intercooler flaps. The air flow through the nacelle was adjiisted, with the model at an angle of attack of 5*^, to provide a pressiore drop of approximately 0.750. throu^gh the cowling with cov;l flaps open and a pressure drop of approxlriately 0.671 through the intercooler ducts with exit flaps closed.

For a flap deflection of 1^0, the raain landing gear was down; however, no provision v\/as made for siraulating open landing-gear doors. For flap deflections of 0 and 10, the landing gear viras removed. Host of the tests were made with the horizontal tail off. The vertical
Power conditions were simulated by matching the thrust coefficients of the model and airplane at each lift coefficient. The variation of thrust coefficient with lift coefficient for sea-level power conditions is presented in flgivre I7. The thrust coefficients for 0.1]. normal rated power at sea level correspond closely to those for cruising power (0.6 normal rated power) at 25,000 feet. The propeller blade, angle at 0.75 radius was 30.

believed that transition from laminar to turbulent flow on the airplane v/ing would occur at approximately the location of the front spar. In an attempt to make the results of the model tests more representative of flight conditions, most of the tests were made v/ith the transition fixed at a chordv^ise station corresponding to the spar location. The transition vcas fixed by placing a strip of 60-grain carborundum on the upper and lower surfaces at the 10-percent-chord station of the original wing section. The width of the strip between the fuselage and the outboard nacelles viras approximately 3/8 inch and tapered to approxlmiately 1/lj. inch at the tips.
It was
'

The character of the flow over the wing and the nacelle afterbodies was determined by observing the behavior of tufts, v;hich were attached to both the upper and lower surfaces of the wing and nacelle afterbodies. No tufts were placed ahead of the 20-percent-chord station of the wing. These tests were generally made m'ith fixed transition and with propellers operating at a fev/ tests were made O.Ij. normal rated power; however, v/ith natioral transition and with propellers off.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Force and moment charactsristlcs were measured by a

six -component automatically recording "balance system. Lift and drag were measured for all configurations. The effects of leading-edge gloves and trailing-edge extensions on the longitudinal stability characteristics were determined with the horizontal tail on (elevator neutral) for several power conditions.

Measurements of the air-stream turbulence were made at several spanwise stations along the elevator hinge line by means of a hot-wire anemometer. The basic principles of operation of this instrument are described in
reference
1.

The turbulence measurements v;ere supple-

m.ented by measurem-ents of the local d;^Tiamlc pressures at the tail obtained from surveys with a rake of six pitot-

static tubes. All surveys were made with fixed transition and with the propellers operating at C.Ij. normal rated power

All tests were made with the air in the tunnel compressed to an absolute pressia'^e of approximately 55 pounds per square inch O.OO558 slug/cu ft). Most of the (p tests were made at a Reynolds number of approximately 2.6 X 10 and a Mach number of 0.12; however, .a few tests were made at a Reynolds number of 3 -9 ^ 10, and a I'ach number of O.18.
z.

RESULTS

AND

DISCUSSION

The results of the investigation are discussed from the standpoint of (1) flow over the wing and flap, (2) flow at the tall, (5) drag and lift, and (i^) longitudinal stability. The characteristics of the standard model and the effect of the various m.odif Ications are shovv'n for the cruise and landing conditions.

Jet-boundary corrections have been added to the angle of attack, drag coefficient, and the vertical position of the survey points with respect to the elevator hinge line as follov/s:
Aa = O.bSi^CL

acq = 0.01060^2
A2 = -0.13c,

MCA

/uRR

Ho. L5J05

z whers Aa is in degrees, Az is in inches, and is the vertical position of the siJX'vey points v;ith respect to the elevator hinge line. No corrections have been applied to the data for the effects of model -support tare and interference or for air-stream misalinement

FLaV CHARACTERISTICS AT THE WING

The results of tuft observations that show the character of the flo"/ over the vv'ing, flaps, and nacelles are given.

Cruise Condition
The stall progressions of the model in the original and modified configurations with vving flaps neutral are given in figures lo to 22 for cov/1 and inter cooler flaps closed. The values of lift coefficient at vhlch separation first occurred on the_ wing are given in table III. Diagrams shoving the flow over the wing at a lift coefficient of approximately O.S are presented in figure 23. Stall progressions for the model with cov/l and intercooler flaps open are given in figure 2[l. The propellers v/ere operating at O.Ii normal rated pov/er and the transition YJ'as fixed at 10 percent wing chord except for tv/o tests of the standard modeic Diagrams are presented to show the effect of power and the effect of removing the transition strip en the -wing.

Standard configuration. - With co\?l and intercooler flaps clobed, prop-.lici"3. operating at O.k normal rated power, and transition fixed, the initial stall on the wing occurred at a lift coefficient of about 0,63 v/ith the model in the standard ox" original conf igix;''ation (fig, 18(a)). The ir.ii-'xal separation occur?'ed on the rear part of the v;ing to the left of each nacelle. The flow over the wing directly behind each nacelle was rough but not separated for most angles of attack, With natural transition (fig. l8(b)) the stall patterns were about the same as vjith fixed transition but the initial separation occiorred at a lift coefficient of about O.9I. With propellers off and transition fixed, the initial separation occurred at about the same lift coefficient as with the propellers operating, but at- higher lift coefficients the area directly behind the inboard nacelles was stalled (fig. l8(c)).

10

MCA

ARR

No..

L5J05

Separated flow like that liiclicated In fig-ore l8 produces an increase In drag and cculd cause buffeting. The purpose of the modifications was to delay this separation and to cause a general improvement in ilow through A substantial the cruising range (Cj - 0.6 to O.9). improvement in flow over the wing was obtained, as shown The in figure 25(a), by deflecting the wing flaps 10. hov/ever, was increased. drag,
Chord exten sions.- Chord extensions delayed the initial separation and improved the flow over the wing at higher lift coefficients.

Leading-edge gloves (fig. 19(a)) delayed the initial separation to a lift coefficient 0.12 higher than for the standard model. About the same improvement was realized with the l---inch-chord 0.3-span traillng-edge extensions.
.

The O.D-span tralling-edge extensions were the most effective individual modification in improving the flow

over the wing.

The li-lnch-chord 0.6-span traillng-edge

2

extensions (fig. 19(c)) delayed the initial separation to a lift coefficient 0.21 higher than for the stanvdard
model. More improvement resulted from the
2^

inch-chord

0.6-3pan extensions.

Subsequent tests, however, were

made with the l^-inch-chord 0.6-span trailing-edge extensions because the greater improvement in flow with the
2|

inch

extensions did not seem sufficient to v;arrant

the additional structural changes necessary to the airplane. In evaluating the im.provement due to either leading-edge or trailing-edge extensions in terms of the increase in lift coefficient at which separation first occurred on the wing, it should be noted that the gain in lift coefficient was partly due to added v;ing area.

Modified nacelle afterbod ies.- Modified nacelle afterbodies caused only a slight delay in the initial separation but im.proved the flow over the wing. This improvement is shown for afterbodies 2 and 5 tiy comparing figure 20 with figure l8(a) and for afterbodies hr and 5 by com.paring figures 21(a), 21(b), 22(a), and 22(b) with figures 19(a) and 19(c). Afterbodies and 5 appear to be most effective. No flow separation occurred on the lower surface of either the standard or modified nacelles,
I4.

MCA

ARR No. L5oT05

11

Com'b lnations of ch ord extensions and modified nacelle afterbodies - Chord extensions either leading edge or trailing edge, in comhination with inodifled nacelle afterbodies were more effective in delaying separation and in improving the flow over the v/ing than were chord extensions or afterbodies alone. The combinations of leading-edge gloves with afterbodies and leading-edge gloves with afterbodies 5 (figs. 21(a) and 22(a)) delayed the initial separation to a lift coefficient approximately 0.16 higher than for the standard model. Wlth tr ailing-edge extensions in combination with either afterbodies 1; or 5 (figs. 21(b) and 22(b)), the Initial separation occurred at a lift coefficient of about 0,91, which is approximately 0.2& higher than for the standard model. xiS shown in figure 21(c), a greater improvement in flow jas obtained with a combination of leading-edge gloves, traillng-edge extensions, and afterbodies l\.. Separation on the inner v/lng sections was delayed to a lift coefficient of over 1.0. A similar combination with afterbodies S vi/as only slls;htl^ more effective than the combination of traillng-edge extensions with afterbodies 5.
j,

l\.

Cow l and Intercool er f laps open .- With the model in the standard configuration, opening the cov/1 and intercooler flaps caused separation of the flow over the wing directly behind them, at all lift coefficients (fig. 2l|(a)). The addition of trailing-edge extensions reduced the extent of the stalled area, as shown in figure 2J4_(b). vVith afterbodies I; and traillng-edge extensions on the model (fig. 2l,|_(c)), the Initial separation behind the open intercooler flaps v/as delayed until a lift coefficient of about 0.55 had been reached. YHth Inboard afterbodies 5 and trailing-edge extensions on the model, no separation occurred behind the open intercooler flaps of the inboard

nacelles (fig.

2i|(d)

Landing Condition
Stall characteristics of the standard and m.odifled model with wing flaps deflected are shown In figures 25 to 27. For these configurations the propellers were operating at 0.i| normial rated power, the transition was fixed, and the cowl and intercooler flaps v;ere closed.

