R. & M. N o .

3390

MINISTRY OF A V I A T I O N

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

REPORTS AND MEMORANDA

Measurements at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds

of the Longitudinal and Lateral Stability of a
Slender Cambered Ogee Wing Including
the Effects of a Fin, Canopy Nose
and Trailing-Edge Controls
By D. ISAACS

LONDON: HER M A J E S T Y ' S S T A T I O N E R Y OFFICE

I965
PRICE £I 6S. od. NET
Measurements at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds
of the Longitudinal and Lateral Stability of a
Slender Cambered Ogee Wing Including
the Effects of a Fin, Canopy Nose
and Trailing-Edge Controls
By D. ISAACS

COMMUNICATED BY THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER AIRCRAFT (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT),

MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Reports and Memoranda No. 339 °*

September, ±9@
Summary.
The results show that for longitudinal stability at M = 0-3 and CL = 0"45, the centre of gravity of an
actual aircraft could be located only forward of 45% ~ (66% Co). The centre of pressure of the wing with
basic nose and no fin is at 53% ~ (71% Co) at the cruise attitude, M = 2.2 and C c = 0.075, so that the
camber used is insufficient to trim the wing. Measured values of the drag increments due to control deflection
show fair agreement with linear-theory estimates. The control effectiveness (dCz/d'qe , dC,,/d~7~ and dCjdesc)
can be predicted with fair accuracy. The canopy nose is slightly de-stabilizing in yaw, and it has a drag penalty
which is probably larger than could be tolerated (30% of basic wing wave drag). At supersonic speeds slender-
body theory is generally inadequate for predicting the lateral derivatives of the wing. The fin effectiveness
(except on l.) can be estimated with good accuracy.

LIST OF CONTENTS
Section
1. Introduction

2. Experimental Details
2.1 Description of the model
2.2 T e s t range
2.3 Corrections applied
. Presentation of Results
4. Accuracy of Results

* Replaces R.A.E. Report No. Aero. 2679--A.R.C. 25 598.

 L I S T OF C O N T E N T S - - c o n t i n u e d
Section
5. Discussion of Results
5.1 Longitudinal stability and drag
5.1.1 Wing with basic nose and no fin
5.1.2 Effect of fin and canopy
5.1.3 Trailing-edge-control effectiveness
5.1.4 Effect of trailing-edge controls on drag
5.2 Lateral stability
5.2.1 Wing with basic nose and no fin at supersonic speeds
5.2.2 Effect of canopy nose and fin at supersonic speeds
5.2.3 Subsonic results, wing with basic nose and fin
. Conclusions
Symbols
References
Appendices I and II
Tables 1 to 4
Illustrations--Figs. 1 to 72
Detachable Abstract Cards

L I S T OF A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix
I. The effect of trailing-edge controls on the drag of a cambered wing
II. The body-axes rolling moment of a thin cambered wing

L I S T OF TABLES
Table
1. Principal dimensions of the model
2. Basic fin section (root chord)
3. Control setting angles (controls unloaded)
4. Test programme

L I S T OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S
Figure
General arrangement of the model
2. Details of wing cross-section
3. Cross-section area distribution
4. Variation of leading-edge sweepback angle along the wing
2
 L I S T OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S - - c o n t i n u e d

FiguYe
5. Camber shape on wing centre-line relative to wing horizontal datum
6. Spanwise camber shapes relative to wing horizontal datum
7. Wing local incidence distribution relative to wing horizontal datum
8. Wing leading-edge spanwise droop relative to wing horizontal datum
9. Typical results showing derivation of mean curves; wing with fin, basic nose and
inboard controls (% = - 4°), M = 1.8
10. Typical results showing derivation of mean curve; wing with fin and basic nose,
M= 0.3, R = 8 x 106 p e r f t , ~ = 4"22 °
11. Variation of C L with a at subsonic speeds; results for basic nose with or without fin

12. Effect of fin and canopy on the variation of C L with a at supersonic speeds

13. Variation of Cm with C L at subsonic speeds

14. Effect of fin and canopy on the variation of C~ with C L at supersonic speeds

15. Basic nose results; variation with Mach number of the derivatives
dCL/dO~ , ~, ( C,,)CL= o and d C m / d C L

16. Variation of C n with C L at subsonic speeds

17. Effect of fin and canopy on the variation of C~ with C L at supersonic speeds
18. Variation of ( C D - C D m ) with ( C L - CL,~) ~ at Subsonic speeds; results for basic
nose, with or without fin
19. Variation of ( C n - C ~ ,~) with (CL - CL,,) 2 at supersonic speeds for the basic nose
configuration
20. Basic nose results; variation with Mach number of the derivatives
K , c~K and K / r r A ( d C L / d ~ )

21. Basic nose results; variation with Mach number of the derivatives C D ,,, and C1~,,,
22. Effect of fin and canopy on the derivatives (C5)~= o , (C~,),= 0 and C D ,~
23. Drag increment due to the fin
24. Drag increment due to the canopy
25. Effect of controls on the variation of C L with c~ at supersonic speeds
26. Effect of control deflection on the variation of C,~ with C L at supersonic speeds
27. Effect of control deflection on the variation of C z with a at supersonic speeds; basic
nose with fin
28. Effect of control deflection on the variation of CD with C L at supersonic speeds
29. Effect of control deflection on (CL)~=0, (C,~)~=0, C1),,, and (C~),=0
30. Effectiveness of inboard controls as elevators; ~ = 0
31. Effectiveness of outboard controls as elevators and ailerons; a = 0

3
(90746) A2
 L I S T OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S - - c o n t i n u e d
Figure
32. Variation of 1/A~ dUme/d % with A~ 5 / ( M 2 - 1) for the controls; inboard control
results not corrected for shroud interference
33. Variation of 1/J~ dCLe/dw~ with A c ~ / ( M ~ - 1) for the controls; inboard control
results corrected f o r shroud interference
34. Increment in m i n i m u m drag due to the controls; nominal control setting 4 °
35. Drag coefficient of trimmed wing (~/~.constant)
36. Lift coefficient of trimmed wing (~h. constant)
37. Variation with C,,~ with C L at supersonic speeds; moment reference centre at
0"45~ to give neutral stability at M = 0.3, C L = 0.45
38. Drag coefficient of trimmed wing, C c = 0-075
39. Variation of Cy with 13 at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
40. Variation of C~ with fi at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
41. Variation of C~ with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
42. Variation of y~ with ~ a t supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
43. Variation of n,, with ~ at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
44. Incidence dependent y,; basic nose, no fin
45. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position of incidence dependent y,~; basic nose, no fin
46. Comparison between the actual spanwise thickness distributions and the theoretical
models
47. Comparison with theory (Y~)~=0, (n~)~=0, and [(Xc.i..)v/Co]~=o ; basic nose, no fin
48. Variation of l. with a at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
49. Comparison with theory, l..B at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin
50. Variation of { I.B-- (/v~)~=0}/(1 -- MecosZAmi~O~/2 with ~; basic nose, no fin
51. Variation of Cy with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic or canopy nose with fin
52. Variation of C.~ with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic nose, with fin
53. Variation of C~ with [3 at supersonic speeds; canopy nose, with fin
54. Variation of C z with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic or canopy nose, with fin
55. Effect of fin and canopy nose on Yv at supersonic speeds
56. Effect of fin and canopy nose on n. at supersonic speeds
57. Effect of fin and canopy nose on l~ at supersonic speeds
58. Fin effectiveness; variation of Ay~o due to fin with % basic nose
59. Fin effectiveness; variation of An~ B due to fin with c~, basic nose
60. Fin effectiveness; variation of Al~B due to fin with a, basic nose

4
 L I S T OF ILLUSTRATIONS--continued

61. Sideslip dependent Yv (secondary y v - i n i t i a l y o); basic nose, with fin, supersonic
speeds
62. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position of sideslip dependent y~ ; basic nose, with
fin, supersonic speeds
63. Variation of AC:z due to the fin with/8; basic nose, ~ = 0
64. Variation of C ~ , C.~ and C l with fi at M = 0.3, R = 2 x 10 6 per foot; basic nose,
with fin
65. Variation of Cj~, C~ and C z with/3 at M = 0.3, R = 8 x 10 6 per foot; basic nose,
with fin
66. Variation of C y , C~ and C l with t9 at M = 0.8; basic nose, with fin
67. Variation ofy~, n v and l v with e~ at subsonic speeds; basic nose, with fin
68. Incidence dependent y~ ; subsonic speeds, basic nose, with fin
69. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position of incidence dependent Yv ; subsonic speeds,
basic nose, with fin
70. Sideslip dependent Yv (secondary Yv- initial y~), basic nose with fin, subsonic speeds
71. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position of sideslip dependent y~ ; basic nose, with
fin, subsonic speeds
72. Comparison with theory; Yv, nv~ and I~B at M = 0" 3, basic nose with fin

1. Introduction.
As part of the programme to investigate wing shapes suitable for supersonic transport aircraft,
extensive wind-tunnel testing has been undertaken on a wide range of wings in order to determine
the capabilities of present theoretical design methods. The tests reported here are concerned with
the problem of trimming an aircraft in supersonic flight both by a particular camber design and
by deflection of trailing-edge controls, but include measurements of longitudinal and lateral static
stability derivatives for the wing. In addition the effects of adding both a canopy at the nose and
rear stabilizing fin are studied.
For a plane wing of the type of ogee planform considered the aerodynamic centre (and centre
of pressure) moves aft some 5 to 10% of aerodynamic chord with increase of Mach number from
subsonic to supersonic. Hence a plane wing which is statically stable longitudinally at low speeds
is untrimmed at supersonic speeds. The centre-of-pressure shift can be reduced by the use of
camber. The wing tested is one of a series with camber shapes designed using slender-wing theory
in the way described by Weber 1. It is one of a family of four wings, all of which have the same ogee
planform and the same spanwise distribution of area in each cross-section. It was designed for a
pitching-moment coefficient of 0.00853 at zero CL, equivalent to a centre-of-pressure shift of
7% co at C L = 0. 075. Of the four wings, one is plane and the other three (including the one dealt

5
with in this report) have varying amounts of camber. The longitudinal stability and drag of this
family of wings has already been investigated by Taylor ~. The tests were made in the 8 ft x 8 ft
wind tunnel during August and October, 1960.

2. Experimental Details.

2.1. Description of the model.

The wing (Fig. 1) is of ogee planform with planform parameter P = 0.45 (P is the ratio of
wing area to area of enclosing rectangle). Details of the cross-sectional shape of the wing with the
basic nose are shown in Fig. 2. Although this is an integrated shape (no separate fuselage), the
volume is distributed in such a way as to provide space for a pressure cabin (Fig. 3).
Since the wing thickness decreases to zero at the trailing edge, it was found necessary to distort
the profile over the rear of the wing by the inclusion of a circular-cross-section sting shroud, which
is also used as a mounting for the fin.
The variation of the leading-edge sweepback angle along the wing is shown in Fig. 4 and details
of the wing camber shape in Figs. 5 to 8. The wing horizontal datum which is used as a reference
datum in these figures is also shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It is defined as the plane passing through
the wing trailing edge parallel to the free-stream direction with the wing at its design attitude
(wing local incidence at trailing edge is zero since design CL is zero).
On each side of the wing there are two trailing-edge controls, one inboard and one outboard
(Fig. 1), the space between them being a possible location for engine nacelles. These controls are
of constant chord with the hinge line at 95 °/o co . (The wing was designed with no spanwise camber
at this section in order to give a straight hinge line.)
The incorporation of a canopy into the nose of the model involves an increase only in the depth
of the wing, the planform shape remaining unaltered. The effect of the canopy on the cross-sectional
area distribution is shown in Fig. 3, together with the basic wing cross-sectional area distribution,
and the effect on this of the fin.
Apart from the noses and fin which were made of epoxy resin and glass fibre on a steel core,
the rest of the model was made of steel. All other relevant data about the wing is contained in
Tables 1 to 3.
Boundary-layer transition was fixed at the leading edges of the wing and fin by bands of distri-
buted carborundum particles (grade 80), the size of the particles being governed by the require-
ments at the highest Mach number tested, M = 2.8. Although no checks on transition were made
during these tests, the effectiveness of this size of roughness in producing transition at these
Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers has been established during previous testing on slender
wings.

