NASA

TECHNICAL

NASA TN D-8524

NOTE

Z
I1

V_
Z

AERODYNAMIC

CHARACTERISTICS

OF WING-BODY
WITH

TWO

AVIATION
AND
Harry
Langley
Hampton,

ADVANCED
AIRFOIL

SIMPLE
L.

Morgan,
Research
Ira.

CONFIGURATION

FLAP
Jr.,

GENERAL

SECTIONS
SYSTEMS

and John

IV. Paulson,

Jr.

Center
23665

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTOND. C. AUGUST1977

I. Report No.
NASA

TN

2. Government AccessionNo.

4. Title and Subtitle

AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
TION

3. R_ipient's _I_

WITH

TWO

SECTIONS

AND

ADVANCED
SIMPLE

5. Repo_ Date
OF

WING-BODY

GENERAL

FLAP

CONFIGURA-

AVIATION

August

AIRFOIL

1977

6. PerformingOrganization Code

SYSTE24S

7. Aurar(s)
Harry

No.

D-8524

8. PerformingOrganization Rel:)<xtNo.
L.

Morgan,

Jr.,

and

John

W.

Paulson,

L-11305

Jr.

10. Work Unit No,

505-10-1
1-10

9. Perfuming Or_nization Name and Addre_

NASA
Langley
Hampton,
VA

Research
23665

Center

12. SponsoringAgency Name and Addr_s

National
Aeronautics
and
Washington,

DC

'11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical
Note
Space

Administration
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

20546

,15. SupplementaryNote=

16. Abstract
investigation

was

conducted

in

the

aerodynamic
characteristics
of a general
NASA GA(W)-I,
and NASA
GA(PC)-I
airfoil
equipped
with plain,
split,
and slotted
The

NASA

GA(PC)-I

wing

Experimental

chordwise

obtained

the

for

was

equipped

with

static-pressure

NASA

GA(PC)-I

Langley

aviation
sections.
partialplain,

V/STOL

partial-

distribution

wing

at

the

tunnel

to

determine

the

wing equipped
with NACA
652-415,
The NASA GA(W)-I
wing was
and full-span
flaps and ailerons.
and

and

full-span

wake

22.5-percent

drag

spanwise

flaps.

measurements
station.

were

Compari-

sons were made

between
the three wing configurations
to evaluate
the wing performance,
stall,
and maximum
lift capabilities.
The tests
were conducted
over an
angle-of-attack
range
of
1.92 x 106 based
on wing
The
higher
both
lift
of

results

maximum

of
lift

this

-4 to
chord.

22 and

investigation

capability

and

a Reynolds

indicated

almost

partial-span

slotted

flap.

The

that

equivalent

the NACA 652-415

and NASA GA(PC)-I
wings.
coefficient
of 1.32 with 0 flap deflection,

the

number

range

the
drag

NASA

of

GA(W)-I

values

of

the

NASA

tion showed
of -10 .

cruise

and

drag

performance

17, Key Words (Suggestedby Author(s))

General

over

the

wing

GA(W)-I

equivalent.
design
climb

lift

106

to

had

with

had a maximum
41.6 deflection

and slotted
ailerons
with
differential
deflections
were
GA(PC)-I
wing with
full-span
flaps deflected
0 for the
improved

compared

The NASA GA(W)-I

and 1.78 with

effectiveness

1.21

flap

plain

The NASA
configurasetting

18. Distribution Statement

aviation

Unclassified

- Unlimited

Airfoils
Wings
Subject
19. Security Clar4if.(of thisreport)
Unclassified

20. SecurityClassi.f.(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

69

22. Price"
$4.50

* For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VJfg_nia 22161

Category

02

AERODYNAMIC

CHARACTERISTICS

GENERAL

AVIATION
Harry

L.

OF

WING-BODY

AIRFOIL

SECTIONS

CONFIGURATION
AND

SIMPLE

WITH
FLAP

Morgan,
Jr., and John W. Paulson,
Langley
Research
Center

TWO

ADVANCED

SYSTEMS
Jr.

SUMMARY

An

investigation

was

conducted

in

the

Langley

V/STOL

tunnel

to determine

the aerodynamic
characteristics
of a general
aviation
wing equipped
with NACA
652-415 , NASA GA(W)-I,
and NASA GA(PC)-I
airfoil
sections.
The NASA GA(W)-I
wing was equipped
with plain,
split,
and slotted
partialand full-span
flaps
and ailerons.
The NASA GA(PC)-I
wing was equipped
with plain,
partialand
full-span
flaps.
Experimental
chordwise
static-pressure
distribution
and wake
drag measurements
were obtained
for the NASA GA(PC)-I
wing at the 22.5-percent
spanwise
station.
Comparisons
were made between
the three wing configurations
to evaluate
the wing performance,
stall,
and maximum
lift capabilities.
The
tests
number

were conducted
range
of 1.21

over an angle-of-attack
range of -4 to 22 and
x 106 to 1.92 x 106 based on wing chord.

a Reynolds

The results
of this investigation
indicated
that the NASA GA(W)-I
wing had
a higher
maximum
lift capability
and almost
equivalent
drag values
compared
with
both the NACA 652-415
and NASA GA(PC)-I
wings.
The NASA GA(W)-I
wing had a maximum lift coefficient
of 1.32 with 0 flap deflection,
and 1.78 with 41.6
deflection
of the partial-span
slotted
flap.
The effectiveness
of the NASA
GA(W)-I
plain
and slotted
ailerons
with differential
deflections
were equivalent.
The NASA GA(PC)-I
wing with full-span
flaps deflected
0 for the design
climb
configuration
showed
setting
of -10 .

improved

lift

and

drag

performance

over

the

cruise

flap

INTRODUCTION
Research
on advanced
aerodynamic
technology
airfoils
for general
aviation
applications
has been conducted
over the last several
years at the Langley
Research
Center
and reported
in references
I to 4.
The first of these airfoils
was developed
from a 17-percent-thick
supercritical
airfoil
to provide
an airfoil with improved
low-speed
characteristics.
This airfoil
designated
NASA
GA(W)-I
in reference
I showed
a 30-percent
increase
in maximum
lift coefficient
and more gradual
stall characteristics
than a typical
older NACA 65 series
airfoil used for comparison.
Wings
using this improved
low-speed
section
would be suitable
for application to light
general
aviation
aircraft.
These aircraft
usually
have limited
payload
weights
because
of low-powered
engines
and generally
have poor ride
quality
because
of large wing areas.
Application
of the improved
airfoil
section should
increase
payload
capability
because
of the lighter
wing weight

attainable with thicker sections and should improve ride quality

smaller wing areas possible with an increase in lift capability.

because of the

This investigation was conducted to determine the longitudinal aerodynamic

characteristics
of an aspect-ratio-9 wing with the NASAGA(W)-I airfoil
section
equipped with typical simple flaps and ailerons.
This wing was attached to a
representative fuselage shape with a fineness ratio of approximately 8. An
additional airfoil
section, designated NASAGA(PC)-I, which was designed for
optimum drag coefficient at a climb lift
coefficient of 0.9 was also tested during this investigation.
This additional wing was equipped with a plain flap and
was intended for particular application to single-engine aircraft which, in general, hav_ poor lift-drag
ratios in climb. A wing with a NACA65-415 airfoil
section was also tested to provide baseline comparison data for the other wings.
The tests were conducted in the Langley V/STOLwind tunnel through an angle-ofattack range of -4 to 22 and a sideslip range of -5 to 5 . Reynolds number
based on wing chord was also varied from 1.21 106 to 1.92 106. The chordwise pressure distribution
and corresponding wake velocity profile were measured
Y
at the _ = 0.225 spanwise station on the NASAGA(PC)-I wing.
b/2
SYMBOLS
Values are given in both SI and U.S. CustomaryUnits. The measurements
and calculations were madein the U.S. CustomaryUnits. The model force and
momentdata are referred to the stability
axis system shown in figure I. The
model momentreference center was located at the quarter-chord location of the
wing root chord as shown in figure 2.
b

wing span, 4.013 m (13.17 ft)