Standard configuration .- Vtfith the standard configuration and flaps deflected Ij.O (fig. 25(b)), the initial stall on the v/ing occurred ahead of the ailerons and was

12

NACA ARR No. L5J05

followed by separation bet^Tsen the nacelles. For all angles of attack and all flap deflections, separation occurred on the part of the flaps blanketed by the nacelles. The flow over the lov^er surface of the nacelle and the part of the afterbody that deflected v/ith the Removing the flap was not separated. (See fig. 26(a).) afterbody tips from the standard model did not improve the flow over the flaps. It Vi/as thought that separated flow over the inboard flaps combined with Irregular flow created by the afterbody tips v;ould probably contribute most to any tail buffeting. Modifications for the landing condition were therefore directed toward improving the air flow at the inboard nacelles.

Modifications .- ?\/ith double slotted inboard flaps deflected 4OO (fig. 26(b)), the flow over the right flap was not separated but the left flap was stalled, as was the standard flap. Prom tests made v;ith the afterbody tips removed and vfith power off, the separation over the double slotted Inboard flaps at 0.[|. normal rated power appeared to be caused by the afterbody tip,v;hich deflected with the flap, and the dissymmetry appeared to be associated with the rotation of the slipstream. When the standard flaps were continuous and were deflected through afterbodies (fig. 26(c)), the lower part of the afterbody and the surface of the flap belov; the afterbody were stalled at all angles of attack. With the flaps cut out at inboard afterbodies ij., as shov/n in figure li]., no stall occiirred on the flap or nacelle (fig. 26(d)). The same flow existed with trailing-edge 1extensions on the flaps. Vi ith the standard flaps deflected vrithin afterbodies 5 (fig. 26(e)), the flow over the flaps and afterbodies '.vas not separated at any angle of attack. Adding trailing-edge extensions had little effect on the flow if the extensions vifere cut out below the nacelles (fig. 26(f)).
l\.

The most promising methods of those investigated for improving the flow over the flap were enclosing the flap rear of the inboard nacelle -within afterbody 5 o^ cutting the flap at the nacelle. Trailing-edge extensions and modified afterbodies, to a lesser extent, delayed separation on the inner wing panels and thus aggravated the tendency toward early tip stalling indicated by stall studies of the standard model. This effect could be minimized by reducing the wing-flap

deflection.

MCA

ARR No. L5J05

PL0;J

13

CHARACTERISTICS AT THE TAIL

The results of ttirbulence surveys at the tall are presented in figures 28 to Jl for the standard model and Diagrams showing the flow for several modif ications characteristics over the v/ing for conditions at which surveys were made are given in figure 32. The turbulence data are presented as the variation of root-mean-square value of the vertical velocity deviations with vertical distance for several spanwise stations. Axial velocity deviations v/ere of the same order of magnitude as vertical velocity deviations. Ivlajcimim. values of the velocltv deviation are several times the root-mean-souare values. The vertical velocity deviations may be interpreted as angle-of-attack changes; for example, a value
.

v'^/u of O.O4 is equivalent to a root-mean-square angle deviation of slightly over 2^.

of

Buffeting tendencies are difficult to evaluate quantitatively because the root-mean-square deviation Indicates neither the large fluctuations that may occur nor the frequency. Both of these factors play an important role in determining buffeting characteristics. The main value of the data presented is the indication of the effects of the modifications on the turbulent wake. The curves Indicate the normal wake of the wing and nacelles by an Increase of turbulence. Beyond this main turbulent wake, there are small peaks that define the edge of the slipstream.
The variations of local dynamic pressure with vertical distance for the standard m.odel are Indicated in figures 55 to 35* The curves show increases in djmamic pressure due to the slipstream and depressions due to wing or nacelle wake. The point at which the maximujn depression occurs has been assumed to be the center of the v;ake The variations of wake-center position with lift coefficient are given in figures 56 and 37 ^o^ the standard and modified models. Except for displacem_ent the modifications changed the profile of the dynamic pressure wake very little
.

The vertical position of the peak values of tiu?bulence agree closely with the position of the dynamicpressure wake centers. The vertical extent of the main turbulent ?ifake is roughly the same as that for the

ll^

MCA
.

ARR No. L5JO5

dynainic -pressure wal^e

A comparison of the turbulence and clynamic-pressi:re-su.rvey data indicates that only a slight amount of turbulence is produced by the slipstream; the greater part of the turbulence is prodiiced by the

wake of the wins and nacelles. *&

Cruise Condition
St andard conf igxaration .- ?or the standard model with cowl and intercooler flaps closed (fig. 28), the largest turbulent wake and the maximum turbulence occurred at stations 15 inches rigbit and 27 inches left of the fuselage center line, which are behind stall ed parts of the
v /U obtained wing (fig. 52). The maximum value of with cowl and intercooler flaps closed 'was O.Olj.. As shovm in figures 28 and 53^ the variations of turbulence and dynamic pressiire are different on the left and right sides of the fuselage center line. The growth of turbulence on the left side from the high-speed condition throTigh the cruise condition is illustrated in figure 29. At stations to the rieht and left of the inboard nacelle (13 In. and 27 in. from fuselage center line) the turbulence increased with increasing angle of attack. Directly the nacelle, the turbulence decreased slightly as behind the angle of attack increased from. i|..lL to 7.6. With increasing angle of attack, the wake centers moved up in relation to the elevator hinge line (figs, 29 and 56).
'</

Combinations of chord extensions and modified nacelle afterbodies .- The effects of modifications, in general, were to reduce the extent and magnitude of the turbulence and to displace the whole turbulent wake dov;nward. As shown in figure 28, the greatest reduction in turbulence was obtained with afterbodies in combination with trailing-edge extensions. The combination of afterbodies 5> traillng-odge extensions, and leading-edge gloves was somev\rhat less effective; and the combination of afterbodies 5 ^-^.d trailing-edge extensions was the least effective in reducing tui-'bulence The greatest reductions in turbulence were obtained at stations 13 inches -right and 27 inches left and right of the fuselage center line. These reductions are apparently due to modifications delaying separation on the wing at these stations. At the station directly behind the nacelles (20 in.), afterbodies caused a definite reduction in
14. . I4.

MCA

ARR Nc, L5J05

15

turbulence whereas afterbodies 5 caused, little change. The downward displacement of the wake due to modifications would be greater than shown in figure 28 if the data were compared at the same lift coefficient. (See fig. 56.)
Cowl and intercooler flaps open - C omp ar i s on of fig-'jres 28 and 30 shows that opening the cowl and intercooler flaps caused large increases in the turbulence at the tail both with the standard model and vvith afterbodies 5 ^T-^cl trailing-edge extensions. The magnitude and extent of the velocity fluctuations were, however, much lower for the model with afterbodies 5 ^'^^ trailingedge extensions.
.

Landing Condition
The results of surveys for the landing condition are given in figure Jl for a spanwise station behind the inboard nacelle. V/ith both the standard and modified

models, the maxirn'oin value of elevator hinge line.

\^

v Al

occurred below the

With the flaps deflected within afterbodies 5j the turbulence was less than for the standard model, v/ith flaps continuous and deflected through afterbodies l\., slightly greater turbulence was obtained than for the standard m.odel. The increased turbulence was evidently due to the stall that occurred on the flap and lower part of the afterbody (fig. 26(c)). With the flaps cut out below the nacelle as shown in figure llj., the turbulence woi:!.ld probably be less than for the standard model.
DRAG Aim LIFT CHARACTERISTICS
The variations of the parasite-drag coefficient v>fith lift coefficient for the standard and m.odified model are shown in figui-'es 58 to i4-5 The lift, drag, and pltchingrrioment characteristics for the cruise and landing condiTable III gives the tions are given in figures I4.6 to 52. numerical values of the drag changes due to modifications at several lift coefficients and the incremxents of maximum lift coefficients due to the m.odlf ications

l6

NACA ARR No. L5J05

obtained, in the cruising condition. The data have not been corrected for support tares or air-stream irilsalinement and. therefore should not be considered, as absolute values nor should the shape of the curves be considered correct. It is believed, hov/ever, that the changes In dra g and lift due to modifications would not be materially aff ected by the application of such corrections.

Cruise Condition

Inasmuch as flifht Reynolds numbers are much greater than that at -which the tests were conducted, the interpretation of the drag reductions due to the modifications is difficult, particularly in the range where separation occurs. The va.lue of drag reductions obtained at a given lift coefficient of the model may not be in agreement v;ith reductions that would be obtained from tests of the full-scale airplane. The results of the model tests, hoY^rever, are believed to be indicative of the results that would be obtained from installation of the m.odifications on the airplane.