2.2. Test Range.

The majority of the tests were made at supersonic speeds mainly at M = 1.4, 1.8, 2.2, 2.4
and 2.8, although a few- extra results were obtained at M = 1.6, 2.0 and 2- 6 for the configuration
with the basic nose and no fin present. The Reynolds number at all supersonic speeds was 2 x 106
per foot (107 based on root chord). In addition, the basic nose configurationwith and without fin
was tested at subsonic speeds~ at M = 0.8 (R = 2 x 106 per foot) and at M = 0.3 (R = 2 x l0 G
and 8 x 106 per foot). At supersonic speeds and M = 0.8, measurements were taken over an
incidence range of - 4 ° to + 12 ° at sideslip angles of - 2 ° to + 6 °, the incidence range being ex-
tended up to 20 ° at M = 0.3. T h e test programme is shown in Table 4.
At most supersonic Mach numbers the tunnel humidity was maintained below the level at which
the accuracy of the measurements starts to deteriorate (frost point ~< - 3 0 ° ) . However, for some
runs this was impossible and the frost point varied between - 3 0 ° C and - 2 0 ° C . It is thought
that the main effect of this increased humidity was to introduce small flow deflections into the
airstream. T h e manner in which t h e m e a s u r e d results have been corrected for these flow deflections
is explained in Section 2.3.

2.3. Corrections Applied.

T h e usual correction has been applied to the drag results to allow for the difference between
free-stream and base static pressures.
All measurements made with the model 'upright' have been repeated with it 'inverted', and the
results as presented in this report are a mean of these two sets of measurements. In this way the
effects on the results of tunnel flow deflections and flow curvature have been eliminated.
Model incidence and sideslip angles have been corrected for sting and balance deflections, and
the trailing-edge control setting angles have been corrected for deflection of the hinge plates.
At subsonic speeds the model incidence, drag and pitching-moment coefficients have been
corrected for tunnel constraint using the theory of Ref. 3. T h e corrections for this particular ogee
planform are approximately:
As 0-0026
- 0.0100 +
~ / ( 1 - M 2)

A C,,~ 0-00093 {dCr]

- 0.0100.
C2
A mean value of dCL/dS was used in the expression for AC,~ (1.95 per radian both at M = 0.3
and 0.8). T h e Mach n u m b e r and kinetic pressure at M = 0.8 were corrected for tunnel blockage
effects, the increment in Mach n u m b e r being 0. 004.
Except in one or two instances mentioned in the text, the results have not been corrected for
the presence of the sting shroud. Pressure measurements on the symmetrical version of this wing 2
gave the correction to axial force (the force along the sting-balance axis, positive backwards) at
zero lift as:

I
M 1-4 1.8 2-2 2.4 2-8
I

AC x 0. 00090 0.00065 0. 00055 0.00045 0.00035

T h e estimated corrections to lift and pitching m o m e n t due to the asymmetry of the sting shroud are 2

0. 003
AC L = O, AC,,, = ~/(M2_ 1)

7
 3. Presentation of Results.
All forces have been reduced to coefficient form in the usual way (see List of Symbols) and
resolved about a stability system of axes*', the moment reference centre being at 0.5 ~ (18.476 inches
forward of the trailing edge). T h e tangent definition of incidence c~ and the sine definition of side-
slip /3t have been used throughout and unless stated otherwise the model incidence is measured
relative to the sting-balance axis (Fig. 5).
As stated in Section 2.3, measurements were made with the model both 'upright' and 'inverted'
in order to eliminate the effect of tunnel flow deflections. Shown in Figs. 9 and 10 are plots of
typical results (except for the variation of C~,~with C L in Fig. 9 where the changes between upright
and inverted are the largest measured). Since the differences between the results of different
configurations is sometimes quite small, the experimental points have been omitted from most
of the graphs in the interests of clarity. A graphical presentation of results is used throughout,
Figs. 11 to 38 dealing with longitudinal stability, drag and control effectiveness and Figs. 39 to 72
with lateral stability and fin effectiveness. Where methods are available the experimental results
are compared with theoretical estimates.

4. Accuracy of Results.
F r o m consideration of the repeatability of the results, the maximum resolution of the measuring
instrumeDtation and the results obtained by processing 'wind-off' data recorded immediately
before and after each Mach number run, the experimental accuracy of the results (mean of upright
and inverted) at supersonic speeds is estimated to be:
C L _+ 0.002
C,,,, + 0.0002
C o _+ 0.0002
C I. + O. 0005
C~ + 0.0002
C z _+ 0.0002
The above figures refer to the absolute accuracy of the results. The accuracy of differences both
between different runs and in the same run are probably slightly better than the above. At M = 0.8
and M = 0.3 (R = 8 × 106 per foot) the above values apply, but at M = 0.3 (R = 2 x 106 per
foot) they should be doubled.
The results of an unpublished flow survey show that the Mach number in the tunnel over the
region occupied by the model varies from nominal by the following amounts

M Nominal 0" 3 • 0" 8 1.4-2.4 2.8

Variation _+0-001 _+0.001 +0.005 +0.006

The values of c~ and/3 quoted are accurate to + 0" 03 °.

~*In a few of the figures dealing with the lateral stability of the wing, body-axes derivatives lv B and n v )x
are plotted. It is clearly stated in the text when these are being used.
]" Tan c~ = tan 0 cos qb and sin/3 = sin 0 sin q)
where 0 is the tota! incidence and ¢]) is the roll angle measured from the trailing edge horizontal.
 5. Discussion of Results.

5.1. Longitudinal Stability and Drag.

5.1.1. Wing with basic nose and no fin.--These results have been analysed in detail in
Ref. 2 but for completeness the important points are discussed here. At both subsonic and super-
sonic speeds the lift-curve slopes are linear at both low and high incidence with a band in between
where the variation of C 5 with ~ is non linear (Figs. 11 and 12). The increase in value of dCL/d~
at high incidence due to vortices from wing leading-edge separations, varies from 6% at M = 2.8
to 30% at M = 1-4, whereas at subsonic speeds an increase of the order of 80% occurs, although
at a higher incidence. The initial lift-curve slope, the incidence ~ at which the increase of slope
occurs and the slope for ~ > a are shown in Fig. 15.
At subsonic speeds the pitching-moment curves (Fig. 13) are very non linear with considerable
pitch-up occurring as generally found on such wings (see, e.g. Spence and Lean4). At low super-
sonic speeds the pitch up is much less pronounced (Fig. 14), but increases with increase of Mach
number supersonically.
Due to the rearward movement of the aerodynamic-centre position as the Mach number becomes
supersonic (Fig. 15) it is the low-speed value which would govern the choice of c.g. position for
an aircraft of this design to be stable. Although the wing is just neutrally stable about the present
moment reference centre 0.5 ~ at M = 0.3 at C L = 0, the C L in level flight for an aircraft would
be about 0.45, so that for neutral stability at 'take off' and 'landing' conditions the c.g. position
should be located at 45% ~ or 3% co forward of the present moment reference centre. Also with
the present camber the wing will not trim in level flight with the c.g. at 0.5 g at the cruise attitude
( M = 2.2, C L = 0-075), so that either additional camber or trailing-edge controls are necessary.
Moving the c.g. position forward to 0.45 3 to give stability at M = 0" 3 greatly increases this trim
problem at cruise conditions.
The drag polars (Figs. 16 and 17) have been analysed in terms of the minimmn drag coefficient
C~) ~ and its corresponding value of lift coefficient Cz ,~. Plots of (C D - C D ,~) against (C L - C L ,~)2
are shown in Figs. 18 and 19. At supersonic speeds at high incidence dCD/dCL 2 is greater than at
low incidence, whereas at subsonic speeds the reverse is true (Fig. 20). The graph of K/~rA/(dCz/doz),
where K = zrA dCD/d(C L - CL,~) ~ and A is the wing aspect ratio, shows that this is due entirely
to the large increase of dCz/da that occurs with increasing incidence at subsonic speeds. At incidence
with no leading-edge suction d C ~ / d ( C L - cz.~) ~ is theoretically equal to 1/(dCz/da ) .
The lift coefficient for minimum drag CLm and the minimum drag coefficient C D m corrected
for shroud interference are shown in Fig. 21, together with the estimated skin-friction drag 5. The
net wave-drag coefficient varies from 0.00385 at M = 1.4 to 0.00265 at M = 2.6.

5.1.2. Effect of fin and canopy.--Adding both the fin and the canopy nose to the wing
produces an increase in the minimum drag coefficient, the drag due to lift at both subsonic (Fig. 16)
and supersonic speeds (Fig. 17) remaining unaltered. The minimum drag coefficient C D ,~ is plotted
in Fig. 22 and the increments in C~,~ due to the fin and canopy in Figs. 23 and 24 respectively.
Comparison of estimated skin-friction drag ~ with measured fin drag (Fig. 23) suggests that the fin
wave drag is small. (It's value in isolation would be about 0.00022 at M = 1.4.) The reason for
this is uncertain, since the fin does not appear to improve the cross-sectional area distribution
significantly (Fig. 3). It is possible however, that at supersonic speeds, the fin pressure field could
induce positive pressures over the rear of the wing, thereby reducing the overall drag by inter-
ference. Although it would need pressure-distribution measurements to verify this idea, it is
supported by the fact that the fin produces changes in lift and trim (Fig. 22). At subsonic speeds
the fin produces a nose-down trim change with no effect on lift (Fig. 22). This again could possibly
be due to pressures induced on the wing by the fin, the different sense of the trim change being
due to the different fin pressure field at subsonic speeds.
The effect of the canopy is to produce a small loss of lift giving a nose-down pitching moment
(Fig. 22) and more seriously a prohibitively large increase in wave drag. At M = 2.2, this amounts
to an increase of about 30% over the basic aircraft value (Figs. 21 and 24).

5.1.3. Trailing-edge-control effectiveness.--The effect of control setting ( - 4 ° % inboard

controls only, - 4 ° % inboard and outboard controls and - 4 ° ~ outboard controls only) on lift,
pitching moment, rolling moment and drag is shown in Figs. 25 to 28. These graphs show that as
might be expected there is no effect on lift-curve slope, aerodynamic-centre position or drag due
to lift. The values of C•, C~ and C z at c~ = 0 and C 9 ,~ are replotted in Fig. 29. (There was no
noticeable effect of the controls on CL~,~. )
A comparison is made in Figs. 30 and 31 between the measured control effectiveness and
theoretical values. The latter were obtained by three methods:
(i) Linear theory was used and full load carry-over onto the wing was assumed (lift induced
by the control pressure field on that part of the wing lying within the Mach cone from the
control.leading-edge tip as in Ref. 6). The effect of the sting shroud on the inboard controls
was allowed for in the manner of Ref. 7, that is the controls were treated as wings mounted
on a body of diameter that of the sting shroud.
(ii) Using the results of pressure-distribution measurements on the symmetrical version of
this wing reported in Ref. 2, the mean Mach number over the undeflected control was
determined (slightly higher than the free-stream value because of the wing thickness).
Using this Mach number a modified linear-theory estimate was obtained as in (i).
(iii) An allowance for wing thickness effects was made as in (ii) but all load carry-over was
assumed zero. Each outboard control was assumed to act as an isolated rectangular wing.
. For the inboard controls the body was assumed to act as a reflection plate but to carry no load.
Figs. 30 and 31 show that the linear-theory estimate (with full load 'carry-over' onto the wing)
is much too large at all Mach numbers. At high Mach numbers the same result is true of the two
modified linear theories (with full load 'carry-over' onto the wing and with no load 'carry-over'
onto the wing) although here the discrepancy is less. At low Mach number much better agreement
is obtained, with the two modified linear estimates bracketing the measured values. In general
these results are in agreement with those of Lord and Czarnecki s, 9. They found that although the
control loadings due to incidence could be predicted with good accuracy using linear theory, the
loadings due to control setting were much less than the theoretical values. This was mainly because
the theory overestimated the pressure changes on the suction surface of the control (for control
settings of the order of 10°). Away from the streamwise edges of the control a much closer prediction
of the experimental pressures was obtained by Lord and Czarnecki using 'shock-expansion' theory
over the controls. While the control settings used on the present model (4 °) are lower than those
used by Lord and Czarnecki in their tests, it is probable that part of the disparity between experiment
and theory exists for similar reasons.aThis is~borne o u t b y the better agreement obtained with the
10
'modified linear' theory, which for small control settings is identical to the shock-expansion theory.
Lord and Czarnecki also found that the lift carry-over at the ends of the control onto the wing,
although not zero was much less than that predicted by theory. This effect, however, will be more
noticeable at low Mach numbers where the theoretical lift carry-over is really significant. Although
the gaps between the streamwise edges of the controls and wing are small at zero control deflection
(0.3% of control chord) they become large as the control is deflected, allowing the suction surface
of the wing to influence the pressure surface of the control or vice-versa. This is a possible reason
why all three theoretical values of control effectiveness are higher than the measured values at
the higher supersonic speeds.
Measured values of the parameter (1/At)dCLJd% for both controls are plotted against
A o ~/(M 2 - 1) in Fig. 32. (A~ is the control aspect ratio, CL¢ the lift coefficient based on control
area and % the control deflection in radians). The aspect ratio of the inboard controls was taken
as that of the two control panels joined together. As well as the values of dCmc/d % measured
directly, other values were obtained from dC,,~Jd*y~ and dCz¢/d~ ~ by assuming that the centre of
pressure of the control was at the centre of area. The differences between results in Fig. 32 for
inboard and outboard controls are due to shroud interference. If the inboard control values are
factored to allow for the carry-over lift on the sting shroud then the two sets of results collapse onto
one line (Fig. 33). This interference factor obtained from Ref. 7 was based on the free-stream
Mach number and varied from 1.217 at M = 1.4 to 1.072 at M = 2.8. Also shown in Fig. 33
is the linear-theory value for an isolated rectangular wing and the linear-theory two-dimensional
value, factored by 0.7. This empirical expression for (1/A~)dCmddW~ was suggested by Czarnecki
and Lord in Ref. 10 and for 1 < d e ~/(M 2 - 1) < 3 it agrees very well with the present results,
for 3 < A~ ~/(M ~ - 1) < 5 it overestimates slightly.