CD

drag coefficient,

Ch

aileron hinge-moment coefficient,

CL

lift

CLe

lift-curve

CI

rolling-moment coefficient,

Cm

pitching-moment coefficient,

Cn

yawing-momentcoefficient,

Cp

pressure coefficient,

Cy

side-force

wing chord, 44.7 c_ (17.6 in.)

coefficient,

Drag/qS

Lift/q

Hinge moment/q Ca2ba

slope per degree

coefficient,

Rolling moment/qSb
Pitching moment/q_Sc
Yawing moment/qSb

(Ps - P_)/q_
Side force/q S

Cd

section

profile

_01 _Pt-q_

drag

coefficient

Ps I

Cn

section

L/D

lift-drag

ratio

wake

height,

IPt q_- P_I d (_)

normal-force

rake

local

static

Pt

total

pressure,

p_

free-stream

static

free-stream

dynamic

Reynolds

pressure,

wing

free-stream

airfoil

vertical

airfoil

number

area,

1.795

(see

eq.

from

wake

24.16,

measurements,

ref.

9)

coefficient,

16.76

Ps

determined

Pa

cm
Pa

(6.60

in.)

(lbf/ft 2)

(lbf/ft 2)
pressure,
pressure,

based

on

m2

(19.307

Pa

(ibf/ft 2)

kPa

(lbf/ft 2)

free-stream

conditions

and

airfoil

chord

ft 2)

velocity

abscissa,

cm

(in.)

distance

in

wake

ordinate,

cm

(in.)

profile,

cm

(in.)

angle
of
center

attack,
measured
vertically
between
line (positive
direction,
nose up),

free
deg

stream

angle
of
center

sideslip,
measured
laterally
between
free
line (positive
direction,
nose left),
deg

control
surface
deflection,
measured
vertically
between
wing
and control
surface
chordline
(positive
direction,
control
down),
deg

stream

and

and

fuselage

fuselage

chordline
surface

Subscripts:
a

aileron

flap

max

maximum

static

total
free-stream

conditions

Notation:
I

lower

surface

upper

surface

GA(I)-I

airfoil
designation,
General
Aviation
Identification
number
of particular

(Initial
airfoil

of designer's
design

name)

MODELS
The configurations
tested
during
this investigation
consisted
of three
aspect-ratio-9
rectangular
wings mounted
on a fineness-ratio-8
tailless
fuselage.
The planform
details
of the wing and fuselage
are presented
in figure
2 and photographs
of the model
installed
in the Langley
V/STOL
tunnel,
in figure
3.
All
the wings
had a span of 4.013 m (13.17
ft), a wing chord of 44.7 cm (17.6 in.),
and a wing area of 1.795 m 2 (19.307
ft2). The first wing had a NACA 652-415
airfoil section;
the second,
a NASA GA(W)-I
[General
Aviation
(Whitcomb)
- Number
One];
and the third,
a NASA GA(PC)-I
[General
Aviation
(Peterson
and Chen)
Number
One] airfoil
section.
Plots of these airfoil
shapes
are presented
in figure 4 and their tabulated
coordinates,
in tables
I, II, and III.
The NACA
652-415
washout
with

and NASA GA(W)-I

wings
at the wing tips.
The

2 washout

at

the

wing

had a positive
NASA GA(PC)-I

2 incidence
at the
wing had 0 incidence

root with 2
of the root

tip.

The NACA 652-415

airfoil
section
is a member
of the family
of low-drag
airfoils
developed
by the NACA and are often referred
to as the "laminar
flow"
airfoils.
(See ref. 5.)
These airfoils
have been used successfully
on sailplanes;
however,
cult to

on general
aviation
maintain
because
of

by wing

fabrication

wings
surface

techniques

or

laminar
boundary-layer
conditions
roughness
near the leading
edge
by

insect

remains

gathered

during

are difficaused
either
flight.

The

NACA 652-415
airfoil
section
has leading-edge
flow separation
characteristics
at
high angles
of attack
in two dimensions
which results
in unfavorable
wing stall
characteristics.
This airfoil,
nevertheless,
is used on many current
general
aviation
aircraft
and was tested
during
this investigation
to obtain
baseline
comparison

data.

This

wing

was

not

equipped

with

flaps

or

ailerons.

The NASA GA(W)-I

was designed
by Richard
T. Whitcomb
specifically
for lowspeed
application.
(See ref. I.)
This airfoil
section
was designed
for a
cruise
lift coefficient
of 0.4, for a good lift-drag
ratio at a climb lift coefficient
of 1.0, and for a maximum
lift coefficient
of 2.0.
The
tures
of this airfoil
are (I) a large upper surface
leading-edge
approximate
uniform
loading
at the cruise
lift coefficient;
and

key design
fearadius;
(2) an
(3) a blunt

trailing
edge. The large upper surface leading-edge radius was used to attenuate the peak negative pressure coefficients and thereby to delay airfoil
stall
to a high angle of attack.
A blunt trailing
edge provided the airfoil
with
approximately equal upper and lower surface slopes to moderate the upper surfacepressure recovery and thus further delay stall.
A 17-percent-thick NASAsupercritical
airfoil
was used as a starting geometry for the low-speed airfoil
design because the highly aft-cambered supercritical
airfoils
had indicated good
low-speed characteristics.
The final low-speed airfoil
geometry was obtained
by tailoring the supercritical
airfoil
geometry until the desired cruise, climb,
and maximumlift conditions were satisfied.
The computer program of reference 6
was used to predict the design and off-design characteristics
of the airfoil
during the tailoring process.
The NASAGA(W)-I wing was equipped with full-span plain, slotted, and split
flap systems as shownin figure 5. The chord of both the plain and slotted flap
was 18 percent of the wing chord, and the chord of the split flap was 24.6 percent of the wing chord. Each flap system was divided at the mid-semispan location to allow for independent movementof the inboard and outboard sections.
The inboard section had a range of deflection from 0 to 40 down, and the outboard, a range of deflection from 0 to 10 down. The outboard section of the
left wing panel of the plain and slotted flap systems could be deflected from
30 up to 20 down and was used as a representative aileron.
These aileron sections were equipped with a push-rod type hinge-moment gage as shown in figure 6
to determine aileron control forces.
The NASAGA(PC)-I was designed by John B. Peterson, Jr., of Langley Research
Center and Allen W. Chen, NRC-NASA
Resident Research Associate, for optimum drag
at a climb lift
coefficient of 0.9. Details of the design procedure used for
this airfoil
are given in the appendix. A suitable airfoil
shape for cruise
flight was obtained by deflecting a 19-percent-chord simple flap 10 upward
(_f = -10 ) with the center of rotation on the lower surface at the 80.8-percentchord location.
A representative landing shape was obtained by deflecting the
simple flap down 10 (6f = 10 ) as shown in figure 7. This flap system, like
those on the NASAGA(W)-I wing, was divided at the mid-semispan location to allow
for independent movementof the inboard and outboard sections. Partial- and
full-span flap combinations with flap deflections from -10 to 10 were tested.
The left wing panel was equipped with a chordwise row of surface-pressure
orifices at a spanwise location equal to 22.5 percent of the span to determine
the sectional characteristics
of the NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil.
The pressure orifice locations are given in table IV. The pressure data were integrated to
obtain the section normal-force coefficients.
A wake rake was positioned
5.08 cm (2.0 in.) downstreamof the wing trailing edge at the samespanwise
location as that of the pressure orifices to measure profile drag. The rake
consisted of 41 total and 4 static-pressure probes as shown in figure 8. This
rake was supported by a horizontal strut which was mounted to the model fuselage. A photograph of the rake and horizontal strut are shown in figure 9.
The rake was positioned to keep its center line approximately 5.08 cm (2.0 in.)
downstreamof the wing trailing edge when the flap was deflected.