Figure 58 presents the data obtained from runs made near the beginning, middle, and end of the investigation with fixed and natural transition. The displacement of the test points gives an indication of how closely test conditions (primarily model siorface condition) could be duplicated. Pa.xlng the transition at 10 percent vifing chord increased the drag ooefflcie?at at all values of lift coefficient and also decreased the lift coefficient at which the rapid increase in drag occurs.
The effect of Reynolds n'omber on drag characteristics vifith transition fixed is shown in figure 39J-'he drag for each model configuration was lower at all lifts
at a Reynolds number of 3.9 x 10
.

than at a Reynolds

number of 2 6 x IQ ^ and the knee In the drag curves occurred at higher lifts wi':h the higher Reynolds nuinber

Chord extension s.- The effect of span and chord of the traillng-edge extensions in reducing drag is shown

IIACA

ARR No. L5J05

17

in figure l\.0. At a lift coefficient of O.7, reductions with -O.J-span and 0.6-span extensions were approximately

In the ratio of

3'h-'

The. 2f.- inch -chord

extensions

1 reduced the drag somewhat more than the 1 -inch cxten sions. No further reduction was realized by increasing, the chord to 3 inches. Subsequent tests were made with

the 0.6-span 1- inch -chord trailing-edge. extensions

Changes in drag caused by trailing -edge extensions and leading-edge gloves were dependent upon the type of transition. The 1--- inch -chord 0.6-span. tr ailing-edge
"

extensions reduced the drag coefficient of the model by 0,0038 with tra.nsition fi::ed at a Ijft ccsfficLent of 0.7 (fig. I^lfa)). Yfith natural transition (fig. [|.l'(b)), the trailing-edge extensions increased the d'rag O0OOO3 at a lift coefficient of 0.7 but at lift coefficients above 0,8 appreciable reductions were obtained. Leadingedge gloves reduced the drag coefficient b;y 0,0028 at a lift coefficient of 0.7 with fixed transition and by 0.0012 with natural transition (fig. I|-l Because of the imperfect contour formed where the gloves faired into the wing, the resuJ.ts obtained with the wing modified In this manner are probably not so good as v/ould be obtained if the v;ing were built to the revised dimensions. ^o
)

Modifi ed nacelle afterbodies.- All modified inboard nacelle af terbodit reunced ihe drag of the model at cruising lifts (fig. I|-2 but had little effect at low lifts. The order of increasing effectiveness was afterbodies 2, 3, Ij., and ^. Modified afterbodies on all four nacelles reduced the drag at all lift coefficients. Pour afterbodies ii reduced the drag coefficient of the model by COOjIj. V'/ith fixed transition and O.OOI7 with natural transition at a lift coefficient of 0.7 (fig. 1+3). Four afterbodies 5 (fig. kh) were somewhat less effective in redticlng the drag than four afterbodies I4.. Modified nacelle afterbodies were the most effective individual modifications in reducing drag when considering both fixed and natural transition on the wing; however, trailing-edge extensions were slightly more effective v\rith fixed transition.
:',

(fig.

Propellers-of f stall studies of the standard model 18(g)) show that at a lift coefficient of about O.7

18

MCA

ARR No. L5J05

the flow behind the inboard nacelles was separated but These the flow behind the outboard nacelles was smooth. studies and a consideration of the shape of the drag curves Indicate that the modified inboard afterbodies reduce the drag by delaying separation on the wing, whereas the modified outboard afterbodies reduce the drag by Improving the afterbody form. This explanation probably accounts for the differences between the effectiveness of the inboard and outboard afterbody

modifications
of chord extensions and modified nacelle afterbodies .- The combination of chord extensions and
C onb inations

modified nacelle afterbodies generally was more effective Some of in reducing drag than either modification alone. the more effective combinations with the drag-coefficient reductions at Or = 0,7 2.re as follows;

Modification
Pour afterbodies h. and trai lingedge extensions Pour afterbodies 5 edge extensions
Four afterbodies edge gloves
5
^-^'^

Fixed transition
0.00.^5

Natural transition
0.0015
0.0005 O.COI5

tralling0.0053

^^'^

leadingO.OOI16

Pour afterbodies 5* leading-edge gloves, and trailing-edge extensions

O.OOiiS

0.0017

There appears to be no advantage in combining leadingedge gloves with afterbodies for reducing drag.
[j.

All modifications increased the maximum lift coefficient of the model with either fixed or natural transition, and most of the modifications Increased the slope of the lift curve.
Covifl and intercooler flaps open .- Y^'ith the model in the standard configuration, opening the cov;l and

T'ACA

ARR No. L5J05

19

Intercooler flaps caused a large increase in drag. (Compare figs, [i.5 azid 58.) The. resulting high drag coefficient vras decreased O.OO72 at a lift coefficient of O.7 by the addition of inhoard afterbodies 5 3-^d. trailingedge extensions or four afterbodies and trailing-edge extensions ffig. It should be noted that these riodif ications reduced the drag coefficient approximately C.OOl.i.O with cowl and intercooler flaps closed.
Ij.

l-i-5 )

Landing Condition
The lift characteristics for the standard and modified models with wing flaps deflected h..0 are presented in figure ^2. Vi'ith transition fixed and propellers off, the same maxim-um lift coefficient was obtained with double slotted inboard flaps or with standard flaps deflected within afterbodies 5 ^-s was obtained v/ith the model in the standard configuration.
In order to eliminate flovi? separation that occurred on the flaps and the I'ear part of afterbodies li, part of the inboard flaps \were cut away. This change resulted in a reduction of about 0.1 in the ma::imium lift coefficient. An additional reduction would result if the outboard flaps were cut. With flaps deflected through either afterbodies or 5 ^^^ addition of trailing-edge extensions increased the maximura lift coefficient by about 0.2; the resulting lift coefficient was greater in both cases than for the standard ro.odel.
I4.

LONCITiroiWAL STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Pitchlng-moment curves for the standard and modified model with propellers removed and horizontal tail off are presented in figures l\.6 to '^'1, Power-on pitching-m.oment curves with horizontal tail on and off are presented in figures 5? to 55' ^^ corrections have been applied to the pitching moments but the results presented indicate the effect of the various modifications. With tail on, the large differences in trimi and the fact that large parts of the curves are considerably out of trim make an accurate evaluation of stability changes difficult. Moment ciorves for several elevator or stabilizer settings would be required.

20

NACA ARR

IIo.

L5JO5

norrent curves,

As indicated by changes in the slopes of the pitchingleading-edge gloves and trailing-edge extensions caused appreciable reductions in longitudinal stability.

Cruise Condition and the horizontal tail on the pitchir_g-?nonent curves shovi that the model 53), with chox'd extensions and modified afteroodies was less stable than the standard model for all pov/er conditions. Up to a lift coefficient of 0.6, the combination of
Viith v/ing flaps neutra"

(fig,

trailing-edge extensions and inboard afterbodies

changed

approximately 0,0l|. the noxnent- curve slope dCj-p/dCr, to 0.06 from the standard conf lgura.tion. The com.bination of leading-edge glo'/es, trailing-edge extensions, and afterbodies 5 changed the slope approximately O.O8 to 0.10 from the standard configuration. Above a lift coefficient of 0.6, the modifications were micre destabilising, probably because the delayed separation on the inner wing panel resiilts in increased do'.vnv.'ash. A satisfactory comDromise between the adverse stability changes and flow and drag Improvements due to trailing-edge extensions could probably be obtained with an extension having a smaller chord thar. those tested.
__

Landing Condition
VJith wing flaps deflected, horizontal tail on, and propellers operating at 0.1]. norm.al rated power (fig. 5VCb))j the slops of the pitching-inoment curve was approximately O.0I4. less negative (model less stable) with the combination of trailing-edge extensions and afterbodies 5 on the nodel. With leading-edge gloves, trailing-edge extensions, and afterbodies 5 o'- the model, the slope of the moment curve Y;as O.O7 1-ss negative than with the model i:.i the standard configuration. V/ith propellers operatiiig at zero thrust (figo 5^(a)), only a slight change in the slope of the moment curve was caused by either modification. The adverse effects on stability could be minimized by reducing the flap deflection.

NACA ARR

llo.

L5JO5

21

CONCLUSIONS
Prom an investigation of a model of a four-engine bomber -type airplane that was made to determine effects of wing and nacelle modifications on drag and air flow at the tail, the follov;ing results were shown;
1. Vv'orth-while improvements in the characteristics of the model were obtained v/lth certain modifications The im.provements vvere indicated on the basis of improved flow over the wing and deflected flaps, reduced turbulence in the region of the tall, and reduced drag.
o

2. Tralling-edge extensions were the most effective individual m.odif icatlon in improving the flow over the wing with v/ing flaps neutral, cowl and intercooler flaps closed. Modified nacelle afterbodies were the most effective individual modification in reducing drag with either fixed or natural transition on the wing; however, trallingedge extensions were slightly more effective with fixed (a beaver-tail type) alone transition. Four afterbodies were superior to four afterbodies 5 (^i^ extended conventional afterbody) alone in reducing drag. Combinations of either leading- or tralling-edge extensions and modified afterbodies were m.ore effective in delaying separation and reducing the drag than either modification alone,
Ij.

5. \iVith the model in the standard configuration, opening the cowl and Intercooler exit flaps caused separation on the vjlng behind the Intercooler air exit. Increased the drag considerably, and increased the turbulence at the tail. These conditions were greatly improved by adding modified nacelle afterbodies and tralling-edge extensions.
h.. lilth. wing flaps deflected, enclosing the flap behind the inboard nacelle within nacelle afterbody 5 o^ cutting the flaps at the nacelle appear to be the most promising methods of improving the flow over the flaps and reducing the tiorbulence at the tail.

v\rlth

5. Although the results of turbulence surveys made a hot-wire anemometer do not indicate definitely that buffeting v\/ould occur v;lth the standard model or

that the modifications would eliminate buffeting, the modifications did reduce the turbulence at the tail with wing flaps either neutral or deflected.

22

NACA ARR No. L5JO5

6. Appreciable reductions in the longitixdlnal stability of the model were caused by leading-edge gloves In the landing condition, and trailing-edge extensions. chord extensions also aggravated the tendency toward early tip stalling obtained with the standard model.
7. All rriodif icatlcns increased the ma:^linuin lift with flaps neutral and gave a maJciKuxi lift equal to or greater than that for the standard model with wing flaps deflected except when the inboard flaps were cut out below afterbodies Ij..
vving

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronaiiti; Langley Field, Va.

REFERENCE
1.

Dryden, E. L., and Kuethe, A. LI.: The Measurement of Fluctuations of Air Soeed by the Hot -Wire Anemometer. NACA Rep. No. 52 0, 92^.

MCA

ARR No. L5J05

23

TABLE

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS OF MODEL

Wing: Airfoil section Root-section thickness, percent Chord, ft Tip- section thickness, percent Chord, ft Taper ratio Span, ft Area, sq ft Aspect ratio Mean aerodynanic chord, ft Csnter-of -gravity location, percent M.A.C. Above root chord, ft Eehind leading edge of root chord, ft Incidence (with respect to fuselage center line), deg Geometric tv;ist, deg
.