5.1.4. Effect of trailing-edge controls on drag.--An expression for the increment in C D ,,~,
(the minimum drag coefficient) due to control deflection is developed in Appendix I (equation (8)}:
•

A CDm = a(~%2 + % (CL,~-ACL)- 7rA[ (al'+a~'+a2")] 2

-J
where
a 1 is
(dCL
dc~ ] wing
al

'I
a I' is \ d~ ] corttrol
> based on wing area and per radian
6/2 / i s d~/~ ] control

a2 '1 i s (dc1
\~-% / control carry-over lift

~?c is control setting in radians (positive trailing edge down)

A is wing aspect ratio
K is drag due to lift factor

CL ,,, is CL at minimum drag

il
 ACr~ is lift on the wing at zero ~a'.E. and V~
aT.~. is wing incidence (defined as the angle between the camber plane at the wing trailing
edge and the flee-stream direction).
For two controls (port and starboard) as elevators, the above increment is simply doubled, but for
two controls as ailerons, we have:

AC2) = 2 az' ~cz K ~:~(al'

~ 2a 1

where ~ is the aileron setting in radians (positive trailing edge down on starboard wing, trailing
edge up on port wing). Theoretical values of a 2' and a2" were obtained from:
(i) Linear theory with full lift carry-over.
(ii) Linear theory modified for wing thickness effects with full lift carry-over (cf. Section 5.1.3).
(iii) The empirical 'theory' of Ref. 10.
Using the above estimates together with measured values of a l , K , CL,~ , A C L and a 1' (the last
obtained from pressure-distribution measurements on the symmetrical model reported in Ref. 2),
estimates of C D m have been obtained and are compared with measured values in Fig. 34. The
agreement is fair considering the small size of the increments and the experimental accuracy.
Expressions are developed in Part 2 of Appendix I which enabled the drag of the trimmed wing
C D~, to be determined. Estimates of C~gT obtained on the same basis as those of C D.* are shown
in Fig. 35 in comparison with measured values. Fair agreement is obtained between experiment
and linear theory with full lift carry-over. Although the outboard controls produce more drag than
the inboard controls for the same control setting, they also have a larger effect on the trimmed lift
coefficient CL~, (Fig. 36). Since a c.g. position at 0.5 ~ would be unsatisfactory for flight at subsonic
speeds, the curves of C,, against C L have been redrawn for a moment reference centre of 0.45
(Fig. 37). Values of CD:v have been evaluated at C L = 0. 075 for both e.g. positions (using measured
values of CDT at constant % and assuming that CDT varies linearly with CLT 2) and these are plotted
in Fig. 38 together with the untrimmed value of C;) at C2: = 0.075. Moving the c.g. forward
fi'om 0.50 ~ to 0.45 ~ has a large adverse effect on the overall drag of the trimmed wing. In general
the outboard controls are a slightly more efficient means of trimming the wing than the inboard
controls.

5.2. Lateral Stability.

5.2.1. Wing with basic nose and no f i n at supersonic s p e e d s . - - T h e variation of CI, , C~ and
C t with fi is slightly non-linear (Figs. 39, 40 and 41), with the non-linear side force acting ahead of
the moment reference centre (0. 692 Co) and dCz/d ~ decreasing with ft. A marked variation with
incidence is displayed by the derivatives y~ and n o (Figs. 42 and 43) and the incidence dependent
y v , together with its associated centre-of-pressure position, are shown in Figs. 44 and 45 respec-
tively. Ayv increases with incidence, gradually at first, but with a pronounced steepening of the
curve at an incidence of 4 ° to 5°. Spence and Lean 4 have suggested that this sort of yv variation
with incidence is caused by the windward vortex approaching close to the wing surface under
conditions of yaw, causing large suctions on the forward, sideward-facing upper surface. With
this in mind, it might have been expected that the magnitude of the incidence.dependent Yv would
12
decrease with Mach number, much in the same -way as (dCL/d~)l - (dCL/d~)o (Fig. 15). In fact
this does not happen. A small reduction only in Ay~ occurs with increasing Mach number. This
would seem to indicate that the reduction in strength of the vortices at high Mach number is
compensated for by the windward vortex approaching closer to the wing surface. Spence and Lean 4
give a value of 0.49 co as the low-speed value of the centre-of-pressure position [(xc.v.)g ] of the
incidence dependent y~ for an ogee wing (sT/C o = 0.208), and in Section 5.2.3 it is shown that at
M = 0.3 the experimental results agree fairly well with this value at high incidence. The rearward
location of (xc.p.)y at supersonic speeds (0.6 to 0.7 Co) and at low incidence at subsonic speeds,
may be due to camber and the sting shroud, neither of which were present on the wing whose
results were quoted by Spence and Lean.
Estimates of y,~ and n o at zero incidence have been made using slender-body theory. In order to
reduce the labour involved, some simplifying assumptions have been made concerning the wing
cross-section shape. Camber, both spanwise and chordwise, has been ignored. This omission is
thought unlikely to have any significant effect on the derivatives. Estimates were made for two span-
wise thickness distributions, a rhombic cross-section and a section consisting of a thin wing mounted
symmetrically on a circular body. In both cases the maximum depth and span of the assumed
section were identical with those of the wing at corresponding chordwise locations. Fig. 46 shows
a comparison between actual and assumed spanwise thickness distributions at two chordwise
locations. The conformal transformation for the rhombic cross-section is given in Ref. 11 and that
for the wing body shape, together with the formulae for the derivatives in Ref. 12. Due to the
complex variation of both wing thickness and span, numerical integration was used throughout
to evaluate the derivatives. The measured values of - (Y~.)~=0 show fair agreement with theory
at M = 1.4 but the disparity increases with Mach number until at M = 2.6 the measured value
is three times the theoretical value (Fig. 47). Since the cross-section shape falls somewhere between
the extremes of wing-body and rhombic, it is probable that a realistic value of % can be obtained
from the expression,

nV t r u e = I ( n v r h o m b i o q- nv wing-hotly) "}- An~ auo to sting fairing"

This gives an n v of - 0.0258 which as in the case of y v, agrees fairly well with the experimental
results at M = 1.4 but falls short at high Mach numbers. Poor agreement is obtained between
theoretical and measured values of (xc.v.)v.
In contrast to the above results dlddc~ does not show any significant variation with a, however
it does decrease with Mach number (Fig. 48). In Appendix II, using linear theory, an expression
is developed for the body-axes rolling-moment derivative of thin cambered wings, based entirely
on longitudinal loading using the lift-curve slope dCL/do~ and the longitudinal centre of pressure
xc.p./Co .

& & \b/ Co j"

Although this is a theoretical expression it has been used with measured values of dCz/da and
xc.p./c o (for the wing without fin at zero yaw) to give an estimate of dl, B/dc~. The agreement
between measured and predicted values of dlvB/d~ is only fair at M = 1.4 (Fig. 49) and becomes
progressively worse with increasing Math number. This is probably due to the increasing
importance of wing thickness effects as the flow normal to the wing leading edge approaches sonic
13
conditions. The importance of the Mach number normal to the leading edge is demonstrated in
Fig. 50 where the quantity IvB-(IvB)~=0 is plotted against a. For M > 1.7, the values of
l v B - (/vB)~=0 collapse onto a single line when divided by (1 - M ~ cos ~ Amin) 1/2. Amin is the
minimum angle of sweepback of the wing. The slope of the collapsed curve is 0.7 times the slender-
body thin-wing estimate for dlvB/d~. At Mach numbers less than 1.7 the results collapse onto
a single curve for a < 6 ° whose slope is 0.85 times the slender-body thin-wing estimates. The
design of this particular wing 1 is such that, theoretically, at the design lift coefficient (C L = 0) the
flow is attached along the entire wing leading edge. At incidences just above or below the design
attitude it is expected that the flow will separate from the entire upper or lower surfaces respectively,
so that separation from both upper and lower surface can never occur simultaneously. With sharp-
edged plane delta wings at high Math numbers where the leading edge becomes sonic (i.e. the
theoretical design assumptions no longer hold), the leading-edge separation is suppressed and the
flow becomes attached to the upper surface of the wing. Stanbrook and Squire 13 have analysed
the results of tests on several sharp-edged plane delta wings in terms of the parameters, incidence
normal to the leading edge, %v and Math number normal to the leading edge, M N. Applied to the
present wing this type of analysis show-s that at incidence, attached flow could exist on the wing
upper surface for Math numbers above 1.9. It is suggested that the two curves of lsB (Fig. 50)
represent two different types of flow at the wing leading edge. Below a Math number of 1.7 the
flow is separated along the entire leading edge with regions of attached flow existing above M = 1.7.
The difference between the predicted and measured Mach number boundary could possibly be
due to camber. A similar result to the above was observed in tests on another slender wing of
slightly different planform shape 14.

5.2.2. Effect of canopy nose and fin at supersonic speeds.--A feature of the results obtained
with the fin present on the model (with and without canopy nose) is the presence of kinks in the
curves of Cy and C n with/3 (Figs. 51, 52 and 53). These were also present at subsonic speeds (see
Section 5.2.3) and are shown very clearly in Fig. 10. The transition from 'initial' to 'secondary'
slope has been shown in the figures as a kink although it may in fact take up to ½ degree of side-
slip angle. The variation of C~ with /~ (Fig. 54) is slightly non-linear but does not contain any
abrupt changes in slope.
The derivatives Yv, nv and lo are shown in Figs. 55, 56 and 57. The addition of the canopy nose
to the wing with fin present has a negligible effect on yo and l,,, but does result in a decrease in
n~. Although the n v decrement is not very significant at low incidences only part of the large increase
in n~ which occurs with increase of incidence with the basic nose is realized with the canopy nose.
Since the wing was not tested with the canopy nose, without the fin (see Table 4), it is not possible
to determine if the effect on n v at high incidence is due simply to the presence of the canopy, or
if it is caused by interference between canopy nose and fin. However, since there is little effect on
y~ it is likely that there is some interference.
Any estimate of fin effectiveness must take into account interference between the fin and sting
shroud. It is usual in cases of fin-body interference to use an interference factor based on slender-
body theory 15. With the present wing, for Mach numbers above 1.4, the fin is effectively isolated
from the undersurface of the wing in so far as interference is concerned, so that the wing acts as
an infinite reflection plane and symmetrical wing-body interference factors can be used to allow
14
for the sting shroud. Unpublished empirical interference factors e were used, and the lift-curve
slope and aerodynamic-centre position of the fin were obtained from the charts of Ref. 16. T h e
estimates of the side force and yawing-moment derivative contributions due to the fin, Ayv and A n v
respectively so obtained are given as theory I in Figs. 58 and 59. Measured values of fin effectiveness
are in most cases less than theory I, and for both y,o and n v they tend to decrease in size with
incidence. An attempt has been made to produce a more accurate theoretical estimate including the
effect of incidence on the derivatives. Using the results of pressure-distribution measurements on
the symmetrical version of this wing 2, an estimate of the local Mach number in the region of the
fin has been obtained at zero incidence, and its variation with incidence determined. Using values
of fin lift-curve slope appropriate to this local Mach number, values of Ay~ ~ and An,~~n were
obtained (theory II in Figs. 58 and 59). In most cases this estimate of fin effectiveness is in good
agreement with the measured values and accurately predicts the variation of Ayo m~ and An~,fn with
incidence. This would seem to indicate a lack of wing vortex interference on the fin at small angles
of yaw for a < 12 °. T h e simple theory overestimates Al~B~n at all Mach numbers (Fig. 60) and
at M = 1.4 the measured value is positive whereas the theoretical value is negative. Since Ay~ fin
does not show any abnormalities at M = 1.4, the reversed direction of A l ~ ~ cannot be caused
by sidewash fields acting on the fin, leaving as the only possibility, interference on the wing by
the fin pressure field.
T h e increase in y~ at values of sideslip above about 2 ° (Fig. 51) is plotted in Fig. 61 as Ay~
(secondary Yv - initial Yv) together with its associated centre-of-pressure position for the configura-
tion with basic nose and fin (Fig. 62). In general the centre-of-pressure position is located in the
region of the fin and it is reasonable to assume that the kink is due to an increase in fin lift-curve
slope resulting from fin leading-edge flow-separation effects. It would be expected that the additional
y~ would decrease as the fin leading edge approached sonic conditions and flow separation was
suppressed. T h a t this does in fact happen is shown in Fig. 63 where ACj~ due to the fin is plotted
against fi for several Mach numbers t. The increase in slope of the curve of C~ plotted against fi
for the configuration with fin is due entirely to fin effects at M = 1 "4 whereas at M = 2.6 it is
due entirely to wing flow effects.

