11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, including the AIA AIAA 2011-7037

20 - 22 September 2011, Virginia Beach, VA

Effects of Wing Sweep on

Stability of a 5th-Generation Fighter Configuration
Dennis Carter1
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Steven A. Brandt2, Dale Gsellman3 and Joseph M. Steffes4

U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840

The Fifth Generation Target Study (5GTS) was a conceptual design task for a large
target drone aircraft capable of representing key 5th generation fighter signature and
performance attributes. The target drone’s intended uses are to test air-to-air and surface-
to-air missiles, and to ensure that modern tracking systems are capable of identifying and
targeting 5th generation fighters. Five candidate 5GTS configurations, each with a different
wing leading-edge sweep angle, were tested in the United States Air Force Academy
(USAFA) subsonic wind tunnel. Three of these were tested with both four-post and
butterfly tails. This testing revealed generally poor lateral-directional stability for
configurations with 4-post tails and wings with sweep angles less than 42 degrees. On these
configurations, butterfly tails gave superior lateral-directional stability but suffered from
pitch-up. Delta-wing configurations exhibited the most linear stability characteristics.
Models were also tested with and without sharp-edged inlet/strake structures attached to the
fuselage ahead of the wings. The presence or absence of these inlet/strakes had a relatively
minor effect on stability characteristics.

Nomenclature

α = angle of attack
β = sideslip angle
γ = ratio of specific heats
Ax = axial force
b = wing span
c = chord
CD = drag coefficient
CD0 = parasite drag coefficient
CL = coefficient of lift
CLα = lift curve slope
Cl = lateral stability coefficient
Clβ = lateral static stability derivative
CM = moment coefficient
Cmα = longitudinal static stability derivative
Cn = directional stability coefficient
Cnβ = directional static stability derivative
h = height
M = Mach number
N1 = normal force on front load cell
N2 = normal force on aft load cell
P0 = static pressure

1
Engineer, AFRL/RB, Bldg 45, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH , AIAA Associate Fellow.
2
Professor, Department of Aeronautics, USAF Academy, CO 80840, AIAA Member.
3
First Lieutenant, USAF, 47 OSS/OST, Laughlin AFB, TX 78843.
4
First Lieutenant, USAF, OC-ALC/GK Tinker AFB, OK 73145, AIAA Member.

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
∆P = dynamic pressure
RM = rolling moment
Re = Reynolds number
S = reference area, wing planform area
V = velocity
x1 = forward force balance strain gauge location
x2 = aft force balance strain gauge location

I. Background

T he Fifth Generation Target Study (5GTS) was a conceptual design task for a large target drone aircraft capable
of representing key 5th-generation fighter signature and performance attributes. The target drone’s intended
uses are to test air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, and to ensure that modern tracking systems are capable of
identifying and targeting 5th generation fighters. Currently, the Air Force uses the McDonnell Douglas QF-4 as its
full-scale target. However, there is a dwindling supply of F-4s to modify into targets and the aircraft characteristics
do not model emerging 5th-generation fighter threats well. The short-term plan involves replacing the QF-4 with
droned versions of the Lockheed Martin F-16 which will be designated QF-16. The biggest issue with the QF-16 is
doubt that it will be able to successfully model a 5th-generation fighter’s signature. A new drone with characteristics
of a 5th-generation fighter will allow the Air Force to test new technologies against current and future airborne
threats.
The Air Force Research Laboratory Air Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/RB) has worked with the Department
of Aeronautics at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and OSD/DOT&E to define the 5GTS since 2003.
The design has evolved through many intermediate configurations. It is now close to being finalized. This paper
describes the results of wind tunnel testing that eliminated some candidate configurations and identified others that
showed promise for further development.
Previous research at USAFA by Fossum et al1 focused on two four-post tail configurations and five
different inlet design variations on a 5GTS configuration with a diamond-planform wing. That project tested two
different inlet leading edge sweep angles, at fifty degrees and thirty degrees, along with short and long inlets/strakes.
The research showed that the long inlets perform better than the short ones. The long inlets gave increased lift at
higher angles of attack and improved lateral-directional static stability. A fifty-degree sweep of the inlets is not
optimal for the radar signature as it creates an additional spike, but it showed better vortex characteristics in water
tunnel visualizations. Fossum et al determined that maintaining a positive longitudinal static margin would be
difficult with these configurations, because the neutral point was too far forward. This fact provided additional
motivation for testing wings with greater sweep because sweeping the wings more moves the neutral point aft,
increasing static margin.