INSTRUMENTATION
ANDTESTCONDITIONS
Aerodynamic forces and momentswere measuredwith a six-component, electrical strain-gage balance mounted inside the fuselage as shown in figure 2. Angle
of attack was set by the pitch drive of the model support system and measuredby
an electronic sensor mounted inside the fuselage. Sideslip angle was set by the
yaw drive of the model support system and measuredby an electronic counter
mounted to the yaw drive gearing system. The surface pressures of the NASA
GA(PC)-I wing were obtained through pressure orifices set normal to the local
surface and were measuredby using two 15.44 kPa (2.5 psi) differential
pressure
transducers and two 48-port scanning valves. Wakepressures were also measured
using one 15.44 kPa (2.5 psi) differential
pressure transducer and one 48-port
scanning valve. Fuselage chamber pressure was measuredby using a 6.17 kPa
(1.0 psi) differential
pressure transducer.
This investigation was conducted in the Langley V/STOLtunnel at dynamic
pressures of 0.8576 kPa (20 ib/ft2),
1.4364 kPa (30 ib/ft2),
1.7152 kPa
(40 ib/ft2),
and 2.3940 kPa (50 ib/ft 2) which corresp@ndto Reynolds numbers
based on the chord of 1.21, 1.49, 1.72, and 1.92 106, respectively.
The Mach
number ranged from 0.12 to 0.18. The model was tested through an angle-ofattack range of -4 to 22 and a sideslip angle range of -5 to 5 . The NASA
GA(W)-I and NASAGA(PC)-I wings were tested with partial- and full-span flap
deflections.
The NASAGA(W)-I wing was tested with single and differential
aileron deflections.
The fuselage was also tested without a wing and the NASA
GA(W)-I wing was tested without a fuselage.
Boundary-layer transition strips 0.25 cm (0.1 in.) wide were placed on the
upper and lower surface of each wing leading edge. The strips were located
2.3 cm (0.9 in.) or x/c = 0.051 on the upper surface and 4.3 cm (1.7 in.) or
x/c = 0.097 on the lower surface. The roughness was sized according to reference 7 and required a commercial number 60 grit sparsely applied.
Wind-tunnel boundary corrections were determined according to reference 8
and applied to the data. Drag corrections due to model chamber pressure were
also applied to the data.
PRESENTATION
OF RESULTS
The results are presented in the following

figures:
Figure

Aerodynamic characteristics
of fuselage alone ............
Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of NASAGA(W)-I
wing alone ............................
Aerodynamic characteristics
of NACA652-415 wing ..........
Aerodynamic characteristics
of NASAGA(W)-I wing ..........
Effect of flap deflection on longitudinal aerodynamic
characteristics
of NASAGA(W)-I wing ...............
Effect of aileron deflection on aerodynamic characteristics
NASAGA(W)-I wing .........................
6

10 and 11
12
13 and 14
15 and 16
17 to 19
of

20 and 21

Figure
Aerodynamic
characteristics
Effect
of flap deflection
characteristics
of NASA

22

of NASA GA(PC)-I
wing
..........
on longitudinal
aerodynamic
GA(PC)-I
wing
...............

and

23
24

L/D
as a function
of
CL
for the NACA 652-415,
NASA GA(W)-I,
and
NASA GA(PC)-I
wings
........................
Section
surface-pressure
profiles
for NASA GA(PC)-I
wing
......
Section
drag polars
for NASA GA(W)-I
and NASA GA(PC)-I
airfoils
Final

Cp

distributions

used

in developing

RESULTS

AND

The effect
of Reynolds
number
alone
are presented
in figure
limited
Reynolds
number
range
The

aerodynamic

presented

in

11.

CI
due to sideslip.
range
below
18 and
with sideslip
angle

is
as

There

are

Alone

of
no

the

body

at

significant

GA(W)-I

Wing

various

effects

Yawing
moment
is destabilizing
stabilizing
above
18 . Side
would be expected.

NASA

27
28

airfoil

on the longitudinal
characteristics
10.
There are no measurable
effects
of this investigation.

characteristics

figure

GA(PC)-I

DISCUSSION

Fuselage

body
this

NASA

25
26

over
force

sideslip
on

CL,

of the
over

angles
C D,

the

aft

portion

of

the

wing.

NACA

figure

The

652-415

The baseline
comparison
data
13.
The variations
of the

Reynolds
especially
increased

number

are

in the
Reynolds

not

large

and

CL,ma x

Alone

is

about

1.31

for

the

for
the
nears
an
begins

wing

alone.

652-415
wing are presented
aerodynamic
characteristics

in
with

Configuration

for the NACA

longitudinal
show

or

the angle-of-attack
steadily
increases

As shown
in figure
12, the effect
of Reynolds
numbers
is rather
small
the NASA GA(W)-I
wing alone;
only small increases
in
CL
are obtained
at
higher
angles
of attack.
Drag values
are almost
unchanged
until
the wing
stall.
The lift-curve
slope is about 0.077/deg
and is quite
linear
up to
angle
of attack
of about 5 and then becomes
nonlinear
as flow separation
on

are

Cn,

the

expected

trend

of

increasing

CL,

range near
CL,max,
as Reynolds
number
increases.
The
number
also tends to reduce
trailing-edge
flow separation

as

indicated
by the reduction
in
CD
and
Cm
associated
with the increases
in
C L.
This NACA 652-415
wing-body
has a lift-curve
slope of 0.090/deg
with a
CL max
of 1.08 to 1.16 depending
on the Reynolds
number.
At a cruise
CL
of
0._, this wing has a
CD
of 0.028 and a
Cm
of -0.042;
whereas,
at a climb
CL
of 0.9, it has a
CD
with the NASA GA(W)-I
mance

of

each

wing.

of 0.060
and NASA

and a
Cm
of 0.035.
GA(PC)-I
configurations

These values
to evaluate

are compared
the perfor-

The aerodynamic characteristics

of the model at various sideslip angles ar,_
presented in figure 14. As the model is yawed, there is very little
effect on
the aerodynamic characteristics
until the downwindwing stalls or is blanketed
by the wake of the body at an angle of attack of about 9 . The large rolloff
indicated in the Ct data corresponds to stall breaks in the lift and drag
data. As expected for a tailless configuration, the yawing and pitching moments
generated are destabilizing.
NASAGA(W)-I Configuration
Effect
of Reynolds
number.dinal
characteristic
of the wing
effects
are rather
small and are

The effects
of Reynolds
number
on the longitubody are presented
in figure
15.
Again
the
limited
to the higher
angles
of attack.
It is

interesting
to note that the stall characteristics
for the lowest
Reynolds
number are somewhat
different
than those at the higher
numbers
with a rather
pronounced
peak in the data at stall.
Also the angle of attack
at stall is only
13 at the lowest
Reynolds
number
and 17 at the higher
Reynolds
number.
The
addition
part of
In

of
the

the body
data but

addition,

CL,ma x

These

values

changes
the lift-curve
slope to 0.086/deg
in the linear
the nonlinearities
still occur at an angle of attack
of
varies

show

from

a slight

1.30

to

reduction

1.41,
in

depending

C_

over

on
the

Reynolds
NACA

5 .

number.

652-415

airfoil

but
CL ! max
is increased
about
0.22 to 0.25.
At the cruise
CL
the drag is
nearly
identlcal
to that of the NACA 652-415
and the pitching
moment
is -0.080
and shows
the increased
nose-down
moment
due to the aft loading
on the NASA
GA(W)-I.
At the climb
CL
of 0.90, the
CD
is about 0.060 which
is the same
as that for the NACA 652-415 , and
Cm
is -0.015
as compared
with 0.035
for the
NACA 652-415.
This result
would
indicate
that for trimmed
conditions
the NACA
652-415
would have a slightly
better
L/D
at cruise
and in climb.
The
presented

aerodynamic
in figure

show

same

the

characteristics
of the model at various
sideslip
angles
16.
Although
the magnitudes
differ
somewhat,
these data

trends

as

the

NACA

652-415

are

configuration.