5.2.3. Subsonic results, wing with basic nose and fin.--¥ariation of the coefficients C y ,
C~ and C~ with fi is shown in Figs. 64, 65 and 66. As at supersonic speeds there are kinks in the
'Ct. and C~ curves. T h e derivatives Yv, n~ and lv (Fig. 67) are little different at M = 0" 3 and 0" 8
for R = 2 x 10 r' per foot, and at M = 0.3, Reynolds number has a negligible effect.

e If d is the body diameter, and sy is the fin semi-span measured from the body centre-line, then the
empirical interference factors (ratio of sideforce on a body mounted fin to that on a reflection plane mounted
fin) for a configuration with no afterbody, can be approximated by

1 + '0.688 d
sF
compared with the slender-body theory value of
/ d) ~
÷ o. o; .

Both of the expressions are independent of fin taper ratio.

-~ It should be noted that because of lack of data with fin on at M = 2.6 the values were interpolated from
those at M = 2.4 and 2.8. Data with fin off is not available at M = 2- 8.

15
 T h e incidence dependent y~ and its associated centre-of-pressure position have been obtained
and are plotted in Figs. 68 and 69 respectively. T h e r e is a decrease in Ay~ between M = 0.3 and
0.8 and again between M = 0 . 8 and 1.4. A p r o n o u n c e d steepening of the curve of Ayv occurs
between ~ = 12 ° and ~ = 16 °. No measurements of lateral loads at subsonic speeds were made
without the fin. However the absence of any wing vortex interference with the fin at supersonic
speeds was demonstrated in Section 5.2.2. T h e assumption that this result also holds at subsonic
speeds enables a comparison to be made between the present results and those of Spence and Lean 4.
Good agreement is obtained between the centre-of-pressure position of the incidence dependent Y,o
at high incidence and the 1OUTspeed value of 0"49 co from Ref. 4. At low incidence (Xc.p.)y is much
further aft and approaches the supersonic value of 0-7 co at ~ = 4 °.
T h e increment in y~ (defined as Aye, = secondary y ~ - initial Yv), does not vary significantly with
incidence for ~ < 16 °, whereas, above this incidence it behaves rather erratically (Fig. 70). A similar
variation is shown by the centre-of-pressure position of this incremental y~. It remains in the
region of the fin up to an incidence of 16 ° (Fig. 71) and then moves forward to 0.31 co at c~ = 2 0 . 4 °.
Estimates of Yv and n v at subsonic speeds have been made using the same methods as were
employed at supersonic speeds, with the exception that the fin sting-shroud interference factor
was obtained from Ref. 15. Fair agreement between theory and experiment is obtained at low
incidence, but it gets progressively worse as the incidence increases (Fig. 72).
In the previous section (5.2.2) it was shown that at M = 1.4 the measured fin effectiveness on
l~ was of opposite sign to theory. T h e results of tests on another slender-wing model fitted with
the same fin 1~ have demonstrated this same effect and shown that it also occurs at subsonic speeds.
It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that this effect extends down to M = 0.3 with the
present wing. For this reason no attempt has been made to include the effect of the fin on the
theoretical prediction of the body-axes rolling-moment derivative I~B. Slender-body estimates of
/,~B using four different cross-section shapes have been obtained in addition to an estimate based on
the m e t h o d of Appendix II and using measured values of Cf~ and (xc.p.). Cross-section shape has
only a small effect on the theoretical value of dl~ B/do~ and all estimates show good agreement with
measured dl~ B/dc~ at small incidence. T h e effectiveness of this fin on l~ B at M = 0- 3 as measured
in Ref. 14 was 0.007 and if allowance is made for this increment, then loe can be predicted with
fair accuracy up to incidences of about 10 °. T h e expression:

although predicting the trend of l~ B with incidence overestimates its magnitude at all incidences.
This expression for l v B applies strictly to wings of zero thickness only. It is possible, therefore, that
the disparity between experimental values of l~B and those predicted using the above expression
result from wing thickness effects.

6. Conclusions.
Longitudinal Stability.
(a) Within the M range tested the most forward position of the aerodynamic centre occurs at
low speeds, and hence the low-speed value would dictate the centre-of-gravity position of an actual
aircraft design, which would be at 0.45 ~ for neutral stability at C L = 0.45. T h e most aft aero-
dynamic-centre position occurs at M = 1.4 and at Mach numbers above 1- 4 it moves forward again.

16
 (b) For the configuration with basic nose and no fin the centre of pressure at the cruise attitude
( M = 2.2, C L = 0.075) is at 53.30,/o ~ and hence the wing would be untrimmed by 8.3% &
(c) The canopy shape tested is unsatisfactory, because of its large wave-drag increment (31%
of the wave drag of the wing with the basic nose).
(d) The fin produces a negligible wave-drag increment possibly due to interference between the
fin pressure field and the rear upper surface of the wing.
(e) Trailing-edge control effectiveness is less than that pred!cted by linear theory but agrees
quite well with the estimates based on the empirical method of Ref. 10. The drag increments due
to the controls for both the untrimmed and the trimmed wing show fair agreement with theory.
In general the outboard controls are slightly more efficient than the inboard controls as a means of
trimming the wing.

Lateral Stability.
(a) With the basic nose and no fin, there is a marked variation ofy~ with % the centre of pressure
of the incidence dependent y~ varying from 0.7 co at low incidence to 0.5 co at high incidence
(~ = 20 °, M = 0"3).
(b) The measured values of y~ and n~ B at zero incidence show fair agreement with slender-body
theory at M = 1.4 but the theory underestimates at higher Mach numbers. Although l~B can be
predictedwith fair accuracy at subsonic speeds using slender-body theory, the agreement at super-
sonic speeds with linear theory is poor. dl v B/do~ varies significantly with Mach number at supersonic
speeds but a correlation is possible on the basis of the Mach number normal to the wing leading
edge.
(c) The canopy nose, in conjunction with the fin at supersonic speeds, causes a reduction in n
Which although small at low incidence is quite significant at high incidence. It has no effect on
either y~ or l~.
(d) In general the effect of the fin on Yv and n~ at supersonic speeds can be predicted with good
accuracy, when the side force on the fin is based on the local Mach number in the region of the
fin rather than the free-stream value.

17
(90746)
 SYMBOLS
d Aspect ratio

a1 - (d- L)wing

/deL\
al' = [~7-)control, based on wing ar~ea

/dCL\
a~' = / - - / c o n t r o l , based on wing area
\ d c!
af = (~C%L)controlcarry-overlift, basedonwingarea

b Wing span
c Wing chord
co Wing root chord
g Aerodynamic mean chord
C~ Pressure coefficient, (p-p~o)/q
CL Lift coefficient, lift/qS (positive upwards)
C., Pitching-moment coefficient, pitching moment/qSg (positive nose up) .
CD Drag coefficient, drag/qS (positive downstream)
CI7 Side force coefficient, side force/qS (positive to starboard)
Cx Axial force coefficient, force along balance axis/qS (positive backwards)
C~ Yawing-moment coefficient, yawing m o m e n t / q S b (positive nose to star-
board)
C~ Rolling-moment coefficient, rolling m o m e n t / q S b (positive starboard wing
downwards)
d Body diameter
dCm
h -
dCL

K Drag-due-to-lift factor, O(CL_ CLm)2 x ~rA

l(,~, y) Local wing loading = - AC~ = - ( C ~ u - C~)L)

= (~-~-l) per radian

M Mach number

nv = (~-~) per radian

P Local static pressure

18
 SYMBOLS--continued

Pc(] Free-stream static pressure

P Wing area/area of enclosing rectangle
q Kinetic pressure, ½ p U2
R Reynolds number
sF Fin semi-span
s(x) Local semi-span
Maximum semi-span
S Wing area
sc Control area
U Free-stream velocity
g3 Wing volume
X • ] i positive backwards
Y Right-hand system of axes positive to starboard
% positive upwards
Xc Distance between control centre of pressure and moment reference centre

XO.P. Chordwise location of centre-of-pressure position

Y~

OL

o~i £

Amin
.. 7]C

(90746)
 SYM B 0 L S--continued

"F Wing volume/(wing area)at~

Perturbation velocity potential, ~ = ~0 + e~~o1 +/? ~o~

Roll angle measured from trailing edge horizontal (positive starboard

wing tip down)
0 Total incidence (positive nose up)

&~ces
B Refers to body axes
£ Refers to control
L Refers to lower surface of wing

Refers to conditions at minimum drag

N Refers to conditions normal to wing leading edge

0 Refers to conditions at zero lift

T Refers to trimmed conditions

T.E. Refers to conditions at wing trailing edge

~t Refers to upper surface of wing

y Refers to yaw plane

1 Refers to increased value of dCz./d~ and K at high incidence

20
 REFERENCES
No. Author(s) Title, etc.
1 J. Weber .... Design of warped slender wings with the attachment line along
the leading edge.
R.A.E. Tech. Note No. Aero. 2530.
A.R.C. 20 051. September, 1957.
2 C.R. Taylor .. Measurements at Mach numbers up to 2.8 of the longitudinal
characteristics of one plane and three cambered slender
'ogee' wings.
A.R.C.R. & M. 3328. December, 1961.
3 S.B. Berndt . . . . . . . . Wind tunnel interference due to lift for delta wings of small
aspect ratio.
K.T.H. Aero. Tech. Note 19. Sweden. 1952.
4 A. Spence and D. Lean .... Some low speed problems of high speed aircraft.
J. R. Ae. Soc., Vol. 66, No. 616, p. 217. April, 1962.
5 Royal Aeronautical Society Data Sheets, Aerodynamics, Vol. 2.
6 P . A . Lagerstrom and M. E. Graham Linearised theory of supersonic control surfaces.
J. Ae. Sci., Vol. 21, pp. 31 to 34. January, 1949.
W. C. Pitts, J. N. Nielson and G. E. Lift and center of pressure of wing-body-tail combinations at
Kaattari. subsonic, transonic and supersoniq speeds.
N.A.C.A. Report 1307. 1957.
8 D . R . Lord and K. R. Czarnecki .. Pressure distribution and aerodynamic loadings for-several
flap-type trailing-edge controls on a trapezoidal wing at
Mach numbers 1-61 and 2.01.
N.A.C.A. Research Memo. L55J03 (TIL/5013). March, 1956.
9 K . R . Czarnecki and D. R. Lord .. Load distribution associated with controls at supersonic speeds.
N.A.C.A. Research Memo. L53D15a (TIB/3746). May, 1953.
10 K . R . Czarnecki al~d D. R. Lord .. Simplified procedures for estimating flap-control loads at
supersonic speeds.
N.A.C.A. Research Memo. L55E12 (TIB/4692). May, 1955.
ll A.J. Ross . . . . . . . . The calculation of lateral stability derivatives of slender wings
at incidence, including fin effectiveness, and correlation with
experiment.
A.R.C.R. & M. 3402. March, 1961.
12 A . H . Sacks . . . . . . . . Aerodynamic forces, moments and stability derivatives for
slender bodies of general cross section.
N.A.C.A. Tech. Note. 3283. November, 1954.
13 A. Stanbrook and L. C. Squire .. Possible types of flow at swept leading edges.
Aero. Quart. Vol. XV, Part 1, pp. 72 to 82. February, 1964.
14 D. Isaacs . . . . . . . . Lateral stability measurements including the effect of a fin on
a slender cambered wing at subsonic and supersonic speeds.
R.A.E. in preparation.
15 F . K . Goodwin and G. E. Kaattari .. Estimation of directional stability derivatives at small angles
and subsonic and supersonic speeds.
N.A.S.A. Memo. 12-2-58A (TIL/6338). December, 1958.
16 A. Stanbrook . . . . . . The lift-curve slope and aerodynamic centre position of wings
at subsonic and supersonic speeds.
A.R.C. 17 615. November, 1954.
21
 APPENDIX I

The Effect of Trailing-Edge Controls on the Drag of a Cambered Wing

Part 1. Minimum Drag Coefficient.