II. Theory

Static stability derivatives2 help quantify the stability of aircraft. Aircraft with negative or neutral static
stability can fly, but only with the aid of an expensive flight control system (FCS). For a drone, static stability about
all axes may avoid excessive cost for a complicated FCS. The static stability derivatives that were evaluated in this
project are shown in Table 1along with the sign of each that corresponds to positive static stability.
Aircraft that are intended to have low radar signatures typically have chined (sharp-edged) forward
fuselages and relatively sharp leading edges on their lifting surfaces. At moderate angles of attack, these relatively
sharp corners produce flow separation. If the surfaces have sufficient sweep, usually 45 degrees or greater3, the
separated flow will roll up into leading edge vortices that enhance lift and delay stall. However, these vortices can
also interact with other lifting and stabilizing surfaces on the aircraft, producing undesirable changes in the values or
even the signs of stability derivatives over the angle-of-attack range which the aircraft is intended to use. Also, less
robust vortices may break down or burst, producing additional non-linear effects. Such variable stability
characteristics might require a more complex and more expensive FCS, a particularly undesirable feature on a
throw-away target drone. The current testing helped identify configurations with the best stability characteristics
and helped weed out less desirable configurations.

2
 Table 1: Static Stability Derivatives

Derivative Name Normal Sign

Cmα Longitudinal Static Stability Derivative -

Clβ Lateral Static Stability Derivative -
Cyβ Side-force Derivative -
Cnβ Directional Static Stability Derivative +
CLα Lift Curve Slope +

III. Set Up and Procedure

A. Models
Five candidate 5GTS configurations, each with a different wing leading-edge sweep angle, were tested in
the USAFA subsonic wind tunnel. The goal of these tests was to gain insight on the benefits of wing sweep for
improving stability. These results were important for developing the design concept into a viable 5GTS
configuration.
Figure 1 shows the five configurations that were tested, along with the 30-degree-sweep diamond wing
tested by Fossum et al. The six configurations in the photo included (from right to left) the previously-tested 30-
degree diamond wing, a 33-degree-sweep diamond wing, trapezoid wings of 36 and 42 degrees sweep, and delta
wings with 50 and 55 degrees of sweep. The first four of these were tested with 4-surface tails also known as 4-post
tails. The 33-degree diamond wing was also tested with a butterfly tail and the delta wings were tested with only
twin canted vertical tails. Figure 2 shows four-post and butterfly tails on one of the models.
The delta wings were not true deltas, since their trailing edges were swept forward to control RCS
characteristics. Figure 1 shows no vertical or horizontal tails installed on the 30- and 33-degree diamond wing
models and no vertical tails on the 50-degree delta and the 42-degree trapezoid wing models. This is because the
tails were interchangeable from one model to another, and not enough sets of tails were available to photograph all
the models with tails. The photo shows some models with sharp-edged inlet/strakes sticking ahead of the wings and
some with the leading edge of their upper inlet lip flush with the wing leading edge. All were tested with both inlet
configurations.
Initial testing focused on the 33-degree-sweep diamond wing with a 40-degree-dihedral butterfly tail, also
referred to as the XQ-57. The XQ-57 was designed by USAFA cadets. Testing evaluated four different inlet shapes
on the XQ-57 model. These differed by inlet size and length. The first inlet was flush with the leading edge of the
wing. The second inlet was designed by the cadet team. The third was a straked inlet which had an upper surface
larger than the inlet. The fourth was an extended inlet design which was recommended by Fossum et al at the
conclusion of their study. Figure 3 depicts the three different extended inlets tested on the XQ-57 models. The
fourth inlet was flush with the wing leading edge. Inlets 1 and 4, with leading-edge sweeps aligned with their
respective wings, were tested on all other models. Figure 4 illustrates the set of models tested.

B. Wind Tunnel
The models were tested in the USAFA Subsonic Wind Tunnel (SWT), as illustrated in Figure 5. The SWT
is a closed circuit wind tunnel with a 3-foot by 3-foot test section. It is capable of reaching velocities up to Mach
0.6. Models are mounted on a six component force balance installed on the end of a sting mount. The computer-
controlled sting is capable of angles of attack of positive and negative 28 degrees and sideslip angles to plus and
minus 20 degrees.