Effect
of flap deflections.The effect
of the deflection
of an inboard
plain
flap is presented
in figure
17.
The maximu_n lift coefficient
is increased
to 1.63 whereas
the stall angle of attack
is redfaced to 10 at a flap deflection
of 41.5 . At maximum
of attack,
to 0.05 at
down as the flaps are
The

slotted

flap

Clap deflection,
drag is increased
by 0.04 at the low angle
the higher
angles.
The pitching
moment
becomes
more nose
deflected.
data

are

presented

in

figure

18 for

span cases.
The partial-span
flap increases
CL,ma x
attack
of 10.5 . There
is very little
difference
in
flap settings;
therefore,
flow separation
has occ_r_ed
the effectiveness
of the flap at the 40 deflection.
slotted
flap are 0.005
to 0.008 higher
than the p_a_n
attack
range of the tests.

both

partial-

to 1.78 at
lift between

and

full-

a stall angle
of
the 30 and 40

over the flap and reduced

Drag increments
for the
flap over the angle-of-

Only one deflection of 10 was possible for the full-span slotted flap.
The benefit of using the full-span flap can be seen over the entire angle-ofattack range as the lift
is increasedby 0.11 over the partial-span flap for the
10 deflection.
The split flap data are presented in figure 19 for both the partial- and
full-span flaps.
The lift
characteristics
are similar to the other flap configurations with CL,ma
x equal to 1.68 at an angle of attack of 10; however, the
drag increments are higher than either of the other flap systems over the angleof-attack range of the tests.
As for the other flaps, only the 10 flap deflection was possible for the
full-span split flap.
Again the benefit of using the full span was very
apparent.
Effect
of aileron
deflections.The effects
of plain aileron
deflection
are
presented
in figure
20 and the effects
of the slotted
ailerons
are presented
in
figure
21.
Changes
in lift, drag, and pitching-moment
coefficients
are about
equal
for both ailerons,
the small differences
showing
up in the magnitude
of the
rolling
moments
generated
with aileron
deflections.
For up deflections
of the
left aileron
(figs. 20(b) and 21(b)),
the plain and slotted
ailerons
appeared
to
have equal
effectiveness
at the lower angles
of attack,
the slotted
aileron
being
more effective
at the higher
angles.
The plain aileron
rolling
moments
are constant with angle of attack
where the slotted
aileron
rolling
moments
vary with
angle
of attack
especially
at the higher
deflections.
In general,
the slotted
aileron
has lower hinge moments
than does the plain aileron.
When the left'aileron was deflected
down (figs.
20(d) and 21(d)),
the slotted
aileron
was more
effective
in showing
the benefit
of the slot as seen before
in the flap data.
Figures
20(f)
and 21(f) show the data for differential
aileron
deflections
(left
aileron
up and right aileron
down).
Again it appears
that the slotted
aileron
is slightly
the direct

more effective
but since
comparison
is difficult.

NASA
The effects
tics of the NASA
sented
in figure

the

GA(PC)-I

deflections

Wing

are

not

equal

for

each

case,

Body

of Reynolds
number
on the longitudinal
aerodynamic
characterisGA(PC)-I
wing in the cruise
configuration
(6f = -10 ) are pre22.
The only effect
of increasing
Reynolds
number
is a slight

increase
in
CL,ma x
which is also observed
on the other wings.
There was a
reduction
in
CL,ma x
of 0.2 and 0.5, compared
with the NACA 652-415
and NASA
GA(W)-I
wings,
respectively.
The aerodynamic
characteristics
of this wing are
presented
in figure
23 and show the expected
results.
The effects
of partialand full-span
flap deflections
are presented
in figure
24.
These data show the
expected
increase
in
CL
with increasing
flap deflection.
The
CL,ma x
capability
of this wing is considerably
less than that of the NASA GA(W)-I
at equivalent
flap settings.
This wing does, however,
exhibit
a slightly
smoother
stall
pattern
flatness

The

The
NASA

than
in

the
Cm

lift/drag
GA(PC)-I

NASA GA(W)-I
as
after
the stall

exemplified
by the gradual
angles
of attack
of about

polars
for the three wings
wing is presented
with both

increase
9 .

tested
are presented
-10 and 0 full-span

in

CL

and

in figure
25
flap deflec-

tions.
As stated in the appendix, this wing was designed for an improved L/D
at the climb CL of 0.9 which corresponds to the 0 flap deflection case. The
data shown in this figure clearly demonstrate the lower performance of the NASA
GA(PC)-I wing at the cruise flap setting of -10 comparedwith the design climb
configuration.
The climb configuration resulted in an increase in L/D at a
cruise CL of 0.4 and at a climb CL of 0.9 comparedwith the other wings.
However, the NASAGA(PC)-I wing for the design climb configuration is very close
to stall with CL equal to 90 percent of CL,ma.
The experimental static-pressure distributions
measuredat the 22.5-percentspan station are presented in figure 26 for -10 , 0, and 10 full-span flap settings.
The pressure distribution
for the climb configuration (_f = 0) of figure 26(b) illustrates
that at CL = 0.9, _ = 11.5, the flow is well attached.
However, at CL! max, _ = 13.6 , the entire surface has separated. The section
drag

measured

wlth

the

wake

rake

is presented

in

figure

27.

The

section

normal-

force
coefficients
presented
in this figure
were obtained
by simple
integration
of the measured
static-pressure
distributions.
The section
characteristics
of
the NASA GA(W)-I
given in reference
I are also presented
in figure
27 for comparison.
The drag levels
of both the NASA GA(PC)-I
and NgSA GA(W)-I
airfoils
are
approximately
the same.
The NASA GA(W)-I
has higher
drag at the lower values
of
Cn

and

lower

drag

at

the

higher

values

of

Cn.

CONCLUSIONS
An investigation
has been conducted
in the Langley
V/STOL
tunnel
to determine the aerodynamic
characteristics
of three aspect-ratio-9,
rectangular
unswept
wings
with a NACA 652-415 , a NASA GA(W)-I,
and a NASA GA(PC)-I
airfoil
section,
respectively.
The following
conclusions
have been made:
I. The

NASA

GA(W)-I

and almost
equivalent
GA(PC)-I
wings.
2.
higher

The

3. The
with

NASA

performance

4. The

GA(W)-I

NASA

had

values

equipped

compared

effectiveness

differential

wing

drag

with
of

GA(PC)-I

with

Langley
National
Hampton,
June 15,
I0

Research
Center
Aeronautics
and
VA 23665
1977

the

and

almost
the
and

and

lift

both

slotted

plain

plain

were

wing

and
NACA

with

with

configuration
showed
improved
lift
-10 flap setting
configuration.
5. The NASA GA(W)-I
smoother
stall than the

maximum

compared

the

the

deflections

a higher

flap

split

slotted

NACA

capability

652-415

showed

flap

the

and

NASA

expected

configurations.

ailerons

for

the

NASA

GA(W)-I

design

climb

equal.
flaps

drag

deflected

performance

NASA GA(PC)-I
configurations
652-415
configuration.