It is assumed that the camber surface is planar over the region of the trailing-edge controls.
With the controls undeflected, assume that the lift and drag coefficient of the wing can be expressed
as
CL = al~T.E. + A C t (1)
K
C,~ = C~ ,,~ + JA ( C ~ - C~ ,,~)~ (2)

when C z and C1) are the lift and drag coefficients respectively.
~T.E. is the wing incidence (the angle between the camber plane at the trailing edge and the
free-stream direction).
K is the drag due to lift factor
A is the wing aspect ratio
a 1 is the lift-curve slope of the wing with respect to aT.S.
A C L is the lift on the wing at zero ~T.E. and %
Suffix m refers to conditions at minimum drag.
If the control is now deflected and ~¢.~. is kept constant, then for both ~'r.~. and % small, the
modified coefficients are
c ~ / = cf~ + (a2' + a / ) ~ (3)
c a ' = c a + a2%(~,r.~.+ ~c) + a/~,r.~.~ + (a&~r.~.+ AC~o)~ (4)
where % is the control deflection (positive trailing edge downwards)
a 2' is the lift-curve slope of the control with respect to %
a2" is the lift-curve slope of the control 'carry-over' lift with respect to ~7~.
a 1' is the lift-curve slope of the control with respect to ~T.E.
ACLc is the lift on the control at zero ~¢.~. and ~1~.
Using equations (i), t2) and (3) to eliminate C a and a,r.E, from equation (4) and assuming ACLc
is small enough to be ignored we get
K
ca' = ca m + ~ [ c ~ ' - ~(a~' + a~") - CL,,,]~ + a~"q2 +

(a 1' + a~' + a~"~

+ } ~ Eel' - a c ~ - ~(a~' + a / ) ] . (S)
al

This equation can be re-arranged to give

K
C a' = C~ , , / + ;-~ ( CL' - C~ ,,,')~ (6)

22
where CDm' and C L m' are the new values of C D.~ and C L m and are given by

2a~ J" (7)

CD ' - Czj ~ = as ' ~ ~ + al' + a 2 , + s v~(CL,,,_ACL) - ~ - 2a, (8)

al
For an uncambered wing with no control lift 'carry-over' these two equations reduce to

eL j - cz,,~ = a ; w - ~-
~A LF~c(a?+ a;) 1
2al (9)

CD ' C~),, , = _ ~rA F v ~ ( a l ' + a ( ) ] ~ (10)

m - = a2% K-L 2a, J "

P a r t 2. Drag of the T r i m m e d Wing.

With controls undeflected the pitching moment of the wing can be expressed as

C,,~ = C ~ o + hCr~ (11)

where h is the value of d C , , d d C L .
If the control is now deflected

• C.~' = Cmo + h C L - (as'--t-a~")%2~ (12)

where xc = Xc/g and x c is the distance from the moment reference centre to the control centre of
pressure (positive backwards). Using equation (3) to eliminate CL from (12) we have

C ~ ' = Cmo + h C L ' -- (as' + a ( ) ~ o ( h + G) (13)

and for trimmed flight C m' = O, so that we arrive at an expression relating the trimmed lift
coefficient C L T' and the control angle to trim % T :

w d a ( + a(') (h + ~ ) - C., o
C~£ = h (14)

It is convenient in comparing this method of estimation with experiments to determine CLT' for
the control setting.qeT actually tested rather than to determine a control setting for a given trimmed
lift coefficient by interpolation. Equation (14) enables CLT' to be estimated using measured values
of % T, h and C~,~o and theoretical values of a ( , as" and 2 e. In order to determine the drag of the
trimmed wing it is necessary to know C z,~' and C o m'. These are given by equations (7) and (8)
respectively, writing %T for %. As in the expression for CLT' , theoretical values of a ( and as" are
used in (7) and (8) together with measured values of all the other parameters (obtained from the
basic wing results with zero control deflection). The drag of the trimmed wing is then given by
(6), writing CDT' and CLT' for C9' and C L' respectively.

23
 A P P E N D I X II
The Body-Axes Rolling Moment of a "Thin Cambered Wing
For cambered wings with zero thickness it is possible to derive a simple relationship between
the body-axes rolling-moment derivative al~ B/O~, the lift coefficient C L and the chordwise location
of the pitch 'plane centre of pressure xc.p.
With the usual assumptions of linearized theoiy the perturbation velocity potential for the flow
past an infinitely thin cambered wing at incidence ~ and sideslip/3 can be written:
= 990 + ~ 1 +/3992 + o ( ~ 2,/32) (15)
where 990 is the potential at c~ = 0
c~% is the potential due to incidence c~ at/3 = 0
/3992 is the potential due to the additional local incidence + fiOz/Oy,
and z = ~e(
~ x, y) is the.equation for the camber surface.
The loading on the wing is given by
l(x,y~ - - ( C~,~,- C~, ~)
4
= + ~(99~-/3%) + O(~2,/3z), (16)

the velocity potential being evaluated on the upper surface of the wing. Here U is the free-stream
velocity and x,y, z are right-handed Cartesian body co-ordinates with origin O at the wing leading-
edge apex and axes Ox, Oy, and Oz pointing downstream, to starboard and vertically upwards
respectively at o~ = /3 = 0 (the suffices x and y refer to partial differentials of 99 with respect to
these quantities).
The body-axes rolling-moment coefficient is

Ct~ = USb s (99~-fi%)ydxdy + 0 o~~, fiz, z,~fy j (17)

where S is the wing plan area and b the wing span.

Since for a wing with symmetrical camber {i.e. z , ( x , y ) = z, ( x , - y ) } , 990 and fo1 are even
functions of y and 99z is an odd function of y, the above equation for Ct B can be rewritten as

c , 13 - USb4/3 s (990y + o,99~~ - 992A Y dx dy + 0 ~,~,/32, ~ Oy !

4/3 (+~12

since 990 = 91 = 992 = 0 at the wing leading edges.

The corresponding lift and pitching-moment coefficients at zero yaw are:

CL = 4~ ff ~ (%~+~991.)dxdy

4 (+~t2
= gS3_o/2 [990 + ~%]'r.~. dy (19)
and

Cm- 4 f t . s (99ox+~991x)xdxdy
USco
24
where co is the root chord

C ,,~ - 4f+~,~
US -b/2 [~o + ~d~.~. dy + ~ 4 f f s •
(~o+,~1) a~ do,. (20)

Combining (18), (19) and (20) gives

co 4/2 I" +big
C,z~ = - 5 ~ ( C,,~+ Cr.) = ~ j - ~ [~d:r.E.ydy (21)
or

b CL 1- [~o2]rr.E.3' dy (22)
Co ; USb -~I~
The latter term represents the contribution of spanwise droop or dihedral to lvB. At speeds where
the wing is aerodynamically slender, linear theory degenerates into slender-wing theory, and here
the effects on /~B of camber depend only on the spanwise camber at the wing trailing edge. For
the present wing the spanwise camber is negligible at the trailing edge and equation (22) reduces to

I ~ B = - ~ cC°z { 1 - -xc'P"1 (M~< 1. 0) (23)

Co )
At supersonic speeds [~O2]T.E.-can be obtained by a surface integral but since it is independent of
ce there does exist the simple relationship

dl~B c° dCL
do~ { l -- X°~'Co
"' (24)

25
 TABLE 1

Principal Dimensions of the Model

Wing
Equation of leading edge y = s(x)

s(x) = sT 1.2 - 2 . 4 + 2.2 + 3 - 3 .

Equation of spanwise camber shoulder line y = s(X)~o(X )

no(x) = 0-5

n0(x) = 0 " 5 + -0.5

Gross area 4" 680 sq. ft

Span 2.08 ft
Root chord 5.00 ft
Semi-span to root chord ratio (s:e/Co) 0. 2081
Aerodynamic mean chord 3. 079 ft
Aspect ratio 0" 924
Moment-reference-centre position (measured from trailing edge) g/2 1. 539 ft
Ratio of wing area to area of enclosing rectangle (P) 0.450
Wing volume (v) 725.4 cu. in.
Non-dimensionalized wing volume ~- = wing volume/(area)3J 2 0. 0415

Fin
Area 0.314 sq. ft
Height 4" 762 in.
Root chord 15. 832 in.

, 26
 TABLE 2

Basic Fin Section (Root Chord)

Distance from
leading edge Semi-thickness
(inches) (inches)

0 0.0050
0.7916 0.0509
1.5832 0-0905
2-3748 0-1269
3.1663 0-1570
3.9579 0-1839
4.7495 0.2045
5.5411 0.2219
6-3327 0.2330
7.1243 0.2409
7.9159 0.2425
8.7074 0.2409
9.4990 0.2330
10.2906 0-2219
11.0822 O.2045
11-8738 0-1839
12.6654 0.1570
13.4569 0.1269
14.2485 0.0905
15.0401 0.0509
15.8317 0.0050

27
 TABLE 3

Control Setting Angles (Controls Unloaded)

Location of Nominal True

control setting setting
(degrees) (degrees)

Port outboard -4 -3.96

+4 +4.03

Port inboard •-4 -3.68

Starboard outboard - 4 - 4.04

Starboard inboard - 4 - 3.98

TABLE 4

Test Programme

Nose Inboard 'Outboard Reynolds

shape Fin controls controls No. Mach No. range Rema~s'
(deg) (deg) per foot

Basic OFF 0 2 x 106 0.3, 0.8 C5 , .Cm and CD

measured only
Basic OFF 2 x l0 G 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0,
2.2, 2-4, 2.6, 2.8

Basic ON 2 x 106 0.3, 0.8, 1.4, 1.8,

2.2, 2-4, 2.8

Basic ON 8 x 106 0-3

Canopy ON 2 x 106 1.4, 1.8, 2.2, 2.4,

2.8

Basic ON -4 2 × 20 G 1.4, 1.8, 2-2, 2.4,

2.8

Basic ON --4 -4 2 x 106 1-4, 1.8, 2-2, 2.4,

2.8

Basic ON +4 2 x 10 G 1.4, 1.8, 2-2

28
 5C.h~L.F_
I,,, ,,,,it]
0 INC,HE S t0

¢ONTROL HINGE
LINE

_~0,010" GAP
BASIC, NOSE~ ' - - /

15.B.~,9."
/ STING-B/EL.KNCEAX15
WING H(~RI"7..ON~\N~-[)N'3"UM

60.000"
~IAM..~TING
5HROMD

FIC. 1. General arrangement of the model.

29
 ~'0

FIN
1"5 S
"u-
~C/C°=O'Z
1,0
W'ING HORIZONTAL C)~'l"ltM CANOPY
% f
~:/co=o.4 >,,..~.~ O
I
SC~LF-

,
IN

'
'INCHES

' '
5
J
0.5

0
/
/7

0,2 0.4 0'6 O,B {-O

F i c . 3. Cross-section area distribution.

:C/Co= O" E
GO

I~ j S ' 1 " I N G SHROUD

. ~

./L °

WING HORIZONTAL DATUM

8o / 1/
"1"R~ILING" EDGE. ~ELT~ WI'TH
:C/Co:t. O $~ME VALUE
t
73 i. - - oF~i/c~ a°~0 (o-.
FIo. 2. Details of wing cross-section. O 0.~ 0.4 O.6 0.6 I.O
-%°

FIG. 4. Variation of leading-edge sweepback

angle along the wing.
 0.0~0 5.0

/ '\

\
0-015 ;4.0

/ \ l-~ivIG
/ \ ~DG~
" ..s.><,.¢~ / \ /
0'010
\ ~,C3
/ V

O.OOe-, 2.O

/ \
/ \
t'O , \
Q.2 0-4 .O'& 0-5 1.0 ~'rl~9-BAt-~ .' , _ +~ ~WIN~ . '\
:X/Ca AK I ~ ~ / / ~L.INE
NN'i'R!~-

FIG. 5. Camber shape on wing centre line

relative to wing horizontal datum. (~ O,~. 0"4 0.6 O.~ 1.0

O0
0.020
FIG 7. Wing local incidence distribution
h-~
relative to wing horizontal datum.

0.015 40

%o "~Co:0,40

O.010

t2Go-.O,GO
+0.005 ~o

X/co:o~ =/co:I.og.o
0 ~O
i 0.~,

-0,005 1 D.~- 0.4 O,~ O'~. t.O

Fro. 6. Spanwise camber shapes relative FIe. 8. Wing leading-edge spanwise droop
to wing horizontal datum. relative to wing horizontal datum.
O.IS
j/
o/
O,IO 2
eL.
/¢× '

0,0.5
®/
j~
jx
~..0 LI-,O 6.0
VARIATION OF C L WITH o¢..

G)oO'~I0

@ MO~L. UPP.IGH'7
X M~£)EL. IN~4EI~,.'T'ED

L-O'015
VARIATION OF Ca WITH CL

0.02,

/
x(

O,01C ~.