Davis 22.9 2,0 9.5 0.650 5.077:1 16.875 22.219 12.8

1
.
.

Jj)|)i

...

2iTo O.183
O.525

3.O
. .

p'uselage

Over-all length, ft Taximum diameter, ft Ma:cimiara frontal area, sq ft

T^rontal area

10. 386
1

I87 I.I07
.

Nacelles
(each),
sq ft
. .

O.I1.5O

Incidence (with respect to wing chord), deg

-3.0

Horizontal tail:
Area, sq ft Span, ft Incidence (v/ith respect to fuselage center line), deg Elevator hinge-line location (fuselage

5.201 5.375
-1.0

horizontal) Horizontal distance rear of leading edge of

"'

root chord, ft Vertical distance below leading edge of root chord, ft

5.866
O.05I

Propellers
Nuiiiher
I4.

Diameter, ft Blades Blade design

2.082
,

1|.

Curtiss

Viiright

10l6-lb

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMIITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

2ij.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

TARIE II

ORDIMTES FOR

?0Y;LER AI^ DOUBLE SLOTTED FLAPS

l^tations and ordinates given in Inches and are meas-ored from leading edge and reference line of Fowler flap]

Foviler flap

Double slotted flap

Lcver

Station

Upper surface

Vane

sur-face

Station
0.196
.078 .is6 .512
M-

Lov.rer

0.196
.078 .062
.01+3
, i'^;

siu?f ace

0.06
.12

.28
.111

M9

.30
.1:6

.62s .^57

1.250 1.S75 2.500 5.125

.750
I 4-.?75

.652 .688 .769 .8IQ

.

".oLk
.o!i6
.

.55
.

1^

03I1-

.026
.01I+

1.03 1.26

.62

8i(ii

.821

.006

Nose of flap

Station
.522 .366 .220
.0i;0

Upper
siu'^f ace

Lovjer

surface
0.20
.05 .03

5.000 5.625
b,25

1.03 1.11 1.19

1.3-'i

0.20
.38

'H .56
.78 .82 .82

L.E. radius-

O.125
-1!

c o:,'n,:iTTEL

NATIONAL -ADVISORY for aeronautics

1.50 1.66 1.97 2.28 2.50

NACA ARR No. L5J05

25

a
iH -4

4>^

iH

Vl
4: 41
rt

*H

u KrH a<H P U

C a B n e u 41
a

&^ 4J
^
1

r4

tr\
(\J

<M

<

K a

-4

&

ITN

i?

r-l

i-t

2J

rH

Jt\l

00

0,

O M H M g -^^ o o o m o <n M o t> o NO 6 H e n K M

T1

HOB m 0.0
*> 4> 4>

^^

<

TJ-p

B BMC
(<

^
>

NO

CO

?i

f-i

ON

ON.

H f. Vi rH4J

TJ

o
B B
O

X
1

c<-<

0-*

Vh

O
(J\
1-1

S3

M H
)H
r<4

g M ^ -<
*

o
I-)

a 4>
-i

* ^

d
II

^
t^

ON

NO
r-t
i-i

ON

t^

r-t

3
1

H
1

us

B
9

4J

A
iH H

t4

43

s
(M

)4 lU
<
F-i

d < Fh
03

C?U B
<
^
*^
II

iH
1

rH

UN
rH

S^

I-*

l-l

n o < K Q 42 ^ 5 o
F<

h o o

1 1

0
1

hi

ir.

iH

rH

rH

_d-

t^

CO

4
4

H t' -H

K^

3 ^

NO

CO

ITN

CO

1-4

00

ITN

s
1

Vi

O n
fi

J3 +>

(D
II

rH

H
n
(D

> "B t. tS O
t>

ij
-d-

"2

43

4J

g o
F->

M rH < K o U o H b. M o Q o O b Vl o
.
II

^4. -d <
M

0*
11

NO

K\

NO
iH

K\

CO

fVI

ON

NO

a
a> t.

d
>

^
rH

4J 'd

ft-H

V O

t, (D

OB H
Jh

-d-

in

lO

a H>d a) t3 in 43 > o cd B o^ o

a B

Vh

Eh

*4

IfN

w^
f>

O
B c
< +>

a
H 0
f>

g
fi

JB a
r\

ITN

43 tO(0

n
IB

0
,0

*>
-i

U
a

u B

*4
T3

^
s

(S

^ 43
a
Ti

*>-H .<M

B-d

ID

43
liH

e
4^

r.

(^

m a e
4J

f
(<

<D

u B a

4d

-i

rt -I

N
B

K\

-d-

ir>

B
>H

a
4 g
fl

n
4

Ja
w4

B
ir\

9
<

^
Q n
B
H tn

B 3

4^ H

^
43 "H

B -rt O O > * m B
a B 13 O
43 -H

-H rH <H 43 rH -H 4J Tl
I-)

<D

n
H

a
rt

1
Vi

^
g ^
F<

%
f>
t.

^
A
(<

s
^
u e ^

%
u
c f
cH to

B
c
H
at

n c
H

3
Vh

Et

a
C K

h
<D

a
t-i

B >

f>

C
4^

a C
4^

a
C

a
<

+>

a
<D

4J

a B e

41 %1

c c

4> Vi

*> <H

4) Vi

43

^
B U
3

4J iH

4J

>
I-i

c
to

>
r-{

K >

B
^5

tc

to

rH

now

MM

"

(a

W
E^

w
Eh

w
E-i

Eh

EH
Pd

(X,

k3

BHH * O 4> H H B H a o t, -rt a H 3 o -< H & a-o e 4h o 4> o B a O O 4J rH O +> B rH Vh t, O B H O X! 4a 1-5 li. SCO BP o t3

NACA ARR No. L5J05

IMDEX TO FIGURES
a. Illustrativ* Figures

26

Figure
1

Material presented

2
3

k
5 6

I
9

10 11
12

IS
15 16

17

Three-view drawing of model Model mov:ated In test seeticm Photograph, standard nacelle afterbodies, 6f = 0 Drawing, standaM nacelle afterbodies Photograph, standard nacelle afterbodies, 6f - i+O Drawing, L.. gloves Photograph, L.E. gloves and T.S. extensions Photograph, nacelle afterbodies 2 ail 3 Photograph, nacelle afterbodies I4., Of = 0^ Photograph, nacelle afterbodies 3, 6^=0^ Drawing, nacelle afterbodies "p Drawing, nacelle afterbodies Drawing, nacelle afterbodies 3 Photograph, nacelle afterbodies I4., 6f = k.(fi Photograph, nacelle afterbodies 5, 6f = I4.OO Photograph, double slotted flap Calculated thrust coefficients for B-32 airplane
I4.

b. Stalling Characteristics;

0,14.

JTormal Rated Powerj Transition Fixed

Figure

Configuration

6f Cowl and Inter(deg) cooler flaps

18(a) Standard model 18(b) ao -do^l8(e) Chord extensions 19 20 Modified Inboard afterbodies Biboard afterbodies and chord 21 extensions Z2 Inboard afterbodies 3 ^^^ chord extensiona Comparison of stall patterns at Cj 0.8 23 Standard and modified model 24 25(a) Standard model -do25(b) Standard and modified model (flow over 26 inboard afterbodies and flaps) Modified model (flow over wing) 27
i|.

Closed
Do. Do. Do. Do.

Do. Do. Do.

10

Open Closed
Do. Do. Do.

Lo
1^0

^Natural transition, ^Propellers off.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA ARR No. L5J05

IHTEX to PIOTOES
o. Tall-Surve7 Dat*}
0.1^

27
-

concluded

Normal Rated Power; Transition Fixed

Figure

Material presented
standard and modified model, a = 7.6 and 8.70 Effect of angle of attaok Standard and modified model, a = 7.5 Standard and modified model, a <b 12.7^ Stall patterns for survey condltlcna Standard aodel

Form of data
(d?fii

Co*l and Interoooler flaps

28
29 50 51 52

[12

against Tertical dlatanee

Closed Do. Open Closed

Closed Open Closed
Do. Open

U.
55

. .-do ----- -

-do- ---------------------- --

It

36 37

Fealtion f ake eenter

against vert leal ** distance 1. Vertloal distance against Cj,

d. Aerodyaaale Charaeteristies vltb Propellers Off

Figure
38

Material presented
Several runs with standard model
Effect of Reynolds naid>er T.E. extensions Standard afterbodies with chord extensions Effect of various nacelle afterbodies Afterbodies k with chord extensions Afterbodies 3 with chord extensions Effect of modifications with cowl and Intercooler flaps open Effect of transition
T.E. extensions Standard afterbodies with chord extensions Afterbodies k with chord extensions Afterbodies 5 with chord extensions Effect of modifications with cowl id intercooler flaps open Effect of modifications on lift

6f Cowl and interTransition (deg) cooler flaps

Cn

S la
I42

do-do do
-do -do

against

Ci,

Closed
do-do

Fixed and natural Fixed

Do.

do
-do

Fixed and natural Fixed Fixed and natural

Do.

1^3

do-
do

kk
k5

.do

do
Co. a, C

(^n
Closed
Cj,

ki

n
k9

do

against

- . - ...^.do

do
.^0
-do

do-do

Fixed Fixed and natural Fixed Fixed and natural

Do. Do.