Space

coefficient

the

Administration

0 o for
over

the

the

basic

generally

cruise,

exhibit

APPENDIX
DESIGNTECHNIQUE
FORTHENASAGA(PC)-I AIRFOIL
The NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil
was designed for an optimum drag coefficient at
a given lift
coefficient.
The design lift coefficient for this airfoil
was 0.9
which is a commonvalue for the climb lift coefficient of manycurrent singleengine general aviation circraft.
Reducing the airfoil
drag at a given climb
lift
meansan increase in lift-drag
ratio and, therefore, an improvement in the
climb performance capability of the rather low-powered single-engine general
aviation aircraft.
The NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil
was designed for low drag in almost fully turbulent flow, since very little
laminar flow is found on general aviation airfoils
due to roughness near the wing leading edge which causes transition of the boundary layer.
This roughness is a result of either wing fabrication techniques or
insect remains gathered during flight.
During the theoretical analysis of the NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil,
the lift
coefficient was determined by integrating the pressure distribution
around the airfoil surface. The drag coefficient was determined by calculating the boundarylayer development and using a modified form of the Betz's (ref. 9) profile drag
formula which is

where cd is the profile drag coefficient,

c is the airfoil
chord, U is
the free-stream velocity,
e is the boundary-layer momentumthickness at the
airfoil
trailing
edge, v is the flow velocity at the trailing
edge, and H
is the boundary-layer shape factor at the trailing
edge. The Truckenbrodt turbulent boundary-layer method (ref. 10) was used to compute the momentum
thickness e and the shape factor H needed in the drag formula. To determine the
shape of the pressure distribution
for lowest drag, a pattern or grid method of
optimization was used in which all combinations of a set of variations used to
define the general shape of the pressure distribution
were covered. A computer
program was developed by using the Truckenbrodt boundary-layer method and the
Betz drag formula to rapidly calculate the drag of over 2000 combinations of
these variables and present the results in an easily read form. For each successive run, the range of each variable was refined, and after a few runs, a
pressure distribution
that gave quite a low drag was obtained.
The airfoil
geometry of NASAGA(PC)-I was obtained by using the iterative
inverse design method described in reference 11. This inverse design program
calculates the pressure distribution
on the surface of an initial
airfoil
shape
and then systematically modifies the airfoil
shape until the desired pressure
distribution
is obtained. In order to avoid both a divergent iterative process
and an unrealistic airfoil
geometry, a commonpractice in designing airfoils
is
11

APPENDIX
to specify the pressure distribution
only on a portion of the airfoil
surface.
This allows the designer to select an initial
airfoil
shape with somedesired
features other than a desired pressure distribution.
An airfoil
geometry with
the desired pressure distribution
can usually be generated with acceptable
accuracy in 10 iterations.
This inverse design procedure generates an airfoil
shape in inviscid flow. The airfoil
pressure distribution
in viscous flow is
computed by using the method described in reference 6 and then comparedwith the
desired pressure distributions.
The inclusion of wLscous effects tend, in general, to thicken an inviscid airfoil
shape and uncamberits shape near the
trailing
edge. Appropriate changes are then madeto the inviscid airfoil
geometry which is cycled through the inverse program again. After a few cycles,
highly dependent on user experience, an airfoil
shape can be obtained that
includes the viscous effects.
The final shape and pressure distribution
for
the NASAGA(PC)-I is presented in figure 28.
The initial
input geometry for the NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil
was the NASA
GA(W)-I airfoil
geometry. For a design Reynolds number of 4 x 106 based on
airfoil
chord and for a lift coefficient of 0.9, an optimum drag coefficient
of 0.010 was predicted for the NASAGA(PC)-I airfoil.
An airfoil
shape for
cruise flight was obtained by deflecting a 19-percent-chord flap 10 upward
with the center of rotation located on the lower surface at 80.8 percent of
the chord.

12

REFERENCES
I. McGhee,
Robert
teristics
of
Aviation
2.

McGhee,
dynamic
General

J.; and Beasley,

a 17-Percent-Thick

Applications.

Robert

J.;

Beasley,

NASA

William
D.:
Low-Speed
Aerodynamic
CharacAirfoil
Section
Designed
for General
TN

William

Characteristics
of a
Aviation
Applications.

D-7428,
D.;

1973.
and

Somers,

Dan

M.:

Low-Speed

13-Percent-Thick
Airfoil
Section
NASA TM X-72697,
1975.

Aero-

Designed

for

3. McGhee,
Robert
J.; and Beasley,
William
D.:
Effects
of Thickness
on the
Aerodynamic
Characteristics
of an Initial
Low-Speed
Family
of Airfoils
for General
Aviation
Applications.
NASA TM X-72843,
1976.
4. McGhee,
Robert
J.; and Beasley,
for a Modified
13-Percent-Thick
5.

Abbott,
Dover

Ira H.; and Von Doenhoff,

Publ.,
Inc., c.1959.

6. Stevens,
W. A.;
Two-Dimensional

Goradia,
S. H.;
Multi-Component

William
D.:
Airfoil.
Albert

Low-Speed
Wind-Tunnel
NASA TM X-74018,
1977.

E.:

and Braden,
Airfoils

Theory

of Wing

Results

Sections.

J. A.:
Mathematical
Model
for
in Viscous
Flow.
NASA CR-1843,

1971.
7.

Braslow,
Albert
L.; and Knox, Eugene
C.:
Simplified
Method
for Determination of Critical
Height
of Distributed
Roughness
Particles
for BoundaryLayer
Transition
at Mach Numbers
From 0 to 5.
NACA TN 4363,
1958.

8.

Gillis,
Clarence
L.; Polhamus,
Edward
C.;
for Determining
Jet-Boundary
Corrections
10-Foot
Closed
Rectangular
Wind Tunnels.
NACA ARR L5G31.)

9.

Schlichting,
Hermann
(J. Kestin,
transl.):
ed., McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., c.1968.

10.

Truckenbrodt,
E.:
A Method
of Quadrature
and Turbulent
Boundary
Layer in Case of
cal Flow.
NACA TM 1379, 1955.

11.

Chen,
Allen Wen-shin:
The Determination
of the Geometries
of MultipleElement
Airfoils
Optimized
for Maximum
Lift Coefficient.
Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ.
of Illinois,
1971.
(Also available
as NASA TM X-67591.)

and Gray, Joseph

L., Jr.:
Charts
for Complete
Models
in 7- by
NACA WR L-123,
1945.
(Formerly

Boundary-Layer

Theory.

for Calculation
of the
Plane and Rotationally

Sixth

Laminar
Symmetri-

13

TABLE
T NACA
652 AIR COORDINATES
OIL
Ec447cm1176
x/c
0.0
.00313
00542
01016

0.0
01208

0.0

0.0
-01008
-01200

00687
01 958
0 484
ol 769
0! 303
.0'_816

-01472
-.01936
-02599
-O3098

.07809

.11 318
.I! 303
21 74

-03510
-.04150
-.04625

08550
09093
09455
.09639
09617
.09374
.O891O
08260
07462
06542

2! 36
.31 193
.3! 146
.41 97
.45047
.51
5 _ _57
5! 21
.6i 94
69876

-.04970
-.05205

05532
04447
03320
02175
01058
.0

.74869
"79874
.8_ 91
8 c 20

.03863
.04794
05578
.06842

.34854
.39903
.44953
.50
55043
.60079
65106
70124
75131
80126
85109
9OO8O
.95040
1.0
Leading-edge

14

(z/c) I

.01900
.02680

14697
19726
.24764
.29807

of

.01480

02231
04697
07184
09682

Slope

(z/c) u

radius,

radius

91 )60
1.0

0.015c

through

leading

edge,

0.168

-.05335
-.05355
-.05237
-.04962
-.04530
-03976
-.03342
-.02654
-.01952
-01263
-.00628
-00107
00206
.0

TABLEII.-

NASAGA(W)-I AIRFOIL COORDINATES

[c = 44.7 cm (17.6 in.)]

x/e
0.0
.002
.O05
.0125
.O25
.0375
.05
.075
.100
.125
150
.175
.20
.25
.30

(z/c) u

(z/c)l

0.0

0.0

.01300
.02035
.03069
.04165
.04974
.O56OO
.06561
.073O9
.07909
08413

.O8848
.09209

.40
.45
.50
.55
.575
.60

09778
.10169
10409
.10500
.10456
.10269
.09917
.09674
.09374

625
.65
.675

09013
.O86O4
.08144

.700

.07639
.O7O96
.06517
.05913
05291
.04644

.35

725
.75O
775
8OO
.825
.85O
.875
.9OO
.925
.95O
.975
I .000

.03983
.03313
.02639
.01965
.01287
.00604
-.OOO74

-.00974
-.01444
-.02052
-.02691
-.03191
-.03569
-.04209
-.04700
-.O5O87
-.05426
-.O57OO
-.O5926
-.06265
-.06448
-.06517
-.06483
-.06344
-.06091
-.05683
-.05396
-.05061
-.04678
-.04265
-.03830
-.03383
-.02930
-.02461
-.02030
-.O1587
-.01191
-. 00_52
-.00565
-.00352
-.00248
-.00257
-.00396
-.00783