3
 Figure 1. Model Planforms Tested

Figure 2. 5GTS 4-Surface (left) and Butterfly (right) Tail Designs

Aerodynamic forces and moments were measured by a Task Corporation 100 lbf force balance. An MKS
1000 torr absolute and a MKS ±200 torr differential pressure transducer are utilized to measure the total and
dynamic pressures in the test section. The data from the transducers are routed from a VXI 16-bit analog/digital
converter to the data acquisition computer. The A/D converter handles 212 samples taken at a rate of 1000 Hz.
The raw data is then converted to force and moment coefficients and stability derivatives using in-house computer
programs. Figure 6 shows a schematic of the data acquisition system.

C. Testing Limitations
Test limits were in place to ensure that the testing done on the three wind tunnel models did not damage the
instrumentation or the tunnel. The limiting components in terms of forces generated are the load cells in the sting
force balance. The two normal force cells can take no more than one hundred pounds each. Because neutral point
location was uncertain, limits were set to ensure total normal force did not exceed 80 pounds. Tables 2 and 3 show
the estimated maximum angles of attack for two typical designs.

4
 Figure 3. XQ-57 Inlets Tested

Figure 4 Model Configurations Tested

5
 Figure 5. USAFA Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Figure 6. Subsonic Wind Tunnel Data Acquisition Schematic

Table 2: 33-Degree Diamond Wing: Maximum Angle of Attack, 29o

Table 3: 50-degree Delta Wing: Maximum Angle of Attack, 41.6o

6
D. Calibration and Benchmarking
All data acquisition equipment was calibrated prior to testing in accordance with standard procedures and
within proven time limits. Each day prior to testing, an F-16 model was tested in the tunnel to ensure all equipment
(pressure transducers, force balance, etc.) were working correctly. The F-16 data was compared to historic data
from previous tests of that specific model in the USAFA tunnel. If anything was askew in the comparison, no data
were taken until the problem was corrected. Benchmarking with the F-16 model was a simple, all-encompassing
way to test all the tunnel equipment at once. This procedure ensured that the data collected were accurate. A
discussion of experimental uncertainty is included in Section V.

E. Test methods
Each model was placed on the sting and run through an automated sequence of data collection. The sting
varied angle of attack and side-slip angle while recording data at every test point. The model was run through all
points in the test matrix twice, once with air off to collect tare data and once with air on to determine the additional
air loads. In addition, test data were collected at several points each time the sting returned to zero angle of attack to
check for hysteresis. The test matrix shown in Table 4 was designed to minimize changing of models in the tunnel.
Each model went through 3 angle-of-attack sweeps from -5 degrees to 16 degrees, one each at sideslip angles 0, 5,
and 10 degrees. The sideslip tests yielded lateral-directional stability derivatives as well as identifying variations in
longitudinal stability at non-zero sideslip angles.

Table 4: Test Matrix for the Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Case # Configuration Beta (degrees) AoA (degrees)

1 Flush Inlet, 33-deg-diamond, butterfly tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

2 Long Inlets, 33-deg-diamond, butterfly tail 0 , 5, 10 -5 to 16

3 Flush Inlets, 50-deg Delta Wing 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

4 Long Inlets, 50-deg Delta Wing 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

5 Flush Inlet, 33-deg-diamond, 4-post tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

6 Long Inlets, 33-deg-diamond, 4-post tail 0 , 5, 10 -5 to 16

7 Flush Inlet, 36-deg-trapezoid, 4-post tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

8 Long Inlets, 36-deg-trapezoid, 4-post tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

9 Flush Inlet, 42-deg-trapezoid, 4-post tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

10 Long Inlets, 42-deg-trapezoid, 4-post tail 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

11 Flush Inlets, 55-deg Delta Wing 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

12 Long Inlets, 55-deg Delta Wing 0, 5, 10 -5 to 16

7
 IV. Results and Discussion

Initial testing focused on the 33-degree-sweep diamond wing with a 40-degree-dihedral butterfly tail, also
referred to as the XQ-57, and the 50-degree delta wing. The XQ-57 was designed by USAFA cadets. Testing
evaluated four different inlet shapes on the XQ-57. These differed by inlet size and length. In the plots of results
each configuration is given a different color. The green XQ-57 had an inlet which is flush to the leading edge of the
wing. Blue had an inlet designed by the cadet team. Red was a wide or straked inlet which had a strake attached to
the outer edge of the inlet, making it wider. Purple was an extended inlet design which was recommended by
Fossum et al at the conclusion of their study. The two delta designs also differed by the presence of extended
inlet/strakes on the gold-colored one.
The differing planform designs demonstrate predictable lift and drag characteristics for the configurations, as
seen in Figures 7 and 8. The higher aspect ratio of the diamond wing creates greater lift at lower angles of attack,
and generates less drag for given lift.