50
51
52

.do

Cj^

-do against

Uo

Open Closed

Fixed
DO.

e. Longitudinal Stability Characteristics; Transition Fixed

Figure

Configuration

6f Cowl and inter- Tall (deg) cooler flaps

Power
Tg = normal rated power Normal rated power Tq 0.I4. normal rated power 0.4 normal rated power 0.I4. normal rated power
0.I4.

53() Standard and modified model

53(1')

55(c) 54() Standard and modified model

514-

-do- do-

(b)

ko ko
1+0

Closed do -do do do -do -doCto

55(a) Standard and modified model 55 (t)

do

-do

On -doOff -do-

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUtlTTES FCfi ASRONAUTICS

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOD AEDONAUTICS

Figure

~ Three -v/ew

draw/ng of model.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

c c

<\}

u 3
CQ CO

a
o o
I

en

bo

C
03

c o o
Qi CO

CQ

0)

C
H T3

c o e
0)

o
I

0)
(-1

to
H
(X.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

Figure 3.- Standard nacelles.

Sf

O'

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

4a

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

4b

f^

V ^

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

Figure 5,- Standard nacelles.

h^

40

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

o h o

H os-ow t-oj voo\ojint-eoO

5i
i! ay

t-'O'O'Oinin-'f to'o

w*H

in

r-i

o^tfi ^^ cy *

o o ^ o\ cu OS
Rr

ow

oj

H c^co^-^o*no^r^

S3
c

a
CO

<

ssssss^essaas

o o MS

iil
o\cy

1 g

b-m'0'*3oo\ino

11 O
.

w to

'JrJ<S>34^A^t^tZ^

J
ft

bs

^ -* CJin H tQ Q (O

-|-

Op ift

11
5
o

OOJ*Oj'lO-*Ot^COOHOJ* lOto' Hr-^r^Hr^

toF-ojinOin

tfMnooo

iHc\jvnt-OinOmOin HrJ CUCU(0(0

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

Figure 7.- Leading-edge gloves and trailingedge extensions.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

8ab

(a)

Afterbody

2.

(b)

Afterbody

3.

Figure 8.- Inboard nacelle afterbodies 2 and 3.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

NACA LMAL S8I87

Figure 9.- Nacelle afterbody

4.

Sf

O'

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

10

Figure 10.- Nacelle afterbody

5.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

11

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

12a

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

12b

"o-.

"*(V).

^
i^r

oo-

-^

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

13a

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

13b

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

14

Figure 14.- Inboard nacelle afterbody

4.

Sj-

40.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

15

igure 15.- Inboard nacelle afterbody Figu

5.

Sf

40

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

16

mk

^1^ ^m
"*?,*
, i-

'^^^^B

QBBHBi^^__
9
"'

i^

*i(i*-T-

XjMri

1L

^-

^^H

'

1
N^C.A

^F "

LMAL 37 877

Figure 16.- Double slotted inboard flap.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

17

CO

C o

^
>

C o

\
i

\
power
AERONAUTICS

M-

>
0)
I

ADVISORY

1
c
FOR

\
rated

1
hp)
NATIONAL

H bo

C
0) 0)

ra

\
normal

(800

1
1

COMMITTEE

1
1 -

^
G^
f\j

C o u o
<*-t

hp
0.4

al 00
(20
Norm

c
0)

H
CJ

X\
s.

V X
\, \

H (M
tl-t

(U

o o

p
CO

\
\

\ \

u
+3

QD
.

XJ
0)

+J
o3

.H

\, \ ^ \ \\
c:^

3
CJ

bo

'O

^^

^
o K^

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

18a-c

a
X

o o
(0
t-,

^ ^
Q <0 ^ * ^
t\i

c:

Cb

O
4->

,-H

>.

Cl

CO

<U

c\j

a O
CO

O
(d ?<
PJ

no

o
(D

o o o O o
n

H-i
--I

T)
^H

T3

Hi

^ U ^ I cd o
,-1

fl 01

-o
(D
ffi

+^
CO

2 O
(D

ID

P,
a>

O s o
5

(D
.-I

m
(D

3 o

<u

r*

X)

O O O U O

a
K
"-I ->

-a
4->

cd

t. to
oj

i,^
"^:^

^^
> O

-p

Q <0 ~
I\i

CVi

<0

-:

t-.

E-"

CO

(D

Ph

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

19a-d
01 c!

c
a)

O.
03

o m C 0]
4->

N
T)

m o
tH

CD

s
*

fl
^

hO 0
ID

00

a
D
C

^h

-^

bO
<D

(d

l^g

(D

u
(D

ID

& O
/. /.
(D
I

P.
X)
ID Id

/
a
aj
0}
I

3
09

o
01 c: <u
4->

s
"^cx

<D

Id

"*

d (0 ~ M ^
t\j

<6

>

u o o

e ti o
Id

<D
I

(>

tvi

a o

bO
ID

J Wg

o
to
ID

o
-n
ID

o
(D

o
(D

U *H OT 01 W a U)
1

C! at

bO

H
Id ID

C!

P,
aJ
,-\
'+^

i)

^^
T3

.H
a 60

U
ID
i-(

O
cvj

(O "^

Og
*-;

QO

>

Qii

f-.

Si

p O
CO ID

o o u

Acit

4^
.H

Dl
to

3
P

m
>:

<
0)

o o o o o
D

^
~c
:*

> O
N "^
&0

o
CO

(M
Xi

^^

* ^-Q
Ci

(*\

o
..-

O
cyj

<o -<

c\j --^

^ ^

a
a

. cr>

t:)

o
II

bO
Vi-

03

X
Cm -h Cn to

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fi?.

20a, b

o
o o

'0

D^

to

O
<
(0
CO a>
/~i

C! (0

>
CD

^
><'

^'^

rH

C\2

o
Ii--C^
;:::::^

OS

m
<D
t-i

P
^

\
\

,'

4J
I

4-1

^
^
<H

''

o
43
(h <D

^1

r^O)

s-i?
'1

,-,

(D

S O

a^i"

ai

ii
5t=

U
<A

cd

n
d \
j-B

O
.-1

/i
1?
,-,

y\

"^^

* s s R

/
1

o
(D

e u o
c;

^
>^~
'.^

H
X)

^ W
^-^F3e

Ii-"i>
^-

\ >

i
*y

^ e

O d
J3 +3 H

o
Td

o
CD

O
CO

s
5^

CD <D
i-

p.
as
,-1

tJ

11

+^
CD

Cm

U
.-

<a
i-i

"S

p o o
en
1

o
(D

o d o u o P o
o
(D

(3
-iH

U
Ji

c:

as

id
Ii,

'

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig. 21a-c

9 f5 o
cd CQ 0)

S O
.-

>H

a <D
<1>

/<
1

o
-rt
II

i-l
bl3

'^
^-^

<-i

<u /

bl)

"'i'

M.

bO Tl T3
a>

<w

^^^
>
Ci

T
5?^

Mi

:;"6
1
'

O
t\i

(0
-"^

t\i

"O

*H

-^

\
'

Fi

"^

"^^ 5)t|

a cd (D ^
^.^

-\ itH

(>

m
fl

Cd
->

+5

o
lH
CO

tH
(D
r; <d

<o-'

(D

+j
(D

D
""v

//. ?t /
^1

u
<o

o
x!

o
p.

o
t:)

on

/\ ^
''^^

g m
<o

(D

+3
as Id ^.

4J

V
\

r\
T3

<d

Q
CVj

<o -.

t\J

<6

-<

>

V
J^

I^----i>

'-

c
a)

o
X)
(D

e ^1 o

^
II

o
n
o
,-1

01

>-

3 S

xl
+^
H

(D

o <

o
<n
<D

*s
1

03

P.
Id

-5

g
tfc
1

S ^ s s S
1=
_
/
;

;3

i-i

43
OQ OT <U

^
<o

u
,-K <-*

^
i

y
I

> o

rH

m
CO

bO

:i"i>
\
\
,'

>
^

bO T3
1

o O o u
<0

^'

+>

o o o o o
CO

9^

bO
CVI

1
y-o-*

<D

t:)

U
;3

C
aJ

&<

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

22a-c

C o
m 0} > P M r
<U
4->

--

M
w <M

o
II

a>

bO
0)

^i^
O
to Rj

S
<o

U) 60 -a O (D
a>

n o

tH cH

"=->^
\f

Ml

?*

P
-*

4>

(D

a ^ cd
<u

cd

CD

od
Pi

C o
CD C!

+i

+>

D
a.

o
X)
ID

^>

ID

if

-d

o
0)
Pi

O
C! at Cd

lO
^o''"v

6 u o d

"=^^
1}.

CD
ID

CVj

O (O ^ ^
t\,

<()

O o o
U
(D

X) ~<D
(D

-P Vi
OJ

O
-<

^5 ^i.

X!
p
CD

P,

d
(D <D Pt ID

.H

v>
(D

O O O
Pi ID

^^
iQ^

bO
0)

O
(\j

<0 --

C\j

H)

Tf

CO
c:

-~^

o
aJ <u
C\3

O O o o o
to

ID
Pi

Ph

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

23

STALLED

UNSTAaED
DIRECTION

INTERMIT-

TENT5TALL
^^^^^N

OF FLOW

Tfa/lfng-a:^

ex^ns/ons

fXough

Afterbod/es 4-;
cc = 1.5'

.... y4fferboaf/e-s

cT-

G =Q<30C

f^ough

Jrbcjgh

Afferbod/es
cc

frni//ng.

^''9^
o

/^OUCffl

Afterbod/e^ S;
;i
,>

/raiZ/o^-

^6.5
Cl

Cc =0. 13

-0.73 C

Kough
Afferbod/ss4;Jead/ng'-

6.5
80:;'
i\

\edge
~~'":i

gloi^es;i7tri//ng-

a =0

^^ ejdens/ons

cc

-6.5
=0.7S
C.