15

TABLEIII.-

NASAGA(PC)-I AIRFOIL COORDINATES

FOR

DESIGNCLIMBCONFIGURATION
(6f = 0o)
[c : 44.7 cm (17.6 in.)_

x/c
0 0
0025
OO5
01
02

O3
O4
O5
O8
10
125
15
175
2O
25
3O
35
40
45
5O
55
6O
625

65
675
70
725

.75
775

.8O8
.828
.848

.8"68
.888
.9o8
.928
.948
.968

.988
I. 000

16

(z/c) u

(z/c)1

-0

-0.0025
-.0140
-.O2O8

0025

0O98
0160
0245
0360
0448
0521

-.0273
-.0356

0583
0726
0796
0863
.0909
.0947
.0970
.0993
.0998
.0983

-.0469
-.0515
-.0533
-.O545
-.0553
-.O56O
-.O568

.0953
.0915
.0861
.0797
.0721
.0683
.0644
.0606
.0564
.0521
.0471
.0420
.0355
.0312
.0269
.0226
.0183
.0141

.OO98
.0055
.0012
-.003O
-.OO56

-.O4O8
-.0445

-.O583
-.O595
-.0609
-.0625
-.0630
-.0626
-.0615
-.0594
-.0576
-.O556
-.0523
-.0478
-.0433
-.0383
-.0318
-.0235
-.0219
-.0203
-.0187
-.0172
-.0156
-.0140
-.0124
-.0108
-.0092
-.0083

TABLE

IV.-

NASA

[c

Upper
x/c
0.0

.oo13
.0066
.0178
.0343
.0531
.O755
.0983
1238
1524
1825
.2149
.2498
.2868
.3246
.3647
.4073
.4499
.4906
.5316
.5763
.6443
.6913
.7337
.7841
.8318
.8836
.938O
.9786

GA(PC)-I

= 44.7

AIRFOIL

cm

(17.6

ORIFICE

LOCATIONS

in.) 1

Lower

surface
z/c
-0.0025
.0056
.0189
.0337
.0481
.0601

.O7O8
.O79O
.0861

x/c
.0035
.0134
.0293
.0494
.0695
.0906
.1124

surface
z/c
-0.0177
-.0306
-.0405
-.0468
-.0503
-.0526
-.0541

.1580
.1826

-.O556
-.O563

.2177
.2724
.3396
.3947
.4424

-.0573
-.0589
-.0606
-0624

.4915
.5456

-.O627
-.0616

0915
.O872
.0822

.5891
.6289
.666O

-.0600

.O757
.0653

.7015
.737O
.7686
.7982
.827O
.8698

0913
.0953
0981
.0993
.0999
.0993
.O976
.0948

.O579
.0502
.0402
.0304
.0193

.OO77

.9312
.9779

-.O63O

-.0577
-.0536
-.0475
-.0411
-.0326
-.O258
-0218
-.0186
-.0138
-.0100

-.0010

17

+/3

View A-A

Cr.

Figure

I.-

Axis
positive

18

system

used

direction

in
of

presentation
moments,

of
forces,

data.
and

Arrows
angles.

indicate

Outboard flap and/or aileron

Inboard flap

Model momentcenter
\

.225b

Pressure tube location for GA(PC)-I wing_

b/2

(a) Top
Figure

2.-

Drawing

of

view.

model

used

in

investigation.

19

__

__

+____

-, _i\
i

_ !'--T
0

0
0

co

i
..,-I

/
/
!

20

,4

,-_
0
E-4

,-I
oil

e-_

.el

0
e_

,-4

0
_._

"_
0

"..-"

0
0

21

r-

!
od
!
.-.]

22

"o

,-I

,-I

"_

C
0
L.

..Q

.,--I

NACA 652-415

z/c
I

NASA GA(W)-I

zlc
J

NASA GA(PC)-I

z/c

f
J

.I

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0

x/c
Figure

4.-

Airfoil

sections

used

in

investigation.

23

Plain

flap

PiV
Chord

_/_///,/.//.//.//._

line

(.017c

L/__-

- -_-_r-z4

_1

--.180c

Slotted

flap

Chord
line

_....._i01

__________,,
__7__

-,_..4

_-.019C

Pivot point

Split

Chord
line

_/
."'_77"z_._

Pivot point

Figure

24

flap

.246c

5.-

Flap

systems

used

on

_ .019c

NASA

GA(W)-I

wing.

Z
o
g)
r-4
4.o

g)

o
I

.r-i
z:
0
J=

0
0

-_I

25

oTtO
IJ

fJ

L)

-u

0
CO

\
\

26

o.25- t

2.79
16.

5.33

Total-

pressure

5.

Static-pressure

Figure

8.-

Drawing

probe_

r=---

3 05-----_

2.79--_

probe

of wake rake used in investigation

of
(All dimensions
are in centimeters.)

NASA

GA(PC)-I

wing.

27

i!

28

-.2
R
.3

I.21x I06.
I.49x 106
i.72x 106
I.92x 106

.2
CD

.I
0

2.0

.5
CL
0

-4

12

16

20

24

28

a, deg
Figure

I0.- Effect of Reynolds number on longitudinal aerodynamic

characteristics
of fuselage used in investigation.

29

.2

.I

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.I
0
2.0

1.5
i!i!:!il

1.0

.5
CL

-.5
-8

Figure

3O

-4

11.- Aerodynamic

B
a, deg

12

16

characteristics
of fuselage
(R = 1.49 106.)

20

24

28

used in investigation.

02

Cl
-.02

.01

Cn 0

-.01

Cy 0

-4

12

16

20

24

_, deg
Figure

11.- Concluded.

31

0
Cm
-.i

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.I
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL
0
-4

12

16

ct, deg

Figure

12.-

Effect

of

characteristics

32

Reynolds
of

number
NASA

on

GA(W)-I

longitudinal
wing

alone.

aerodynamic

R
O
O
<)
A

-4

Figure

8
a, deg

12

16

13.- Effect of Reynolds number on longitudinal

characteristics
of NACA 652-415 wing.

20

24

1. 21 x
L49 x
1.72x
L 92 x

106
l06
106
106

28

aerodynamic

33

.1

0
Cm
-.1

-.2
-6
-3
0
3

.3
.2
CD

6
.I
0

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
C1
0
-4

8
a,

Figure

14.-

Aerodynamic
(R

34

12

16

24

20

deg
characteristics
= 1.49
x 106.)

of

NACA

652-415

wing.

.02

0
0
r-I

<>
A

Ix

-6
-3
0
3
6

-.04

.01

Cn

-.01

-.02
.05
Cy 0
.05
%1

-4

12

16

20

24

ct, deg
Figure

14.-

Concluded.

35

.I

Cm

-.I

-.2

.3

0
Q

.2

<>

CD

I.21 x 106
1.49x 106
I.72 x iO6
1.92x lO6

.I
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL

!_:i'k

-.5

-8

-4

12

16

20

a, deg
Figure

15.-

Effect

of

Reynolds

characteristics

36

number
of

NASA

on

longitudinal

GA(W)-_

wing.

aerodynamic

24

.I

0
Cm

-6
-3
0
3
6

CL

-4

12

16

20

24

a, deg
Figure

16.- Aerodynamic

characteristics
of NASA GA(W)-I
(n : 1.49 x 106 .)

wing.