-0. 4-0, 0 5 O,l(b

]

VARIATION OF C o WITH Cu

FIc. 9. Typical results showing

derivation of mean curve; wing with
fin, basic nose and inboard controls
(r/~ = -4°), M = 1.8.

32
 -? T\ -,,o o~o .. ~o

' o~sl %. , / : , % v °~

o MODEL UPRIOHT
VARIATION OF Cv WITH iB x MODEL iNVERTEP

0,00~

OO
. OJ /
AND / C""l~"

--+O.t~2
CHANGE
\ j -°'
SLOPE

<;
VARIATION OF Cr~ AND CE WITH JE}

FIG. 10. Typical results showing deri-

vation of mean curve; wing with fin and
basic nose, M = 0-3, R = 8 x 106 per
ft, c~ = 4" 22 °.

33
(90746) C
 0,50

~.~IG OR.C#',NOP'YNOSE
NI"TH FIN
°"'~ I /
p /
0"60 ;

/
/
/

C% //
O,SO

/ / / / /
0"40

/ J // / ./
/
• O'~O

O,,ao /
/
/
/ - /

0,t0 /
/ /
/ ,/ .//.
v/ /

"? /
zaRo.~c

./.y/
)

/
/- z

LZERO~Cu
/
07 +4..0 B,O I]-0 2(.0 +2.0 4.0
-
~)-o
(Mo
e,"O I0'0
d, o

FIG. 11. Variation of C L with a at subsonic speeds, FIG.12. Effect of fin and canopy on the variation
results for basic nose with or without fin. of C L with ~ at supersonic speeds.
<m

/
u.~J~u

0.015

o.010
- -

- - - - - -
BASIC~ NOS~
~ASJC N O ~ WI'TH FIN
/
//

tn "
/ J
J
// _/

-0.~0 -O.IO 0 +O'IO 0.20 0-=',0 0"4-0 0..50 0.60 0.70 ~,~,~ 0-~0
Cu

FIG. 13. Variation of C m with C L at subsonic speeds.

C~
 0.0~.0
I
-
- -
-
- -
BASIC, NQ,%~
5ASIC, N(3..NE WITH [:IN
o~;---t~, --o
CAN(DPh' NOSe. WIn'H FtN.
I
t--0.O;5
PEP- C~F-GREF.
-O'OB i ~ , ~ . . " \&~4
! ~-.
¢.UP.'4E 5 L O P E
A'r LARGE ~NCIDENCE
O~O"~O
{C I I "-it; ~')
..... SLCFaCo<~<=-)

(0) LIFT-CURVE SLOPE

-0,(3

(_t2.) INCIDENCE AT WHICH CHANGE OF LIFT-CURVE SLOPE G"CCUAS

1 4---..
l••7 (C)
t.o
i

PITCHING-MOMENT
t-,~
.
~'8

COEFFICIENT AT
P..2.

ZEP,O
Z.G

C,.

..... ,JI ~ --70% j.~ ~'~

...--o

0Lo,o
o. ('~)
1 -Y---@J
AERODYNAMIC -- CENTRE POSITION

FIe. 14. Effect of fin and canopy on the variation of Fic. 15. Basic nose results; variation with Mach n u m b e r of
C m with C L at supersonic speeds. dCL/dc~ , ~, (Cm)cL= o and d C m / d C L .
 /
- - NA~-IC NOSE.
I~.SlG NOSE "~ql-rH FIN
i
/
/
/
J/ //'
/
.d
/ /z
CO /
/
/

.oy/ /

f
J
J
-0.20 -Ola 0.~0 0.30 0-4(3 o,st3 o.60 Q'7• 0.~0 0.@o
,, CL

FIC. 16. Variation of C D with C L at subsonic speeds.

 / I

/"'Y';#
///
] ;
/,~
,u/
'

j ,,~,,,{,/F
.~,/ , ,'~, ,,
, ,'x/ .,'J,' ,,/J

.,: , ,'//
,.. ~ Y , j

6ASIC.N05~
S~SICN~Se-, WI'rH FIN
r'ANOPY NO=,E..WITH
FIN

FOP.i'4=I.~
FIG. 17. Effect of fin and canopy, on the variation of
C D with C L at supersonic speeds.

38
 0.~5

J
/

J
Co-C:m

Oq5 f

',,C) O,IO f

J J
0 .Z~EKOS='Co
' m.~FOR. M:O.8

i C{:-C:,m FOR M:O.3

0 o.os o.m o.,~ o.aQ o.a~ o.~o o.~s o.~o o.~s Q.5o o.~s

Fie. 18. Var}ation of (C D - C D m) with (C L - C L m)2 at subsonic speeds; results for

basic nose, with or without fin.
 I I I
DRAG ~UE TOLIF"T FACTORA'r .~--"~
/ HIGH INCIDENCE I ~×-~" ~ "

/ 2,0

/ O-
x. . . .
Ko
- m ×

KI
~ "~'~'~'rIAL
I
O~'A~ DU ¢"
"To -IF'T~ACTOm.
/ ~.0

/ l/
COM

_ 1",4 _

(Q) DRAG D U E T O L I F T FACTOR~

/ J
y / z ~,,C

/ . I.
/ ,~.o / f

,/ ./
y ..
9,0

--o 0-~ I-(3 I-~- 1:8 "' ~Z a.

~,~) INCIDENCE AT WHICH CHANGE OF DRAG DUE T O L I F T F A C T O R OCCURS.

FOR M=~,4 /" /

f &
x
. . . . . ~.._x . . . . . x .
-I.O
FOR

/
-0.5
K

o_41,__°'G bO 4
! !
'16 M ~_~ 2 _ ~ _ _

(C) PARAMETER. K / ~ .

FIe. 19. Variation of (C])--CDm) with (CL--CLm) ~ at FIG. 20. Basic nose results; variation with Mach number of
supersonic speeds for the basic nose configuration. K, ~ c and K/TrA/(dCz/do O.
 J~/N I
O,S tlo
i

-0"0~
BASIC NOSE
(CL)~= o - - - - ~ , - - -- BASIC NOSE,WITH lain
~- . . . . CANOPY N~-~'E ',/ITH FIN i
-0.04

)
~) LIFT COEFFICIENT AT ZERO INCIDENCE.
COm O.OIO

0.004-0
(¢~)~:o
0'005

0.to 1.4 t.B ~..~ ~'S

(b) PITCHING-MOMENT COEFFICIENT AT ZERO INCIDENCE.
0'0tt0

@1) MINIMUM DRAG COEFFICIENT.

O, OOC, O x
x ~ --~x

0.0~0 0'0070

Cu,~ Cmm

0.005 0.0050

I
/~ 0.6 ~-o ~;4 ~.,8 M a;a ~;s 0 "=
5 f'O ~'~- {.8 ~.?- '~.G

(C) MINIMUM DRAG COEFFICI.~NT.

(b) LIFT COEFFICIENT AT MINIMUM DRAG,

FIG. 21. Basic nose results; variation with Mach number of Fie. 22. Effect of fin and canopy on the derivatives
C1) m and Cm m" (CLL=o, (C,J~= o and % m.
 I I
~ASIC NIDN~,wI"rH FIN

0.0015
- -
(WI'T~ OP-WI'THOU'T ~U'T~I~J~.R~
C.ON'T~OL~ ~c.=- 4 °)
tSA~IC N ~ S E ~ Nl-rH FIN,.

B.~,,~IC.NCle-E W I T H PINi
IN~OAI~tD A N D CILI"fBO~RI~
d
/
/,"
zx
CON'Tf~'OL'$'~C = - 4= " A
///

O,OOiO

AC~ m

0,0005

0 _~4
I
---z-____2~. . . . .

1.6 2.P..
I

2.~
® /it
h4

Ji/
Fla. 23. Drag increment due to the fin.

0.0015

0,0010

j ~
//
ACom

0.000 ~.
\ /
+ Z. O 4 .O G. O B,~ IC
,~,.o

O
t'~ t'B 2.Z
I
2.6
M
FIG. 25. Effect of control deflection on the variation
FI~. 24. Drag increment due to the canopy. of C L with ~ at supersonic speeds.
 I I I l
- - BASIC. NOSE WI'I"H FIN
B~eq r~ NOSE WI'TH FIN, INBO,~R~ CON"fROL~,
\\ , "\ M= t.4
--0'00
"~ ....... gl~Steo NO,~E ~$1"rH FIN~OU'T~,OAP~D "

] --0,00
C£
/ ~ r...-O
- o

/
~'~'¢ o.os "-."~.o:,~'-.. "'..Q,~s c~ o'.ao 0 ~-~ + 2.0 "~.0 6'0 o<= e,.O fO.o

M = 1"8

eg

o
-,-..o o -~"2,0 4,0 G:O ~o B.O 10.0

bA~ g . E

"-.. -..~ ~--~_j_

c~z~-L
-~R~o~.~A,~ " ~
-" ~ ~- " o.ooa

7- .... J
/~¢ e° I
-~'0 0 4- 2 . 0 4.0 6.0 .=to ~.0 ~0.~

Fm. 26. Effect of control deflection on the variatior FIe. 27. Effect of control deflection on the variation
of C m with C L at supersonic speeds. of C~ with ~ at supersonic speeds; basic nose, with fin.
J
 0"045

'i /
•

,/<ii
I 0-04.0

-- 0.055-

j/ ~ 0-050

i .s ~ 1 s/ff
//
"N

~.~"
~sYJ~
I
- - ~Aglr- NOB~ WIT FIN j ~ II&51CNO5~. WITHFIN
[~'IC, NO5~WITHFIN,INgOI~IID . . . . . . . . . . . BA$1~N~,SEWITH FIN,Otj'I~OARD
CONTROL5 ~c • - 4 ° j ~' , ~ ~ ° 4 ~
..... 6A51CNOSF.WITH FIN,INBOARD/~NO t%_o:.o
OUTBOARD CONTROL,~ ~lc: ;'~-~' Fo~~o~.al--------
O.lO5 0.I0 -0 I-9, C~ 0'~0 O J.5 io~q o l io5 ol,o o,.,s c" q.zo z5

FOR M ~ I.%.

Fro. 28a. Effect of control deflection on the variation FIG. 28b. ]~ffect o f c o n t r o l deflection o n the variation
of C D with C n at supersonic speeds. of C j9 with C z at supersonic speeds.
 0.130~,

-- --0---- B~$1C N O S E WFrH FIN.IH,~0I~RD C,C~TROL~(Ro=-,~.)

. . . . . "I". . . . . BASIC; NOSE WI"TH FIN,INaOAaD ANO OLi"f~OP,Rb
-o,o4 I I CONTROLS(~'c: -4°) ---J - O,OOZ
ix.
-----Z~.-.---- )N~$1C'NOSE
,
Co.)
N,TH FIN OU'I"5OARDOON-fR~LS(~C=-ar~)
L I F T C O E F F I C I E N T AT Z E R O INCIDENCE.
(~cL/
a~/c ]
PER DEG.
0-001

_/1
I .... • i'4 t,8
M
P-.2 P.6

Lrl Cb) oPrrCH~N~-MO~.ENT

L'\ , ~',~ I:~ h~ ~;a #..T z ~ a_oL LINCidENCE.
COEFe,C~e'n" _____

O.OOt5

0.010O

Cbm

I,,4 .... i16 bl ~,~. z..~ -o j

13,0010

_#cq
PER DEG
O.OOOS
%
(c) M!NIMIJLI DRAG .COEF;:tCIEN'F. I

0-O04 r ~---~-~4---~

1.4 t.& 2,Z Z,co

M
0.0~2 - -

(~)~ -,, , C O E F F I C I E N T AT
T ZERO
1
INCIDENCE.
EXPEPMMF..NT,~L PO~N'rB
LINEAR "THEOR~f~ FULL LIFT C~RR'g,-OVER
MODIFIED LINEAR "THEORY,FULL LIFT CJ~KR~-OVER
MODIFIP-I:}LINEAR "THEOP,'f.NO LIFT CARRY-O'~ER

FIG. 29. Effect of control deflection on FIG. 30. Effectiveness of inboard controls
(CL)~=0, (Cm)~=0, CD m and (Cg)~= o . as elevators; c~ = 0.
 2,o

0.005

&'RJ
PERRAD.
0-0o~
I-O %

a~/e/ FROM CONTROLS Or'INTROL5

PEP, DEG
O.OO~ ACt . ~ ®
ACr~ m ,m
&C~ <>
I
1.4 t,~ t.z 2,~ 0 I 2 S Ac ~-~I
i
M

FIG. 32. Variation of 1/A o dCLe/d% with

0,0@~S
I EXPEP,{MEIqTAL POINT~ l Ae~/(M 2-1) for the controls; inboard control
- - LINEAR"THEORY.FULLLIFT C&RRY-O'V~R. results not corrected for shroud interference.
4~ .... MODIFIED LINEAR TNEI]RY, FULL I.IFTCARRY-O'V~R
C~ - - - - - MODIFIED LINEAR THEOR¥,INO LIFT CARR'Y-OVER
0,00t0 I
0.7 x "two DIMEN_~IONAL VALUE ~ ~: ~-I

PEF~ DEG
o-~oos Z,Q

A" L ¢
C~.RRY - OVE
I-4 1.8 2.a t.6 \
M PER P,A D

0.0010 I.O
_[~cd E XPERIMENT/~L P-~'S U L T ~ ~
OBTAINED INBOARD OUTBOARD E)@"-.
PER DEG FROM CONTROL5 CONTROL5 lg~l ~
0.000~ &C L 0 0
@
ACm [] []
AC~
A
I-4 t-a ~,z a.~
M
FIG. 33. Variation of 1/A c dCLc/d% with
Fro. 31. Effectiveness of outboard controls Ac~/(M2-1) for the controls; inboard control
as elevators and ailerons; a = 0., results corrected for shroud interference.
 0.~O

0,0010 iNBOARD
AND
OUT' SOARO
Aco'.~ 0'2C _CONTROLS

O'O00S
G~ IhlP,OAREI
~OH'TRDL5
O'~S -- -~¢=_ 4 o

Co T NO
O t.4 1.8 Z.2 2.G
CONTRC3L,
M
OEFLEC'rlc
((~ O U T B O A R D CONTROLS.