Figure 7. Diamond and Delta Wing Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack.

The strakes show themselves as effective in increasing the coefficient of lift at high angles of attack. The sharp-
edged extended inlets have the same effect. The longer they are the more lift is improved at high AoA. The wide
strake creates the most lift at high angles of attack. The delta with long inlets mirrors its flush cousin before
improving performance at 11 degrees and above.

8
 It is worth noting that 8 and 11 degrees are the critical angles of attack where the effect of inlets/strakes become
significant and the differing models of the same wing planform begin to diverge from each other based on their
strake vortex effects.

Figure 8. Diamond and Delta Wing Drag Coefficient vs. Lift Coefficient.

In Figure 8 note that the delta wing designs have less drag than the diamond wings at very low coefficients of
lift. At higher lift coefficients the diamond wings show superior lift-to-drag ratios due to their higher aspect ratios
and lower sweep. This indicates an advantage for the delta at high speeds. The diamond will have greater
capabilities in a sustained turn.
As seen in Figure 9, all aircraft maintained negative (stable) values of the derivative of rolling moment
coefficient with respect to sideslip angle at positive angles of attack. Note that butterfly tails imparted
much greater roll stability at all angles of attack than did the twin canted verticals of the delta wings.
There is a clear trend towards loss of stability at increasing angles of attack for all configurations, so at
angles of attack above 20 degrees, instability may develop.
Figure 10 shows that directional stability derivative, Cnβ is positive (stable) throughout the full range of AoA
tested. This indicates positive stability and will require no pilot correction or FCS intervention. The non-liner
behavior of the diamond wing configuration could result in a slightly more complex FCS. This positive stability
parameter is significant because it represents the success of the design team in correcting the critical instability of
the models tested by Fossum et al, the predecessors to the XQ-57. This yaw stability is difficult to correct with pilot
input and would have pushed the program towards requiring a more costly control system.

9
 Figure7. Diamond and Delta Wing Roll Stability vs. Angle of Attack.

Figure 10. Diamond and Delta Wing Lateral Stability vs. Angle of Attack.

10
 Figure 11 reveals the downside of the strakes and long inlet. The longer, larger and more effective the
strake, the more the aerodynamic center moves forward. The strakes also become more effective at higher angles of
attack, exacerbating the pitching moment problem. This is further aggravated by the butterfly tail.
The diamond configurations are unstable beginning at 5 degrees AoA. The flush inlet XQ-57 mantains
stability the longest because it lacks the high lift surfaces which exacerbate the problem. However, it too eventually
succumbs to the same instability. On the positive side, pitch instability is the easiest instability to correct and posses
less of a threat to the 5GTS program than other modes. It is however undesireable and causes the XQ-57 to not meet
the goal of a naturally stable aircraft over the desired range of angles of attack.

Figure 11. Diamond and Delta Wing Pitch Stability vs. Angle of Attack.

Subsequent tests added understanding of the profound impact of wing sweep on stability for this configuration.
Figure 12 shows pitching moment comparisons for the full range of wing sweeps tested. For this comparison all
configurations with diamond and trapezoid wings had 4-post tails while the delta wings had twin canted verticals
only. All these models had flush inlets. The moment reference center for this plot is the neutral point of the 33-
degree diamond-wing configuration. Note that both the 33-degree diamond and 36-degree trapezoid wings show
pitchup at angles of attack less than 10 degrees, well within the desired operating range of the aircraft. This makes
those configurations less desirable. The pitching moment curves for the 42-degree trapezoid configuration and the
deltas are more linear. They also have neutral points which are further aft, making them easier to balance. A
normal method of correcting a too-far-forward neutral point would be to move the wing aft, but this can’t be done
for the diamond wing because it would push the horizontal tails off the aircraft. The plot for these same models with
extended inlets/strakes was very similar.