Afferbod/es 5; lead/ngedge g/oi^ss -Mydz/ig-

Cl

-0--

~^~^edge &dens/o/7S
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AEDONAUTICS

Figure 23. -Comparison of ^ fa// patterns with standard and modified modzl at a //ft ooeff/c/e/7f of approx/mcde/y OS. (Sf>=0 ; ca^/ and intercoo/er f/aps c/o.sec/j 0^4 norma/ rated power; tror7s/t/on f/xed

R^Z,6O0,O00.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

24a-d

CO

a>
T-l

P
T)
<u fi
rH

(D

tJ
(1>

(J
=S

W)

^i

k_-

r*.

T!^.

t
Ci
\j

*
""--t^o '^'^

x.

*H o n tn -H m
t^ a)

n1

03 r;

o
tJ
ad
.-1

(o -^

c\j

-<

* > o

o
,

4-5

rn

O o o
.>

^ H KH
rt

<1> 4->

r~i

cd

<U

o o
^

o
to

0,!
J!

o
II

yA /

s o
CO

<iH

Id
(11

oo

X!

n
a)

4->

a X
U)
O)
T-l

rH

tJH

CO
,-1

r!

N
O
l\i

m
r^
'

05

o
-rH

a)

0)
1

Td

*H

<0 -<

tVl --^

* > Q

n
4->

o
t-.

tiO -

O S
tJ
a)

-P

rH

m
rt
(rt

n-J o;

n1

f<

<
CJ h-

+3
.-

--^

X)

^
05

-^//y,
Y,,>,,,\

>

o S
'd
rt
(55

Ph 03

o>

g o < < OS
0= > UJ _J

O
P,
t:!

to

o z

if UJ UJ
cd

03

cd
^1

Q
N

(U

e!

<o

.-1

o
t\i

to
-~<

t\j -^^

<a

> Q ^

a <U
rH

til

+j
ID

cd F! tH

60

V.

o
03

o
rt

t-"

-rH

o
*

X3

PS

HJ
CD 03

P.
r-<

o
CQ

rH
Cd

(1)

CO
1

Cd
r-l

T!

:5iE
c\i

O e
u

Cm
;h

Q lo ~

<\1

t<J

-;
"J"

>

Ci

a
T)
vJ

=!<

C\J

03
<-K

(D

o
(3

U
13
faO

CO

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

25a,

o o o
t3

a
<A

o o
to

//.

o
x)

s o

w
!i

.^

x)
(D

Dl
1^
s

+J

rH

o
(D

Cm
c;

rH <

o
/,

"^
,-, /
'

o
H
+J
t-K

x)

l,^f
r^^n
^

^tl/

o ^
<*-)

CO

P,
CO
,-1

m
rt OJ t(

>
^
'"

&
r

J*=

Cm
eio

^
<\i

^S
^"a^
''1/
''"

to
X)
^
'

4J

m > o ^ M
<\i

C\j

(J)

n
iH

f-l

5
U9

(f
Lj

o
^(O''

n
1
m1
v:^ sL

i W3 ^ > s << _J o < z o H z z

ti

>-

-p

P.

iH

&
<D
t:)

tJ
T>
-!->

m
t^
,-1

O
fi n1

;lL/

71

s
CO

S
t3

e
o

u o c

o
II

OO

+5
CO

f )

"-n

^-

1-4

Cm

>F.

O
CVi

<0
--^

Rl --

CO
^_, OJ

O
CO <u
H-t

TJ
(D

CD

O
,-1

t5

O
m
ft
flO

P
CO

l-l

t-l
l+H

fH

p
1

a) ^H <D

CO

w
<D

lO

o O o
+J

P
;3

a
r-*

t Ph

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

26a-f

o
n)
'-I

C P o
H
O) Ch
4->

4J

^^ (D

+J
C!
rH

<J

3 o
CO

O o o o o
to

.h

Td

io
Ci

o
*H
CO

c
cd

m
a>

w
i(

0)

c
<H

.1

T3

J3

o o
.^

K
*

OJ
4_>

*-l
*-,

<

o o

60 a
OJ

II

o
(D X!
tH

<;
,_^
4-1

o
II

i
>OE

o
40
Cm tH +J
-rH

O Vi g i <
a=

<

tn
. CO <D
iH

c! a)
^4

'O

o
OD *H iH
II

-J

z o <

UJ UJ

+^

TS

Di
|5

s s 8

o
(D (D

Ci

+J
io
CO a>
<4-l

s o
p. o

a)

TI)

0)

o
0)

C
a) CD

+j
td
;h

o o Q
Jj
4-1

r-i

OJ
r-(

CO

<u

S o

cd

o'
tJ

O
x>

3 o
03

OD

sH tH
II

G
-4 t^

o
*m^

Id

03

r-l S-i

Cj

(D

.^

O)

> o & o
.1
(in

O
iH

a o
E

O
<D

t)

CO

a u
aj 3 nj

'O

^
IJ

o u

o
a>

P,
Cd

=H

CO

3
C\2

U
<D

,
CI tn

3
ta pq

O o o

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

27a-d

o
lO
CO o)

00

P,
cd

O
I

60

3 o
CO

^s,^ "=3;

^ O o
U
Ct)

60

o
<D
CO
r-l

r-K
4->

O
rr;

to
C\i

c\j

Og

O o o
tn 03

-P

o o o o o
to

/ 1^
CO

n
cd

w
)!

K
^
*H

'^a.

5; ^~.
<u

S uJ ^^ I 1

o o
O

4J

O ^
II

-rs

Ci
prj

^
eg

c\j C\j

<Xj

<

CO

XI
(-J

^
ij
<x>

(W

aj

u a
crt

CO

CO

t3

rH
V-t

<->

O s
03
CD
rH
<+-!

*
^>>^
CO a)

nn T3
<u
1

% o
p,

^i:
(0
C\i

*H T! >
t<
<1)

W)
c:

*->
;=!

*H

X)

03

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~; <
INj

M
*~l

C\i

O S
Cm

+^

*->

"o"

-i

<

u P
4-J

a1

4-1

O
10

03
03

e
u

D
c

rH
t->

X)
::)

o
4-J

+^
03

o m
Pi

o
(D 03

cd

^i' ^0.;
c\i

03
c\j

^ O ^ ^ ^ <
tsj

o
<D

Ph

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

28a

standard configuration; a = 7 5? ^L " 0.75 inboard afterbodies 1; and tralllng-edge extensions; a=7.6 ;Cl=0.91 Inboard afterbodies 5 and traillng-edge extensions; a=7 .6;Cl=0.91 Leading-edge gloves, inboard afterbodies 5. and trailing-edge extensions; a = 7.6; C-^ - O.9O.
15

in.

20

m.

27 In.

Left of fuselage center line

I
8
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

.o^

o
(a)

.02 -^/u
a

.oa

.04-

Hlght of fuselage center line

^ 7.6.

Figure 28.- Vertical velocity deviations in region of horizontal tail for standard and modified models. 5^ = 0; cowl and intercooler flaps closed; transition fixed; 0.I4. normal rated power; R 2,600,000,

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

28b

O
D V

standard configuration; a = 5 Cl 0.82 Inboard afterbodies 5 and tralllng-edge extensions; a=8.f; Cr^l.Ol Leading-edge gloves. Inboard afterbodies 5, and tralllng-edge extensions; a = 8.7; Cl = 1.01

13 in. right of fuselage center line

27 in. left of fuselage center line

O?

.0/

Vu
(b)

.o^ cytNATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOB AERONAUTICS

r 8.7

Figure 28.- Concluded.

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

29a,

15 in. left of fuselafie center line

20 in. left of fuselage center line

2? in. left of fuselage center line

(a)

Standard configuration.
(deg)

"

(b)

Inboard afterbodies 5 ^^'^ trailing-edge extensions.

A o

k-k 7.6 7 'O

8.7

0.56
.91

1.01

.02

02

o
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
FOI)

vWi

AERONAUTICS

Figure 29.- Effect of angle of attack on vertical velocity deviations in region of horizontal tall for standard and modified models, 5|- = 0; cowl and intercooler flaps closed; transition fixed; 0.14. normal rated power; R;^ 2,600,000.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

30

I
O

20 In. left of fuselage center line D

I
20^
I

Standard configuration; a = Y'^+^J Cl = 0.66 Inboard afterbodies 5 and trailing- edge extensions; a = 7.6; Cl = 0.88

I
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
J
I I
I

.02

_)4.

.06

.08

Figure JO.- Vertical velocity deviations in region of horizontal tall for standard and modified models. 5f = 0; cowl and intercooler flaps open; transition fixed; 0.1^. normal rated power; R 2,600,000.

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

31a-d

/o

La

p^

o
1^

ks ^,
E

^&
)
;

%^.JO \y
1

n
(b)

I
(a)

Standard configuration.
a = 12.7
Ct = 2.52.

I
JO ivy
CD
^:>

Inboard afterbodies I4., flap continuous. a = 12.7; C^ = 2.51.

Distance left of fuselage center line

(In.
^1^
)

D
&&

17

20 23

^.

I
/o yy
/

I
(d)

k^
.02

(c)

Inboard afterbodies 5. a = 12.7'^} Cl = 2.55.