37

.O2

Cl
-.02

-.04

.0!

Cn

_01

_02
.05

Cy 0
-.05
-.I

-8

-4

8
e, deg

Figure

38

16.- Concluded,

12

16

20

24

.I

0
Cm
-.I

-.2

8f,
(_g
O
n
<>
A

.3
.2
CD

.I

0
I0
21
31
41.5

0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL
0

-.5
-8

-4

12

16

20

24

a, deg
Figure 17.- Effect of deflection of inboard plain flap on longitudinal
aerodynamic characteristics
of NASA GA(W)-I wing.
(R = 1.72 x 106.)

39

.i

0
Cm
-.

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.i
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL

-.5
-8

-4

12

slotted

flap.

16

20

24

O, deg
(a) Partial-span

Figure 18.- Effect of deflection of partial- and full-span slotted flap

on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of NASA GA(W)-I wing.
(R = 1.72 106.)

4O

.!

-.2
.3

8f, (leg
0

.2
CD

IZ] I0

.i

!i!il:i!i:

0
2.0

iiiiii:i
i:iiiiii
!_i!iii:

.5
CL
0

-4

8
a, deg

(b) Full-span
Figure

slotted

12

16

20

24

flap.

18.- Concluded.

41

.I

0
Cm
-._

-.2
.3
CD
.2
.I
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL
0

-.5
-8

-4

8
a, deg

(a) Partial-span

iZ

split

16

flap.

Figure 19.- Effect of deflection of partial- and full-span split flap

on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of NASA GA(W)-I wing.
(R = 1.72 x 106.)

42

.I

0
Cm
-.]

-.2
.3
0

.2
CD
.1
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL
0

-.5

-8

-4

8
a, deg

(b) Full-span
Figure

split

12

16

2O

24

flap.

19.- Concluded.

43

.i

0
Cm
-.I

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.I

-3LI

-_l.o

<>

0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL
0

-.5
-8

-4

12

16

20

24

Q, deg
(a) Longitudinal

characteristics

for up deflectons

of left aileron.

Figure 20.- Effect of deflections of plain aileron on longitudinal and lateral

aerodynamic characteristics
and hinge-moment characteristics
of NASA GA(W)-I
wing.
(R = 1.21 x 106.)

44

Cl
-.02

Cn 0

.2
Ch
0

-.2
-8

-4

12

16

20

o, deg
(b) Lateral

and hinge-moment

characteristics
Figure

for up deflections

of left aileron.

20.- Continued.

45

.1

0
Cm
-.I

-.2
.3
.2
CD

.I
0

2.0

I.:.5

1.0

.5
CL

-._
-8

-4

24

a, deg
(c) Longitudinal

characteristics
Figure

46

for down deflections

20.- Continued.

of left aileron.

Cl
-. 02

Cn

Ch 0

-.4
-8

-4

4
a,

(d)

Lateral

and

hinge-moment
of
Figure

8
deg

characteristics
left aileron.
20.-

12

for

16

down

20

deflections

Continued.

47

.1

.5
CL

(e) Longitudinal

characteristics
for differential
of right and left ailerons.

Figure

48

20.- Continued.

deflections

O2

0
C

l
-.02

-.04

.02

Be deg
Left
0
0
C] -9.1
O "19.7

.01

Righl
0
4.2
9.3

Cn 0

-.0!

-.02

.2

Ch 0

-.2
-8

-4

12

16

20

a, deg
(f) Lateral

and hinge-moment characteristics

for differential
of right and left ailerons
Figure

deflections

20.- Concluded.

49

.I

0
Cm
-.]

-.2
.3
.2
CD

.i
0

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL

-.5
-8

-4

(a) Longitudinal

characteristics

12

for up deflections

16

20

24

of left aileron.

Figure 21.- Effect of deflections of slotted ailerons on longitudinal and

lateral aerodynamic characteristics
and hinge-moment characteristics
of
NASA GA(W)-I wing.
(R = 1.49 106.)

5O

O2

Cn 0

Ch 0

-4

(b)

Lateral
up

8
a, deg

12

and hinge-moment
characteristics
deflections
of left aileron.
Figure

21.-

16

20

for

Continued.

51

.I

0
Cm
-.i

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.I
0
2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL

-.5
-8

-4

12

16

20

24

a, deg
(c) Longitudinal

characteristics
Figure

52

for down deflections

21.- Continued.

of left aileron.

Cn 0

Ch 0

-.4
-8

-4

12

16

20

o, deg

(d)

Lateral

and

hinge-moment
of

characteristics
right

Figure

and

21.-

left

for

differential

deflections

ailerons.

Continued.

53

.!

I_HIHIH

!t_H!!!!
HIIHIIH

Cm

!!!g!![!!

-.]

-.2
0
[]

.3

0
.2
CD

.I
O

2.0
......... N
ii
.......... il

1,5

.........ti
......... !i
H

1,0
..........

iHiiHiH H
r,,,,,,,,t

.5

!Ii

CL

...........

1I

b*_t_tlf_

r4111111tt:

>+++,+_4_+
Fitttltfl_:

7_

......... !1
.._

I;tlIIliF

-8

-4

12

16

20

a,_'_
(e) Longitudinal

characteristics
for differential
of right and left ailerons.
Figure

54

21.-

Continued.

deflections

24

02

-.04
8a,deg
-.06

0
0

Left Right
0
0
"9.1
(zl

<>-14.3

8.9

-19.4 8.9

.0!

Cn 0

-.01

-.02

.2

Ch

-.2
-8

(f) Lateral

-4

8
a, deg

12

16

and hinge-moment characteristics

for differential
of right and left ailerons.
Figure

20

deflections

21.- Concluded.

55

.2

.l

0
Cm
-.1

-.2
0
0
0

.3
.2
cD

l.21x 106
L49 x I06
1.72x lO6
L 92x 10

.i
0

2.0

1.5

1.O

.5
CL
0

-.5

-l.O
-8

-4

12

16

24

a, (k,g
Figure

56

22.- Effect
of
characteristics

Reynolds
number
on longitudinal
aerodynamic
of NASA GA(PC)-I
wing.
6f = -10 .

28

-.2
.3
.2
CD
.I

-1.0
-8

Figure

-4

23.-

Aerodynamic
(R =

8
el, deg

12

characteristics
1.49

106;

_f

of

16

NASA

20

GA(PC)-I

24

wing.

= -10.)

57

.02

i!!!![ll
!.!_!!_i!F.:_i_
!!I_

..... F

_:

!!

i!!

ilF_IH
FHIIIII

l
-.02

iiillii_
!

iliiiii_
iiiHiii
",04

!!li ill I I!!!!l

!! II liliiiill!l!!!!II i

, _

,'

'

_ii;!

! ll_i_l o .0
iiiitiiiiiiti
iil'o"_0

!i _L_ I
J]]
t !]!]
]_._.,
[E_lilt[tf]lfI]i]]l]]]l]iiiiiil]l][][][IllItll!i//l]}iiiiiitll
_4:_:_:,

_ii'iiiii
l!!:_!:i

.01

;;:

iii!'!!!:

:i :Hltil
:i!]

]_]];::I]

_[illHi!i

:!:

;i11

_ttliit_i
i'_,

:_1::::,:

!!!i!!i!i

Cn 0
itli]iii]ii!hiWEth
11i;i:_:!

- .01

hi_.:ll!!I!
ii'_
filliii!i_,

!iliiililtltitllil
!iiii'

_ii!lH
iii ....

Ill

_!!]]!!!!!

_I1_i_1IttI
IilIIIiIli
itii
- .02

iiiili i!' ili!!i!!!

.05

liiiiiiIl_,_l;_IlllliiliIi_IHIlI,L,_,_4
!!!i!l!i_iIili:i_,,_
ii_i,
,l,iL!li
I_
ilI_i_IIlliiliiitiiii
i
i

lh *11

Cy 0
-, _).5

-.1

-8

:!IIII_I!t!!_!_![i_!!!!i !iii!iiii_i!i_i_i

-4

12

ct, deg
Figure

58

23.- Concluded.