11
Figure 12. Pitching Moment vs Angle of Attack for Five Candidate 5GTS Configurations

Figure 13 shows variation of yaw stability with angle of attack for the same five models minus the 33-
degree diamond. Note the precipitous loss of yaw stability starting at 8 degrees angle of attack evident in the data
for the 36-degree trapezoid wing configuration. The 42-degree-trapezoid and deltas show more nearly constant yaw
stability over the range of angles of attack tested.
Figure 14 shows variation of roll stability with angle of attack for the same four models. Note the loss of
roll stability starting at 8 degrees angle of attack evident in the data for the 36-degree trapezoid wing configuration.
The 42-degree-trapezoid and deltas show better roll stability characteristics, though this is the least critical for low-
cost FCS design. Fossum et al reported similar yaw and roll stability effects on a 30-degree diamond wing and
attributed them to asymmetric vortex bursting and interactions of vortices with vertical surfaces.
This combination of pitchup and loss of yaw and roll stability make the diamond and 36-degree trapezoid
wings undesirable for use on the 5GTS. While a typical modern FCS is capable of handling such non-linearities and
instabilities, this usually entails significant additional cost. Since the stated strategy for this study was to develop a
configuration with natural stability so as to allow use of a simple, inexpensive, possibly off-the-shelf FCS, the
results of this study essentially eliminated diamond and low-sweep trapezoid wings from further consideration.

12
Figure 13. Yaw Stability vs Angle of Attack for Four Candidate 5GTS Configurations

Figure 14. Roll Stability vs Angle of Attack for Four Candidate 5GTS Configurations

13
 V. Uncertainty

An in-house Microsoft Excel program4 is used to calculate the uncertainty in force balance measurements in
USAFA’s Subsonic Wind Tunnel (SWT). It was created in 1999 to perform uncertainty analysis when testing
projects in the SWT. The spreadsheet calculates both the bias and precision error of data collected in the SWT. Bias
(systematic) error is associated with instruments and is typically provided by the manufacturer. The manufacturer
presents a conservative estimate for the uncertainty, whereas a more accurate analysis of the uncertainty is more
useful. The random (precision) error is the unknown, unpredictable error in the measurement environment, typically
determined using statistical methods. This is not given by the manufacturer and will be different for each
experiment. To determine the uncertainty error in the SWT, known weights were manually placed on the sting and
measurements were recorded with the different equipment. A table of the equipment is listed below:

Table A1: Equipment in the Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Device Manufacturer Model Range Uncertainty Calibration

Abs. Pressure 0 torr to

MKS 690A 0.05% 16 Sept 2008
Transducer 1000 torr

Diff. Pressure
MKS 220A -200 torr 200 torr 0.15% 8 Apr 2008
Transducer

Static Temp
Omega J type -200 °C 775 °C 1.1 °C June 2008
Thermocouple

0 lbf 0.25% of Full

Force Balance Task 3467 7 May 2008
100 lbf Scale

Data Acquisition 0 to 10 V
Agilent 1413C 0.03% 7 May 2008
Unit 16 bit

General equation for total uncertainty:

Equation A1.
This equation shows how the bias and precision error are used to solve for the total uncertainty.
The general equation for a result is:

Equation A2.

Equation 2 shows how to solve for the uncertainty. The process of finding the bias involves taking a known
value (U1) and taking the partial derivative of a coefficient and dividing it by the another variable, such as the
normal force on the sting (N1).
The spreadsheet takes the raw voltage from the subsonic wind tunnel force balance. These voltages are
reduced to total pressure, differential pressure and the standard deviations of each. The spreadsheet calculates the
Fore Pitch (N1), Aft Pitch (N2), Fore Yaw (Y1), Aft Yaw (Y2), Axial Force (Ax), Pitching Moment (PiMom), Yawing
Moment (YaMom), and Rolling Moment (RoMom). Coefficients for the Normal Force (CN), Yaw Force (CY), Axial
Force (CAx), Pitching Moment (CPiMom), Yawing Moment (CYaMom), Lift (CL), and Drag (CD) are found with the
spreadsheet. The spreadsheet also reduces the Mach number, Reynolds number, dynamic pressure (q), free stream

14
temperature, speed of sound, free stream velocity, atmospheric pressure. After the coefficients are found tabs for the
lift, draft, roll, pitch, and yaw used and each solve for the bias error.
Example:

How the bias error is found for lift:

L L ( N1 + N 2 ) cos α − Ax sin α
CL = = =
qS 1 γp M 2 S  γ −1

γ    γ
 − 1 (P0 − ∆P )S
1 P
2  0

γ − 1  P0 − ∆P  
 

The coefficient of lift can be found with the coefficients that were just solved for N1, N2, etc. After finding
this value of CL, The partial of CL is found with respect to the different coefficients used to solve it. Figure A1
shows what the variables would be for this case:

∂C L ∂C L ∂C L ∂C ∂C L ∂C L ∂C L
L
∂P0 ∂∆P ∂N1 ∂N
2 ∂α ∂Ax ∂S
Figure A1: Partial Derivatives Taken to find CL.