O,OS, ~ MEASURE[31
VALUSS '
O,O010 LLNE~R "THEO~( WITH FULL
0 ~ [ LIFT C~R.R'Y- OWE-~
A Coa
I-4- t .6 2,2 2,6 3-0
0'0005
Fro. 35. Drag coefficient of trimmed wing
--.I (% constant).
0 ~
0 f'4 ~.g ~.?- 2.6
M
O,,?.O
(b) OUTBOARD CONTROLS (AS AILERONS). I- - 0 I MEASURE|I~
® E XPERIMEN3"NL POLN'T5 LINIF-~R "rHEOR~ WI-rH FULL
Lit,,1E Am "THEE)R"( LIFT C~RR~'-O~/EP.
FULL LLFT CARRh" O~/EP,
MODIFIED LINE.AP, THEORY J O-IS • I NB0I=,RD
....... EMPI~,ICAL *¢THEORY" REF, t0 AMP
O'OOlO

A C~, OqO -~O.~ROLS" ~ . . ~ -..~-.

0,0005

0.05
----..~
.4
0 t.~ t,8 Z. 2 2.G
M
O
I-4 t,8 ~.Z " 2.6 3'0
~¢~ INBOARD C O N T R O L S . M

FI~. 34. Increment in minimum drag due FIG. 36. Lift coefficient of trimmed Wing
to the controls; nominal control setting 4 °. (% constant).
 u,~lo
I I I
gASlC NOSE WYI'H PIN
~N51C NOSE W~TH FIN, INf$OAR~I
COS'TaiLS ( ~ = - 4o3
t~'AStG NOSE WITH FIN INBOAq.D ANC
" " -,D.O~O " ~,

~ .. N'-.,
- - OLI'rI~OARD GON-FRC3L~(~lc= - 4 °) - -

x.
C~

pr m-~:¢ o,oas o.~-5~. "'-..o:oTs~

•. "~
o.,oo CL O" 2.5

O.OZS
'"4'0 ~ .

C,m ZZERO
O.O~.O
FOR M={" E*
"--4 ". "x
"x

4~
OO 0'015
Co
~ 2.~o ...@%
- ~ 0 - 0-010

0.005

4~..~
C.~ ZERO -. 4Q~.~r
?oR M=~.2 "<2"-2" -.j I I ~" 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.G 2,g
M

---~--- UN'FKIMMED WINE

" '"--'~-- I ---x:--- TRIMMEO USING INBOARD Ci3NTROLS I C.G. A3" O . 5 O g -

---O--- TRIMMEOUSING OLIT~OAP,~ GGN3"RC3LSJ

)( TRIMMEDUSING INSOARI3 GGNTROLS l CGAi

"TRIMMED USING ou'rBOARD CONTROLSJ '" " - 0 " 4 = ~,
Fie. 37. Variation of C m with C L at supersonic
speeds; moment reference centre at 0.45 g to give FIG. 38. Drag coefficient of trimmed wing,
neutral stability at M = 0.3, C 5 = 0.45. c L = 0.075.
 C,t M= 4.4
,. - -~ C~x M= 1.4

~o~ - - .~_ i - 2_~

FOR M=1-4 -~2-C, O ~ 4 0 " --------...~,~

',/1:2.0

EEP,O C , c ~ ~ . , _ _ . ~ . ~ . ~ "

~ : ?_.~_

Z.ERQ C~ ~ l . - . : . ~ ~ '"~'~.~.
~o~ M : ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ....

~D

ZERO C ~
FOR ~:2.4 " ~ ' k , " --~, N4=R,~t

M= E'6
%.
ZERO Cy . _~~_~.. "'~.~~ . "~
FOR M:2.G M=~.G

-0'005
.c~,°
O.O~ O.04 \ ~
- - - - 4,OB 4,08
8.IB

FIG. 39. Variation of C y with/~ at super- FIo. 40. Variation of C n with/5 at super-
sonic speeds; basic nose, no fin. sonic speeds; basic nose, no fin.
 \ \

\ \ \
• FOR
.4 \ \M:a.o ".~M:a.a '. \ M~a.4

-2.0
t~ \\I \.~S \ \ x

M= 1.4 N4= 2 , 4

---O,002;
\\\1
c~
\
Grl
- - -0'(~04

---0'006 \\
O'O~.
,4-, O 8 -

~'18

FIG. 41. Variation of C~ with fi at supersonic speeds; basic nose, no fin.

 I 0"10 "

-4.0 ~o-d"~-'~:l.,P o . +4.o ~" t2"0

.J

t"
J
___.AL--~ r---
M:l'g 0

S
M : ~., 0

m y 9 ~---
/

S
M = "~. 6

FIG. 42. V a r i a t i o n o f y v w i t h c~at s u p e r s o n i c FIG. 43. V a r i a t i o n o f n v w i t h e~ at s u p e r -

s p e e d s ; basic nose, n o fin. sonic s ) e e d s ; b a s i c nose, n o fin.
 --O-Ig
M
t,4 I ! - - ACTUAL"THICKNESS bISON,
RHOM~IG 13LSTN,
• X I.f~
"\ --- , WING~~ D ' f DLc-TN.

- - O . t 0
--+-- 2.0

""~> .... P-'4

-.-Y-.- Z'~

- - 0,05
I-- S %.'...
Fla. 46. Comparison between the actual spanwis¢
- - , O thickness distributions and- the theoretical models.
-4"0 0 + =,.0 g.O IR, O

M
t'4, I,B '~'~- ~.Ca 3<)
Fro. 44. Incidence dependent y~; I t k
~ L E N ~ E P,--FJ,O D'Y "I" H E Ole.~ I
basic nose, no fin.

-O,OS

M
3.0
LTI
bO 0 4'0 6.0 t~.0
pl

0.~
+
+
--+--

----~)---
t'G
1,6
~..o

E,4
_ _
A (%?-.°
-0.02
SLEN~ER~
P,OD'¢
"r HioKY
-.-~--- ~,¢~ -0.{3c.0

0,4
(~ ~ -O.2
LOW SPEEI3
Co VALUE - gkENDE~-~DW ~HEORW
MEASUP,ED REF. 4 l F

FROM x
J~,o
NO~E 0,~ AFT 4-0.2
OF
lqO~E l
0,~ M
~&f~UMEb WING CP-,O~S-SECh'ION F(~IK-rHEoP,'Y.

-C)-- ~wITH 5~rlNG SHRIOUr,.I

1.0 ........... NO S'TING S H R O t J D

Fro. 45. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position of Fie. 47. Comparison with theory, (Y.~):=0,(n~):=0 and
incidence dependent Yv ; basic nose, no fin. [(Xc.E)ylco]~=o ; basic nose, no fin.
 ÷~, O 6,0 i2'0

N - ~ EXPEP,.tMEN'Z

GO

-4.O ~ ~ - - - - - " - - - - ~

,ON

FIC. 48. Variation of Iv with o~at super- FIC. 49. Comparison with theory;
sonic speeds; basic nose, no fin. l~ J3at supersonic speeds; basic nose,
no ,,~n.
"P-'O 4-4. 0 6.0 . 4,0 ~(,.,~ f~ .0 t2,

$
Y
>,,
o
x
(~ 0,1..5¸
M 0.? X ~Lr-NDE(~-BDD~ yA~F..
~L o.~ 0 , 8 S ~ ~CENOEP.-BODY V ~ L U ~ ~ \
(THIN WING)
" (THIN WING) " ~ ~,',

X t'G ,L
-O',~O
M ¢o5 d ~ N , . ~ 0,5~
A ~.'~. I
¥
~.~,
Z'6
I..A ¢C 1.60
I ~ ~.'801
IO,~.5

FIG. 50. Variation of {l v s - (I~ ~ ) ~ = 0 } / ( 1 - M%os2A,,i£) 1t2 with o~; basic nose, no fin.

' xN a~ah
N~N~.N ~a = a. ~

,\ .\ \ \ \ -,

\ O'Q~.
4-1t

Fro. 5-1. Variation of C y with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic or canopy nose with fin.

54
 o'v~o / I oG Q
O" O~
4'U
/1~ 8'2Z
• =~.4

°°°~ / I
% /" / /
O' 004 .
/ ,///" ,/
/ ~-

y M:2.B

//'-'- +z,c~ 4fO ,8~ E,O

// /
/ - - -0,00~.
¢
ZERO ,~ ZERO#
~ ¢
ZERO ,8
¢
ZERO #
÷
7.ERO, ,8
FOF, FOP, FOR FOR FOR
M = ~'~ M= ~'6 r,A=2,?- M:Z,4 M : Z"
I P I I 1

FIG. 52. Variation of C . with ]3 at supersonicspeeds;basicnose,with fin.

J I ~o
O,O~
4,q3

--O,QQ~, /t

Ca

--o.oo4 / /" M ~ I.g

CHANCE~ / /'I"/ C

M=4..~. M--.I.,B ~=la,?. M=[o,,..., M--la.S

FIG.53. Variationof C~with/3at supersonicspeeds;canopynose,withfin.

55
FIG. 54. Variation of C 1 with/3 at supersonic speeds; basic or canopy nose with' fin.
 ~v M=Z.Z <>

~V'IU . ,,W'- -- --["

M: t,4
/
£> c ._<>__$4,9.--" B.(3 ~:o m,(3

K.....O._ _ c~" ~ ' ' ~

O ./a
, c ~ - - - , , - - - "-<>~ ~ ' 4 . 0 ,M,.o e,.(~ IZ-O

-0,I0
/
S • ~o,l,J

M = ?..4
Jv BASIC NOOBE, N(3 FIN.
J .4>
• - - ' O - - INI'TIAL SLOPE.
C ~ ÷¢.0 /~-- 8Vo ~<a 12,0 BASIC. NOSE ~ WI'-I'H F I N ,
--O--INITIAL SLOPE.

"-4 --÷O.lO / -
/
-(3,1(3, /
[] • SE~(3N(3AP,~ SLOPF.
CANC)P'Y N(3SE, W|"I'H FIN.
ITI " INI'TI/kL SLOOPE,
M: i.g I SE CON I~.~I~.'Y ,~I-(3PF,,

-4.0 :~'-- (3 .~<>~+~>.~ ~ oz..c' 5-(3 IZ'0

:]
- - --O.l jg1-~" D"

-- :o,a
-~'O (3 *4-0 ~'~ ~4.~, t2'0

- - -0.3, -0.10
INI'rlAL SLOPE $~CONI),I~K~/,6LOPE
l~i~IC N05E~ N0 FIN -----O-----
BASIC NOSE, WITH FIN - - O - - O
CANOPY NOSE, WITH FIN ITI I~

FIG. 55a. Effect of fin and canopy nose Fro. 55b. Effect of fin and canopy nose
on Yv at supersonic speeds. on Yv at supersonic speeds.
 ?

M : 1"4 /"

0 + '~',o 8,0. 04,~ I~I.0

B/~,,SIC. NOSF-~ NO FIb,I.

---~'--- It',ll~l/kL SLOPE

~ASIG NOSE, wI'rH FIN,

INI"T IAI- SLOPE,
@ SlKCO~D~R"f' SLOPE
M:t'6 /
/
(:y"
GANOP'Y NOS~,Wt'FH FIhl,
-4-.o 0 4- 4 . 0 B
-.--IS--.- INI'?IAI- S L O P E

-- * b O . O S ~

~4

,.o 0 -4!o 81o .,z.o .-~

1~, l,~=a.a

-.to ? -~,qo d..o ~-"-~--,4o

FIG. 5 6 . Effect of fin and canopy nose
on n v at supersonic speeds.