16

20

24

.2

.I

"o I

-.2
.3
.2
_D

.I
0

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5
CL

-.5

-LO
-8

-4

(a)
Figure

24.- Effect
of deflection
aerodynamic
characteristics

Partial-span

12

16

flap.

of partialand
of NASA GA(PC)-I

full-span
flap on
wing.
(R = 1.92

longitudinal
x 106.)

59

.!
I!!!!!!

:1:! !:

i!i!i!
0

-I0

I0

!!!ITli]

.5
CL
0

-._

-I.0
-8

-4

8
c_,deg

(b) Full-span
Figure

60

24.-

!2

flap.

Concluded.

16

20

24

2O

16

12

8
LID

-4

GA(PC)-I, 6f " -10

GA(PC)-I, 6f "

GA(W)-I

NACA 652-415

0"

-8

-12
-.2

.2

.4

.8

.6

LO

1.2

1.4

1.6

CL
Figure

25.-

Lift/drag

as

a function

of

CL

for

three

configurations.

61

o Upper surfece
o Lower surfoce

-32_
-\

cp

a = -0.200

Q= 4670
%

-I

_----J
,

L ._- L

. L.

____4__

--1.0

t__

._

.:

-3

.q

.b

x/c

-qF

q
-33

e = 9_11
P

= 4.450

'o,

Cp

'o_

Cp
o,O''o-O.,o_

_1

o_

t .

;_

,T --._

-_

....
XlC

_,

,,:

.d

X/C

(a)

Figure

26.-

pressure
deflections.

62

Surface-pressure

Section

distributions,

surface-pressure

profiles
(R

for
=

NASA

1.72

distributions

GA(PC)-I
106.

6f

wing

with

-I0.

and
various

wake
flap

total-

"

_' iL

o,
%o..Q

_'_"

I
I L_

13.510

"""o_
"_w "_.-_o.

--,_--_--_--o._'_-o_.__

1-

__c'_

_ Lower surface

-3 _

C
-_!l

_c_l/_

o UpPer surfoce

(a)

Concluded.

F_SuPe 26..

Continued.

63

o Upper surfoce
o Lower surface

I
I
:i
Cp

_ = -2.32_
c

:;- %
ii

-uJ,

bi'I '" _'

vb"
i --Q---'_-
l
J

x/c

,, = 0.09_
i

Cp

Cp

o
'-

'b

I_

':

_'

2.37

al.....:........

,Li

.S

F:

" I'

"_

"{'

l " CI

x/c

)c, C

hr

lr
i
i
,i

_F
i
,_k
Li

Cp

i
I F_ :"

_ = 4 75_
oo

cp

_ = 7.1B_

'.

o- o

o.

_ooo

[_

i
b

.'2

'

,{

.
"

_J

1
.

J_

J
.8

,
I

:-__

1
t

'

- o- O_o.o

x/c

Surface-pressure
Figure

64

x/c

(b)

_ o-_

distributions,
26.-

Continued.

6f

: 0 .

o Upper surface
[] Lower surface

:L

I _

0o-0"0"%
0

Cp

] _

e = 9.4P

O-o.0`o\

-2!

\o. "o.

-2

a = ll..._

0"-%0

Cp
- ]

_-

_ p_crm

o o_m

.I

O_o.

o-

-TI_?

n-

_2

_o

o_

"-

-[

noo_'-

,3

.q

.... 6

.?

.8

.9

I :z_L_

|.O

.1

-o-_

a _

.2

.3

-q

.S

-6

x/c

L __l____J
,7

.8

-9

1 .0

X/C

_LI

-3

_o

'o
q

O,q

o-o

a = 13.630
a,

Cp

Cp
t)_-

_,o

2'
i

_ = 15.610

\\
o_

]
o

"--

o.

_o _o_O

"'n_

o-

o-'_o

o__c_

-O_o.

Ol

o _o
1
]

.2

.3

.H

.S

.{i

.'/

,8

.,'3

.0

x/c

r:--

.2

.__

.q

_
.5

i
.6

L
.7

_L_IJ

.8

.g

I .g

x/c

t _

pO

2
Cp

O.q
'_o

_ = 17.710
q,
o

o
--n

aa.o o

i _z_
o
.I

[
.2

O_.o_
n -n

o -_
-o

_o

-o

- o

.o_o

-o -o
o

o-

o _'_,oo

o --

-o

i
.s

L
]
.,_ .s
xlc

.6

L__L
.___
.7
.8
.g

(b)
Figure

J
i.o

Concluded.
26.- Continued.

65

o Upper surface
8 Lower surface
;{F
i

,, = 197e

= 439o

iEf',

Cp

1
t

:J

Cp

,I
t

ry,

d:6"u_

:_ ::::

'_

:_

_}

:,

r,

,s,

'h

_:

. !

.d

.'i

,7

.;_

.?

-_

.LI

/C

X'C

_r
I

3_

:_

_. = 026c'

Cp

]_oOO

o-,,

= 2.68_

,
i

',Ms/n_
!1

'
.,t_

z,

,c:

r_

rl

c,
'_

o
::" _.LJ

.<L

_ci

.%

r_

!i.....

Oo

.h

_.,I,

.H

_,==4.98_
I

.%

.{i

.?

.8

._

_..

x Ic

,C

{_ooOo

,_,_

_ = 7.31a

O.o

Cp
i

,'

c
o

O_o_

I_

'_

Cp

l!

o-

o
il_'

._
i

;,

.-_J

._

u-c-

.H

Surface-pressure
Figure

66

-o-c

.5
tC

X/C

(c)

distributions,
26.-

Continued.

_f

I0 .

o-o

.6

-_

o-_

.?

--"

.8

c':_

._

].:!

o Upper surfoce
[] Lower
_L

surfoce
-H-

--

00,%
'%'%

a = 9.52

ho"

a = l l,7T

\o.
_'-2

Cp

_o_

Cp

-[_

o-

O_o

o
" _--o-_
o

o
u

[J

[]

--o

[]-r_-u

.1

.2

.3

.q

.S

.6

__O---o

jo_

.7

.8

.9

1 .0

.8

.3

_j

--o

-o

o
c-o_o

o--

o
o

_;a

_-o

u_

,_

.S
x/c

.5

,7

,8

.9

X/C

1.0

LI E

Po

-3

_o

_L,"i""L -_ _
Y

_o_

_q

o o

,:, = 13.64 o

o,

-2

Cp

_o-o

O.o_q

o\
o

x\

""o

O_o.

o
,_

--o

_ = 15.710

Cp

'

-c

-o

-o_

[]

o_-O_

-_o

o__O_o_

n_rk

o-

o
"o

o-o-.

o_

o
_o_

o_

o__o_O_o--o

o./a

_-o_O--o

_oJ

n-o.

o-o

o/o"

., .,

., .,

.]

xtc

,2

.3

.q

k
,5

L
.B

.L

.7

.8

,g

_
I.O

4
-3

\
a=

Cp

2c

1763 o

_ o

1
'_o

o-

o/"

o --o

o
_o---o
o

z%
.1

o _

J
.2

--o_--o

_o

___-o o o-o

--o--O

o.__
-o''F/

_o/"

--o

o_

1
.3

L
,q,

J__ _1
.5
.6
X/C

I
.7

I
.8

I
.9

(c)
Figure

I
1.0

Concluded.
26.-

Concluded.

6_

eu

q
u

68

.2-

ol

z/c

-.2
0

I
.1

I
.2

I
.3

i
.4

I
.S

I
.6

I
.7

I
.8

I
.9

airfoil

at

design

I
1.0

x/c
Figure

28.-

Pressure

distributions
of

NASA-Langley,

1977 L-11305

for

NASA

C L = 0.9,

GA(PC)-I
6f

condition

= 0 O.

69