The bias of each coefficient or value, P0, N1, N2, etc was then solved for. The partial of each individual
coefficient was already solved for and multiplied by the bias of each. So BP0, BN1, BN2, etc were put into Equation 2
where U1 and U2 are, etc. Here is what it would look like:

Precision error is then determined by measuring the repeatability of identical measurements taken several
weeks apart in each coefficient PP0, PN1, PN2, etc. Then the entire uncertainty is found using Equation 1.
The main reason that the spreadsheet’s error calculation is superior to hand calculations is the way that bias
error is handled. In a standard analysis the researcher would use the bias error or accuracy provided by the
corporation which manufactures each individual component. This error is a worst case scenario that the
manufacturer can guarantee their component is within. This includes headroom for manufacturing error, design
space and a factor of safety.
The particular force balance used in these tests at USAFA has consistently exhibited bias errors which are
much better (smaller) than those quoted by the manufacturer. The bias error in the current calculations are based on
data which a UASFA technician has collected by hanging weights on the load cells installed in the 100 lb force
balance in the USAFAsubsonic tunnel. This makes uncertainty analysis in this report specific to USAFA testing and
much more accurate than if the project was using the manufacturer’s guaranteed accuracy values. The USAFA
SWT’s sting has been described by many researchers as one in a million. All of the sensors greatly surpass the
manufacturer’s given accuracy.
From this point, bias error is handled according to the basic calculations stated earlier and is combined with
data based precision error for total uncertainty analysis using Equation 1. Figure A3 plots typical uncertainty for lift
coefficient measured on a 5GTS model at in the USAFA. The mean values are plotted with error bars denoting
uncertainty. Note that the error bars are almost invisible because total uncertainty is so small.

References

15
Figure 15. Bias Error for each Component Compared to the Load

Figure 16. Uncertainty of Lift Coefficient

16
 VI. Conclusion

That wing sweep is a significant factor in all-axis stability is well-known, but testing of 1/24-scale models
of five candidate 5th-Generation Target Study (5GTS) concepts revealed that the magnitude of this effect for the
5GTS configuration is particularly large. This testing showed that wing sweeps of 30, 33, and 36 degrees yielded
unacceptable non-linear variations in stability about at least one axis. A 5GTS configuration with 42-degree-swept
wing and 4-post tail and two delta-wing concepts with 50 and 55 degrees of sweep exhibited dramatically better and
more linear stability curves. The delta wings had lower drag at low angles of attack (high speed) but poorer lift-to
drag ratios at higher AoA (sustained turn) than the 42-degree-swept wing. Of the two, the 55-degree-swept delta had
the worst L/D at high AoA. Therefore, the 42-degree-swept trapezoid wing configuration with 4-post tail and the 50-
degree tailless delta wing configuration are recommended for further development.

VII. Acknowledgement

Mr. Ken Ostasiewski Subsonic Wind Tunnel Technician

SSgt Daniel Washburn
Dr. McLaughlin
Sierra Technology Services
OSD/DOT&E Representatives:
Water Tunnel Technician
DFAN Director of Research, Uncertainty Expert
Lead Engineers in Mojave, CA
Mr. Dennis Mischel, Target Manager, DOT&E
Mr. Pat Burris, Applied Resources Incorporated

VIII. References

1
Fossum, Mitchell E., Brenner, Scott A., Operchal, David , Zimmerman, Nicolas, Post, Martiqua L., and Brandt,
Steven A. “Effects of Vertical Tail and Inlet/Strake Geometry on Stability of a Diamond-Wing Fighter
Configuration,” AIAA. To be published.
2
Yechout, Thomas R, Introduction to Aircraft Flight Mechanics, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2003.
3
McArthur, John and Goeffrey Spedding. “Effects of Sweep Angle on Flow Features and Leading Edge Vortices of
Thin, Cambered Wings at Re=5,000.” American Physical Society KK.005, 14 November 2008.
4
Uncertainty Worksheet, Dr. Thomas McLaughlin, DFAN USAF Academy CO 80840

17