58
-~-.0
\ +4.0 0~¢, 8"O lZ-O

\ =t'4

-~ +40 g.o

~ASIC NOSE~NQFIN.
- - - o6v
,os 't ~,~.~ --O--
BASIC NQSEIWITH FiN.
--OI
CANOP~ NOS~.,WI'THFIN
---Q.IQ 0
• "-'~.~. ~
_e\\ "%
-4.0
i ~ ~x,t~
x \\x,\ ~ 4:O e4L° 6.0 ~..0

~-°°~ I f~, I I

-0.05 i ~'~'x

FIG. 57. Effect of fill and canopy nose

on Iv at supersonic speeds.

59
-,~, 0

= .

---r~:2(
-4,o E

+~,O P,'O 12.O

+
....
EXPERIMENT
THEORY :I
--O.iC

~ - - +
.....
EXPER.IMENT
THEORY ~.
-(3.1O- --0,oi ~ . , -[HE.QR, Y :E
.... "rH~OR.y 3. ALLOWING FOR. ~t~ING
ALL~WING FOR.~MIN6 3"HiCI~,NESS /~ND IN~'IBENP.E
THICKNESS /kNb IH~.JDENCE EF FEE.'i'S
F.FFEC'I'S -4,0 C O

~-.~.iO E/.O
~Q

M=2'2

~--0-?.C

k4: ~-~

vB

-4, +4-(3 B.O t 2 . (~

-0"2( L____.____ _ _

Fie. 58. F i n effectiveness; variation FIG. 59. F i n effectiveness; variation

o£ Ay v due to fin with ~, basic nose. of Anv B due to fin with c~, basic nose.
 o 4.0 E.-O ~2.0
0
M
° 4.4

B t'g
- o,o~: ~:.it

a~v ~ o 2.4

OUE "TO 2,8

FIN ~.
-Q-o4-

Fie. 61. Sideslip dependent Yv (secon-

dary Y v - initial Yv); basic nose, with fin,
-~0.0~ I supersonic speeds.

O.G M
o 4,4-

(-/7 a [] 1,8

-oJ - MEASURED
0"~,
] ~.
o
2.2
2-4
P ROt,;1 ,', t.e.
NOSE
b
-4.0 (2~ o + 4.0 @-0 ;2.0 'l.C
i-,a 0 4"0 8'0 =<.o
I~.0

P'va
FIG. 62. Chordwise centre-of-pressure
position of sideslip dependent Yv ; basic
nose, with fin, supersonic speeds.

.o \ ~ °
[L.TJ
e'-I
0 0 0 0 2.o 4,o ~o 6.0

\
0

I I-- I
-0"(30=-
& Cy
DUE "TO
~.,o
FIN
-4-0
\
0 +4.0 ~'5.o P,o
-0.010
%

-0"015
-- ®-- EXPERIMENT
"IHEOK¥ 1[

Fro. 60. Fin effectiveness; variation FIo. 63. Variation of A C ~ due to the fin with/3 ;
of A I v B due to fin with e~,basic nose. basic nose, o~ = 0.
 /
Cy Y

-'~.O

Fm. 64. Variation of CF, C~ and C~ with/3 at M = 0- 3, R = 2 x 106 per ft;

basic nose, with fin.

-O.OI5-
-2.0

0 010 ~"
/

+0'005 A'~" /

--o oo~ I °:22

------ 4"~Z
" - - B" S~

FIG. 65. Variation of Cy, C n a n d C t w i t h ] 3 a t M = 0.3, R = 8 x 106perft;

basic nose, with fin.

62
 N\
/ "-;, /
/ t
/

~dv, ... 2.~ ,t.o ~o 6

I \ -...
/ ~ \- x-x

\
\
"x
---0.004

~ c~ \
~.0 4.0 /Bo 6 0
---O.(30B
\
---0.006
\
oL °
0.0~.
4,:4
8-~9
\
FIO. 66. Variation of Cy, Cn and C~ with/5 at M = 0.8; basic nose, with fin.

Fro. 67. Variation ofy~, n v and Lv with a at subsonic speeds; basic nose, with fin.

63
 O'SO
] I
--.--X-- M = O, 8

C,--- t-A=Q-~ R=~xl0

O,'R.O

0.50
zxjv
DUE "TO,,<.
/
/
0.10

Qd " ~ ~' ~ ANI~ FIN QFF

O 4'0 8'0 t2"O ,~= IG,C~ ~043

FIC. 68. Incidence dependent Yv ; subsonic

speeds, basic nose, with fin.

4.Q B.o t2,0 °~° 16,0 2~'~

-----x--,-- M: 0.8
--~------ Tv~= "0.=, F~=P~,I E)6

0.?-

0.4
ME~,SUEED LOW~SPEE~
FP-,OM
VALUE
N0~E
R.EF, 4

O.6 j..-<
• ~"XM=t,4 FIN QFF

M= t'4 FIN ON
0.8

t,O

Fic. 69. Chordwise centre-of-pressure position

of incidence dependent y~ ; subsonic speeds,
basic nose, with fin.

64
o O 4,0 8.0 la.O ]$.0 ~O.O
0 5,0 ]O,O :zJ: 15.(b aO'G

-o.os #o-~......._ l -O.Io //

~ , WlNC~GR~S~'SF.C.TION
H / .... ~ N.~.S.I~
A~v X a

-OdO
INGLLJ~qNOI ~lbl F-~C-I-f

F -D, IS X M :O'm"
0"~.0
~SS~MEDw',.G cRoss-trEe,,at4 /
I I I ........
I ~ I~
-D.~O I ---I -o-I~.~.q. ~" W,s,.S, - wI-rH ~-'t~NG
Fro. 70. Sideslip dependent 2G (secondary N,~-,S. - N~b :-'rING $~4ROU~
Y v - initial Yv); basic nose, with fin, subsonic "RVB
speeds. l~'--'l --'F- j F,N ~F~E~
O -.%0 40.O :,<~ JE=-O ~O'O

0", ~t. a
0 4,0 8.0 12,0 :'/": (6.0 ~.O.O 5"Q 40'0 {5'0 ~'.O'O
0
" * ' % •

0'2 "Q'tO
K M:O,8
O M= O'&,R=~x{O6
Co
0",t -D.~O
MEASURED
FROM
~vs
NOSF_.
0.$ - o-~o

Assut4~D w,,~ CRDSS-S,EC'r,ON \ i ~1'& ",

O'B I POSI"TION -O.mtO .- - .- . . . . . .JO-- w.s.s.2 : %\ ~\

OF
,=IN
'1.0
%
Fro. 71. Chordwise centre-of-pressure FIO. 72. Comparison with theory;
position of sideslip dependentyo ; basic nose, Yv, nv B and l~ B at M = 0" 3, basic
with fin, subsonic speeds. nose with fin.
Publications of the Aeronautical Research Council
ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORTS OF THE AERONAUTICAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL (BOUND VOLUMES)
I945 Vol. I. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils. £6 ios. (£6 I3s. 6d.)
Wol. II. Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls. £6 ios. (£6 x3s. 6d.)
Wol. IIL Flutter and Vibration, Instruments, Miscellaneous, Parachutes, Plates and Panels, Propulsion.
£6 Ios. (£6 x3s. 6d.)
Vol. IV. Stability, Structures, Wind Tunnels, Wind Tunnel Technique. £6 ios. (£6 x3s. 3d.)
I946 Vol. I. Accidents, Aerodynamics, Aerofoils and Hydrofoils. £8 8s. (£8 IIS. 9d.)
Vol. II. Airscrews, Cabin Cooling, Chemical Hazards, Controls, Flames, Flutter, Helicopters, Instruments and
Instrumentation, Interference, Jets, Miscellaneous, Parachutes. £8 8s. (£8 I Is. 3d.)
Vol. III. Performance, Propulsion, Sea151anes, Stability, Structures, ~vVindTunnels. £8 8s. (£8 IIS. 6d.)
I947 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft. £8 8s. (£8 IIS. 9d.)
Vol. II. Airscrews and Rotors, Controls, Flutter, Materials, Miscellaneous, Parachutes, Propulsion, Seaplanes,
Stability, Structures, Take-off and Landing. £8 8s. (£8 1is. 9d.)
1948 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls, Flutter and Vibration, Helicopters, Instruments,
Propulsion, Seaplane, Stability, Structures, Wind Tunnels. £6 ios. (£6 I3S. 3d.)
Vol. II. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls, Flutter and Vibration, Helicopters, Instruments,
Propulsion, Seaplane, Stability, Structures, Wind Tunnels. £5 los. (£5 x3s. 3d.)
I949 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils. £5 lOS. (£5 I3S. 3d.)
Vol. II. Aircraft, Controls, Flutter and Vibration, Helicopters, Instruments, Materials, Seaplanes, Structures,
Wind Tunnels. £5 ios. (£5 I3s.)
x95o Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft. £5 I2s. 6d. (£5 I6s.)
Vol. II. Apparatus, Flutter and Vibration, Meteorology, Panels, Performance, Rotorcraft, Seaplanes.
£4 (£4 3s.)
Vol. IIL Stability and Control, Structures, Thermodynamics, Visual Aids, Wind Tunnels. £4 (£4 2s. 9d.)
I95I Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils. £6 ios. (£6 I3S. 3d.)
VoL II. Compressors and Turbines, Flutter, Instruments, Mathematics, Ropes~ Rotorcraft, Stability and
Control, Structures, Wind Tunnels. £5 los. (£5 I3s. 3d.)
I952 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils. £8 8s. (£8 ris. 3d.)
Vol. II. Aircraft, Bodies, Compressors, Controls, Equipment, Flutter and Oscillation, Rotorcraft, Seaplanes,
Structures. £5 ios. (£5 I3s.)
I953 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils and Wings, Aircraft, Compressors and Turbines, Controls. £6 (£6 3s. 3d.)
Vol. II. Flutter and Oscillation, Gusts, Helicopters, Performance, Seaplanes, Stability, Structures, Thermo-
dynamics, Turbulence. £5 5s. (£5 8s. 3d.)
x954 Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Arrester gear, Compressors mad Turbines, Flutter, Materials,
Performance, Rotorcraft, Stability and Control, Structures. £7 7s. ( £ 7 xos. 6d.)

Special Volumes
Vol. I. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Controls, Flutter, Kites, Parachutes, Performance, Propulsion,
Stability. £6 6s. (£6 9s.)
Vol. II. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Controls, Flutter, Materials, Miscellaneous, Parachutes,
Propulsion, Stability, Structures. £7 7s. (£7 ros.)
Vol. III. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Controls, Flutter, Kites, Miscellaneous, Parachutes,
Propulsion, Seaplanes, Stability, Structures, Test Equipment. £9 9s. (£9 r2s. 9d.)
Reviews of the Aeronautical Research Council
1949-54 5s. (5s. 5d.)
Index to all Reports and Memoranda published in the Annual Technical Reports
I9o9-I947 R. & M. 260o (out of print)
Indexes to the Reports and Memoranda of the Aeronautical Research Council
Between Nos. 2451-2549: R. & M. No. 255o 2s. 6d. (2s. 9d.); Between Nos. 2651-2749: R. & M. No. 2750 2s. 6d.
(2s. 9d.); Between Nos. 2751-2849: R. & M. No. 285o 2s. 6d. (2s. 9d.); Between Nos. 2851-2949: R. & M. No. 295o
3s. (3s. 3d.); Between Nos. 2951-3o49: R. & M. No. 3o5 o 3s. 6d. (3s. 9d.); Between Nos. 3o51-3149: R. & M. No. 315o
3s. 6d. (3s. 9d.); Between Nos. 3151-3249: R. & M. No. 325o 3s. 6d. (3s. 9d.); Between Nos. 3251-3349: R. & M.
No. 335o 3s. 6d. (3s. rod.)
Prices in brackets include postage
Government publications can be purchased over the c o u n t e r or by post from the Government Bookshops
i n London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, Manchester, B i r m i n g h a m a n d Bristol, or through a n y bookseller
 R, & M. No. 3390

Q Crozon copyright i965

Printed and published by
~IER h/]'AJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway, London w.c.2
423 Oxford Street, London W.l
13A Castle Street, Edinburgh 2
to9 St. Mary Street, Cardiff
39 King Street, Manchester 2
50 Fairfax Street, Bristol x
35 Smatlbrook, Ringway, Birmingham 5
80 Chiehester Street, Belfast z
or through any bookseller
Printed in England

R° & M° NOo 3390

S.O. Code No. 23-339 o