Leading-edge gloves. Inboard afterbodies 5> and tralllng-edge extensions, a = 12.9 Cl = 2.95.
J

02

.04-

.aa

\/7/u

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure 51.- Vertical velocity deviations in region of horizontal 5|< = i;0; cowl and tall for standard and modified models. intercDoler flaps closed; transition fixed; O.i; normal rated power; R a; 2,600,000.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

32a,

STALLED

UNSTAUED

INTERMITTENT 5TALL

DIRECTION

OF FlDW

Rough

Cl

= 0.43

'<.^l_>y-^'^

Rough

Rough
10 Coiv/ flap: open Iniercoo/er //a/s cpen

Rough
Con/ flaps

Rough
<9o<s/7

/<y

/n^enooler fiipj >pen

Cl = 0.Q9

C
rE.extsh^/ons off ftops cxinfmuous be/oiv laboorc/ nacelles

Rough
cc

=12.7'

cc

=iz.r %Z^
IT

&'-

Cl

=ZSI
/Ifferbody 4;
f/^/l/ngf-

(a)

Standard model

edge e^fens/on.
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOB AERONAUT ICS

Figure 32.- Stall patterns for conditions of Transition fixed; turbulence surveys. 0.4 normal rated power; R ;:=i^ 2 600 000
,

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

32c,

STALLED

UN5TALLED

^^X^:;^
--^ssi^v 0. V\<S-J

INTERMITTENT STALL

DIRECTION

OF FLOW

Rough

Rough
TE extensions cur at mtxara r7C/ce//es

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COHHITTEE F0 AERONAUTICS

(c)

Af+erbodies 5; fm/Z/ngtsc/ge &/cfe/7.5/on

(d)

AfZerboaf/ej 5- /eacytng-edge

Figure 3Z

.-

Concluded.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

7

Fig.

33

00^4.3"

oc=/0.

oc=l2.

7"

-^
-^
I

z_

h. w
13 In. from fuielage center line

%
1

Q-

Left

Rl^t
[ 1

I
o

n^
^v
Ox.f
^p
(

'
s
^^}
^'

i \

05

k
1
i

^
rQ"'

P^
^

0- jj

f
20 In. frcB fuselage center line

1 ^
rr c.
(^
\Ti

\ \,
R
V B
{

%
.

\
<

S9A

} .^
( )

h
)ck'

?,^
c

27 In. from fueelage center line

.3

1.0

l.Z

.8

1.0

12

U
.8
COMMITTEE

.6

1.0

1.2

14

AO

i.a

la

^*/9
Standard configuration;
fixed;
0.1).

NATIONAL ADVISORY

FM

AERONAUTICS

Figure iJ.- Dynamic -pre 8 sure variation in the region of the horizontal tail.
6^.

= 0;

cowl and interoooler flaps closed; transltia

normal rated power; R

2,600,000.

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

34

30
<
)

-o-

(ji

cc-4.3
q

3
1

a:=
Cr-

PO
^

J X
"D^

^
^*^
.6
.6
/C7

I.Z

.6
.6

.8

1.0

l.a

lA
.6

.5

/C /2

lA

.8

1.0

1.2.

1.4

^t/^
Figure jli.- Dynamic-pressure variation In the region of the horizontal tail, Standard configuration; 5^ = 0; 20 Inches from fuselage center line. cov;l and intercooler flaps open; transition fixed; O.lj. normal rated power; H^ 2,600,000,

'

NACA ARR No. L5J05

60=9.6

Fig.
00= /3. 7'

35

0=2.59
J
1

I)

i
1

\
/
'',

^^
~-13

y
/

13 In. from fuselage center line

T
[ i)

-c

\
?
'

\
5

o
Wji

4
(
>

/
v_
\

-O
20 In. from fuselage osnter line

I
1

!
? I
3^sO

1
i

t
[>^
s,

^
w

o
c

f
^
Q
{

-10 -r^
.8

^
k
27 In.

s ^^
-^ from fuselag* center
.Q
.3
1.0

P 12 14
.O .8
COMKITTEE

line

1.0

IE

1.4

.8

1.0

1.2

14

1.0

1.2

14

%l^
Standard configuration; 6^ =
fixed;
O.lt-

NATIONAL ADVISORY

FM

AERONAUTICS

Figure 55.- Dynamic-pressure variation in the region of the horizontal tail.

1+0;

cowl and intercooler flaps closed; transition

normal rated po(er;

Ra

2,600,000.

'

'

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig. 36

Standard configuration -Inboard afterbodies 5 and trailing- edge extensions

^^ p
A

XJ.I4S-

edge exten 3 ions

3
O

^ /
J^
Left

:^"- ^-^

^^

y
-^

y.

y/y

"

15 in.

from fuselage center line

Right

/O

-,^

I
o
20 In. from fuselage center line
NATIONAL ADVISORY
/
COMMITTEE

FM

AERONAUTICS

/
^10
/
J

r I^
-5
.4

/
^
-

/
/^^
-.:;^

y^
27 In. from fusel age

'

, ^
-V

^y y
^K-

/ X

-_

j'.T^

c enter

line

.8

/.a

.4

.8

/.a

/.e

Figure 56'~ Variation of location of dynamic -pressure wake center with lift coefficient. 5|> = 0; cowl and intercooler O.I4. normal rated power; flaps closed; transition fixed; Rr 2,600,000.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

37

I
aa
Q)

5^

standard configuration -Trailing- edge extensions -Inboard afterbodies 5 and tral ling-edge extensions

/5
lO
"V

^^

o
-5
-/o
20 in. left of fuselage center line'

20 In. right of fuselage center line

.3

/a

,3

/Z

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOB AERONAUTICS

Figure 37.- Variation of location of dynamic-pressure wake center with lift coefficient. 5^. = 0; cowl and intercooler flaps R 2,600,000. open; transition fixed; O.i; normal rated power;

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

Zi

o n B o si o
r-t

-a

10

4J

CO

a
01

C<M U
:<

tH

<o

O o > ^^ <u o m -p
(d

h o

<D

^ "O O co
f<

s5 dO
i-IO

P ^
n o
H

at

c o O^O o
c\j

-^

">

?>
II

no u o C 0) O
Ph

^
a)

ai !->

J3

0)

to 5) -H

a
00
(D fi

C o

a ^
d
c
CD in

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

39a

"O
a>

iH "m H

d o
B
-d

(3

o
u
-p

tt a
vO

eS4J

-H

d
-d

s
a
Oj

o
T)

4J "d

n o
O
<H

T)
IM
K

Si

O o

01

D
x>

u e
in

"d

a to
C
M
1

o EiH 3 o &
ra
ro

&
<iH

H|rvJ
r-l

T3 08 rH rH

a)

G H >
(S

O c

43

n a o
v^
in
C!

+i

9) KrH O O O O (h

I^Jh

<D

+J 43
a)

C
irt

4J

ID
ID
hi)

m
to

^ a 43
(d

"d

H
ti

rH

<D

T)
a>
1

+i

O
Qj

& O O
*

U)

H
rH H
0)

(SO jS O
II

^O

H
^

o
1

m h

bO

<M <o

oi

CD <D

r-l

a^
<D

roT)

o g

60
fe

0^

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

39b

n
ID

H -a

a>

o O

-P
a)

o
01

o c o

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

40a

o
II

h
O

n c o n r\j S u

O o o o o ^

K
o

d
I

C n
ci 01

-P to -H

a
-d "M

<D

o
<D

si -p

o ^

d
rH
Pi

H
(-1

<D

0)

a>

X3

-P

C H
x)
01

bO
01

a
I

iH

^ o o J- o

60
(X,

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

40b

U o a o

d
SI
i-t

>

o
-p

o a o

o
(D

o
a>

H <w

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

41a

fvj
(/>

K o o
60 O

>

u
t-

O
I

if
AD A{ I

W) CO HO

Qi

f-tO
H

L < Z
1
'

Oft

do

>

"^

PSO
a CM

UJ

_______^
'

1- t-

<>~-

^^___

/^
GP~

<

iz Z X
8.

^
1

^
/

00
a o

m ..i > T) o q> rH m bOO i-t 4> U

O
I

60
in
f><

ID

a)

/
H
o

t
]i
J
1

<)

a C
0)

bOiH
C<i-i

p
o

at

rH

a o

P
OS

n
D

n C
K

*^

G*

o K

rH

J
(^

<E

>
,

4J

^
1

62 H
n o
p
-H

a ^
<M

M
ll
(7)11

hO
ID

-H-O

d o O

M
1

In^
If
If

c; 01

bO
13

-i

T)
(1)

n
h
as

D
I

M
C!

v/ u*s ^-

^4

bu

* o o

a
C
CO

3
73
3

-H tH

S
1: ^

f/i^

U " mo sio
0)

II

<>

<

/ /
/

ta

Q
I

^4

o O CO h C
5)-P

<::)

00

a Q
<o

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

41b

o
to

d a o
o C o

c
Clj

3
0)

!q

w
fe

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

42

3
el

A~. "qi^;^-

U >K

H
O o
k

'^ r.^r u
// /\ 1 /
/
y

^
1
/
I

T
//
/
ifv

^ ^^
;j^<^
<

QD

o
II

<oo

<H

^
^\
t^^l
1^1
^

o o

sO o

O o o 0>O
(I

<

H ^ orvi

O u
s,

N
0}

N^
a1
4)
"T^

J<n

ITS

17

^ p ^
0)

O
H Ti

-(

H
T3

<D

_rj-

i-qKL.
1

M>
/

d-H

c o

-O

>

^ o
u
"S
(d

p
V4
(d

h o

i3
(H
<

^
t.

t<

n
(D

) 3

4J
01

.H -a fl
<D

^
o
0!

m o

r^/
ija

p
U

v^

J^s f

V
0)

-a

if 1
xft//1

a
4J V,

II

^
ci
-t:3

r/T

c
(\i

H H <M 01 ^ C T) 01
()

+J

O
f^
at

-O

c
01

J3

jj

o C

t a9 <5 ^3
1

P
c:

h 0) O

O
f<

4J *H
C8

ja-o

/^
p

p ^
o
* n

1-

p M

coo
fo
'3

h ^

h i

-H Vi
%

fc

H rt +J Ti

y^
y

y
^ 'h o

n n o PrH o -P O 0] 31 a. U rt
S)

H
U

x: vi

f\l

wo
Q
1

<i<r

f
II:

^ o O O Fi O 01 P 53 U
H
fl)

01 t-l

00

^ ^
'V^

h ?>

o^


NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

43a

\: QQ
<1 <J

a S
1-

O"
t>I^

1',
1

T h1

?
/

^ ^
^-.^\

ra

N
\.
!3^

-0

90 00

/J
/

"-IK
[""^-"^^

QO

^^
y
Q

/
/

^
\>L

H -P H
in

0)

n -:tO H m
ID
-l

T3

C
0)

d
T
^

n C C CO O

u O
Vi

m c

C
(d

^
ar
ext

!rr

<D

ft
a)

'O
gloves

w C O

-p

Ij. ext
gloves

1 It
1

J3 rH

rj^

-d
k;
<fl

S) H <M

<

T
t:
afterbodies

l;,

f
>

r-l

;;:)

4J

^VJ
-p

c o

^
f

afterbodies

a
CD cs

+
a
Leading-edge

A
traillng-edgo
afterbodies

.H

tralllng-edge

CO
Leading-edge

C
rH

four

-P CO

; c

/ >/ '
Pour

rv

P
OS

>

d
C

es

r
1 Z
= u

00
bO
OS
II

if
<
<D

<

^ 3

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

43b

%
oeC

<f

f-- ,_^

r-O-

/. //
/

^ ^ ^ // /
/
/

-^ "^
JK^
s.

^J

\
<
<
,

0:3

^ \

//

00

^
tensions

\ V
ill r

kD
c
H +i H
SI
.

and

n
ex

l^

JJJjY
{f>

d d
rH

afterbodle

^
afterbodies

C
CO

u p

c
1

railing-edge

c
four

c
\j
>

iH
OJ

^r^

t
a o
and

r
fou
ensic

oi

Fh

g)

and

,
ext
glovea

^
Q)
to

fe

1;
glovea
conflgurat

I4.

<//
afterbodies
afterbodies

/4
</
tralllng-edge

> H
i2

Leading-edge

Leading-edge

Standard

Pour

Pour

1^
u
ION
IMITTEE

^
1

c3

c>

A>

MAT

> o

^ 5

^ s

^1 'n
rf^
,

^ ^ Q)
'

9i

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig. 44a

fVi

<J

>5J

-^^=^
E>-i

~"

7-/\

7 1 /"
/
I

S T' A

^d
-^
<

^
1

a C o v^ a a e p K o
d

K
Qo

X!0

oo oo

'

XiO PO

-^ ^ L X

^"i

t\J

g
ri
09
ii^
cr)

d
c a
,
ir\
(1

^
r
c5

\\

SN
e a o
a>

\\
k:)

K
n

^. 5a__V_ " ^ -y^

\
V\ XI
\

.-.

H-d
u^ o

1
"

-P

a)

c
c
i

C K
)

jH Mp
i

Vb

a o
iH

n o

f-i

(.

>

4-*
1 s

s T) C i a
1

^
d
Xi

^o <f BS
0/ / T/ 1 tLif
1/

/ (

tH (0 X) D.

rl

H
(.<

4J
OB

o u
/

^
^ Cy
Qb

m h

XiM

(d

p ^

0)

h
0)

"M

L^iil

TtpW
//

(KrH
ri
<D

i-l

// IC^

//

J1

-H

g>//^
r
1

O O O

c>
1

U
*>

91

//
-J

,-^
0)
^

"gS

c
c a
ITN

o
0)

o^ H
OD

3 O

c m -P K > O
U)bO
/
9\
1

1Lc K 11^ yy /
GHftn

// 11

^
Fh

n a
o

-P .H

^j-d

p
h
1 ^
*-i

a
0(

0)

C
t>

LTV
>

f/ji^

S ^
13

n
-^ -a

r-

O o

)
b

ti

a
t< as

-p Oh

r
c>
b t

p
<o

O
<a
1

c
1

wM
-H
tOr-l
0)

r/ t/

ZL /^ /<s "
/

/ /

/fy

a
t.

^
Cli
i

-p

U 3 o S g > S
>-

rH P o o at o h ...
430

oo
bOII
a)
fn

P W
o

01

3 o
fc

h
El

aJ

^ h d -P
a)

-2

)
1-5

O
fc

iJ

>

<?>

<

^ O LU it =s s
?

^J

'M lO

^
'

El

60 H

'^
C5

00

s
o"

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

44b

o
a

o
0)

O c o

^ >
v:)

^ ^ C)

"M

So

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

45

(\j

<i-t

O o o c O o Cv)
u
<D
^

ftCM

O
00
as

O.K

rH
<iH

a h o
ID -rl
i-H

t)

o^ O n O h ID h +3 P a H -d o

d
a m
iH
CJ

k;

H
lH
..s

Sso oo

0"

II

^
CE

Si 4J

"M in

o n
H rH -P ) n T) tH O
f^
<D
ki

S>

-P 'O

o
Ph

a)

^
T)

0)

"m

CO
4:3

f)
h(l CO

o e
c
(d

T)

lU
(-J

'l^

. ^ a> oj J- 13 o> s h43 P n

fo
I

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

46

^0
5

^
*0

d o
<\j

k s o o

4*

A
s8

it r1

y
Oi
It

^5^

a
ts

d
a o

^
v->

f
ca

h
o
^^

*0

H 4 H

o o u
fl

p
it

P O
1

(1

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

47

1-

(f
^

u u
z
m o
Eh

\
^l <:

*o

o
II

^ o
n

P.

^
4

o V
K

o o o
c^
(\1
tf

*Jj

!^

4)

^n ^y
c^

Qj

Ti
(D
1

<D

>
ID

*-t

U
o

^
p

3
o
H

o
o

00
^a

S
(?

S
Q)

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

48a

^J

^U
8

II

a>
i-H

S
f\j

0}

a
o

a
wi iH
-I

h
p

d
ft

o o o o
^^
ai
!1

V > o
bO

iO

f\j

ft,

<a

^
a u

-^
o
^
^i-^

p
tA

o p
of

<\J

Qj

c:^

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig. 48b

to

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

49a

a o
K

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

49b

S
S5

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

50a

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

50b

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

51

S
o,^

'a

o
K
si

^
St
+>

^
o
n

<o

^J

0^

s
Q)

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

52

Inboard afterbodlea Inboard nacelles

i^.,

flapa cut out at

and traillng-edge Inboard afterbodies extensions; flapa and traillng-edge extensions cut out at Inboard nacelles
I4.

Inboard afterbodies extensions

and traillng-edge

-3

-4

A
oc,

12

16

^o

deg

Figure 52.- Lift oharaeterlstloB with wing flaps deflected for standard and modified
aodelB.
Sf 3 40;

cowl and Interoooler flaps olossd; fixed transition;

R=; 2,600,000;

propellers off.

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

53a

-a
0)
><

o
oo

*>

(0

Cm H
l-l

C
nj

1-1

13

C
(S
*:>

C O

C
0)

M
-H
nJ

o
e
bo

*J

M
(I)

C
H J=

-^

J
o

O N
-H

C o O

H Q,

U
x;
..
lU
CO

c o
to

o o
(d

CO

<M (d H iH

o E U

mm
O O
0)

<u

tJ

O
(1)

o
!-i

n -P O "COW -H o t3 O C O to in M
1

td

<u
1-.

s o

;;
I'

3 O
bo

^^

00

^.

^i

Ci

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

53b

!*

^J

00

<o

^.

f\j

Qi

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

53c

o
^Vj

o
S

-d

3
5
1

1
K

^.

f\j

QO

<0

Xh

^i

C^

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

54a

-d
0)

60

iJ
t-i

K)

H
.-I

c
(d tj

c
a)

a o

M
cd
*:>

e
O E
00

<-H

td

C
H J=
P

-P

o O N
'^

H
a o

U,

Q.

-d

0)

^
(d

C m o o
r

lJ

O
Q.
td

H
<n

u w

-a <M

o
E

t^

o o
*j
<D
tt-i

a
l-i

<U
-iJ

tj

W
1

C
-H

T3

C
cd

O o o. o O to
-

'^

ho

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

54b

00 ^i

<o ^i

^
^1"

^i ^j

Q)
'Vj

Qo

'o

O"

NACA ARR No.

L5J05

Fig.

55a

rH -a

0)

cu

Q.

w O
.H

O
!-l

CI.

td

0)

tS

o o
tj 0)

*J

C
CD

O o o ^CO
.,

ECO O O
'^

+^

e C

13 bo

C
(d

1 iH
-P

"
0)
><!

H O
--

c o

Lj <U

.H

m o C D. C o o H T3 -h
+j

CD
-^^

+J

cd

-H
CO

cd

tJ

C
td

ti-i

.H rH

Ij

O E E o
S-i

Vj

O
CD

-H
td

(^ +J +J tn Id rH bo cd

W
I

C
-H
-p
(d

*J

m
in
<U tj

C o N
tj

0)

D,

O
j::

D o
bo

NACA ARR No. L5J05

Fig.

55b

s
t

00

(O

^.

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 07762 833 6

^r
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT 120 MARSTON SCIENCE UBRARY

117011 GAINESVILLE. FL 32611-7011
P.O.

BOX

USA